HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/06/1992 City of Kent
City Cou nci l Meeti ng
Ag �ena
CITY OF
T
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
October 6, 1992
Office of the City Clerk
.... ........
CITY OF
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 6 , 1992
Council Chambers
��IICC'II�
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. ,PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
Vt. Proclamation - Marvin Eckfeldt Day
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1993 Budget
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
/A. Minutes
'B. Bills
./C. Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Grant-
Acceptance
✓D. South County Area Transportation Board - Resolution 1
•/E. SERA Ordinance
F. Interurban Trail Bridge - Acceptance
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Critical Areas Regulations
BIDS
None
None l J
z
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
6.
i
F7 . ;/REPORTS
8 . /ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City
Clerk ' s Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
�� . 0-el
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
B) Proclamation - Marvin Eckfeldt Day
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6, 1992
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1993 BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been established to
receive public input for the 1993 City of Kent budget.
Following receipt of public input, the Mayor will finalize the
preliminary budget for presentation to the Council on
October 20. The final budget is scheduled for adoption on
November 17 after another public hearing on November 3 .
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING: In
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
ject: 1993 BUDGET BALANCING
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 10/02/92 at 0937 .
TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: TONY MCCARTHY, ACTING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHOWS THE MAYOR'S ORIGINAL BUDGET BALANCING PROPOSAL
COMPARED WITH HIS REVISED BUDGET PROPOSAL MODIFIED BASED ON INPUT FROM
COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS BALANCING PROPOSAL POSSIBLY ADJUSTED BY INPUT AT
TONIGHTS MEETING WILL BECOME THE 1993 PRELIMINARY BUDGET THAT WILL BE
PRESENTED ON OCTOBER 20TH. AFTER THAT MEETING THE COUNCIL AND IN PARTICULAR
THEIR BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW THE BUDGET IN DETAIL AND DEVELOP ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 1993 FINAL BUDGET SCHEDULED FOR ADOPTION ON NOVEMBER
17TH. ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 3RD.
1993 BUDGET
GENERAL FUND BALANCING
ORIGINAL REVISED
RECOMMENDS RECOMMENDS
PERMANENT NO PERSONNEL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS
Cuts Proposed By Departments 121,985 121,985
Cuts In Printing, Postage, Promotion & Photocopy
Cityline 48,694 48,694
Other Printing & Graphics 222,741 I 20,301
Other Postage 93,978 I- 429,607 8,539
Photocopy 112,888 I
30% Cut In Travel, Training & Subsistence 50,640 50,640
2 Positions To Grant Funding & Eliminate Vacated 98,659 98,659
Cut Street Overlay Program Currently @ 236,041 100,000
Reduce Equipment Rental Rates
Admin - 10 Vehicles And 15% 115,000
White - 25 Vehicles
Johnson - 20 Vehicles And 15%
Revised - 20 Vehicles And 20% 148,338
PERMANENT REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSALS
Collect Utility Taxes Monthly 9,000 9,000
Increase Saturday Market Revenue 18,000 18,000
Increase Out Of City Recreation Fees
Increase Fees By 10% With 5% Rebate In City 110,377
Increase Out Of City Fees By 30%
Increase Fees By 20% With 10% Rebate In City 220,754
Increase Plumbing Permit Fees 37,000 37,000
Increase Street Cut Permits 26,250 26,250
Increase Business License Fee From $50 To $60 20,000 20,000
Increase Miscellaneous Planning Charges 3,760 3,760
Increase Public Works Plan Check Fees
PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENTS
Decrease Cola & Benefit Assumption - 3.6 To 1.8 460,000 460,000
Eliminate Department Head Merit Increases
Freeze 1992 Step Increases
Eliminate Management Benefit Program
Eliminate Dependent Coverage For Parttime Employees 46,592
Other Adjustment (85,936)
Reduce The Number Of City Staff
Layoff 11 FTE's 540,229 466,944
Eliminate City Administrator Position 105,964
Add Chief Administrative Officer (88,815)
Layoff 25.5 FTE's, Net Of 11, 1.5 In CE
Executive/Admin 2.5 - 1.5 = 1
Finance/Public Bldgs 3 = 3
Planning 3 - 1.5 = 1.5
Public Works 9 - 1 = 8
Parks 8 - 4 = 4
Layoff 12 Add'l Positions To Be Determined By DH's
Eliminate 1.5 Community Events Positions With
Function Performed By Existing Parks Personnel
Eliminate Park Security Program ( .5 FTE) 30,185
--------- ---------
TOTAL 1,710,900 1,766,854
ONE TIME ONLY SAVINGS
Sell Fire Truck As Proposed By Fire Dept 25,000 25,000
Promote Use Of Voluntary LWOP
Transfer Funds From Completed Or Abandoned Projects 85,783 78,949
Transfer Funds From Water For Lost Utility Tax 122,170
Transfer Funds From Sewerage For Lost Utility Tax 204,165
Initiate Ballot Proposal For Library 292,874 292,874
----------- -----------
403,657 723,158
BEGINNING RESERVED FUND BALANCE (CONTINGENCY FUND) 500,000 500,000
ENDING RESERVED FUND BALANCE (CONTINGENCY FUND) 903,657 1,223,158
INCREASE CONTINGENCY TO 10% OF EXPENDITURES, 1% PER YEAR = APPROXIMATELY 330,000 IN 1993
c:\users\cliff\altprop
CONSENT CALENDAR
43 . City Council Action: (�
Councilmember ' moves, Councilmember_��v� —
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through F be approved.
Discussion
Action
hA. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 15, 1992
.^3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through September 30
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
3 : 00 p.m. on October 61 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A B
Kent, Washington
September 15, 1992
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, Acting Chief Admin-
istrative Officer/Finance Director McCarthy, City Attorney
Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director
Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Human
Resources Director Olson and Information Services Director Spang.
Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance at the meeting.
Approximately 50 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Constitution Week. Mayor Kelleher read a procla-
COMMUNICATION mation declaring the week of September 17-23 ,
1992 , as Constitution Week in the City of Kent and
urged citizens to reflect on the many benefits of
our Federal Constitution and American citizenship.
Day of Concern for the Hungry. Mayor Kelleher
read a proclamation declaring October 1, 1992 , as
a Day of Concern for the Hungry and urged all
citizens to join with the Seattle Emergency
Feeding Program to help feed those who are hungry.
The Mayor noted a representative from the Emer-
gency Feeding Program was present at tonight' s
meeting and asked him to tell a little about the
program. Arthur Lee, Executive Director of the
Seattle Emergency Feeding Program, expressed
appreciation to the City of Kent for their support
on behalf of other feeding programs not just in
Seattle but all of King County. He noted that on
October ist from 11: 00 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. food
containers will be placed at the Benson Safeway
and the two Johnny' s Food Marts for collection and
citizens will be given information concerning
nutritionally balanced foods. He again thanked
the Council for their support through the grant
process and funds. Mayor Kelleher then presented
the proclamation to Mr. Lee.
Harold Vickrey Day. Mayor Kelleher read a procla-
mation declaring September 15, 1992 , as Harold
Vickrey Day in the City of Kent and urged citi-
zens to join in thanking Mr. Vickrey and his
family for all of their contributions to our
community and in wishing Harold all the best in
his retirement. The Mayor noted that Harold is
one of the most veteran businessmen in the City
and many citizens have warm memories of him. Mr.
Vickrey noted that he has deep roots here as his
1
September 15, 1992
PUBLIC Great Grandfather was Sheriff when the City was
COMMUNICATION Titusville; his Grandfather owned a horseshoe
store where Dragness Office Supplies is now
located and was later hired by the City of Kent as
the first street sweeper. The Mayor then
presented Mr. Vickrey with the proclamation.
Bu_ud e_t_ Bill Doolittle noted that in the 1992
Budget, Council authorized $457 , 000 for a City
Hall Remodel . He requested that the budget be
amended to remove those funds, in light of the
present budget situation.
Layoff Policy. Bill Doolittle noted that a lay
off policy was recently used to lay off several
people, and that the policy has since been
changed. He pointed out that the only form of
appeal for those individuals was to a person who
was under a no-confidence blanket at the time. He
pointed out that a lot of people who had years of
experience with the City were lost and requested
that in fairness to these people and the City,
they be given another opportunity to appeal
because of the circumstances at the time of the
lay offs.
Saturday Market. Dr. George Mast, Chairman of the
Advisory Board of the Kent Saturday Market,
informed the Council that there are a lot of citi-
zens and vendors who are concerned about the
future of the Saturday Market, and that they will
be back to Council to show their support at a
later date.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR J be approved, with the exception of Items E & F
which were removed by Councilmember Orr. Johnson
seconded and the motion carried.
2
September 15, 1992
CONSENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
CALENDAR REMOVED BY CITY ATTORNEY LUBOVICH
Release of Interest in Tract X King County Short
Plat. City Attorney Lubovich explained that this
item does not need to come before the Council and
asked that it be removed from the agenda. There
was no objection from the Council and the item was
removed.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 1, 1992 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
SANITATION Parkview Townhomes. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement submitted by Parkview
Townhomes for continuous operation and maintenance
of approximately 550 feet of water main extension,
550 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 570 feet of
street improvements and 44 feet of storm sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of 100th
Avenue SE and South 234th and release of bonds
after expiration of the maintenance period, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Fisher Industrial Park Expansion. ACCEPTANCE of
the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted
by Fisher Properties, Inc. for continuous opera-
tion and maintenance of approximately 606 feet of
street improvements and 255 feet of storm sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of South
224th and 83rd Avenue South and release of bonds
after expiration of the maintenance period, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
VACATION Pioneer and Kennebeck Streets. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1324 setting October 20 as the date
for a public hearing on a request by Kent Junior
High to vacate portions of Pioneer and Kennebeck
Streets to facilitate the construction of a new
parking lot. Although the Public Works Committee
approved a hearing date of October 6, the Planning
Director has requested that it be held on October
20 .
3
September 15 , 1992
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
WORKS Interlocal Agreement - City of Des Moines Sidewalk
Construction. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign
an interlocal agreement with the City of Des
Moines for construction of approximately 330 ' of
sidewalk on South 240th, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee.
PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
ACQUISITION 72nd and 196th - Lindal Property. AUTHORIZATION
for the Public Works Department to proceed with
acquisition of property at 72nd/196th and to
transfer $175, 000 from the East Valley Highway
Improvement Project to this project fund, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
COMMUNITY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
DEVELOPMENT 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Pro-
BLOCK GRANT gram. This public hearing will consider adoption
PROGRAM of the 1993 Community Development Block Grant Pro-
gram, as recommended by the City Council ' s Plan-
ning Committee. Lin Ball explained that the Plan-
ning Commission reviewed and approved this program
on September 1st, and that later staff became
aware of the need to make some changes in the
Human Services portion of the program. She said
that the Planning Committee had reviewed those
changes today and that the Human Services Commis-
sion has also approved the revisions. Ball
explained that the first change is necessary
because of a County requirement to establish a
contingency plan and the other changes are due to
an error which would have resulted in allocating
more money than requested to one of the human ser-
vices agencies . She distributed copies of the
correct funding levels, noting that the Community
Health Center was revised to $16, 300, and that the
YWCA Domestic Violence Project was increased by
$1100.
Ball noted that the program level for 1993 totals
$279, 509 , which is an increase of approximately
$30, 000 over last year. She recommended funding
the Archdiocesan Housing Authority-Housing for
Homeless Men, the City of Kent Housing Repair Ser-
vices Program, the City of Kent Planning and
Administration, Easter Seal Society of Washington-
4
September 15, 1992
COMMUNITY Access Modification Rehabilitation, Vision Special
DEVELOPMENT Needs Housing-Acquisition of Houses, Community
BLOCK GRANT Health Centers of King County-Kent Clinic, Emer-
PROGRAM gency Feeding Program of Seattle-King County, and
YWCA of Seattle-King County-Domestic Violence
Housing. She noted that they are not recommending
funding for Pregnancy Aid Shelter Program-Shelter
Rehabilitation or South King County Multi-Service
Center-Playground for Homeless Children. She
noted that funding for the Vision Special Needs
Housing would be used to purchase two four-bedroom
homes to house individuals who are recovering from
substance abuse. She explained that the program
must be forwarded to King County by October 2 ,
1992 , and urged the Council to approve it tonight.
White asked whether the $13 , 830 recommended for
the Vision Special Needs Housing is matching money
and where the homes will be located. Ms. Ball
explained that it will be matching money and that
no site has been selected yet, although it will be
in South King County. Alice Shobe of the Planning
Department noted for White that the homes would be
designated as family and that the location would
depend on how the program is defined. White
voiced concern about putting drug rehabilitation
homes in neighborhoods. John Camerer, Executive
Director and founder of Vision Special Needs
Housing, explained that the people in the program
would complete a treatment program prior to
entering the program and would be involved in an
outpatient program. He said they currently have
homes in Maple Valley, Skyway and Everett and
expect the home to be located in or near Kent. He
informed the Council that this is the first funds
they have received, and that the total need is
$550, 000 . He noted for White that the other homes
are located in single family, middle class neigh-
borhoods, and explained that before they put a
home in a neighborhood, they notify the residents
of the area and meet with them if desired. He
added that their homes are clean and organized and
that they have always received a positive response
from neighbors. He also noted that if any indi-
vidual abuses the program, he is asked to leave
within 24 hours, and that backgrounds are checked
thoroughly before admission to the homes.
5
September 15, 1992
COMMUNITY Mayor Kelleher noted that since this is their
DEVELOPMENT first piece of funding, it may be some time before
BLOCK GRANT all funding is acquired and the program is ready
PROGRAM to implement, and that if the City wanted to adopt
different policies to restrict this type of use in
a residential zone, there would be time to develop
such legislation. Camerer agreed and stated that
the project completion date is January, 1994 .
Shobe explained that these funds are for acquisi-
tion, and unless they have the complete funding
package, they won't be able to use Kent' s funds to
acquire the property.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Josephine
Tamavo Murray, Director of the Archdiocesan
Housing Authority, encouraged the Council ' s sup-
port and noted that the funds would cover project
costs that are not funded by Federal, County or
State money they have already been awarded.
Mariah Ybarra, Director of the South King County
YWCA, thanked the Council for considering funding
for the domestic violence program, and noted that
this would be the first transitional housing for
families outside of Seattle. Arthur Lee of the
Emergency Feeding Program noted that more of the
families they are feeding are two-parent families,
which is due to the rise in unemployment in the
area. He thanked the Council for their considera-
tion. There were no further comments and WOODS
MOVED to close the public hearing. Houser
seconded and the motion carried.
ORR MOVED to adopt the 1993 Community Development
Block Grant Program including the contingency plan
for estimated entitlement change, as recommended
by the Planning Committee on September 15, 1992 .
Woods seconded. White again expressed his concern
over the possibility of placing drug rehabilita-
tion homes in single family neighborhoods, and
asked staff to help monitor the situation so that
if this happens adequate notice is given. The
motion then carried.
6
September 15, 1992
GROWTH (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
MANAGEMENT REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR
Growth Management Planning Goals. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1325 approving and adopting Kent ' s
proposed Growth Management Planning Goals, which
are based on the planning goals contained in the
Growth Management Act and County-wide Planning
Policies as approved by the City Council on
September 1, 1992 .
Orr noted that in the last line of Policy PF-4,
the word "shall" should be changed to "may" . She
then MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1325 with the
one-word change to Policy PF-4 . Johnson seconded
and the motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR
Urban Growth Areas. ADOPTION of a resolution
accepting and adopting Alternative 3 for bound-
aries of the Urban Growth area as approved by the
City Council on September 1, 1992 .
Orr explained that some issues were raised at the
Planning Committee meeting today which they were
unable to deal with, and asked that this item be
referred back to the Planning Committee. There
was no objection and it was so ordered.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
County-Wide Planning Policies. A resolution has
been prepared ratifying the County-wide Planning
Policies with the recommended suggestions or
changes to the policies as approved by the City
Council on September 1, 1992 . This item will be
brought to the Planning Committee at their
September 15 , 1992 meeting and any changes to the
resolution will be reported at the September 15
City Council meeting.
Councilmember Orr noted that there were no changes
and the Planning Committee unanimously recommended
approval of the resolution. She then MOVED for
the adoption of Resolution No. 1326 ratifying the
County-wide Planning Policies. Johnson seconded
and the motion carried.
7
September 15, 1992
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Beer Institute Grant. ACCEPTANCE of a $5, 000
grant from the Beer Institute Community Assistance
Fund and authorization for the Mayor to sign hold
harmless publicity and tax identification forms.
Funds are to be used to supplement costs asso-
ciated with the annual Game of Life Youth Drug and
Alcohol Awareness Conference. The $5, 000 grant is
one-half of the amount requested.
BUDGET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Deletion of Vacant Positions. As requested by the
City Council at their meetings of July 21 and
August 18 , 1992 , an ordinance has been prepared to
delete 28 . 25 vacant positions and the associated
salary credits. The deletions do not include the
recent laid off positions nor do they include non-
general fund impact positions . In addition to
deleting the positions, the ordinance provides a
section related to retention of position titles to
allow flexibility in implementing reorganizations
or in filling more critical positions as future
positions become vacant.
WOODS MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3069
deleting 28 . 25 vacant City positions and the asso-
ciated salary credits in the 1992 Budget. White
seconded and the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE
Contingency Fund. White explained that two weeks
ago the Council passed a resolution committing 1%
of the budget to the Contingency Fund. He noted
that there has been some confusion, and that the
proposed resolution clarifies that it is the
General Fund Contingency Account which shall be
increased by one percent each year. He MOVED for
the adoption of Resolution No. 1327 . Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
8
September 15, 1992
BUDGET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WOODS
Budget Committee. Woods noted that several
councilmembers had recommended at the first budget
workshop that a committee be formed to deal with
budget issues. She proposed a resolution which
would form such a committee, noting that it would
consist of a chairperson and two regular members
who would be chosen by the Council President. She
explained further that all proposed ordinances,
resolutions and other matters relating to the
City's Budget may be referred to this committee,
as directed by the Council President, for consid-
eration prior to Council action, that all actions
of the committee shall be subject to the proce-
dures set out in Resolution No. 1094 and other
directives as may be made by the Council Presi-
dent, and that the committee may be dissolved at
any time the Council President determines that it
is no longer of benefit to the City Council. She
MOVED for adoption of Resolution No. 1328 . White
seconded. Woods clarified for Mann that this
committee differs from the Operations Committee in
that it deals only with budget items . The Mayor
added that some items may affect more than one
committee and that both committees should be free
to take up the issue. The motion then carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through September 15, 1992 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on September 15 , 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/1-9/15/92 122216-122662 $2 , 437, 716. 47
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/18/92 01176748-01177160 $ 659 , 122 . 32
9
September 15, 1992
REPORTS Public Safety Committee. Police Chief Crawford
noted that the new police building will be dedi-
cated at noon on Friday, September 18 , and that
the Lee family will be in attendance. He added
that there will be an open house from noon til
4 : 00 the following day, Saturday, September 19,
which will be a good opportunity for the public to
visit the building and see the workings of an
extremely fine police department. White
apologized for not being able to attend, noting
that he will be out of town. Mann also said that
he cannot attend, and said that he is very proud
of the facility and of the police department.
Crawford thanked them for their support.
Mann announced that the Public Safety Committee
will meet on September 21 at 5: 30 p.m. at the new
police building.
Parks Committee. Johnson stated that at the Parks
Committee meeting of this date it was decided to
demolish the house at Kent Memorial Field, using
funds in the Parks budget. He said that funds
left over from the Kherson Park will go back into
the contingency fund.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m.
>
Brenda Jacobe , CMC
City Clerk
10
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of a grant in the amount of
$36, 120 from the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission for
the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. This funding assists in
the continuation of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force and
offsets expenditures by the City of Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Project agreement from the Washington State Traffic
Safety Commission Analysis amounting to 50% of the cost being
absorbed by the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:City Staff (9/9/92) Public Safety (9/21/92)
2-0 Johnson not present but approved placement
on consent calendar
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALjPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended i�ANot Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds_
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenp
Item No. 3C
y Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Project ' '
•
Section 3
Budget and Cost Sharing
Budget:
Direct Costs: 25,558
1.Salaries and Wages: $
2. Employee Benefits: $ 6,896
3. Travel and Subsistence: $ 500
4. Contractual Services: $
5. Equipment: $
6. Goods and Services: $ 3, 166
Total Direct Costs: $ 36,120
Indirect Costs: $
i
TOTAL: $ 36,120
I
Cost Sharing:
(Washington Traffic Safety Commission use only)
Share Amount Percent
State: $ 36,120 501%
Political Subdivision: $ 36.120 50%(Minimum)
Total Estimated Cost: $ 72,2a0 100%
Revision:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 1 declaring
the City's intent to join with King County and other cities to
form the South County Area Transportation Board and designation
of Jim White to serve as the City's elected official
representative on this board with Don Wickstrom, Director of
Public Works, as an alternate.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, Public Works Committee minutes and
letter from King County
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO__,g _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Ager)-da
Item No. 3D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of
Kent, Washington, declaring its
intent to join with King County and
other cities to form the South
County Area Transportation Board to
manage multijurisdictional
transportation issues in the South
County region.
WHEREAS, South King County has a history of multi-
jurisdictional transportation planning dating back to the late
1970 ' s including the Green River Valley Transportation Action
Plan (GRVTAP) which was a multijurisdictional effort coordinated
by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (now Puget Sound
Regional Council) and involving King County, the Washington
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the cities of Auburn,
Kent, Renton, and Tukwila; and
WHEREAS, each of the jurisdictions in the south King
County area has experienced significant population growth and
economic development in the last decade and project continued
growth and development in the future; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila have changed in geographic area since the late 19701s;
and
WHEREAS, the cities of Algona, Des Moines, Enumclaw,
Milton, Normandy Park, and Pacific did not participate in the
GRVTAP because they were outside the study area, but are clearly
impacted by traffic congestion problems in the South County Area;
and
WHEREAS, the cities of Burien, Federal Way, and SeaTac
did not exist during most of the transportation planning history
in South King County; and
WHEREAS , King County, Metro, WSDOT, and the cities of
Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and SeaTac have demonstrated
through the South County Area Transportation Benefit District
Steering Committee and program development effort, the benefits
which can be achieved by regional coordination; and
WHEREAS, the enormous cost of many of the needed
transportation improvements and their importance to South King
County as a whole demonstrate the need for a cooperative approach
to the planning, financing and construction of these
improvements; and
WHEREAS, many of the transportation problems which were
identified in GRVTAP still exist and new transportation
management issues have emerged, including Commute Trip Reduction
Act of 1990, the transportation planning and financing
requirements of the Growth Management Act of 1990, and the
regional high capacity transportation plan; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative approach to the transportation
problems will facilitate application of the South King County
jurisdictions for funding from the State of Washington and the
United States ; and
WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to reorganize and
expand the South County Area Transportation Benefit District
Steering Committee to form the South County Area Transportation
Board as described in Exhibit A to serve as a central forum for
solving transportation issues affecting the South County area
jurisdictions ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
2
Section 1. The City of Kent will join together with
King County and the other cities of South King County that may
choose to do so to form the South County Area Transportation
Board as described in Exhibit A and will designate an elected
official representative and an alternative to represent the City
on the Board.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, this day of 1992 .
Councurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1992 .
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, 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 the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, the day of ,
1992 .
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
3
r EXHIBIT A
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Purpose: The Board shall serve as a central forum for information sharing,
consensus building, and coordination to resolve transportation issues
implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the South County
. area jurisdictions and region.
Membership: Membership shall be extended to: King County; the cities of South
King County including Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Des Moines,
Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac,
and Tukwila; METRO, the Port of Seattle, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) ,
Valley Area Transportation Alliance (VATA) , and Washington Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) ; and others as the Board may later determine. Each
Board member shall serve for a term of two years or until the member's term of
office expires, whichever occurs first.
Board Representation: Each city member shall be entitled to one position on
the board. King County shall be entitled to two positions. The Port of
Seattle, METRO, PSRC, VATA, and WSDOT shall be entitled to one position each.
Each member should appoint one representative and one alternate to the Board.
For the County and cities, the representative should be an elected official ; -
the alternate may be an elected official or high level staff member as best
serves both the jurisdiction and the Board.
Voting: The Board shall operate by consensus whenever possible, but in those
matters requiring a vote, voting shall be assigned as follows: (1 ) King
County shall have two votes and each of the city members of the Board shall
have one vote each, and (2) the Port of Seattle, METRO, PSRC, VATA, and WSDOT
shall be non-voting members of the Board.
Board Conduct: A quorum of Board membership, that being at least fifty
percent of the number of members plus one, shall be required to conduct
business. At least fifty percent of the number of voting board members plus
one affirmative votes are required to take action. The Board shall establish
its own bylaws and rules of procedure. The Board may establish such
committees as are necessary to carry out its purpose including but not limited
to a technical advisory committee as described in this Exhibit.
Technical Advisory Committee: Each member jurisdiction or agency shall
appoint an appropriate department director or division manager to the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) . The City of Seattle, the Eastside
Transportation Program, Pierce County, the City of Tacoma, and Pierce Transit
may appoint similar level staff to the TAC. Other jurisdictions, agencies,
or groups may be added as determined by the Board. The TAC shall provide
technical assistance as requested by the Board and shall advise the Board of
emergent transportation issues for the Board's consideration. To the extent
possible, existing technical or other work groups with which South County
jurisdictions are already participating should be used. South County area
staff could, if necessary, form a subregional caucus for the purpose of
assisting in bringing issues to the Technical Advisory Committee or the Board.
EXHIBIT A Page Two
Public Sector Participation: The Valley Area Transportation Alliance, as a
broadly based business interest group with the goal of improving
transportation problems in the South County area, shall be recognized as the
body representing South County area business community interests and shall be
represented on the Board and on the TAC.
- Interested citizen
Citizen involvement in the Board shall be as follows: (1)
groups shall be placed on the mailing list for Board meetings to ensure that
those groups are kept informed of Board activities; and (2) for Board
undertakings for which citizen involvement can have a specifically identified
purpose, the Board shall establish a citizens advisory committee (CAC) to
which each voting member of the Board shall make an appointment. The chair of
the CAC shall sit as a non-voting member of the Steering Committee and TAC for
the duration of the CAC's existence.
Staff Support: For the first year, King County will provide general
administrative support for the Board and TAC. Each member jurisdiction is
expected to contribute such staff as is necessary to accomplish Board agreed
upon tasks.
Work Program: The Board may undertake activities consistent with its purposes
and shall prepare an annual work program for the following year and progress
report on the year just completed for submittal to its member jurisdiction by
December 31 of each year.
Regional Arterial Plan: The Board shall develop a South County Area
Transportation Action Plan (RAP) which describes the region's transportation
conditions, identifies regional transportation needs, prioritizes those needs,
identifies responsible agencies, identifies possible funding sources, and,
where appropriate, recommends a funding strategy for specific projects or
corridors. The RAP shall be submitted to member jurisdictions for adoption by
resolution. The Board shall annually review the RAP and propose any necessary
revisions to update the plan to reflect project implementation or changes in
transportation needs and conditions. Board actions must be consistent with
the RAP.
Cost Sharing Guidelines: At such time that member jurisdictions agree that
the Board requires on-going administrative support or that a specific
undertaking of the Board requires specific support, these guidelines shall
generally apply:
(1) Annual Review of Financing: The Board shall determine by June 1 of
each year whether a financial contribution will be requested of the Board
jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations.
(2) King County and City Members: Costs shall be shared among the
County and cities in accordance with the degree of benefit received from the
activity to be funded. Unless agreed to otherwise, administrative costs shall
be distributed by the percent of population each jurisdiction has within the
Board's boundaries according to the most recent population estimate of the
Washington State Office of Financial Management.
EXHIBIT A Page Three
(3) Other Board -Members: The Port of Seattle, METRO, WSDOT, VATA, PSRC
and other non-voting members shall be expected to make a direct funding or in=
kind contribution in accordance with their degree of benefit received.
(4) Interlocal Agreement Required: An interlocal agreement specifying
cost-sharing, purpose; scope of work and other details is required to obligate
a member jurisdiction to funding participation.
Public Works Committee
September 16, 1992
Page 3
If we widen it further we will end up having to purchase a
warehouse. He continued that HOV lanes on 212th are included in
our six year plan. The County will be budgeting funds and we hope
to budget funds in next year's budget to do a feasibility study for
HOV lanes on 212th. He commented he thought that would be a more
appropriate corridor for a cross tie. He stated that we can tie
the Interurban Trail into 196th but it will parallel the buttress
of the fill and tie into the road. Wickstrom added that this is
the most expensive section of the 196th Corridor. The cost of the
west and east legs of the corridor doesn't equal the cost of the
middle corridor. To add additional width would in likelihood kill
the project as we do not have funding available. Bennett confirmed
that if a bike lane were not provided on this portion that bikes
could still use either the traffic lanes or the sidewalk. LaPorte
added that providing a bike lane would not insure their safety due
to the volume of the truck traffic in the area. Stougard stated
that providing access to the Interurban Trail and possibly signing
the sidewalk for bicycle use would probably be satisfactory. The
Committee suggested that the Advisory Board continue to work with
staff on this alternative.
South County Area Transportation Board
Wickstrom explained this is a board assembled to coordinate the
various regional transportation projects. Initially the County
will be providing the staff. Long term, the cities and County
would be sharing these costs. Jim White added that the real
purpose of the Board is to put additional emphasis on
transportation for south county. Jim White indicated he would be
willing to act as the City's representative on this Board. The
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the resolution and
Jim White serve as the City's representative on the South County
Area Transportation Board with Don Wickstrom as the alternate.
Other Items
Mrs. Rust again asked for clarification of the City policy of
employees not using City vehicle for personal use during working
hours. May Miller stated that the policy does allow use of City
vehicles for personal use such as lunch when it is cost prohibitive
for the employee to bring the vehicle back to City Hall. Jim
Bennett added that it has to be properly managed by the Department
Heads. It was clarified for Mrs. Rust that the policy was
developed as a result of citizen complaints and concerns about the
use of City vehicles.
� r '
�^ 'i!0 F^ E
Piing County v _.
NC�1��'.Y ii117iY L'L.i~
September 1, 1992
The Honorable Dan Kelleher
Mayor, City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
RE: South County Area Transportation Board
Dear Mayor Kelleher:
On August 18, 1992, the Steering Committee of elected officials, appointed to
develop a proposal for a board to coordinate South County area regional
transportation issues, unanimously approved a model resolution establishing
the South County Area Transportation Board (SCATB) and recommended the
resolution to all South County cities for adoption.
On behalf of the Steering Committee, we are requesting that your city approve
the resolution and designate (1) an elected official to represent your city on
the new Board and (2) an alternate representative who may be another elected
official or high-level staff person as described in the resolution. The
Steering Committee members agreed that, if possible, the first meeting of the
new Board should be held in October 1992 in order to move ahead on the many
significant transportation issues which impact the region. A copy of the
model resolution, a work program for the 1992-1993 period, and a summary of
the Steering Committee meeting on August 18, 1992 is enclosed.
The King County Roads and Engineering Division will provide administrative
support for the new SCATB for the first year. Please advise John Bodoia,
Finance Officer, at 296-3744 or Donna Gordon, Program Analyst, at 296-6547 of
your city's designated SCATB representative and alternate. If you have any
questions or need further information, they can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Tim Hill Greg 'ckels
King County Executive King my Counci er
TH/DG:jh
Enclosures
cc: Ed Chow, Kent City Administrator
Don Wickstrom, Kent Public Works Director
Jim White, Kent City Councilmember
Paul Tanaka, Director, King County Department of Public Works
ATTN: Louis Haff, County Road Engineer
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SEPA Ordinance
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance 3EVC relating to
SEPAgas recommended by the Planning CommitteeJASeptember 1,
1992. Recent legislation became effective amending prior state
law that affects the time frame within which a jurisdiction can
deal with SEPA checklists. This ordinance amends the current
code regarding SEPA to bring it into compliance with state law.
3 . EXHIBITS: SEPA ordinance and Planning Committee minutes
(9/15/92)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (3-0 vote)
(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. 3E K-
I
I
ORDINANCE NO.
i
AN ORDINANCE of the City of
ji Kent, Washington, amending the j
!!, timing considerations for the
issuance of SEPA threshold
determinations.
WHEREAS, Chapter 208 of Washington Laws, 1992, amends
! Chapter 43 . 21C RCW by imposing time limits for issuing State !
Environmental Policy Act threshold determinations; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
THEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
' Section 1. Section 1 of City of Kent Ordinance No. i
2494, codified as Kent City Code Section 12 . 12A. 130 (B) , is hereby
!! amended as follows:
(! I
I�
IB. Threshold determinations.
II
�I 1. The City sheuld eemple shall issue threshold
I determinations that ean—be based selely upen re-view ef the
eheelelist fer the prepesal on a completed application
within fifteen ninety (90) days e€ the date an—a )p'` �}-L-9
eempleted heeklist--and site plans are bmj: ted after the
application and supporting documentation are complete.
2 The responsible official shall by administrative
rule adopt and make available to the public written standards for
determining when an application and supporting documentation are
complete The standards adopted by the responsible official shall
be consistent with any rules adopted by the Department of Ecoloav
pertaining to the issuance of a threshold determination.
i
1
�I
3 . When the responsible official requires further
I . r } • en rrem the applieant e consultation with other agencie, .
with jurisdiction:
a. The City should request "e F �
i
consult with all other agencies with jurisdiction within
fifteen days of receiving a completed
envirenmen
eheek, • s} and } =s application and supportina
it documents;
I b.
} .•,a .
v nsulted -J �
e -Th��gensihle l , a eeftplet-e�
i� j
The city shall, in any event, issue
its threshold determination within ninety (90) days of
receiving a completed application and supporting
I� documents.
3 . When the Eity— tt3stinejuding field initl to Dart her dies,
investigatiens, to eb
}h }, h , } } en, the
} } r , } �^ , , } '' •} l ans
withinr
The applicant may request a thirty day extension of the time
allowed for the consideration of the threshold determination which
request shall not be unreasonably refused.
4 . The City shall complete threshold determinations on
actions where the applicant recommends in writing than an EIS be
prepared, because of the probable significant adverse environmental
impact(s) described in the checklist, within fifteen days of
receiving the completed checklist and site plans.
Section 2 . Severability. The provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The
2
i
I i �
!, invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section j
j; i
!! or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
!' thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the
I
' validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its
±lapplication to other persons or circumstances.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
'! effect and be in`.force thirty (30) days from the time of its final
; approval and passage as provided by law.
;i
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
:
!!ATTEST:
I
ii
I
I' BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
!� I
. APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I,
I
!' ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
'I I
! PASSED the day of 1992 .
II
�IAPPROVED the day of , 1992 .
I�
! PUBLISHED the day of 1992 .
i
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
I' Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of
I! Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent
llhereon indicated.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I !,
3
I �
I!
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 2
agreed that the planning goals language should not be deleted but
that the Urban Growth Area resolution should be pulled from the
Council agenda.
Staff requested that the Planning Goals Resolution be pulled from
tonight' s Council agenda because of a request from Soos Creek Water
and Sewer District requesting that Policy PF-4 be changed to read
" . . .the City sha-3-P may assume urban services which are presently
provided by special districts. " Chair Orr and the Planning
Committee agreed to recommend that the full Council pull this item
from the consent calendar, modify the language, and place it back
onto the consent calendar.
SEPA ORDINANCE (J. HARRIS)
Planning Director Harris explained that effective September 11 1992
the State legislature changed the SEPA laws to affect the time
frame within which a jurisdiction can deal with a SEPA checklist.
The new law states that a city must complete its review and issue
a threshold determination within 90 days of the date of receipt of
a checklist. The law also states that within 30 days of receipt of
a checklist, the City shall notify -the applicant whether or not the
checklist is complete. Mr. Harris further explained that the SEPA
ordinance needs to be amended to bring its sections into compliance
with the new law.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to accept the SEPA ordinance as amended. Motion carried.
The revised ordinance will be presented to the full Council on
October 6, 1992 .
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES RESOLUTION (K O'NEILU
Planner Kevin O 'Neill reviewed a draft resolution regarding
ratification of the countywide planning policies and specifically
pointed out the language of Section 31 "In the event that any
subpolicy within the countywide planning policies is found to be
inconsistent with the City of Kent locally adopted Comprehensive
Plan policies prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the
City of Kent policy will prevail. " This language was added to the
resolution at the request of Councilmember Johnson. Planning
Director Harris related that he has been informed by Judy Chapman
from King County that adoption of this language will, in effect,
constitute non-ratification of the policies. Councilmember Johnson
feels that the provision contained in Section 3 is minor and does
not have a significant impact over the remainder of the policies
which are being adopted. The question was raised as to who would
be empowered to determine an inconsistency.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL BRIDGE
2 . MUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, `
uthorization to accept as complete the Interurban Trail Green
River Pedestrian Bridge and to release retainage to Caicos
Corporation, Inc. , upon receipt of State releases., The project
was completed within budget.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Consultant Adrian Arnold of Andersen, Biornstad
Kane Jacobs Inc • Parks Department• and Parks
Committee (6/2/92 unanimous approval 3-0)
(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 Agen�a
Item No. 3F
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 6, 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CRITICAL AREAS (ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1) REGULATIONS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting _-I, -_--'_a__ the Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval of the draft Critical
Areas Regulations. The regulations consist of 1) a draft
wetlands ordinance and 2) policy amendments to the
comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission deliberated for
eight months on this issue.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, draft ordinance, Planning Commission minutes
of August 24 , 1992
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(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: T �� r
Councilmember n J , _seconds
acce t re ect modif the roc = ' - idation
p / 7 / Y a « 2 n^a
for approval of the draft ; id direct
the City Attorney to preX j•, v'" - '' ice, and
a resolution amending the f � a a� iew
policies.
DISCUSSION:
., .
ACTION:
it Agenda
k T-1 n L Y To 4A
CITY O F J_Q�J�1S�1 L�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
p�yIIO Rf� MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1992
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DRAFT CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
At its meeting of August 24 , 1992 , the Planning Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council the enclosed critical areas
regulations, which consist of: (1) a draft wetlands ordinance and
(2) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including a
policy to protect aquifer recharge areas and a policy on
geologically hazardous areas.
In addition to the draft regulations, you will find enclosed:
* a summary of the draft wetlands ordinance;
* background information on wetlands
Available for your review in the Council workroom are the minutes
and staff reports generated as part of the Planning Commission
proceedings. These were part of the lengthy record that was
developed by the Commission during . the eight months it spent
considering the proposed wetlands regulations. Also available is
the report of the Mayor ' s Wetlands Citizen Advisory Committee,
containing the Committee' s finding and separate opinions, following
the Committee' s three-month review of the regulations.
At the October 6 Council meeting, staff will present the Planning
Commission recommendations and request that the Council approve
them.
If you have any questions about the enclosed information, please
contact me or Anne Watanabe at 859-3390 .
JPH/AW/slc:wetord
Enclosures
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WETLANDS ORDINANCE
Section 1.
Purpose language.
Section 2 . Definitions
Sets out the definitions for key terms. For example, "Federal
Manual" (the method of determining what is a wetland and where
its boundaries lie) is defined to be the 1987 Federal Manual
currently utilized by the Army Corps of Engineers (a federal
agency which has regulatory authority over certain wetlands) .
Section 3 . General provisions
General language regarding applicability, intent, and
enforcement authority.
Section 4 . Lands to which chapter applies
Applies to all wetlands in the City.
- As noted above, 1987 Federal Manual is to be used to determine
boundaries of wetlands.
Section 5. Wetlands rating system
Uses 3-tier rating system (based on King County' s rating
system) ; wetlands are ranked 1, 2 or 3 depending on factors
such as size and diversity.
Wetlands which have been designated as unique and fragile
under the zoning code are given special status, and regulated
activities (such as filling, dredging or draining) are allowed
only to the extent that to deny such uses would deprive the
applicant of all reasonable economic uses.
- Activities are permitted in isolated Category 2 wetlands of up
to 2500 feet and isolated Category 3 wetlands of up to 10, 000
square feet, in exchange for appropriate on-site or off-site
mitigation. For such limited fills, no showing of
unavoidable impacts or lack of alternatives is necessary (see
Section 12 below) .
Sections 6-9 . Regulated, allowed, emergency and prohibited
activities
- A permit is required for "regulated activities. " These
1
activities include: dredging, draining, filling, destruction
of wetland vegetation, and other activities that can alter or
disturb wetlands or wetland buffers.
Allowed activities do not require a permit (in some cases,
prior notice is required, however) and include existing and
on-going agricultural activities, repair and maintenance of
drainage ditches, and recreational activities.
Emergency activities can be permitted under an emergency
permit; emergency utility repairs are allowed (no permit
required) for a 72-hour period, after which time an emergency
permit is required.
Section 10 General permit requirements
Establishes general standards for wetlands permits, including
requirements that the proposed activity avoids impacts and
will result in no net loss of wetland area, unless application
of these requirements will result in denial of all reasonable
economic use.
Also describes general requirements for submittal and
processing of permits.
Section 11. Wetland buffers (A wetland buffer is an area which
surrounds and protects the wetland from the impacts of adjacent
uses. )
- Buffer widths are based on the rating assigned to the wetland.
Category 1 wetlands require a buffer of 100 feet; Category 2
and 3 wetlands require a minimum buffer of 50 feet. However,
isolated Category 2 wetlands of up to 2500 square feet and
isolated Category 3 wetlands of up to 10, 000 square feet
receive a minimum buffer of 25 feet.
Buffer averaging is permitted. Required buffer can also be
decreased or increased under certain circumstances.
Uses permitted in the buffer include low intensity/passive
recreational activities (for example, birdwatching, scientific
research) , stormwater management facilities and biofiltration
swales.
Section 12 Avoiding wetland impacts
Regulated activities are not permitted within wetlands or
wetland buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that
2
locating the activity in the wetland or buffer is unavoidable
and necessary, or that all reasonable economic uses are
denied.
An alternatives analysis is required for uses which are not
water-dependent: the applicant must demonstrate that the
project 's purposes cannot be met using another available non-
wetland site, that the project's basic purpose can't be
accomplished with less impact on the wetland, and that the
applicant has made a reasonable attempt to remove constraints
such as zoning, infrastructure deficiencies, etc; , which would
allow the use of another non-wetland site.
Sections 13-15. Limited density transfers sensitive area tracts
notice on title
- Sets out a formula for density credits (i.e. , additional
dwelling units) which are allowed on the upland portion of a
residentially-zoned site, when a portion of the site is
constrained by wetlands or wetland buffers.
"Sensitive area tracts" are created as a condition of any
wetland permit. These are separate tracts which are subject
to restrictions on title.
In conjunction with the issuance of a wetland permit, the
landowner is required to record a notice of the existence of
the wetland or wetland buffer with the county. This provides
notice of the wetland' s existence to future purchasers.
Section 16 Compensating for wetland impacts
When regulated activities occur within a wetland or otherwise
alter the wetland, compensation is required in the form of
replacement of the wetland area, either by creating a wetland,
restoring a former wetland, or enhancing a degraded wetland.
The replacement ratio when creation or restoration are
involved is 1. 5 to 1 (1. 5 acres of replacement wetland for
every 1 acre of wetland altered) ; the ratio is 3 to 1 when
enhancement is involved.
Ratios may be increased or decreased under certain
circumstances, but a minimum replacement ratio of 1 to 1 is
required.
Section 17 . Reasonable use
Sets out criteria for determining when to provide relief from
any of the standards in the ordinance.
3
Section 18 Non-conforming wetland activities
similar to provisions for nonconforming activities under the
zoning code. Pre-existing nonconforming activities are
allowed without a permit unless the activity is being
expanded, has been discontinued for a year after the adoption
of the wetland ordinance (except for normal agricultural
practicies) or has been damaged by fire, flood, or other
natural disaster and where the cost of restoration exceeds
fifty percent of the fair market value.
Sections 19 22 Timing of permit activities revisions/suspension
of permits
- Activities pursuant to a permit cannot begin until all
necessary permits obtained and all review/appeals are
exhausted.
- Wetland permits are valid for three years, with a one-year
extension available.
- Revisions to permits may be allowed if within the scope of
original permit.
- Permits may be rescinded only after a public hearing and
finding of certain conditions .
Sections 23 26 Enforcement appeals severability, effective date
Enforcment provisions reference the zoning code.
Appeals of wetland permits are made to the Hearing Examiner.
4
U�D2 �noN 01j WeTLkpD SV _,T- S M Lr f'/ I rJ��tilTai?-10
WETLAND SYSTEMS/MAJOR, HABITAT AREAS
This section discusses how the wetlands are distributed within the
project area, instead of concentrating on each individual type. Some of
these areas contain a complex of diverse habitat types, while others contain
large expanses of hydrologically connected habitat type. A description of
each of these areas follows.
Kent Lagoons
The Kent Lagoons are a set of four ponds which were part of an
operating sewage facility from 1969 to 1973. Wildlife use of the ponds is
high, with over 215 species expected to occur in the area. Over 16 species
of waterfowl have been observed on the ponds . Waterfowl use in the winter
is high, with over 1,000 individuals daily expected to use the site
(SHAPIRO, 1990) . These ponds also provide an aesthetic and recreational
resource for observed wildlife. The lagoons have been identified by the
City of Kent as a "Unique and Fragile" resource in the valley. The City of
Kent is planning to turn the area into a combined wetland habitat/stormwater
detention-treatment facility. The goal of the project is to maximize
wildlife habitat by increasing the complexity of the lagoons cells and by
planting 200 foot wide buffers with a mixture of native shrubs and trees .
The project also will maintain the high value existing mudflat and forested
habitats . The project would increase the food resources , nest sites , cover,
song perches, water posts , and other basic biological requirements for
9 wildlife use.
:Riparian Corridor Along the Green River
The Green River flows along the western edge of the project area,
providing an important migration corridor for fish and wildlife. Because of
? the past diking, the banks are typically high and steep; however, most of
the river banks are vegetated with dense riparian vegetation, such as reed
canarygrass, willow, red-osier dogwood, and blackberries . In some areas
willows hang over the water to provide shade for the fish. Several areas of
riparian forest are located outside the channel and adjacent to the existing
z
levee.
3 Seasonally Flooded Pasture and Wet Agricultural Lands
A major concentration of seasonally flooded and wet agricultural lands
s occur east of the old Kent Sewage Lagoons, and west of the Green River both
north and south of South 212th Street.
The large number of migratory and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds of
the Green River Valley heavily utilize these habitat types . Large expanses
of flooded land provide the abundant shallow water and food resources that
are required by the large concentrations of these birds in winter and early
spring. A water bird census of several of these. areas reported very high
numbers . In some areas , up to 1,500 shorebirds and 1,300 waterfowl have
been counted in one visit. The value of flooded lands is highest when they
are located near areas such as the old Kent Sewage Lagoon open water
habitat, which supply other habitat needs .
Bottomland West of Green River to Vallev Wall (Section 15, T. 22N.. R. 4E.)
The wetland units in this section lie between the west bank of the Green River and the base of the
west valley wall. They comprise about 24 acres, including at least two acres of open water, and
are bordered by forest, shrub, and agricultural land. The four largest units form a complex of
bermed detention basins east and north of the old Kent-Highlands Iandfill. In addition to runoff,
large volumes of sand and silt from the landfill wash over the southern part of this complex in
some places, limiting herbaceous vegetation cover.
Other parts of the complex contain very dense and diverse vegetation, including forested, scrub-
shrub, and emergent marsh habitats. They provide abundant forage and feeding, cover, and
nesting for a wide variety of wildlife: waterfowl, raptors, passerine birds, amphibians, reptiles,
and small mammals have all been observed. Deer, raccoon and other mammals are probably
present also. Their large size, proximity to the Green River and to forested uplands, runoff
detention function, and limited human impacts distinguish these wetlands as among the most
valuable surveyed. y
Lake Fenwick Watershed (Section 27. T. 22N.. R:4E.)
Except for the Green River and the Kent Lagoons, Lake Fenwick is the largest body of water
within the City limits. Most of its shores are forested, as is most of Lake Fenwick Park west of
the lake. The lake and open water in the adjoining park provide excellent habitat for diverse
waterfowl and other wildlife. Interlaced fingers of wetland and upland multiply the edge between
land and water severalfold. Botanical and structural diversity here is exceptionally high. The
absence of roads and buildings in this area means that the limited disturbance to the wetlands
results almost entirely from pedestrian recreational activity.
Kent Plateau (Sections 17 & 20 T 22N R. 5E )
This area, at the upper reaches of the Mill Creek and Garrison Creek drainages, encompasses much
recently developed land north of the Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) and east of 104th Ave. SE (SR
515). Most of the numerous fragmented wetland units are small and isolated, hemmed in by
roads, ditches, culverts, and berms; many have been cleared, graded, or filled. The 26 sites in this
area total only 31.5 acres, an average of 1.2 acres per site; only three have open water, totalling
less than half an acre. More than half of these wetland habitats are emergent marsh (often
dominated by reed canarygrass), 30% are forested swamp, and the rest scrub-shrub.
Because of their isolation, fragmentation, disturbance, and generally low diversity, these wetlands
have low habitat value in absolute terms. On the other hand, their isolation means that in many
cases they may be the only suitable habitat in the immediate area for many songbirds, amphibians,
and small mammals. In many, disturbance is high from intrusion by people and domestic pets.
The high density of roads, apartments, and other buildings in this area also increases the
importance of these wetlands as detention basins for stormwater runoff.
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
CITY OF KENT WETLANDS REGULATIONS (DRAFT)
WHEREAS, wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources
with significant development constraints due to flooding,erosion, soil liquefaction potential,and
septic disposal limitations; and
WHEREAS, in their natural state, wetlands provide many valuable social and ecological
services, including controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural
flows; protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and
chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for
naturally occurring sedimentation; providing areas for groundwater recharge; preventing
shoreline erosion by stabilizing the substrate; providing habitat areas for many species of fish,
wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on wetlands for their survival, and many
of which are on Washington State and Federal Endangered Species lists; providing open space
and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; providing recreation opportunities;
and serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education; and
WHEREAS, development in wetlands results in:increased soil erosion and sedimentation
of downstream water bodies,including navigable channels;increased shoreline erosion;degraded
water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; elimination or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; loss of fishery resources from water quality
degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the
streamflow regimen; loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow-release detention resulting
in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the streamflow regimen of watersheds; loss
of groundwater recharge areas; and
WHEREAS, buffer areas surrounding wetlands are essential to maintenance, and
protection of wetland functions and values, and protect wetlands from degradation by stabilizing
soil and preventing erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful or toxic substances;
moderating impacts of stormwater runoff; moderating system microclimate; protecting wetland
wildlife habitat from adverse impacts; maintaining and enhancing habitat diversity and/or
integrity; supporting and protecting wetlands plant and animal species and biotic communities;
and reducing disturbances to wetland resources caused by intrusion of humans and domestic
animals; and
WHEREAS, The loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands results
in a detriment to public safety and welfare; replacement of such services, if possible at all, can
require considerable public expenditure; and
WHEREAS, a considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost
or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, polluting, and other acts
inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas, and remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being
lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent hereby finds that as a result of all of
the above, it is necessary to ensure protection of wetland areas in the City by discouraging
activities in wetlands and in sites adjacent to wetlands that may adversely affect wetland
functions and values, to encourage restoration and enhancement of already-degraded wetland
systems and to encourage creation of new wetland areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that in order to accomplish this directive, the
City shall amend the Kent Zoning Code to require site planning through a permit system
administered by the Planning Department, in order to avoid or minimize damage to wetlands
wherever possible; to require that activities not dependent upon a wetland location be located
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
at upland sites; and to achieve no net loss of wetland area by requiring restoration of degraded
former wetlands or the creation of new wetlands from upland sites to offset unavoidable losses;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Short Title, Authority and Purpose
A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Kent Wetlands Ordinance."
B. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's police powers, the Growth Management
Act as codified in Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in Chapter 42.21C RCW.
C. The purpose of this ordinance is to:
1. Protect the public health, safety and welfare by preserving, protecting and
restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other
activities within them and wetland buffers so that nuisances or threats to
safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not
degraded by:
a. impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage capacity, or impairing
natural flood control functions, thereby resulting in increased flood
heights, frequencies or velocities on other lands;
b. increasing water pollution through location of domestic waste disposal
systems in wetlands; unauthorized application of pesticides and herbicides;
disposal of solid waste at inappropriate sites; creation of unstable fills; or
the destruction of wetland soils and vegetation;
C. increasing erosion;
d. decreasing breeding, nesting and feeding areas for many species of
waterfowl and shorebirds, including those rare and endangered;
e. interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by fish and other forms
of wildlife;
f. adversely altering the recharge or discharge functions of wetlands, thereby
impacting groundwater or surface water supplies;
g. significantly altering wetland hydrology and thereby causing either
short-or long-term changes in vegetational composition, soils
characteristics, nutrient cycling, or water chemistry;
h. destroying sites needed for education and scientific research, such as
outdoor biophysical laboratories, living classrooms, and training areas;
i. interfering with public rights in navigable waters and the recreation
opportunities provided by wetlands for fishing, boating, hiking,
birdwatching, photography and other passive uses; or
j. destroying or damaging aesthetic and property values,including significant
public viewsheds.
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
2. Protect, to the greatest extent practicable, the public against losses from
unnecessary maintenance and replacement of public facilities and expenses
for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and
3. Alert appraisers, assessors, owners and potential buyers or lessees of
property to the development limitations of wetlands.
D. The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its
purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
3
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
Section 2: Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
"Activity." See "Regulated Activity" and "Allowed Activity" as defined in Section 2
herein.
"Applicant" means a person who files an application for permit under this chapter and
who is either the owner of the land on which that proposed Regulated Activity would be
located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would actually control
and direct the proposed Regulated Activity, or the authorized agent of such a person.
"Best management practices" means conservation practices or systems of practices and
management measures that:
1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal
waste, toxics, and sediment; and
2. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation
patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands.
"City" means the City of Kent, Washington.
"Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project-induced wetland and
wetland buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans,
monitoring and contingency actions.
"Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project-induced wetland losses or impacts,
and includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Restoration. Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics
and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic
events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland.
2. Creation. Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where
it did not formerly exist.
3. Enhancement. Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded
wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality.
"Dedication" means conveyance of land to the City or other not-for-profit entity by deed
or other instrument of conveyance.
"Department" means the Planning Department of the City of Kent.
"Developable area" means land outside of wetlands, wetland buffers or any other
restricted area on a particular piece of property.
"Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure or use; any
change in use of a building or structure or changes in the use of land that require a
development permit from the City.
"Director" means the Director of the Kent Planning Department or his/her authorized
designee.
"Emergent wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered
by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata.
4
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
"Enhancement." See "Compensatory Mitigation."
"Erosion" means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of mass wasting or
the movement of wind, water, soil and/or ice.
"Essential habitat" means habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened,
endangered and sensitive species and state listed priority species.
"Exotic" means any species of plants or animals that are foreign to the planning area.
"Existing and ongoing agriculture" includes those activities conducted on lands defined
as "Farm and Agricultural Land" in RCW 84.34.020(2),and those activities involved in
the production of crops or livestock, for example, the operation and maintenance of farm
and stock ponds or drainage ditches, operation and maintenance of ditches, irrigation
systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage ditches, changes
between agricultural activities, and normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing
serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into
agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing
when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain
idle for more than eight years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils
conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals,
canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Forest
practices are not included in this definition.
"Extraordinary hardship" means that the strict application of the provisions of this
ordinance and/or rules adopted to implement this ordinance would prevent all reasonable
economic use of the property.
"Federal Manual" means Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, dated January 1987.
"Forested wetland" means a wetland with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered
by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height.
"Functions," "beneficial functions," or "functions and values" means the beneficial roles
served by wetlands including, but not limited to, water quality protection and
enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage,conveyance and
attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation,
historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These
beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority.
"Grading" means excavation or fill or any combination thereof, including the
establishment of a grade following the demolition of a structure.
"Growing season" means the average frost-free period of the year in Kent as recorded
in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Frost/Freeze Data from
Climatology of the U.S. #20, supplement#1, or in equivalent U.S. government agency
records. Growing season, for the purposes of these regulations, may be considered to
be the period from March 1 through October 31 of any calendar year.
"Hydric Soil' means soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of
hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual.
"Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water
content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the
methods described in the Federal Manual.
5
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
"In-kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands that have
characteristics which closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a Regulated
Activity.
"Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands which:
1. Are outside of and not contiguous to any 100-year floodplain of a lake, river, or
stream; and
2. Have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland
and any surface water.
"Maintenance," see definition of "Repair and Maintenance."
Mitigation' includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts.
Mitigation, in the following order of preference is:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps
to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments;
6. Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate
corrective measures.
Mitigation may include a combination of the above measures.
"Mitigation Banking" is the collective offsite creation, restoration or enhancement of
uplands, or in some instances, existing wetlands, to compensate for unavoidable adverse
impacts due to private development, public works projects, and other construction
activities. Banking differs from most offsite compensatory mitigation projects in that
mitigation banking is a program created by agencies or organizations to provide a
relatively large mitigation site which will be used to compensate for many (usually
unrelated) development projects; more traditional compensatory mitigation measures are
typically individual projects which may give little consideration to regional wetlands
management.
"Native Vegetation" means plant species which are indigenous to the planning area.
"offsite compensation" means to replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland
has been impacted by a regulated activity.
"Onsite compensation" means to replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a
wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity.
"Out-of-kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose
characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated
activity.
6
_1_. ... .. ... ._ -I. .. ._. . 1 __...
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
"Owner" means any person having title to, a substantial beneficial interest in, or control
of a building or property, including but not limited to a lessee, guardian, receiver or
trustee, and the owner's duly authorized agent.
"Person" means a natural person, his/her heirs, executors, administrators or assignees,
or a firm, partnership or corporation and its or their successors and assignees, or a
governmental entity.
"Pollution" means such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical or
biological properties of wetlands, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid,
radioactive or other substance into wetlands as will or is likely to cause a nuisance or
render such wetlands harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or
welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other
legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wildlife, fish, native vegetation or other
aquatic life.
"Practicable alternative" means an alternative that is available and capable of being
carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light
of overall project purposes, and having less impacts to wetlands. It may involve using
an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly
be used to accomplish the project.
"Priority habitats" are a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has
a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species
will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high
relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range and movement
corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high
vulnerability to alteration.
"Priority species" are those species that are of concern due to their population status and
their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Priority species include those which are state-
listed endangered, threatened, and sensitive species as well as other species designated
by the State Department of Wildlife as species of concern or as game species.
"Repair or maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and
design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and
undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project
beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter additional
wetlands are not included in this definition.
"Restoration." See "Compensatory Mitigation."
"Scrub-shrub wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of its surface area
covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata.
"Serviceable" means presently useable.
"Site" means any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, where activities
are proposed, performed or permitted.
"Subject property" means the site where an activity requiring a permit or approval under
this ordinance will occur.
"Unavoidable and necessary impacts" are impacts to wetlands that remain after an
applicant for a wetland permit has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for
the proposed project.
7
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
"Water-dependent" means requiring the use of surface water that would be essential to
fulfill the purpose of the proposed project.
"Wetlands," means all those areas in the City of Kent that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions during the growing season. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and
drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. The applicant shall bear the burden of
proving that the site was not previously a wetland. Wetlands include artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland areas for the purpose of mitigating conversion of
wetlands. For identifying and delineating a wetland, the City of Kent shall rely on the
methodology contained in the Federal Manual as defined above.
"Wetlands of Outstanding Significance," means all wetlands with:
1. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened fish or animal species or for
potentially extirpated plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or
2. High quality native wetland communities,including documented Natural Heritage
wetland sites and sites which qualify as a Natural Heritage wetland; or
3. High quality, regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological
functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine wetlands, or mature
forested swamps; or
4. Wetlands of exceptional local significance. The criteria for such a designation
shall be developed and adopted by the City of Kent under appropriate public
review and administrative appeal procedures based upon a comprehensive wetland
resource management plan.The criteria may include,but not be limited to, rarity,
groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites or other
specific functional values within a watershed or other regional boundary.
"Wetland buffer" or "wetland buffer zone" is an area that surrounds and protects a
wetland from adverse impacts to the functions and values of a wetland.
"Wetland classes," "classes of wetlands" or "wetland types" means the wetland classes
or subclasses of the wetlands taxonomic classification system described in the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et al., 1979).
"Wetlands permit" means any permit, modification, revision or variance issued,
conditioned or denied pursuant this ordinance.
"Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions
in this ordinance and the procedures specified in Section 4 herein.
Section 3: General Provisions.
A. Applicability. The requirements of this ordinance apply to all activities and development
occurring in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in Section 2 herein. Property located
in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in this ordinance is subject to both its zoning
classification regulations and to the additional requirements imposed under this ordinance.
In any case where there are irreconcilable differences between the provisions of the
underlying zone and this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply.
8
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
B. Protection of General Public. It is expressly the purpose of this ordinance to protect 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 the terms of this ordinance.
C. Compliance by Owners. It is the specific intent of this ordinance to place the obligation
of complying with its requirements upon the owner of the property or land within its
scope, and no provision of, nor any term used in this ordinance is intended to impose any
duty whatsoever upon the City, its officers, officials or employees.
D. Right of Entry. Upon presentation of the proper credentials, the Director or the
Director's duly authorized representative may, with the consent of the owner or occupier
of land, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter at reasonable times, any land
subject to such consent or warrant, to perform the duties imposed by this ordinance.
E. Liability. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed
to create or form the basis for liability on the part of the City, or its officers, officials,
employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any owner
of property or land to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or by reason or in
consequence of any inspection, notice order, certificate, permission or approval
authorized or issued in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this
ordinance, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any
manner to the enforcement of this ordinance by its officers, officials, employees or
agents.
F. Enforcement Authority; Rules.
1. Enforcement. The Director is hereby designated the City Official to exercise the
powers granted by this ordinance.
2. Rules. The Director is authorized to adopt, in accordance with administrative
procedures set by ordinance, such rules as are necessary to implement the requirements
of this ordinance and to carry out the duties of the Director hereunder.
Section 4: Lands to Which this Chapter Applies
A. Geographic Scope. The boundaries within which this ordinance shall be effective are
coextensive with the corporate City limits, and shall include all unincorporated areas
annexed to the City on and after the effective date of this ordinance.
B. Determination of Wetland Boundary. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall
be determined by the applicant through the performance of a field investigation applying
the wetland definition provided in Section 2 of this ordinance. Qualified professionals
shall perform wetland delineations using the Federal Manual.
Alternatively, the applicant may request the Department to perform the delineation,
provided the applicant provides the Department with the necessary funding to retain and
manage a qualified professional. The Department shall consult with qualified
professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed to perform the
delineation. The applicant will be charged for the costs incurred.
Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland boundary, the Department
shall verify the accuracy of, and may render adjustments to, the boundary delineation,
and the applicant may be charged by the Department for costs incurred in verifying the
accuracy of the delineation. In the event the adjusted boundary delineation is contested
9
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
by the applicant, the Department may, at the applicant's expense, obtain a second expert
to perform a delineation. The decision of the second expert shall be final.
Section 5. Wetlands Rating System
A. The following rating system is hereby adopted for the purpose of determining the size
of wetland buffers and otherwise reviewing permits under this ordinance. For the
purposes of this Section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al., 1979)
contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses.
1. Category 1 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria:
a. The presence of species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as
endangered, threatened, or other species identified by the City of Kent as needing
special protection or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those
species;
b. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with
two or more classes of vegetation;
C. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten acres in size and having three or more
wetland classes, one of which is open water; or
d. The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence.
2. Category 2 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria, and
which are not Category 1 wetlands:
a. Wetlands greater than one acre in size;
b. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and having three or more wetland
classes;
C. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class;
d. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees.
3. Category 3 Wetlands. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in size and
that have two or fewer wetland classes, and which are not Category 1 or
Category 2 wetlands.
B. Wetlands of Outstanding Significance are wetlands defined in Section 2 herein, and are
located within the Unique and Fragile Overlay Zone created by Kent Zoning Code
Section 15.08.260, adopted by Ord./Res. _ and mapped on the City's Hazard Area
Development Limitations Map, except for the Kent Sewage Lagoon.
C. In order to obtain a permit to conduct regulated activities in a wetland of outstanding
significance, an applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that
application of the standards contained in this ordinance would deny all reasonable
economic use of the property.
D. Except in the case of wetlands of outstanding significance, regulated or allowed activities
shall be permitted in isolated Category 2 wetlands of 2500 square feet or less, and
10
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
isolated Category 3 wetlands of 10,000 square feet or less, provided that adequate on-
site or off-site compensatory mitigation is provided in accordance with Section 16 herein.
Section 6. Wetland Permit Required; Regulated Activities
A. No regulated activity, other than maintenance and upkeep of their property by owner-
occupiers of 10,000 square feet or less of isolated Category 2 or Category 3 wetlands,
shall be undertaken in a wetland or wetland buffer without first obtaining a wetlands
permit from the Director. Regulated activities are any of the following activities which
occur in a wetland or its buffer:
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals,
organic matter, or material of any kind;
2. The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material;
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table;
4. The driving of pilings;
5. The placing of obstructions;
6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure;
7. The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation through clearing, harvesting,
shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the
character of a wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest
practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or
8. Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant
change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources,
including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants.
9. Where a regulated activity is proposed which would be partly within and partly
without the wetland or wetland buffer, a.wetland permit shall be required for teh
entire regulated activity. The standards of this ordinance shall apply only to that
part of the regulated activity which occurs within the wetland or wetland buffer
unless the underlying zoning requires that the entire regulated activity comply
with all or part of this ordinance.
Section 7: Allowed Activities.
A. No wetland permit required. The following activities shall be allowed within a wetland
or wetland buffer without a wetland permit to the extent that they are not prohibited by
other local, state (forest practices and conversions shall be governed by Chapter 76.09
RCW and rules promulgated thereunder) or federal law and provided that they are
conducted using best management practices. This permit exemption does not apply
where such activities result in the conversion of a wetland or wetland buffer to a use to
which it was not previously subjected.
1. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other
wildlife;
2. Outdoor recreational activities, including fishing, birdwatching, hiking, boating,
horseback riding, swimming, canoeing, and bicycling;
II
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
3. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of
soil, planting of crops, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing
topography, water conditions or water sources;
4. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities;
5. The repair and maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches;
6. Educational activities, scientific research, and use of nature trails;
7. The placement of navigation aids and boundary markers;
8. The placement of boat mooring buoys;
9. Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as
surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case,
wetland impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately
restored;
B. Notice required. The following activities and uses are allowed within wetlands and
wetland buffers provided that written notice at least ten days prior to the commencement
of such work has been given to the Director with such exemptions as noted in Section
6.A and provided that wetland impacts are minimized and that disturbed areas are
immediately restored:
1. Normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures,
facilities, or improved areas. Maintenance and repair does not include any
modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original structure,
facility, or improved area and does not include the construction of a maintenance
road; and
2. Minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where
modification does not adversely impact wetland functions.
Section 8. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit
e. Criteria for Granting a Temporary Emergency Permit. Notwithstanding the provisions
of this ordinance or any other laws to the contrary, the Director may issue a temporary
emergency wetlands permit if:
1. The Director determines that an imminent threat to public health, safety or the
environment will occur if an emergency permit is not granted; and
2. The threat or loss may occur before a wetlands permit can be issued or modified
under the procedures otherwise required by this ordinance
B. Conditions of Emergency Permit. Any emergency permit granted shall:
1. Incorporate to the greatest extent practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with
the emergency situation, the standards and criteria required for non-emergency
activities;
2. Be limited in duration to the time required to complete the authorized emergency
activity, not to exceed ninety (90) days; and
12
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
3. Require the restoration of any wetland altered as a result of the emergency
activity within the ninety-day period. If restoration is not completed within ninety
days, a wetland permit must be obtained in accordance with this chapter.
C. Emergency Utility Repairs. Emergency repairs to utilities that require immediate
attention and which would endanger the public if a temporary emergency permit were
required shall be allowed for a period not exceeding 72 hours.
Section 9. Prohibited Activities.
Activities not specifically described by this ordinance as Allowed or Regulated, and which do
not constitute Emergency Activities under Section 8 or Non-conforming Activities under Section
are prohibited. In order to conduct an otherwise prohibited activity in a wetland or wetland
buffer, the applicant must satisfy the requirements for a special exception, as described in
Section 17.
Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures.
A. Inconsistent Development Prohibited. No activity or development shall be undertaken
and no use shall be established in a wetland or a wetland buffer unless the Director has
determined that it is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance.
B. Standards. A wetlands permit shall only be granted if the proposed regulated activity,
as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, all other applicable
laws and:
1. The proposed regulated activity avoids adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland
buffers; or the applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impacts of the
regulated activity are both unavoidable and necessary, and affirmative and
appropriate measures are proposed as conditions which will minimize and
compensate for unavoidable impacts; and
2. The proposed regulated activity results in no net loss of wetland area; or
3. Refusal to grant a permit would deny the applicant all reasonable economic use
of the subject property.
C. Procedures.
1. The burden of proving that an allowed or regulated activity meets the applicable
standards for a permit shall be on the applicant.
2. The applicant may be required to submit information or data, in addition to that
routinely required with permit applications, sufficient to enable the Director to
evaluate the proposed Activity or to prepare any necessary environmental
documents.
3. In addition to other requirements provided in this ordinance, the Director may
attach to the permit any conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this
ordinance and all other applicable laws. Performance bonds and fees for
monitoring activities may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions.
4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Director's authority to
condition or deny a project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.
5. The Department shall, to the extent practicable and feasible, consolidate the
processing of wetlands related aspects of other City regulatory programs which
13
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
affect activities in wetlands, such as subdivision, clearing and grading, floodplain,
and environmentally sensitive chapter, etc., with the Wetland Permit process
established herein so as to provide a timely and coordinated permit process.
D. Application Requirements.
1. Applications for wetland permits shall be made by the property owner, lessee,
contract purchaser, or by an authorized agent thereof.
2. All applications for wetland permits shall be made to the Director on a form
provided by the Director.
3. Applications shall be accompanied by the payment of the applicable filing fees,
as established by rule or ordinance.
4. All applications shall contain the submittal information required by rule for
wetland permits.
5. An application shall be deemed abandoned and void if the applicant has failed
without reasonable justification to supply all reasonable data within 60 days of a
request for it; provided that the Director may extend the period for such
submission if it is determined that the delay was not the fault of the applicant.
Section 11. Wetland Buffers
A. Standard Buffer Zone Widths
Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to wetlands.
Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland
alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created,
restored, or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary
as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of Section 4. The width of the
wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland
in accordance with Section 5.
1. For Class I wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 100 feet.
2. For Class 2 and 3 wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 50 feet. Except
that, isolated Class 2 wetlands of 2500 square feet or less, and isolated Class 3
wetlands of 10,000 square feet or less, shall have a minimum buffer zone of 25
feet.
B. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width
The City may require increased buffer zone widths on a case-by-case basis when a larger
buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on local conditions.
This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is
reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The
documentation must demonstrate that:
1. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of existing species;
or
2. The wetland is used by species listed by the federal government or the state as
endangered, threatened, sensitive or documented priority species or habitats, or
14
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
essential or outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting
or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees;
3. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures
will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
4. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 15 percent.
C. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Zone Width
The City may reduce the standard wetland buffer zone width on a case-by-case basis
where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than 15 percent slopes and
that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to wetlands
will result from a regulated activity. The City may require long-term monitoring
of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to wetlands are
discovered; and
2. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which
substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the
buffer to provide additional protection for wetland functions and values. An
enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 25 percent reduction in the
buffer width or be less than 25 feet.
D. Standard Buffer Width Averaging
Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Wetland
buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the
following:
1. Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical and physical support
necessary to protect the wetland in question, taking into account the type,
intensity, scale and landscape location of the proposed land use;
2. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical
characteristics which justify the averaging;
3. The land uses causing the least disturbance would be located adjacent to areas
where buffer width is reduced, and that such land uses are guaranteed in
perpetuity by covenant, deed restriction, easement, or other legally binding
mechanism;
4. Width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values;
5. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than
that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall
the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less
than 25 feet.
E. Except as otherwise specified, wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural
condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, revegetation with
native vegetation may be required.
15
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
F. Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone. Regulated activities shall not be allowed in
a buffer zone except for the following:
1. Activities and maintenance having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no
adverse impacts on wetlands. These may include low intensity, passive
recreational activities such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife watching
blinds, short term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing.
2. Stormwater management facilities if designed according to the Draft Guidelines
for Wetlands and Stormwater Management (published by the Puget Sound
Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, August 30, 1990), or
other guidance which may subsequently be published by the Center for Urban
Water Resources Management, University of Washington (206-782-7401),and if
no reasonable alternative on-site location is available; and
3. Biofiltration swales, if sited and designed so that the buffer zone as a whole
provides the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to
protect the wetland in question, taking into account the type, location, intensity,
scale and landscape location of the proposed land use.
Section 12. Avoiding Wetland Impacts
A. Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a wetland except where it can be
demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary or that all reasonable
economic uses are denied.
B. With respect to wetlands of outstanding significance, an applicant must demonstrate that
denial of the permit would impose an extraordinary hardship on the part of the applicant
brought about by circumstances peculiar to the subject property.
C. With respect to all other wetlands, the following provisions shall apply:
1. For water-dependent activities, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be
demonstrated where there are no practicable alternatives which would not involve
a wetland or which would not have less adverse impact an a wetland, and would
not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Stormwater
management facilities will be considered in wetlands subject to review under the
wetlands and stormwater management guidelines referenced in Section 6.1.F.2.,
and all other applicable provisions in this chapter, except that under no
circumstances will such facilities be permitted in wetlands of outstanding
significance.
2. Where nonwater-dependent activities are proposed, the applicant must
demonstrate that:
a. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished using an alternative site
in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to
accomplish the project.
b. A reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project as proposed and
all alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less,
adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer will not accomplish the basic purpose of the
project; and
c. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due
to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of infrastructure, or parcel size, the
applicant has made reasonable attempt to remove or accommodate such constraints.
16
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
Section 13. Limited Density Transfer
For residential development proposals on lands containing wetland buffers, the Planning
Department shall determine allowable dwelling units based on the formula below. The
maximum number of dwelling units(DU)for a lot or parcel which contains wetland buffers shall
be equal to: (ACRES IN BUFFER) X (DU/ACRE) X (DENSITY CREDIT)
Percentage of site in buffers Density Credit
1-10% 100%
11-20% 90%
21-30% 80%
31-40% 70%
41-50% 60%
51-60% 50%
61-70% 40%
71-80% 30%
81-90% 20%
91-99% 10%
The density credit can only be transferred within the development proposal site. Density credit
shall not be allowed for portions of the site occupied by wetlands.
Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts
A. Condition of Permit. The Director shall require that a permittee create a separate
sensitive area tract containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer.
Sensitive area tracts are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland buffers with
perpetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain undeveloped. Sensitive area
tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they are created, are not intended for sale,
lease or transfer, and shall be included in the area of the parent lot for purposes of
subdivision method and minimum lot size.
B. Protection of Sensitive Area Tracts. The Director shall require, as a condition of any
permit issued hereunder, that the sensitive area tract created pursuant to subsection E.1
above be protected by one of the following methods:
1. The permittee shall dedicate to the City or other public or non-profit entity specified
by the Director, an easement for the protection of native vegetation within a wetland
and/or its buffer; or
2. The permittee shall record against the property, a permanent and irrevocable deed
restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts created as a condition
of the permit. Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved by the Director and the City
Attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development, alteration, or disturbance of
vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement
as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the
City and any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity.
Section 15. Notice on Title
The owner of any property with field verified presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which
a wetland permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice
of the existence of such wetland or wetland buffer against the property with the King County
Department of Records and Elections. The notice shall be approved by the Director and the City
17
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
Attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this
notice and to have it deleted if the wetland designation no longer applies.
Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts
A. Condition of Permit. As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or
wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section 23, the Director shall
require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands
and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or violator's
actions. The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition,construction,
maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as possible the
original wetlands in terms of acreage, function, geographic location and setting.
B. Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation project shall be to replace the same
type of wetland lost, with all associated functions and values. No net loss of wetland
acreage shall be required. Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction,
where possible.
C., Performance Standards. Compensatory mitigation shall follow a mitigation plan which
includes the components listed in Subsection E, and which is approved by the Director.
All mitigation plans shall meet the following minimum performance standards:
1. Given the uncertainties in scientific knowledge and the need for expertise and
monitoring, wetland compensatory projects may be permitted only when the Director
finds that the compensation project is associated with an activity or development
otherwise permitted and that the restored, created, or enhanced shall:
will be as
persistent as the wetland it replaces. Additionally, applicants
2. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial
resources to carry out the mitigation project;
a. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during this
period if the project fails to meet projected goals; and
b. Protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation
area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term
persistence of the compensation area.
D. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
1. Any person who alters wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas
of wetlands than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses.
2. Acreage replacement ratio. The ratio of 1.5:1 shall be the standard ratio and shall
apply to creation or restoration which is in-kind, onsite, timed prior to or concurrent
with alteration, and has a high probability of success. This ratio does not apply to
remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations. The first number specifies the
acreage of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of
wetlands altered.
3. Increased Replacement Ratio. The Director may increase the standard ratio under the
following circumstances:
a. High degree of uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or
creation; -
b. Significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions;
18
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
c. Projected losses in functional value and other uses, such as recreation, scientific
research and education, relatively high;
d. Not possible to create or restore same type of wetland;
e. Offsite compensation is offered.
4. Decreased Replacement Ratio. The Director may decrease the standard ratio under
the following circumstances:
a. Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate
that no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under the decreased ratio.
b. In all cases, a minimum acreage replacement ratio of 1:1 shall be required.
5. Wetlands Enhancement.
a. Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance existing
significantly degraded wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses, only when
onsite, in-kind, and offsite, in-kind replacement is not feasible. Applicants proposing
to enhance wetlands shall identify how enhancement conforms to the overall goals and
requirements of the wetlands protection program and established regional goals.
b. A wetlands enhancement compensation project shall be considered provided that
enhancement for one function and value will not degrade another function or value.
Acreage replacement ratios shall be increased to 3:1 or greater to recognize existing
functional values. Wetlands of outstanding significance shall not be enhanced.
6. Wetland Type. In-kind compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can
demonstrate that:
a. The wetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind replacement will
result in a wetland with greater functional value;
b. Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology
make implementation of in-kind compensation impossible; or
c. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (eg., replacement of
historically diminished wetland types).
Where out-of-kind replacement is accepted, greater acreage replacement ratios may be
required to compensate for lost functional values.
7. Location. On-site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can
demonstrate that:
a. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the
hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the onsite loss; and
b. Onsite compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology,
soils, or other factors; or
c. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land
uses; or
19
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
d. Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly
greater than lost wetland functional values; or
e. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other
wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory
measures at another site.
8. Offsite compensation shall occur within the same watershed as the wetland loss
occurred, unless the applicant can demonstrate extraordinary hardship.
9. In selecting compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order
of preference:
a. Upland sites which were formerly wetlands;
b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting
primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent vegetation; and
c. Other disturbed upland.
10. Timing. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior to activities
that will disturb wetlands, immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb
wetland, and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development which was
conditioned upon such compensation. Construction of compensation projects shall be
timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora.
11. Cooperative Restoration, Creation or Enhancement Projects (Mitigation Banks) The
City encourages, and may facilitate and approve cooperative projects wherein a single
applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a
compensation project with funding from other applicants. Any mitigation banking
must be consistent with all requirements of this chapter.
E. Components of Mitigation Plans. All wetland restoration, creation and/or enhancement
projects required pursuant to this chapter either as a permit condition or as the result of an
enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland
professionals approved by the Director. The applicant or violator must receive written
approval of the mitigation plan by the Director prior to commencement of any wetland
restoration, creation or enhancement activity. The mitigation plan shall contain at least the
following components:
1. Baseline Information. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted
wetland including, at a minimum, wetland delineation; existing wetland acreage;
vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; soil and substrate conditions; and
topographic elevations. If the compensation site is different from the impacted wetland
site, baseline information should also include existing acreage; relationship within
watershed and to existing waterbodies; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions;
buffers; and ownership.
2. Environmental Goals and Objectives. A written report shall be provided identifying
goals and objectives and describing: site selection criteria; compensation goals; target
evaluation species and resource functions; dates for beginning and completion; and a
complete description of the functions and values sought in the new wetland. The goals
and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland, or
if out-of-kind, the type of wetland to be emulated. The report shall also include an
analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the
original wetland, and the long-term viability of the project, based on the experiences
of comparable projects, if any.
20
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
3. Performance Standards. Specific measurable criteria shall be provided for evaluating
whether the goals and objectives of the project are being achieved, and for determining
when and if remedial action or contingency measures should be implemented. Such
criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation,
species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological,
geological or hydrological criteria.
4. Detailed Construction Plans. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation
techniques shall be provided, as specified by the Director.
5. Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction
of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided.
6. Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance
standards are not being met.
7. Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and
approved by the Director shall become part of the application for the permit.
8. Performance Bonds and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial
resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific
expertise of sufficient standing to successfully execute the compensation project shall
be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named and the qualifications
of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and
supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas
of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, bonds
ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any
contingency measure shall be posted in the amount of one hundred twenty (125)
` percent of the expected cost of compensation, plus a factor to be determined to allow
for inflation during the time the project is being monitored, and a ten (10) percent
administration fee to reimburse the City for costs incurred during the course of the
monitoring program.
9. Consultation with Other Agencies. Applicants are encouraged to consult with federal,
state, local agencies and tribes having expertise or interest in a compensatory
mitigation proposal.
Section 17. Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards
A. If an applicant for a development proposal demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director
that application of the standards of this ordinance would deny all reasonable economic use
of the property, development as conditioned shall be allowed if the applicant also
demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the Director:
1. That the proposed development is water-dependent or requires access to the
wetland as a central element of its basic function, or is not water-dependent but
has no practicable alternative pursuant to Section 16;
2. That no reasonable use with less impact on the wetland and its buffer is possible(e.g.,
agriculture, aquaculture, transfer or sale of development rights or credits, sale of open
space easements, etc.);
3. That there is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed development, including
reduction in density,phasing of project implementation,change in timing of activities,
revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning considerations, that would
21
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland
buffers;
4. That the proposed development will result in minimum feasible alteration or
impairment to the wetland's functional characteristics and its existing contours,
vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions;
5. That disturbance of wetlands has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration
in wetland buffers to the extent possible;
6. That the proposed development will not jeopardize the continued existence of species
listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or
documented priority species or priority habitats;
7. That the proposed development will not cause significant degradation of groundwater
or surface-water quality;
8. That the proposed development complies with all state, local and federal laws,
including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions,
and on-site wastewater disposal;
9. That any and all alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers will be mitigated as
provided in Section 6.6.
10. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the
health or safety of people on or off the property; and
11. That the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result
of actions by the applicant, or the present or prior owner of the property, in
segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the
effective date of this chapter.
B. Prior to granting any special exception under this section, the Director shall make written
findings on each of the items listed in this subsection. As part of any special exception
under this section, the applicant shall be required to take deliberate measures to minimize
wetland impacts.
Section 18. Non-conforming Wetland Activities
A. A non-conforming wetland activity is one which was begun, and to which significant
economic resources were committed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but which
activity is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. A wetland permit shall
be required for any non-conforming wetland activity if the Director determines that the
activity has been:
1. expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way after the adoption of this
ordinance, such as to increase the extent of its nonconformity;
2. discontinued for twelve continuus months after the adoption of this ordinance, except
in cases of discontinuance for normal agricultural practices; or
3. damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other
natural disaster, and where the cost of restoration exceeds fifty percent of the fair
market value of the activity at the time of damage.
22
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
B. Activities or adjuncts thereof that either are or become nuisances are not non-conforming
as defined herein and shall not be entitled to continue.
Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development
No construction pursuant to a wetland permit authorized by this ordinance shall begin or be
authorized until all necessary permits for construction have been obtained and all review and
appeal proceedings have been terminated.
Section 20. Time Limits for Permit Validity.
The following time requirements shall apply to all wetland permits:
A. Permit authorization shall terminate within three years after approval of the permit by the
Director, PROVIDED that the Director may authorize a single extension prior to the end
of the time limit for up to one year based upon reasonable factors. The extension may
only be granted based upon a written request from the applicant. The Director may require
updated studies or additional information prior to granting the extension.
B. The running of the permit time period shall not include the time during which an activity
was not actually pursued due to the pendency of reasonably related administrative appeals
or litigation.
Section 21. Revisions to Permits
When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the Director shall request from the applicant detailed
plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit. The Director shall approve the
permit where the Director determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent
of the original permit. If the proposed changes are not within the scope and intent of the
original permit, the applicant shall apply for a new permit in the manner provided for in this
ordinance.
Section 22. Rescission or Suspension of Permits
The Director may rescind or suspend a wetland permit after holding a public hearing, if any of
the following conditions are found:
A. The permittee has developed the site in a manner not authorized by the permit;
B. The permittee has not complied with the conditions of the permit;
C. The permittee has secured the permit with false or misleading information; or
D. The permit was issued in error.
Notice of the hearing on a proposed permit rescission shall be mailed to the permittee not less
than fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing.
Section 23. Enforcement
Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance and the imposition of civil
penalties for the violation of any requirements of this ordinance shall be as specified in Chapter
15.10, Enforcement of the Zoning Code.
23
DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE - SEPTEMBER 1992
Section 24. Appeals.
The following final decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, as set
forth in Kent City Code Chapter 2.54:
A. Conditioning or denial of a wetland permit; or
B. Denial of a special exception under Section 17 of this ordinance.
The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any final discretionary decision of the
Director rendered pursuant to this ordinance.
Section 25. Severability
The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of
any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance
or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 26. 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.
24
Draft
AQUIFER RBCHARGE AREAS
[To be added to the Comprehensive Plan - Public Utilities Element]
GOAL: Maintain the high guality of the City's groundwater by
protecting important ground water recharge areas from
contamination.
Objective: Continue to participate in regional ground water
management plans such as the South King County
Groundwater Management Program.
Objective: As Part of the environmental review of new
development consider the impacts of new
development on the ground water recharge areas of
potable water sources, and require appropriate
mitigation measures.
caquifer
Draft
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
[To be added to the Comprehensive Plan: Human Environment Element]
Add to Goal 2 :
Objective 3 : As part of the environmental review of new
development consider geologic hazards posed by:
erosion landslides earthquakes, coal mines,
volcanic activity, and other geologic hazards.
Ensure that development is appropriately sited and
that adequate mitigation is provided to address any
geologic hazards.
a:gcohaz
r
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 24 , 1992
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. on August 24 , 1992 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tracy Antley, Chair
Linda Martinez , Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Christopher Grant
Albert Haylor
Edward Heineman
Kent Morrill
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O 'Neill, Planner
Anne Watanabe, Planner
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF JUNE 22 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the June 22 , 1992 minutes as
presented. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion
CARRIED.
FAREWELL TO TRACY ANTLEY
Commissioner Martinez thanked Chair Antley for her outstanding
leadership through her two terms as Chair of the Planning
Commission.
Chair Antley said that staff has given new meaning to the term
"public servant" and it has been an honor and a pleasure to work
with them. She urged her fellow Commissioners to remember what it
means to be part of the public trust and wished them much success
as Planning Commissioners.
CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1
Chair Antley referred to the Draft Wetlands Ordinance dated
July 1992 which includes all the changes the Commission has made
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
over the last few months. She recommended that they go through the
ordinance a section at a time.
Section 1. short Title, Authority and Purpose
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 1 as written for
forwarding to the City Council. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the
motion. Motion CARRIED.
section 2 . Definitions
Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 2 as written.
Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez made
a friendly amendment to delete the new definition of "growing
season" . She felt that it complicates things because it gives Kent
a unique and different definition of growing season than any other
body within the state. Commissioners Ward and Grant accepted the
friendly amendment. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department
pointed out that the words "during the growing season" were also
added to the definition of "wetlands" . Chair Antley said that
means they would also have to delete that language from the
definition of "wetlands" to make the ordinance consistent.
Commissioner Haylor felt the definitions should remain as they are,
otherwise it would snowball and they would end up tearing apart the
whole document which they had already worked on.
Commissioners Ward and Grant did not accept the addition to the
friendly amendment so the friendly amendment failed.
Commissioner Heineman said he was instrumental in having this
definition added in the beginning because he felt the definition of
wetland was not suitable for our particular area. He thinks if
the Commission believes they are correct, they should not change
their view merely to be in conformity with other jurisdictions. He
made a friendly amendment to retain the definition of growing
season and add "Growing season, for the purposes of these
regulations, may be considered to be the period from March 1
through October 31 of any calendar year" . Commissioner Morrill
SECONDED the friendly amendment. Commissioners Ward and Grant
accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Watanabe said that language
would conform very closely with the way the growing season is
actually interpreted right now, so it would avoid some of the
confusion that might otherwise arise.
Commissioner Martinez asked how the field person would interpret it
if we have two definitions of growing season. Ms. Watanabe said
that in light of the fact that the current draft is referencing the
1987 Manual, she doesn't think they are setting up a total
inconsistency.
2
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
The motion with the friendly amendment CARRIED.
Section 3. General Provisions
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 3 .
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 4. Lands to Which this chapter Applies
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 4 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section S. Wetlands Rating System
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 5 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 6. Wetland Permit Required; Regulated Activities
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 6 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 7. Allowed Activities
Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept Section 7 .
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section S. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit
Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section S . Commissioner Martinez
SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 9 . Prohibited Activities
commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 9 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 10 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 11. Wetland Buffers
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 11 .
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
3
Kent Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Section 12 . Avoiding Wetland Impacts
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 12 .
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 13. Limited Density Transfer
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 13 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 14 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 15. Notice on Title
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 15 .
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED with
Commissioner Haylor voting against.
Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 16 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 17 . Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 17 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 18. Non-conforming Wetland Activities
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 18 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 19 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 20. Time Limits for Permit Validity
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 20 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
4
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
Section 21. Revisions to Permits
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 21 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 22 . Rescission or Suspension of Permits
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 22 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 23. Enforcement
Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept Section 23 .
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 24. Appeals
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 24 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 25. Severability
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 25 .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Section 26. Effective Date
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 26 .
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Ted Knapp asked that a letter that was sent to the Commissioners by
the Chamber of Commerce be made part of the public record.
Commissioner Martinez pointed out that the letter was received
after the public hearing was closed. Chair Antley said the letter
would be part of the public record to the extent that every letter
they receive is part of the public record. She suggested that he
go ahead and send it to the City Council members.
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the draft statement on
Aquifer Recharge Areas and recommend to Council that it be added to
the Public Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to add the Geologically Hazardous Areas
draft to Goal 2 of the Human Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion.
Motion CARRIED.
5
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS
Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department said that the 1990 Growth
Management Act outlined several planning goals that were to provide
the framework for each jurisdiction in doing their own individual
comprehensive plans. The 1991 amendment to that Act required each
county to further refine and adopt countywide planning policies so
that every jurisdiction within the county would be fairly
consistent with certain types of framework policies.
Early this year we went through an intensive public participation
process called the Kent Community Forum and the Visual Preference
Survey where we went out to the community and asked several
questions relating to growth management issues and also asked
citizens to respond to the type of development pattern they'd like
to see in the community in the future.
What this process does is fuse those three processes in terms of
proposing framework planning goals for the City which are modeled
after the state and county goals, but also involve some of the
local planning priorities which were indicated throughout the
Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey process.
Mr. O 'Neill pointed out that they went through a public process on
these draft goals. They developed a questionnaire which was sent
to each person who participated in the Community Forum. They also
had two public forums where they presented some of these ideas and
got comments from people.
Since staff went through all of the goals in some detail at the
last workshop, Mr. O'Neill proposed to highlight some of the
changes which are based on comments received from the Commissioners
and also from the public during the questionnaire and public forum
process.
The subject categories were selected to follow as closely as
possible the 13 planning goals in the Growth Management Act. Some
additions were made based on issues that are important in Kent,
particularly human services, urban design and economic development.
In the Urban Growth category, a minor change was made to UG-1 to
emphasize that the particular type of urban sprawl that we would
seek to minimize would be the conversion of undeveloped land not
presently in the City into low density urban development.
The last sentence of UG-2 has been modified to say "The Urban
Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate at least
twenty years of residential, commercial, and industrial growth. . .
6
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
The words "at least" were added because some of the people who
reviewed the goals felt that twenty years was too limiting and
perhaps we should be looking beyond that.
Regarding UG-61 background information was provided to the
Commissioners relating to the specific description of urban centers
in the Countywide Planning Policies. A map was also provided
showing what a conceptual 1-1/2 square mile urban center might look
like.
There are four Transportation goals which emphasize the multi-modal
approach to transportation. They also emphasize the support for
development of public transit and programs which reduce the number
of single occupancy vehicles. People in the Community Forum
process felt strongly about both of these issues.
In terms of Housing, H-1 was amended to emphasize that we would be
preserving and improving single-family and multi-family residential
neighborhoods.
The first word of H-3 was changed from "ensure" to "encourage" and
the second sentence was changed to read "Assure that opportunities
for a diversity of housing are available to all income levels" .
The same type of change was made in H-7 to say "ensure
opportunities for affordable housing" as opposed to just "ensure
affordable housing" .
The human services goals have not been changed since the workshop.
In Economic Development, Mr. O'Neill suggested that the
Commissioners might want to make the same type of change in ED-1
that they made to the Urban Growth section and say "at least the
next 20 years of growth" to make it a little more flexible.
Anne Watanabe said that the first item under Property Rights, which
was intended to be a restatement of what the constitutional law is
with regard to compensation for takings, was deleted. It generated
a lot of comments as far as interpreting the section and because it
was simply meant to reflect existing constitutional protections for
landowners, they felt it was best to just leave it out.
Under the Permits section, the public' s health was added to P-1 in
addition to the safety and welfare being involved.
In the Natural Resource Industries section, an example of clustered
patterns of residential development being appropriate in rural
areas was deleted from NR-4 because the comments received indicated
it was rather confusing.
7
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
Under Open Space and Recreation, OS-1 was split into two sentences
to make it a little more comprehensible. OS-5 was added to address
that there be some
ra reuest from the egar Parks ding the r gularupdatepoftthet language
Comprehensive Park Plan.
There were no changes to the Environment section.
Mr. O'Neill said the Public Facilities goals are meant to emphasize
the goals in the Act and the Countywide Planning policies
about
linking development with services and the ability to pay for
Urban Design is a section for which there is no framework under
Growth Management. It has been an emphasis of our planning to date
and these goals make it clear that it will continue to be so.
There were no changes to the Historic Preservation section.
The Growth Management Act requires early and continuous public
participation and the Community Involvement section is a proposed
local goal relating to that.
Commissioner Martinez asked if there is anything that the
Commission or the City has done or the way we are funding our
infrastructure that is absolutely counter to what we're saying in
goal PF-2 . She particularly was thinking of the way we fund LID' s
as a reactive mode. She believes the intent of PF-2 is to push us
toward something else and wondered if that was the understanding of
the Planning Department as well. Mr. O'Neill said it is. The Act
makes it perfectly clear that capital facilities planning needs to
be part of the Comprehensive Plan. This goal would change the way
things are done.
Paul Seely of the Boeing Company, 7735 E. Marginal Way, spoke about
the Countywide Planning Policies. He feels communities should have
the right to prescribe how they want to grow.
Commissioner Martinez said they are looking at specific language in
the planning goals, many of which are fully supported by our
visioning and our community preference forums. She asked Mr. Seely
what specifically he would like them to consider that they haven't.
Mr. Seely said he would have liked to rewrite the whole thing.
Commissioner Martinez asked if he was talking about the county' s
part and not Kent' s part. He said he was. He would be satisfied
with having us ratify it as-is as long as we ask them to do a
supplementary EIS and financial impact analysis. Fred Satterstrom
said there may be some confusion because Mr. Seely is speaking
largely to the Countywide Planning Policies, some of which have
been appended to the staff report on Planning Goals. That may have
8
Kent Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
given Mr. Seely and others the impression that the Planning
Commission was going to be acting on the ratification process.
There will be a public hearing on that before the City Council on
September 1. Because it is a ratification process, it bypassed the
Planning Commission.
Chair Antley asked Mr. Seely what he would like to see changed in
the section on Economic Development. She said if she understood
him correctly, he didn't really have any problems with our goals as
long as when we get down to objectives and the activities to meet
the objectives which in turn meet the goals, that there are other
things we need to keep in mind. Mr. Seely said that was correct.
Hugh Leiper of American Commercial Industries, 1819 S. Central,
Suite 116, talked about where the boundaries of Kent should be.
Commissioner Haylor pointed out that the Planning Commission has
already approved and passed on to Council their proposed urban
growth area boundary.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Martinez said she would like to have some further
discussion on UG-6 which is Kent designating an urban center area.
She is not convinced that designating ourselves as an urban center
would do a lot for the City of Kent. It may be the only way we get
transit in here, but it seems to her to be using a very heavy club
to accomplish a goal.
Commissioner Heineman said he can see Kent as an urban center, but
he's afraid that his definition of urban center does not agree with
the county' s definition. He wondered if the Commission really
needs to get into that right now. Commissioner Martinez said it
seems to her that if they incorporate that, it means what the
county has said it means. Chair Antley said she thinks they're
stuck with that unless they want to come up with their own
definition.
James Harris of the Planning Department said that the county seems
to be saying if you want to be an urban city, these are some
parameters within which you have to work. He thinks the cities
that become urban centers are going to get the transit money and
the money to do all these good things and if you don't want to be
an urban center, those kinds of monies may not come to your
community. He feels we want to keep our options open and not cut
ourselves off at this point by saying we don't even want to
consider it.
9
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
Mr. O'Neill said the reason this goal is in the document is because
under the Countywide Planning Policies that have been adopted to
date by the County Council, all jurisdictions of the county will
have to decide by October 1 whether they want to apply to the
Growth Management Planning Council to be an urban center or not.
The Countywide Planning Policies likely will be amended throughout
the next year, but we don't know what those amendments are going to
be. One action the Commissioners may wish to consider is keeping
the goal of the urban center in there, but passing on any concerns
they have about it to the City Council. The City Council will be
considering ratification of the Countywide Planning Policies as a
whole, as well as these Planning Goals, and can pass on the
Commission's concerns to King County.
Chair Antley said she shares everyone's concern about the
definition of an urban center, but thinks she would rather err on
the side of saying this is something we wish to work toward. If we
either fail to achieve it due to various other circumstances or we
just plain change our minds, we will be far better off by saying
"yes, we' ll play this game" now than by saying "no, we're not going
to play this game at all" . This is our window of opportunity.
Commissioner Ward agreed with Chair Antley. If we say we don't
want to participate, we surely won't get anything. If we say we
want to participate and we decide later that we can't make it or we
don't meet the objectives or the plan, then that' s a different
thing. But if you remove yourself from the competition by
restricting what your plan would be and just stating unequivocally
that you want to be outside that plan of action, then you surely
won't get anything.
Commissioner Martinez said that 30 years ago we decided to play a
game and bring some manufacturing in which we have been trying to
get rid of for 30 years. Twenty years ago we decided to be a
warehouse place and we succeeded mightily and now we 're all unhappy
about that. Ten years ago we decided to be a multifamily community
and we succeeded mightily at that. She is afraid that one more
time we will succeed at doing something that is not very well
conceived. The visioning that she saw from the citizens was more
of an urban village than an urban center with 50, 000 jobs within a
mile and a half radius. She has really serious concerns that if we
designate ourselves as an urban center without further thought, the
first thing that will happen is that indeed transit will come and
all of the other things will happen. We will not be in control of
our destiny and what we' ll end up with is a city that no one wants
to live in. We moved to Kent to be in a community like Kent.
10
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
Commissioner Ward said he has the impression that if you're a game
player and there's only one game in town and you're not a part of
that game, then you're left standing. He believes the county is
not really sure what the final definition of a true urban center
will be, but if Kent is not a part of it, it will be to our
detriment. He feels that the development in terms of warehousing
and manufacturing has been somewhat of a positive thing in the
sense that it is growth. He still believes that a City either
regenerates itself by growing or it dries up and dies. Kent has
tried to grow a little too fast in some area, but the net result is
still positive.
Commissioner Dahle said that if you go back 35 years, Kent was an
urban center. It has now fallen apart and it takes time to
regenerate and get it going again. She feels it should be
designated as an urban center.
Commissioner Martinez said she doesn't disagree with what
Commissioners Ward and Dahle said. She is uncomfortable with the
present wording and suggested we may just want to add "in alignment
with the vision of the community forums" or "of the community of
Kent" just to make it very clear that we want to guide our own
destiny. Mr. Harris said he thinks that' s a good idea because the
vision that the citizens had was more of a design vision; what the
community will look like. We would not want to foreclose the
opportunity, but on our terms and design. How this thing's going
to look. Chair Antley proposed adding an additional sentence to
UG-6 which would say "This area will mirror the visioning which was
developed through Kent ' s public forums" . All the Commissioners
agreed.
In the Housing section, Commissioner Grant thought that again they
could refer back to the public forums because there was a lot of
input from the public concerning housing. Chair Antley suggested
that they add a footnote to the Housing section.
Commissioner Dahle asked if we got any feedback from the people who
received the community forum report. She felt that the conclusions
in the report were not the conclusions reached by the people at the
meeting she attended. Mr. O'Neill said he was not aware of any
comments about the report. The draft planning goals were sent to
all the participants of that process with an evaluation form and
they did receive some comments on the goals, which is the reason
some of the language has been changed. After much discussion it
was decided that rather than adding footnotes throughout the entire
document, the following language should be added to the
introduction: The following Planning Goals shall be interpreted
in light of the vision for Kent which was developed by the
Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, June 1992" .
11
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
This would also allow the additional language to be removed from
UG-6.
Under Economic Development, it was decided to change ED-1 to read
"at least the next 20 years of growth" .
Commissioner Dahle said she is still not happy with the Property
Rights section because it still does not say that you shall not
take over property rights without just compensation for the land.
Chair Antley said she does not think this is the document for them
to interpret state or federal law. It is a goals statement and she
doesn't feel we should lock ourselves into a statement which
doesn't need to be stated because it's a constitutional issue.
Commissioner Heineman didn't feel that they could go any farther
than they have as long as they're talking about goals. They are
not in the business of creating law or defining law. Staff
referred the Commissioners to Appendix A which is the Growth
Management Act Planning Goals. The property rights section is
almost identical to what was in the first draft of the City' s
Planning Goals and it would not hurt to exactly restate what is in
the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to put the
language "Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation having been made" back into the Property
Rights section as PR-1. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion.
The motion CARRIED with Chair Antley voting against.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to adopt the Planning Goals as amended.
Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the
meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja es P. Har is, Secretary
JPH/ljh: 82492 .min
12
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
fA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
ID. PLANNING COMMITTEE
JE. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
JF. PARKS COMMITTEE
IG. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
`� c C
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
City Clerk
September 15, 1992
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Leona Orr
Jim White
STAFF PRESENT: Lin Ball
Robb Dreblow
Charlie Lindsey
Roger Lubovich
Tony McCarthy
Alana Mclalwain
May Miller
Kelh O'Donnell
Ron Spang
Nancy Woo
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bob Christiansen
Bill Doolittle
Jean Parietti
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Chairperson Houser.
Approval of Vouchers
All claims for the period ending August 14, 1992, in the amount of$2,794,515.01; for the period ending
August 31, 1992, in the amount of$1,167,904.22; and, for the period ending September 15, 1992, in the
amount of$2,437,716.47, were approved for payment.
Landlord Liability for Unpaid Tenant Utility Bill
Customer Services Manager Lindsey informed the Committee that currently Washington State law allows
for the City to place liens against property for unpaid water bills. There have been numerous concerns
raised by landlords to the legislature of having liens put on their property for tenants liability. It is possible
that the laws may be changed and municipalities in the area are looking at other possible resolutions. Area
cities and water districts have proposed a meeting with landlords and their lobbyists and feel that a
facilitator should conduct the meeting. They have asked participating cities to share in the cost of$200-
$300 per participant. After a brief discussion, the Committee Chair concurred with the recommendation
to pay the City's portion out of the Utility Billing Fund.
Walk Through Old Police Wing -- Furniture Disposal
Finance Director McCarthy invited those present to walk through the old Police wing after which the
Committee would reconvene to discuss remodeling/funding. Lindsey also noted that a decision needs to
be made regarding the handling of old furniture. He distributed a list of options and added the option of
storing the inventory until after the remodel to see if there are additonal needs at that time. City Attorney
Lubovich added that his department may have additional needs if they gain more space and would be
willing to use what the City has instead of purchasing new furnishings. Committeemember White noted
that if we do not do the remodel we would have the extra space to leave the furniture. McCarthy added
that if it is decided to store the furniture, whatever is not needed can be disposed of at a regularly
scheduled auction at a later date.
1
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
September 15, 1992
The Committee walked through the old Police wing.
Upon reconvening McCarthy noted that the 1992 City hall remodel- reallocation of space has a budget of
$457,000 from the 1992 CIP. White asked for a clarification of where these funds came from as his
understanding was there was no CIP funds. McCarthy responded that these funds were allocated in the
1992 CIP process. McCarthy reviewed the advantages of proceeding with the remodel. The
Financedepartment has been overcrowded since 1983 and has not received any additional space. the
heating/air/light system is over 20 years old and in need of replacement. Puget Power has indicated that
the City is eligible for a $100,000 energy grant in addition to the energy savings the City would receive
with an updated system. Opening up access to the Police building through City hall has already been
accomplished. The move would also open up space for additional needs such as a future Municipal Court
or moving the recreation staff back from the Commons and having a centralized cashier.
McCarthy introduced Bob Christiansen to answer any questions the Committee had. McCarthy noted
construction has been recommended for three phases to be completed in the first five months of 1993. The
original budget was for the south wing. Spending money on the north wing throws the project over budget
with the biggest hit being the heating/air/light renovations. If the south wing only is done, the City may
lose some or all of the grant from Puget Power.
McCarthy reviewed with the Committee the proposed layouts for the departments. After further discussion,
White again questioned the CIP funds and questioned whether it was a wise business decision to proceed
with this now. He suggested looking at other needs City-wide these funds could be applied to. Committee
Chair Houser suggested doing the heating portion only with the matching funds and fix the other systems
as necessary. McCarthy noted the need for more efficient lighting. Houser noted that there is useable
space without remodeling on the second and third floor if the heating and lighting is fixed. During further
discussion, White suggested that City needs be revisited with department submittals evaluated with the
remodel. After reviewing the 1992 CIP, McCarthy noted that there will be $800,000 available in 1993.
McCarthy noted that the Mayor was inclined to proceed with the remodeling that has been budgeted.
White responded that the Mayor has that option but the bid will be brought to Council. McCarthy replied
that he will bring back some alternatives as suggested to the Operations Committee at the next meeting.
Added Item
Community Events Coordinator Woo asked the Operations Committee if the Senior Housing Name Contest
could be moved to the Planning Committee due to the Operations Committee time limitations. Houser
agreed with the suggestion.
After questions by Bill Doolittle, Chairperson Houser adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
2
CITY OF LU�LSV
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 4 : 00 PM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF
Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker
Jim Bennett Roger Lubovich
Jon Johnson Alana McIalwain
Judy Woods, Council President Tony McCarthy
PLANNING STAFF GUESTS
Lin Ball Steve Burpie
Sharon Clamp Jim Dion
James Harris Bill Doolittle
Rachel Johnston Marvin Eckfeldt
Kevin O'Neill James Frymier
Margaret Porter Ed Heineman
Fred Satterstrom Hugh Leeper
Alice Shobe Larry Metler
Janet Shull Dee Moschel
Jean Parietti
Mike Reilly
Diane Richards
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the City recently
received a letter from the City of Sea Tac expressing concern that
a portion of Kent's urban growth area extends into the city limits
of Sea Tac. Sea Tac is asking that area be deleted from Kent's
urban growth area because of wording in one of our planning goals,
Urban Growth Policy-2 which states, "The Urban Growth Area shall
provide enough land to accommodate at least 20 years of
residential, commercial, and industrial growth, and will represent
the City's future annexation area. " Staff proposes that the growth
management planning goals be pulled from tonight' s Council agenda
so the language, "will represent the City' s future annexation area"
can be deleted. This will satisfy the City of Sea Tac's objection
to Kent 's urban growth planning area extending into Sea Tac. He
explained that in setting urban growth boundaries, staff used
Kent's proposed annexation area from 4-5 years ago, and Sea Tac has
since incorporated. Staff commonly uses the urban growth area as
a discussion for our comprehensive planning area.
Chair Orr feels the boundaries on the map should be changed rather
than deleting the language from the planning goal. The Committee
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 2
agreed that the planning goals language should not be deleted but
that the Urban Growth Area resolution should be pulled from the
Council agenda.
Staff requested that the Planning Goals Resolution be pulled from
tonight' s Council agenda because of a request from Soos Creek Water
and Sewer District requesting that Policy PF-4 be changed to read
" . . .the City sal may assume urban services which are presently
provided by special districts. " Chair Orr and the Planning
Committee agreed to recommend that the full Council pull this item
from the consent calendar, modify the language, and place it back
onto the consent calendar.
SEPA ORDINANCE (J. HARRIS)
Planning Director Harris explained that effective September 1, 1992
the State legislature changed the SEPA laws to affect the time
frame within which a jurisdiction can deal with a SEPA checklist.
The new law states that a city must complete its review and issue
a threshold determination within 90 days of the date of receipt of
a checklist. The law also states that within 30 days of receipt of
a checklist, the City shall notify the applicant whether or not the
checklist is complete. Mr. Harris further explained that the SEPA
ordinance needs to be amended to bring its sections into compliance
with the new law.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to accept the SEPA ordinance as amended. Motion carried.
The revised ordinance will be presented to the full Council on
October 6, 1992 .
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES RESOLUTION (K. O'NEILL)
Planner Kevin O'Neill reviewed a draft resolution regarding
ratification of the countywide planning policies and specifically
pointed out the language of Section 3 , "In the event that any
subpolicy within the countywide planning policies is found to be
inconsistent with the City of Kent locally adopted Comprehensive
Plan policies prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the
City of Kent policy will prevail. " This language was added to the
resolution at the request of Councilmember Johnson. Planning
Director Harris related that he has been informed by Judy Chapman
from King County that adoption of this language will, in effect,
constitute non-ratification of the policies. Councilmember Johnson
feels that the provision contained in Section 3 is minor and does
not have a significant impact over the remainder of the policies
which are being adopted. The question was raised as to who would
be empowered to determine an inconsistency.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 3
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to recommend to the full Council the resolution regarding
ratification of the countywide planning policies as presented.
Motion carried.
1993 PROPOSED HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
(R. JOHNSTON)
Planner Rachel Johnston informed the Committee that this is an
information item rather than an action item. She explained that
the Human Services Roundtable will formally adopt its proposed 1993
legislative agenda on September 16, 1992 , and is asking local
jurisdictions for their input regarding the proposed agenda. The
proposed agenda was developed around the Roundtable 's action agenda
consisting of four priorities: housing, family support and family
violence, children' s issues, and health care. Each priority area
is categorized by tiers. Tier 1 items are those on which the
Roundtable will take a leadership role. Tier 2 items receive major
Roundtable support, and Tier 3 items are those which the Roundtable
supports, but monitors rather than investing time and effort. The
Human Services Commission reviewed and approved the proposed agenda
at its August 27 meeting and voiced their concern regarding the
fact that all the health care issues are rated tier two rather than
tier 1. Under children' s issues, the Commission suggested that the
first item, "support legislative changes and funding for prevention
of child abuse and neglect" , be categorized as a tier 1 item, not
tier 2 and moved to the family support and family violence section
because child abuse issues are considered to be family violence
issues.
All the Committee members were in agreement with the Human Services
Commission's recommendations.
ADDED ITEMS
1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (L. BALL)
Human Services Manager Lin Ball reminded the Committee that at
their September 1, 1992 meeting, they approved the proposed 1993
Community Development Block Grant Program. Subsequent to that
time, staff discovered a need to make three revisions to the public
(human) services program. The first revision is due to a County
requirement to establish a contingency plan for the public (human)
services funding in case the federal entitlement comes in at a
level higher or lower than estimated. The other two revisions are
due to an error which resulted in allocating more money to an
agency than was requested. The Human Services Commission
considered these changes and made the following recommendations:
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15 , 1992
PAGE 4
1. Contingency: If the City receives an increased or decreased
entitlement, the YWCA Domestic Violence Housing project shall
be increased or decreased accordingly.
2 . Community Health Centers recommended funding level is changed
to $16, 300.
3 . YWCA Domestic Violence Housing funding level is changed to
$20, 948 .
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to approve the proposed 1993 Community Development Block
Grant Program as revised and forward for adoption to the full City
Council' on September 15, 1992 . Motion carried.
SENIOR HOUSING FOOD SERVICE CONTRACT
Councilmember Bennett stated that since the food service contract
for the senior housing project was last discussed at the Planning
Committee, a petition has been signed at the Kent Senior Center and
two issues have arisen from senior citizens:
1. Senior citizens do not like to be told what they have to do.
2 . Many seniors feel that $90. 00 per month combined with food
stamps will provide three meals per day plus desert.
Human Services Manager Lin Ball stated that it is more than just
the meal itself that is involved in the meal service; it is looking
at the overall well being of the senior citizen. Having a meal
program encourages the seniors to get out of their apartments at
least once per day, it builds community, and provides staff and
other residents an opportunity to observe and see if there is a
problem. For example, if someone does not show up for a meal it
alerts someone to check and see if there is a problem. In arriving
at the food service component, input from the following sources was
taken:
1. Two public hearings attended by senior citizens.
2 . A survey taken by the original senior housing committee which
showed over one-half of the respondents wanting food and
medical services.
3 . Recommendations from a consultant experienced in senior
housing projects.
4 . Social services community representatives who work directly
with senior citizens.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 5
Marvin Eckfeldt stated that he was on the original committee and
was present at the hearings where testimony was taken regarding
what services should be provided at the facility. Mr. Eckfeldt
stated it is interesting that the majority of those who are opposed
to amenities in the senior housing are those who are living alone
independently and doing well. The seniors who spoke for the need
for food services and other supporting services are seniors who are
living alone and are more frail than those who are opposed to such
services. There seems to be a great difference of opinion based on
how well someone can function at the present time. The committee's
research indicates that if food service is not originally built
into the housing project, it will need to be added later and it is
very costly to add after the fact.
Jim Dion of the King County Housing Authority stated he has been
part of the committee working on this project for over one and one-
half years. The King County Housing Authority owns and operates
approximately 2500 units through the County designated solely for
senior citizens. These units are all alike in that they all
provide affordable, low cost housing. However, over the last 20
years the County has observed a pattern where seniors move in, many
initially with greater needs, but almost everyone over time ageing
in place with those needs increasing, and the we have been
completely unable to address and response to these needs. The food
service concept was not an add-on to the program. The entire
concept has been built around the idea that the food service is an
integral part that is essential for the people of this building to
live independently and, more importantly, delay any necessity for
them to move out of the building into a nursing home. Nutrition is
the most important component there is in a senior housing project.
The Housing Authority has observed numerous cases where seniors
have not had the basic, minimum nutritional requirements. This is
only one of their problems. When the system has gone out of
balance other problems automatically occur. Speaking for the
Housing Authority, Mr. Dion stated he cannot emphasize enough how
important this food service component is and strongly encourages
the continuation of the program.
Diane Richards, Case Manager for Seattle King County Division on
Ageing, stated she sees people over 60 years old in their homes who
are frail and vulnerable and cannot make it to the senior centers
because they are not physically able to do so. She speaks for
those in their homes who are unable to get out and make their needs
known. Ms. Richards feels the meal service is very important
because seniors who become malnourished may experience irreparable
harm. The Kent senior housing project is an excellent opportunity
to do something special and extra, and she would hate to see it
simply become low income housing.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 6
James Frymier stated he has been serving as a consultant to the
senior housing committee. Mr. Frymier stated he is putting
together a request for proposal to go to bid on the food service
contract. One-half of the $90. 00 cost pays for raw food. They
hope to contract with a provider who will be willing to use donated
food, for example FDA and other sources. They also hope there will
be some residents who would like to help with the cooking in
exchange for their meals. Providing a meal service will give staff
the opportunity to work with residents to coordinate medical
appointments, transportation issues and provided visual observation
to see how the residents are doing.
Jim Dion stated he realizes the meal service program may not be
desired by everyone, however, no money has been spent on marketing
and during the first two and one-half days of accepting
applications over 130 applications were received for 94 units.
There are currently 150+ applications.
Chair Orr feels that between the cost of the meal service and the
rent, this project still offers extremely affordable housing based
on what is available in other areas.
Human Services Manager Ball clarified for Councilmember Bennett
that the wording in the ordinance for the original bond issue and
the brochure that was sent to voters stated, "to provide housing
and related facilities" . The bond issue originated as a result of
the assisted housing study which identified the need for low income
housing for over 300 senior citizens. The report from this study
addresses providing support services when implementing a senior
housing bond issue.
Ms. Ball provided a comparison between the Kent project and two
similar projects; Broadway Plaza in Everett and Life Manor in
Tacoma. Broadway Plaza 's food service costs $130 for one meal and
Life Manor 's rent is $295 for a one bedroom compared to Kent' s
$210. The food service at Life Manor is $129 .
Chair Orr stated she goes back to the original committee, the
assisted housing committee. At that time some type of related
services, a kitchen or rooms for visiting nurses or doctors, was
discussed. The issue of ageing in place was discussed so that a
resident would not have to leave their home and go into a more
expensive situation. She feels the committees have had the same
goals all along. She is comfortable with what has been done and
does not see the need to ask the City Council to change anything at
this point.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
PAGE 7
Finance Director Tony McCarthy requested an agenda item be added to
the next Planning Committee meeting dealing with a resolution
support the Metro merger. There was no objection from the
Committee members.
Chair Orr clarified with Alana McIalwain that the Senior Housing
Name Contest is to be placed . on the agenda for the October 6
meeting.
Hugh Leeper distributed a copy of the activities map from the City
of Kent Parks Department 1992 brochure and stated that we are
already directly involved in activities beyond the boundaries of
Kent and asked the Committee to take this information into
consideration when talking about boundaries. He is concerned about
the eastern boundaries.
Planning Director Harris respectfully requested to Chair Orr that
when others bring added items to the Planning Committee, other than
the Planning Department, that Chair Orr direct these individuals to
Margaret Porter in order to alleviate miscommunications.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5: 27 p.m.
PC0915.92
CITY CLERK
PUBLIC WORKS COMT
SEPTEMBER 16, 1
PRESENT: JIM WHITE MAY MILLER
JIM BENNETT ED WHITE
PAUL MANN TIM LAPORTE
DON WICKSTROM KEVIN LINDELL
TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST
GARY GILL LARRY STOUGARD
PAMELA NEWCOMER
Triangle Apartments - Access Issue on 4th Avenue
Tom Brubaker commented that after his review, he did not see any
strong legal basis at all for the developer to impose any liability
on the City. He commented he did not find that the City had
promised access on 4th but that we had required that the
neighborhood be protected from impact and offered 4th as a possible
alternative. If they have any recourse it should be from the State
since the State is denying access. A secondary issue, which
Brubaker stated he could not recommend, is whether the City can use
its condemnation authority to provide the developer with separate
access so long as they pay the costs. Brubaker commented it is
arguable that the City can but it is just as likely we would be
facing litigation. Wickstrom added that the long term concern is
that this is vacant property zoned multifamily and will ultimately
develop. If there is no access off 4th, Council needs to consider
how they want the property to develop. It was industrial at one
time and was changed to multifamily. If there is no access,
Wickstrom suggested, Council might want to look at the zoning. Jim
White asked if the City had issued a permit for the project.
Wickstrom stated the State had originally allowed them to cross the
limited access and then reversed that decision. Gill stated that
Engineering had completed their review of the plans. Building had
completed plan review up to a point where red-lined plans had been
sent back for corrections. Building was waiting for the developer
to revise their plans in order to do the final review. Jim White
stated he was not comfortable allowing traffic to access either on
3rd or 2nd. Those are substandard streets and not fair to the
single family neighborhoods. It was clarified for Jim Bennett that
the project would be subject to codes existing at the time they
submitted for a permit if they have not allowed their submittal to
expire. If they let the project drop and then reapply, the new
codes would be applicable. Responding to Jim White's question,
Wickstrom indicated that we had not told them they couldn't use 3rd
or 2nd or 1st. But we would tell them which of those streets we
would allow to be used for access and they would have to make
improvements for their type of use. The developer, however, feels
their development would not be marketable with any access other
than 4th. Brubaker explained that the question before the
Public Works Committee
September 16, 1992
Page 2
Committee is whether the City is willing to commence a condemnation
proceeding or other action to obtain access off 4th. The Committee
agreed that the City should not take such action. Jim White stated
that if the property were going to develop in the future he would
not feel comfortable with access either on 1st, 2nd or 3rd. He
suggested this be sent to the Planning committee to address the
zoning of the area. Paul Mann added that emergency services need
to be addressed as well. Wickstrom stated he had received a call
from one of the residents of the area who indicated the developer
had given them a letter stating he would not use either 1st, 2nd,
or 3rd for access.
Bicycle Advisory Board Request - 196th Corridor
Larry Stougard, chair of Kent's Bicycle Advisory Board, stated that
the Advisory Board had concerns about the bicycle facilities on the
196th Corridor. He stated that King County will be building bike
lanes on their portion of the corridor but Kent does not plan for
bike lanes on the middle portion. He continued that there would be
no connection to the Interurban Trail and Green River Trail. He
continued that the Advisory Board would like to see a continuation
of the bike access lane. At the least they would like to see
access from the Interurban Trail and make the southside sidewalk a
multiuse trail for both bicycles and pedestrians. He alluded to
the CTR program and Boeing's support to encourage bicyclists as
well as Metro's pilot program to provide bicycle access on busses.
Jim White asked if the Advisory Board's intent was to make every
street and thoroughfare bicycle accessible. Mr. Stougard indicated
it was not but providing a safe lane at specifically spaced
intervals such as the corridors is a logical answer to moving the
people on bicycles from the east hill. Jim White asked if an
alternative of providing bicycle access on 212th would be
considered. Mr. Stougard stated the Board would probably be open
to look at it. The concerns would be that the County would be
funneling bicycles on 196th and they would have to then figure out
how to get over to 212th. White referred to staff memo indicating
that providing bike lanes on this 1 mile section would cost
approximately $5 million. LaPorte reviewed for the Committee and
Mr. Stougard that the ASHTO design criteria for bike lanes is that
they are 10 feet in width providing dual lanes. Referring to Mr.
Stougard's suggestion that the sidewalk on the bridge section be a
shared facility, LaPorte again referred to ASHTO criteria which
recommends against that. Wickstrom further pointed out that this
portion of the corridor is a retrofit of the road in an existing
developed area. Bike lanes will be provided on portions of the
west leg but the middle leg is being fit into an existing high
density warehouse development. We are having trouble fitting just
the basic road without doing extensive damage to the properties.
Public Works Committee
September 16, 1992
Page 3
If we widen it further we will end up having to purchase a
warehouse. He continued that HOV lanes on 212th are included in
our six year plan. The County will be budgeting funds and we hope
to budget funds in next year's budget to do a feasibility study for
HOV lanes on 212th. He commented he thought that would be a more
appropriate corridor. for a cross tie. He stated that we can tie
the Interurban Trail into 196th but it will parallel the buttress
of the fill and tie into the road. Wickstrom added that this is
the most expensive section of the 196th Corridor. The cost of the
west and east legs of the corridor doesn't equal the cost of the
middle corridor. To add additional width would in likelihood kill
the project as we do not have funding available. Bennett confirmed
that if a bike lane were not provided on this portion that bikes
could still use either the traffic lanes or the sidewalk. LaPorte
added that providing a bike lane would not insure their safety due
to the volume of the truck traffic in the area. Stougard stated
that providing access to the Interurban Trail and possibly signing
the sidewalk for bicycle use would probably be satisfactory. The
Committee suggested that the Advisory Board continue to work with
staff on this alternative.
South County Area Transportation Board
Wickstrom explained this is a board assembled to coordinate the
various regional transportation projects. Initially the County
will be providing the staff. Long term, the cities and County
would be sharing these costs. Jim White added that the real
purpose of the Board is to put additional emphasis on
transportation for south county. Jim White indicated he would be
willing to act as the City's representative on this Board. The
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the resolution and
Jim White serve as the City's representative on the South County
Area Transportation Board with Don Wickstrom as the alternate.
Other Items
Mrs. Rust again asked for clarification of the City policy of
employees not using City vehicle for personal use during working
hours. May Miller stated that the policy does allow use of City
vehicles for personal use such as lunch when it is cost prohibitive
for the employee to bring the vehicle back to City Hall. Jim
Bennett added that it has to be properly managed by the Department
Heads. It was clarified for Mrs. Rust that the policy was
developed as a result of citizen complaints and concerns about the
use of City vehicles.