HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/17/1998 Colty of Kent
CityCouncil Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF
Mayor Jim White
Councilmembers
Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly
Tom Brotherton Judy Woods
Tim Clark Rico Yingling
November 17, 1998
Office of the City Clerk
CITY or ZLa!!SV 4T
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
IN VICTA November 17, 1998
Mayor Jim White Council Chambers
7 : 00 p .m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark
Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling
1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2 . ROLL CALL
3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC
4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
None
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
, A. 1999 Budget and Tax Levy
B . Adult Retail Establishment Moratorium - Resolution /Sd /
6 . CONSENT CALENDAR
✓A. Approval of Minutes
>' B. Approval of Bills
,. C. Public Defense Services Contract - Authorization
I" D. Tacoma Water Supply Project Interim Funding Agreement -
Authorization
✓E . Tri-Star Disposal, Change in Control - Consent
db --F. 1724 Regulations, Land Use & Planning - Ordinance 34:z`f
G. Cherrywood Lane - Bill of Sale --�`
H. Pacific Heights Final Plat - Set Meeting Date
I . End A-bs
7 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. S . 277th Corridor Project (LID 351) - Report on Public
Meeting
S . 277th Corridor Condemnation - Ordi-Uancce 3qa3
G. -1- 1 19 Gcavy.- * mil,
8 . B�Serc cAso11�F�n,
A. ✓� Lal��'y��it9ick North Parking Lot
B. Green River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse and Storage
Shed Construction
9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION
-- OA. Pending Litigation
13 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay
service call 1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent(253)854-6587.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Citizens wishing to address the Council will , at this time,
make known the subject of interest , so all may be properly
heard.
A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B) FROM THE PUBLIC
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Public Hearings
1 . SUBJECT: 1999 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the third public hearing on the
1999 Budget and Tax Levy. Public input is desired and welcome .
The 1999 Preliminary Budget is in balance and totals approxi-
mately $124 , 000 , 000 . This budget does not include a property
tax increase above Referendum 47 . The Preliminary Budget
document is available in the Finance and City Clerk' s offices .
Adoption is scheduled for the December 8 , 1998 , Council
meeting. May Miller will give a brief presentation before the
Public Hearing opens .
3 . EXHIBITS: Budget communications letters
4 . RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
4ACAP
Child & Family Services
September 28, 1998
Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
City of Kent
220 4t' Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98302
Dear Mayor White and Council Members:
On behalf of ACAP Child and Family Services, I am writing to thank you for your
support of our Subsidized Child Care Program. Through the grant that the City of Kent
provides to ACAP, low-income families (who are City of Kent residents) are able to have
affordable, quality child care. The grant is used, in combination with other funding
sources, to assist families who are, as defined by Federal Guidelines, low income, but
who have either no support, or inadequate support to meet their child care needs. An
example of someone who was served by our program is a young woman who had self-
initiated enrolling in her GED completion program, and was turned down for child care
assistance by the State, because she had self initiated getting her GED. Her denial of
child care support by the State was not due to any other reason but that she self-initiated
"" enrolling in a program to obtain her GED. We were able to assist her with subsidized
child care while she earned her GED. ACAP, with funding support, is able to better meet
our commitment of ensuring that families do not"falls through the cracks".
Families, served by ACAP, set goals that are monitored on a quarterly basis by the ACAP
Social Work staff. The children receive numerous services, including: an early childhood
development curriculum, developmental testing, and nutritional meals. The parents are
provided with a monthly support group, access to an onsite small food and clothing bank,
and a host of essential resources.
Once again, thank you for your support. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions. I can be reached at 253-939-0870.
Sincerely,
Alexandria Kim McKoy, M.A.
Executive Director
A United Way Agency
Auburn Christian Action Program Day Care Association
1 102 J St. S.E., Auburn,WA 98002 • (206) 939-0870 9 FAX 351-0655
&4l!&
- CATHOLIC 1229 West Smith Street
P.O. Box 398
COMMLU�NIIr Kent,WA 98035-0398
SERV ICIS Phone: (253)854-0077
South King County 1-800-722-3479
Family Center Fax: (253) 850-2503
TDD: (253) 850-2523
Mayor Jim White
City Council Members
220 4`h Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
October 1, 1998
Dear Mayor White and Council Members,
Catholic Community Services in partnership with the City and other funders, served 4,021
Kent residents during our last fiscal year. These services included aid to the aging,
counseling, child abuse/neglect services, community organizing, basic needs assistance,
legal services, long term care for our elderly and disabled, transitional housing and shelter.
As you are aware, the need always exceeds the funds. Your funding for our Emergency
Assistance Program, our Counseling Program and support of HOME, along with our
agency supporters and United Way, allows us to leverage the dollars to serve the most
people. Our staff does everything they can to serve those who come to us. Our
partnerships with churches have been a tremendous asset in extending more services
through the use of volunteers and donated church space.
On behalf of those we serve, we thank you. Without the supportive attitude of the
Mayor, City Council and Staff, we could not provide quality services to the Kent
community.
Sincerely,
Cathy Peters
Director, South King County Family Center
ACCREDITED
OFSONMLDREKIkt lJ
NI/CMONBL IXG
�4� CHANGES Parent Support Network
<�A� P.O. Box 33211
Jzw Seattle, WA 98133
1-800-212-6842(W.Wash.)
(253) 274-6842 (Tacoma)
(206) 810-5748 (Seattle)
CHANGEinsight, M
a Program for Families A not-for-profit corporation providing support, education and service for better Communities,Parents and Kids.
October 8, 1998
Mayor Jim White
Kent City Council Members
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent,Washington 98032
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of families in the Kent community, I want to say thank you for consideration of funding a new
parent support group in Kent through the General Fund Grant process. As a member of the CHANGES
Parent Support Network, this new group will provide support,education and training to parents (and
others)in.the greater Kent area who are experiencing destructive adolescent behavior in their families.
The support group'will meet once a week in the evenings in.a formal two-and-one-half hour support ;
group setting. Using the CHANGEinsight`T Piogram,-parents learn how to change their behaviors and
responses to the-destructive, rebellious behavior from their;adolescents,all with the goal ofsaising self-
reliant,responsible,and capable young adults who are assets to their community.. 1n the past several
years, this program has been successful"for hundreds of families,both parents and kids, in the Puget
Sound area.. We are very happy to have the possibility of offering this community service in Kent.
Parents who have worked the CHANGEinsightTM-Program report marked'decreases in domestic
violence, substance abuseluse and criminal behaviors from their adolescents. More importantly from the
family's point-of-view;.parents often report a much improved relationship with their adolescent—one that
is based on respect and love rather than power struggles and conflict. The parent support groups also am
a primary referral for community professionals; law enforcement and school officials.
Again, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bob Loveless, Executive Director
CHANGES Parent Support Network
cc: CPSN Board of Directors
oa,eae sues
CHILDCARE RESOURCES
We lead community efforts to ensure that all families can find safe, quality, affordable child car,
Mayor Jim White
Members of the City Council
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Child Care Resources, thank you for your past support of our agency and for your
consideration of our 1999 Human Services funding application. Although we are disappointed that we
have only been recommended to receive one-third of the amount requested, we do appreciate your
continued financial support.
Child Care Resources (CCR) was created in 1990 to provide comprehensive child care resource and
referral services for King County residents. One of our most critical services is helping families find
care for their children while parents are working or in training. CCR maintains a database of over
2,700 licensed child care facilities throughout King County and in our first eight years assisted over
55,000 parents find child care. In 1997, we helped over 500 low-income residents of the City of Kent
find child care, a marked increase over the previous year. In 1998, we have undertaken very
ambitious recruitment activities and have helped over 100 individuals open home child care businesses.
We have worked with 25 Kent residents this year who are working to obtain licenses and five of them
are now operating their businesses.
CCR also offers consultation and professional development for child care providers through workshops
and individual consultation, either at their location or at one of our offices. Child care providers use
the "Warm Line" to receive assistance with all aspects of program operation, such as recruiting and
hiring staff, developing policies and fees, fundraising, marketing and curriculum. Providers notify
CCR when they have openings and this information is included in the parent referral database.
Through this service, we help programs stay financially stable by maintaining full enrollment. As of
the end the third quarter of 1998, CCR staff provided over 450 hours of technical assistance to
residents of the City of Kent., exceeding the hours we are contracted to provide for the entire year by
425!
Child Care Resources welcomes the opportunity to continue providing services to residents of the City
of Kent in 1999. Your human services staff has been great and we look forward to continued
partnership with them in the coming year.
Sincerely,
Nina Auerbach
Executive Director
SEATTLE/NORTH KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY EAST KING COUNTY EMPLOYER PARTNERSHIPS
1265 S.MAIN STREET 841 N.CENTRAL AVENUE 15015 MAIN STREET 1265 S.MAIN STREET
SUITE 210 SUITE 126 SUITE 206 SUITE 210
SEATTLE.WA 991" KENT.WA 98032 BELLEVUE.WA 98007 SEATTLE,WA 98144
206-461-3708 306-851-1908 206-865-9930 206-461-3213
FAX: 206-461-3726 FAX: 206-831.3181 FAX: 206-865-90" FAX: 106-461.3726
('hili f'v.RrcmmPc ._.,. 6, . C""H r F,h..
CHILDREN'S
October 28, 1998 HOME SOCIETY
Honorable James White, Mayor RECEIVED
���+ D
Kent Citv Council
220 Fourth Avenue South Nov 0 2 ?98
Kent, WA 98032
CITY OF SENT
Dear Mayor White and Council Members: PLANNING 5EPARNE14T
I am writing in support of the Kent Human Service Commission's recommendations for fiscal
Year 1999. I applaud the work of the Commission and the continued support the City provides
to the neediest and most vulnerable members of our community. Last Year alone the city,
through its support to 18 human service agencies, provided needed services to 21,000 Kent
residents. Kent continues to be a strong community leader in the provision of human services.
At every level—the Mayor and Council, Human Service Commission and Planning Department
staff—leadership, innovation and creative problem solving are a matter of course.
As an agency that has been providing human services to children and families for more than a
century, we know it is important to take the time to appreciate strong leadership when we see it.
On behalf of Children's Home Society, I want to thank you for your continued leadership and
support to our Kent Community by your strong commitment to provide significant support for
Human Services to City of Kent residents. Each year during the budget process, you have
renewed your commitment by your ongoing financial support of the funding recommendations of
your Human Services Commission.
CHSW is very grateful for the work that your Human Services Commission has accomplished
over the eleven years they have been in operation. And once again we are pleased to offer our
support for their recommendations to the Council for the funding of human services during the
next year.
Each year this funding contributes significantly to enhancingVhe quality of life in our community.
Whether it be providing a home to a family without shelter, child care so a mother can return to
work and support her family, or counseling to a family that is coming apart at the seams...Each
dollar you have spent has made a life better, a child happier, or an isolated family able to feel
apart of our community once again. On behalf of Children's Home Society of Washington and
the families and children we serve, I thank you for your continued support. Together we are
making a difference, improving the quality of life for children and families in our community.
Sincerely,
>united Way Aqe y peg Ma zen, Director
CY 9: :.
`r FCITFD
L~
"A Century of Turning Hope into Reality"
S�eld� Children's Therapy Center
10811 Dent-Langley Road
Kent, QUA 98031-7108
253i85v-5660
� 2531854-7025 Fax
6acb t hild is t adz uihle"
OF KENT
October 5, 1998
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members,
We at Children's Therapy Center are proud of our long association with the City of Kent
providing services to children with neuromuscular problems and their families. In 1999 we will
celebrate our 20`'anniversary of offering services to children with disabilities. During our several
location changes to our present building on Kent-Kangley, we have made it a priority to stay
"within the city limits of Kent." While we serve families from all of south King County,we
consider the city of Kent to be our home and community and thus our name Children's Therapy
Center of Kent.
The City of Kent has provided support to Children's Therapy Center for the past eleven
years and for this we are extremely grateful.
In 1997 the staff at Children's Therapy Center provided a total of 6,566 hours of therapy
and early education to 315 children. The human services funds from the City of Kent purchased
348 hours of direct service to 54 children who live in Kent. These services include physical
therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language therapy and an early education program. The
earlier children with special needs can receive such services,the better foundation can be laid for
continued development. Many children begin therapy at Children's Therapy Center of Kent by the
time they are six months old.
We are proud of the work done at Children's Therapy Center. We thank you for your
ongoing support in helping us ensure that each child referred is assisted in reaching their full
potential.
Best of luck as you begin work on the 1999 budget.
Since ly,
Gay Ll d Le ,Ph.D. CCC-SLP
Acting Director
cc: Vicki Capperauld, Board President
COMMUNITY
HEALTH
October 16, 1998
CENTERS
OF MG c0IMTI
Administration Honorable Mayor James White
403 East Meeker Street Members of the City Council
Suite 300
Kent,WA 98031 City of Kent
(425)277-1311 220 4`h Avenue South
Auburn Community
Health Center Kent, WA 98032-5895
Medical
105"A"Street S.W.
Auburn.WA 98001 Dear Mayor White and Council Members,
(253)735-0166
Dental
One St. Thank you for supporting the primary health care needs of low income,
Auburn.rn.WA 980 98001
(253)804-8713 uninsured Kent residents. Community Health Centers of King County
Bothell Community Health Center (CHCKC) relies on the support it receives from the City of Kent to serve
10414 Beardslee Blvd. medically disadvantaged Kent residents. Last year, CHCKC provided
Bothell.WA 801 I medical, dental and/or natural medicine services to over 3,500 cityof Kent
'S)486-065 t
8
�..6tside Community residents. Of the Kent residents served, 95%had low or very low incomes,
Health Center Medical 77%had incomes below the Federal poverty level and 41%had no insurance
16315 N.E.87th St.B-6 coverage.
Redmond.WA 98052
(425)882-1697
Dental
nta N.E.87th St.C-2 Community Health Centers of King County receives support for health
Redmond.WA 98052 services from various sources. No other source, however, has the leveraging
(425)883-8000 power that the City of Kent support has. Other cities look to the City of
Federal Way Community
Health Center Kent's leadership as an example for serving its low income residents. Thank
33431 - 13th Pl.So.
Federal Way.W WA 98003 yousupport for continued of health care for low income Kent residents.
Feder your nue
Medical Without the support received from the City of Kent, CHCKC would not be
(206)296-9890
(253)874-7634 where it is today.
Dental
(253)874-7646
Kent Community Sincerely,
Health Center
403 East Meeker Street
Kent.WA 98031
Suite 00 /
(253)852-2866 (/
Dental
Site too Thomas Trompeter
(253)796-4W I
Renton Community Executive Director
Health Center
138 S.3rd PI.
R-nton.WA 98055
)226-5536
It5D Access:
1-8(1)-833-6388
l'vtrrl W'nc�9uur G'.,n.,v$fNt�M�tO
CRISIS CLINIC
September 17, 1998
The Honorable Jim White, Mayor
Kent City Council Members
City of Kent
220 4u'Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White and Council Members;
On behalf of the Board of Trustees and staff of the Crisis Clinic of Seattle-King
County, I would like to thank you for considering full funding of our 1999 and 2000
service request ($3342) as recommended by the Human Services Commission. We
also appreciate their recommendation for additional funding to $5000 if monies become
available.
Crisis Clinic provides the 24 hour Crisis Line and the Community Information
Line, both of which provide support and problem solving for persons in emotional
distress and linkage to other community resources. These services are part of
infrastructure of an effective human services network. As the first place many people _
call seeking help, Crisis Clinic is able to efficiently direct callers to the specific agencies
that can help them. Our services benefit Kent social service agencies by directing
callers to them who meet their service and eligibility requirements, and directing those
that do not to other agencies. Our services benefit Kent residents because Crisis Clinic
phones lines are known as the first place to call to get information. We are able to refer
Kent residents to the appropriate resource anywhere in the county that can help them.
We estimate that in 1999, 4700 Kent residents will call the Crisis Clinic and find
the emotional support and linkage to other services they need. However, the level of
funding by the City will underwrite only 537 calls or 11% of Kent resident calls,
increased funding would underwrite 17% of the calls. Adequate funding that allows us
to answer callers promptly with accurate information and by trained phone workers is
very important and this is why we appreciate the City of Kent's grant to support our
work.
Thank your for consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Southwick
Executive Director
1515 Dexter Avenue North Suite 300 Seattle WA 98109 Telephone 206 461 3210 FAX 206 461 8368 www.crisisclinic.org
........ ............
.....................
.....................
....................
. .....................
....................
Domestic Abuse
Women's Network DT: October 13, 1998
Serving South TO: Kent City Council
King County n
Referral/Shelter FIR: Ina J. Percival
Advocacy Executive Director
Counseling
P.O. Box 1521 RE: Program Services
Kent, WA 98035
Office: 656-4305
Advocacy Domestic violence is one of the most serious issues impacting
656-8423 our communities today. Therefore, on behalf of DAWN and the
clients we serve, I would like to extend sincere appreciation for
24 Hour Help making domestic violence both a policy and budget priority in
656-STOP(7867) the City of Kent.
Your investments have helped to support the provision of
emergency shelter for abused women and their children from
Kent, as well as individual advocacy to provide longer term
assistance, a 24-hour crisis line, survivor groups, and our
children's services. These programs are a vital part of ensuring
the health and safety of these women and their children.
Without them, more serious injuries and deaths would occur --
little hope existing for a future without violence and the many
costs associated with it.
Fore these reasons, we thank you for your continued
consideration of critical fiscal support and look forward to an
ongoing partnership with the City of Kent.
Member of the Women's Funding Alliance
,
,
Community Service Center
(KENT FOOD BANK)
525 North 4th
Kent, WA 98031
(253) 859-3438
October 12 , 1998
Kent City Council
Kent , Wash . 98032
Dear Council members :
This is to thank you for your consideration in supporting
the Kent Community Service Center (Kent Food Bank ) .
It is only with the continued support of the City and
community that we are able to serve the citizens of Kent .
We are currently serving between 850 and 900 families
monthly with food and see a increase each month .
Thank you .
Sincerely ,
Mary Lou Becvar ,
Executive Director
RLC21TZ"D
4,C1? G�1 2 2 1'-.i
clry Cl:K-•
PLANNiyG Grt` 5no�nENT
SCHOOL October 21, 1998
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Dear Members of the City Council,
Last Spring, I was informed by Linda Lee that Neely-O'Brien would
be the recipient of a City of Kent grant that totaled $12,500. First, I
want to extend my sincere appreciation for this grant. I believe it's
being well invested in the children of our community. I have
included a short description of the two programs we have set up
with these funds and the number of children enrolled in them.
Also, I want to thank you for the grant funding for the 1999 calendar
year. We will continue to implement and expand the afterschool
program that is currently offered. We will also consider using some
of the funding for another Summer Jump Start Program.
Program I - "Summer Jump Start"
We began using this money to help fund a Summer Jump Start for
In-coming 1st and 2nd grade students who needed help in reading,
writing, and math. These students were served for three hours per
day from August 3rd to August 21 st. They were instructed in small
groups or in tutorial settings. The instructors were NO'B teachers or
instructional assistants. Presently, we are tracking these students
to assess the impact of this intensive instruction. I will say that the
unofficial reports from classroom teachers have been positive. The
students enrolled in this program were all residents of our service
area and represent a good demographic cross-section of our
community.
Program II - "Red Hawk Club"
Currently, we are running an afterschool program with the reminder
of the grant funds. The program is serving 3rd and 4th graders who
have academic needs in reading, writing, and/or math. It also
serves 5th and 6th grade students who are strong students and
positive citizens. (One component of the program will be to pair our
5th and 6th graders with 3rd and 4th graders in tutorial settings.)
The program is scheduled for the remainder of the calendar year on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday afternoons from 3:15 - 4 PM. It
is being managed by NO'B teachers and instructional assistants. In
Neeiy-O'Brien addition to lessons on reading, writing, and math, the students will
ienfary have the opportunity to utilize our computer technology to support
636o.w 236 Street
Kent,Washington
98032-3202
Ph:253-813-7434
4&
their instruction. Again, this population represents a good
demographic cross-section of our service area.
KENT
SCHOOL We would like to invite members of the City Council and the city
DISTRICT staff to visit our school at their convenience. To view our
afterschool program, the visitation would need to take place from
3:15 - 4 PM on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Sincerely
Tal Gu py, r nail I
Neely-O'Brien
Elementary
6300 S 236 Street
Kent,Washington
98032-3202
Ph:253.813-7434
KENT YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
232 S. 2ND, SUITE 201 KENT, WASHINGTON 98032
October 16, 1998
Mayor Jim White and
Members of the Kent City Council
City of Kent
220 4 h Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White and Council members,
On behalf of Kent Youth and Family Services and the clients we serve, thank you for your
continued support of the programs provided by this agency. The financial support
provided by the City of Kent, through its Human Services Commission, is especially
critical to our serving the residents of this city.
During our twenty-eight year existence, this agency has served the City of Kent and its
residents with needed services while developing new programs to meet the ever-changing
needs of this community. Our core services of youth and family mental health and
substance abuse prevention programs have been expanded and are now being provided at
the agency and in close working relationship with the Kent Schools and at the Kent Teen
Clinic.
In addition, our board of directors has expanded needed services to where we now
provide a spectrum of programs in support of children and their families. New to the
agency this year are the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP),
which serves 72 four-year old children from low-income households, and the Lighthouse
Program, the evening teen program we assumed from the Kent Community Council for
At-Risk Children and Youth.
Our agency's success and our ability to support the growing youth and family population
of the Kent community would not be possible without the continued financial support and
goodwill of the City of Kent. Thank you for the support provided in the past and for the
recommendation for continued funding contained in the 1999 City of Kent General Fund
Budget.
Sincerel
.���
Peter R. Mourer,
Executive Director
V/TDD (253) 859-0300 FAX 859-0745
J4
October 14, 1998
King
County
Sexual
Assault Mayor Jim White
Resource City of Kent
Center 220 4th Ave S
Kent, WA 98032-5896
"Never doubt Dear Mayor White and Councilmembers,
that a small group of
thoughtful committed
citizens can change
the world,indeed it's 1998 marks 22 years that King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
the only thing that ever has." (KCSARC) has assisted residents of Kent who have been victimized by sexual
assault. Support from the city has been critical in meeting these needs.
—Margaret Mead
Kent residents benefit more from KCSARC's services than do residents of
any other municipality. In the first six months of this year, we assisted 86 city
residents which is double our contracted amount for the entire year. This high
usage rate is influenced by the excellent working relationship we have with
the Kent police department, high visibility in the city and the new Regional
Justice Center(RJC). Since the opening of the RJC requests for legal
advocacy have increased 30%which has challenged our ability to provide
high quality services with current staff.
Kent residents receive the following services at no cost:
• 24hr crisis intervention, information and referral
• Legal advocacy for adult, teens and children
• Medical advocacy and evaluations for children
• Parental support
• Therapy for children
• Therapy for adult survivors
KCSARC also responds to community requests for education and provides
professional training and consultation. There is a fee for these services.
Thank you again for your concern about sexual assault and your willingness to
support services for Kent residents.
P.O.Box 300.4icerely,
Renton,WA 98057
U.S.A.
ry lien tone
425.226.5062 V/ ecutive Director
Fax:425.235.7422
24-hr.Crisis Line:
1.800.825.7273
Women's Funding
Alliance Member Serving King County`or over Twenty Years
pregnancy Aid
October 14,1998
Mayor Jim White, Members of the Human Service Commission and Kent City Council;
We are very grateful to the Human Services Commission for granting our request for
funding again this year. We wish we didn't have to ask for money to keep our shelter
open, that we wouldn't have a need for it. But unfortunately, the need is as great as ever
and we get many requests every day and are unable to meet the needs of many
homeless women in the Kent Valley. But we do appreciate your funding so that we can
at least keep two units funded. One of the apartments, is funded by the Renton
Community and we are very grateful for that also. These two apartments have housed
over fifteen homeless clients this year so far.
Pregnancy Aid was formed to help women who are pregnant with a variety of services.
After several years of operation, it became increasingly Gear that this population didn't
have emergency housing available to them in South King County. But because of the
City of Kent's willingness to fund our shelter for the past ten years or so, we have kept
over 135 people from sleeping in the parks or cars in this time. Now with the help of St.
Anthony's Church in Renton and the Human Services Commission in Renton, we are
able to continue to operate our second apartment.
We know that the discernment process for the Commission must be a difficult task with
so many agencies and causes looking for funding. We are deeply humbled to have been
chosen to receive our full request of$5,500.00 again this year, so that we can pay the
rent and keep the utilities on. That you for your faith in our work and in our ability to
provide the services that you expect of us. We work hard not to let the City down, or the
Commission or our Landlord, Mr. Bill Stewart. Thank you again for this award for the
coming year.
Sincerely,
qf4e,�, P-et�- �
Judy Peterson
Director
Free Confidential Help Concerning Pregnancy
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1775 • Kent. WA 98035-1775 / Location: 110 - 2nd Ave. S.• Kent, WA 98032 (206) 852-1201
SENIOR SERVICES
.1 nonprofit a¢ent�serving%error rn our 'ommunm
October 22, 1998
The Honorable Jim White
City Council Members
220 4th Ave S.
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members:
Senior Services' Volunteer Transportation Program would like to thank PROGRAMS
you for your continuing support and for your consideration of our 1999
funding request. With your help, Volunteer Transportation increases the
ability of Kent seniors to meet their medical needs.
Volunteer Transportation provides transportation to isolated, frail, low-
income elderly throughout King County who are without other 1h,nir, Workel
transportation options. The program utilizes over 350 volunteer drivers 5elfwi 112for,nrRinn an t:,_,.
Senior 2i;iif-AL srsraw e
who use their own vehicles to transport seniors to medical and other selum L4'errnesc
essential appointments, and is unique in its focus on seniors whose ,,,oal 3.,,,.p
physical and/or mental condition requires them to have an escort. We 1¢o;nn/eer rranspoi miitm
differ from buses, taxis and ACCESS vans in that our volunteers not only
provide a ride but accompany the seniors to their appointments as well, SENIOR CENTERS
waiting with them before taking them home again. Thus, ours is a very
personalized, one-on-one service, offering seniors a helping hand and (;)et til" o
moral support. There is no charge for Volunteer Transportation. \'oriaiton,
We provide more mileage and more One-Way trips to Kent seniors than to Q,oroin( -ake f"^ 'Par'
seniors in any other suburban city in King County! In 1997, Volunteer
�wuherr,r Sratdr
Transportation transported 83 Kent seniors over 25,588 miles. At the end
Idlmad2e lhumitr!r Hntu<
of the third quarter for 1998, we have attained 78% of our annual goal for
One-Way Trips, 83% of our Mileage goal, and have surpassed our annual
goal for Unduplicated City of Kent Clients Served. We have been of
special help to seniors who have appointments outside of the Kent area, ADULT DAY
such as at medical facilities in Tacoma, Seattle and the Eastside. HEALTH CENTERS
14,nthi111
�9 u'Iir i„ur
l irrindure
1uu-liriir':
llnalvrrnr
..l llWl
��!' 'i4lillir�i
1601 Second Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle,Washin.aton 98101 •206-448-5757•TDD 206-448-5025
Mayor Jim White
City Council Members
Page 2
October 22, 1998
Volunteer Transportation is the largest provider of volunteer transportation
services in King County. Your financial support enables us to continue
providing our much needed service. Transportation continues to be one of
the main problems facing King County seniors, and we receive many
letters from our clients telling us how important our service is to them.
Comments include:
"Your program is providing a much needed community service. I
am impressed with how well organized you are and the quality of
your staff and volunteer drivers. Thank you!"
"This service saved our lives."
"I can just say, Thank you and thank God for people like you that
care about seniors and handicapped. May God be with you and
hope you never have to quit your work for us."
On behalf of the Volunteer Transportation Program, and on behalf of all
the seniors we serve, thank you again for your past support and for your
consideration of our 1999 funding request.
Since ,
Patricia McMW
President/CEO
Senior Services of Seattle/King County
A ViSiMof greater self-sufficiency and self-determination
1200 S.336th Street,P. O.Box 23699,Federal Way, WA 98093-0699, Tel.(253)838-6810,Fax:(253)874.7831, TDD(253)661-7827
September 16, 1998
Planning Department
City of Kent
220 4te Avenue S.
Kent,WA. 98032
Dear Mayor White:
I am writing to thank you,the members of the City Council and the members of the Human
Services Commission for your support of our Emergency Shelter, Literacy HEART, and
Emergency Energy Assistance Programs.
Our shelter program provides temporary shelter to homeless families for up to 4 weeks. During
their stay our case managers provide services to help them find more permanent housing and
other support services to prevent a return to homelessness. Over 70%of those homeless families
entering our shelter leave with a more permanent housing situation.
Our HEART Literacy Program provides afternoon tutoring to the children in Sunnycrest
Elementary School's homeless classroom. As we know, children who have had many moves are
less likely to be performing at grade level in school. The HEART program provides individual
tutoring after school to the children and also engages the parents in a reading program. The goal
of the program is to involve parents in the education of their children to promote a more
successful outcome.
Our Emergency Energy Assistance Program funded by the City has and will help those Kent
residents whose heat source has been discontinued or is in danger of being discontinued and who
either do not fully qualify for the Federally funded program or who need additional services.
Provision of this service helps individuals and families remain in their housing and prevent
homeless.
Thanks to the support of the City of Kent, your residents will be able to receive these most critical
services.
ce ly,
Dim Duclos
Chief Executive Officer
Y y....
iy,ft.yyNy A United Way Agency.... A Community Action Agrnr
a YYq Gaue/
(V VALLEY CITIES
counseling & consultation
- RECEIVED
To Access Services, SEP 2 5 1998
Please call. September 16, 1998
KZNT
_'S3.939.4055
PLANNING pFENT
Administration I
2704"1"Street NE
Auburn, WA 98002 Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
253.833.7444 City of Kent
fax 253.833.0480 Kent, WA 98032
postmaster(zv al c i t.w a.co m
www.valleycmes.com RE: 1999 City of Kent General Fund Budget
Auburn
2705 1"Street NE i Dear Mayor White and Council Members:
Auburn,WA 98002 1 As a long time provider of comprehensive behavioral care services
253.939.1309 in South King County, Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation
fax 253.939.2302 certainly welcomes the City of Kent's continued support of our
Federal Way Adult Survivors Support and Therapy Services program.
33301 1st Way south In short, these services provide comprehensive mental health
Suite C-115 care (screening and referral, assessment; individual, family and
Federal Way,WA 98003
253.661.6634 group counseling; case management,psychiatric evaluations and
fax 253.661.6652 medication management) to survivors of childhood and adult
Federal Way sexual and physical assault. The goal of this program is recovery
34709 9th Ave S from serious mental health symptoms resulting from trauma.
Suite A-200 The objectives are to improve personal safety, emotional and
Federal Way,WA 98003 economic self-determination, self-esteem, effective parenting, and
253.874.1475 interpersonal relationships.
fax 253.661.9338
Clinically, as an adult's psychological symptoms are managed,
Kent more functional participation in family and community occur.
400 West Gowe Street
Suite 316 The family, and its children in particular, are then less
Kent,WA 98032 susceptible to intergenerational abuse. For the general Kent
253.520.9350 community, this will result in less criminal justice involvement
tax 253.520.1799 and increased sense of safety.
Renton Again, we thank you again for your support of these critical
305 South 43rd Street services.
Renton.WA 98055 Sincerely,
425.226.0210
253_;35.3354
blarilvn LaCelle Marilyn LaCelle, Chief Executive Officer
et Erecntive Officer
4 United L4';ry ,
Agency nnce 19o'
IN00
i
WASHINGTON WomEN'S EmPLOYNENT E EbucA ION
Katherin Johnson
Planning Department
City of Kent
220 4th Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
October 12, 1998
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Washington Women's Employment and Education (WWEE) appreciates this opportunity
to be considered by the Council for 1999 funding by the City of Kent. The City of Kent's past
support of WWEE's CACD and REACH programs has enabled former public assistance
recipients to become contributing members of the Kent community. Since its inception sixteen
years ago, WWEE has seen more than 5,800 participants graduate from our programs in Pierce
and King County.
The REACH (Reaching Employability and Achieving Career Habits) program helps Kent
residents to obtain economic self-sufficiency through employment opportunities. The REACH
program consists of a two-week long class. Participants learn how to make improvements in their
reliability, punctuality, conflict resolution, career exploration, and job search techniques.
Assignments and activities within the 60-hour program are designed to help individuals to be
competitive in their job searches and in the workplace. The WWEE employment team works
individually with program graduates for a minimum of one year, in order to monitor, document,
and assist their progress.
The CACD program provides Kent residents with the opportunity to increase their
employability and earning capacity through computer training. The CACD program is a six-week
focused workshop which includes training in database and spreadsheet management, business
presentations and graphics, word processing, and document production, using industry-standard
software. The class assignments are geared toward building a portfolio that participants can use to
demonstrate their skills in job interviews. As in the REACH program, graduates of the program
receive a full year of follow-up contact,transition services, and employment assistance.
WWEE thanks the Council for its consideration of the REACH and CACD programs in
1999 funding recommendations. Your funding will allow WWEE to continue to provide low-
income Kent residents with the knowledge, skills, and courage to become self-reliant.
Sind
Helen Boody
Executive Director
cc:
Lynn Roberts
Director, Program Development
❑ 3516SO.477HSTREET.SUTTE205 ♦ TACOmA. WA 98409 ♦ (253)474-WWEE ♦ FAX ♦ (253)474-3366
❑ 1209 SO. CENTRALAVE.,SUITE 105 ♦ KEVT. WA 98032 ♦ (253)859-3718 ♦ FAX ♦ (253)859-1881
.. ..................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Public Hearings
1 . SUBJECT: ADULT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT MORATORIUM - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On November 3 , 1998 , the City Council
passed Resolution No . 1520 imposing a moratorium on the
acceptance of applications for the issuance of any business
license or building, land use, or development permit for adult
retail establishments . State law authorizes cities to adopt
moratoriums, provided a public hearing is held within sixty
days of adoption. This date has been set as the date for a
public hearing on this matter . After making findings, the
Council may either continue the moratorium for the full six-
month term or terminate the moratorium.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �n
Councilmember (' moves, Council-JJmember seconds
passage of Resolution No. I51 adopting findings, which the
Council hereby specifically approves, and continuing the
moratorium established in Resolution No. 1520 passed on
November 3 , 1998 , relating to adult retail establishments; and
further authorizing the City Attorney to enter into a joint
defense agreement with terms and in the form substantially
similar to the proposed agreement .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: 7N G
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
interoffice
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
to: City Council Members
CC: Jim White, Mayor
from: Roger Lubovich, City Attome
re: Studies on Secondary Effects of Adult Retail Establishments
date: November 12, 1998
I have obtained copies of numerous studies which have been performed across the nation
analyzing and reporting on the negative secondary effects of adult retail establishments, including
adult book stores, adult novelty and video stores. I have asked Jackie to place these studies in your
council office. Attached for your review is an index of these studies. Staff is recommending a
continuation of the moratorium established at your November 3, 1998 council meeting to allow staff
time to continue to review and analyze these studies and to prepare, if appropriate, draft code
amendments for your consideration to address the negative secondary effects of such adult retail
establishments. Any code amendments will likely deal with the definition, regulation, and location
of adult retail uses in the City of Kent.
Staff is also recommending that the City enter into a joint defense agreement with other
municipalities regarding this matter. The purpose of the agreement is to avoid individual challenges
to various ordinances adopted by municipalities by drafting a model ordinance to regulate sexually
oriented businesses. The agreement provides that the municipalities participating in the agreement
would seek a declaratory judgment in Federal District Court declaring the model ordinance
constitutional. The proposed joint defense agreement is also attached.
P:H.AWIATTORNEY.S\ROGER\MEMOSomuidI m=oS..dm
STUDIES OF SECONDARY LVIPACTS OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
1. A Report on Zoning and Other Methods Regulating Adult Entertainment in Amarillo;
Amarillo, Texas (September 1977)
2. A Study on the Need to Regulate the Location of Adult Entertainment Uses; Bellevue,
Washington (September 1987)
3. Adult Entertainment Business in Indianapolis, Indiana(1984)
4. Adult Entertainment Study; City of New York (November 1994)
5. City of Kent Adult Use Zoning Study; Kent, Washington (November 1982)
6. Final Report to the City of Garden Grove: The Relationship Between Crime and Adult
Business Operations on Garden Grove Boulevard; Garden Grove, California
(October 1991)
7. Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments in New Hanover County; North
Carolina(July 1989)
8. Relation of Criminal Activity and Adult Businesses; City of Phoenix (May 1979)
9. Report on the Secondary Effects of the Concentration of Adult Use Establishments in the
Times Square Area; New York, NY (April 1994)
10. Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented
Businesses, Minnesota(June 1989)
11. Report on Adult Oriented Businesses in Austin; Austin, Texas (May 1986)
12. Study & Recommendations for Adult Entertainment Businesses in the Town of Islip;
Islip, New York(September 1980)
13. Study on the Effects of the Concentration of Adult Entertainment Establishments in the
City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles, California(June 1977)
14. Zoning and Adult Amusement; Albuquerque,New Mexico (May 1995)
15. 40 Acre Study on Adult Entertainment, St, Paul Department of Planning and Economic
Development, Division of Planning (1987)
16. Adult Entertainment Material; City of DesMoines (June 1984).
17. Adult Business Regulation Study; City of Olympia(1996)
JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT
This Joint Defense Agreement ("Agreement") is dated effective this 15th day of June,
1998 and is entered into among the undersigned Attorneys (collectively, the "parties") on behalf
of their respective jurisdictions.
A. Extensive studies have been conducted by numerous local jurisdictions across the
United States. The studies show that sexually oriented businesses, including adult retail
establishments, have adverse secondary effects upon their communities that are detrimental to
the public health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens. The secondary effects include,
but are not limited to, decreased property values, negative impacts on the quality and character
of business and residential communities, and increased criminal activity.
B. In light of these studies, the parties wish to adopt ordinances regulating the location,
size, and other aspects of sexually oriented businesses.
C. A number of the parties have previously adopted ordinances regulating adult
entertainment. These ordinances, which among other things codify the"four foot rule," have
been separately challenged by one or more of the same adult entertainment owner-plaintiffs.
The existence of individual challenges has been inefficient, expensive and time consuming for
the defendant cities.
D. The parties wish to avoid individual litigation over ordinances regulating sexually
oriented business, and believe that a collective effort, including the pooling of resources and the
execution of this Agreement, is the most practical, cost effective and expeditious method of
adopting and defending the ordinances and otherwise achieving the goals stated in this
Agreement.
E. The parties agree that the purpose of this Agreement is to promote the following
goals:
1. To draft and finalize for adoption a"model' ordinance, based on the
established secondary effects, regulating the various aspects of sexually oriented businesses and
adult retail establishments, while recognizing that each city will need to craft the model
ordinance to fit its own individual needs, such as dispersion and zoning location requirements;
Z. To obtain a declaratory judgment in Federal District Court declaring that the
model ordinance is constitutional, and declaring that existing studies demonstrate that adult retail
establishments impose legally cognizable"secondary effects" upon surrounding communities,
regardless of whether the adult retail establishments provide the opportunity for on-site viewing
of sexually explicit materials.
Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. Model Ordinance. The City Attorneys for the Cities of Bellevue, Renton and Federal
Way will draft ordinances, for adoption by their respective councils which will contain model
language regarding the definition and regulation of sexually oriented business, including adult
retail establishments. This model ordinance will be forwarded to all other jurisdictions for
consideration for adoption.
2. Declaratory Judgment. The cities of Bellevue, Renton and Federal Way will be
named plaintiffs in Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinances are
constitutional under both the Washington State and the United States Constitutions. The
remaining cities will either be named as parties or will intervene in this action. Among other
things, the action will seek judicial confirmation that sexually oriented businesses (including
adult retail establishments) impose legally cognizable secondary effects upon their surrounding
communities, regardless of whether those businesses provide the opportunity for on-site viewing
of sexually explicit materials.
3. Cost Sharine.
a. Ordinance Preparation, The Cities of Bellevue, Renton and Federal Way shall
prepare individual ordinances with model language at each cities own cost and will share the
ordinances with all other participating jurisdictions at no cost to such other jurisdictions.
b. Declaratory Judgment Action. The parties have received a declaratory
judgment budget from Stephen Smith of Preston, Gates & Ellis of$35,000 through the trial
court and $20,000 for any appeal. The parties shall share the cost of the declaratory judgment
action as follows:
Bellevue $ 8,250
Federal Way $ 8,250
Renton $ 8,250
Auburn $ 2,750
Des Moines $ 2,750
Everett $ 2,750
Kent $ 2,750
King County $ 2,750
Lakewood $ 2,750
Puyallup $ 2,750
Shoreline $ 2,750
Tacoma $ 2,750
Tukwila $ 2,750
University Place $ 2,750
Total: $55,000
2
4. Term. This Agreement shall commence upon the effective date set forth above and
continue until a final decision is reached on the declaratory judgment action. Any party may
terminate its participation in this Agreement at any time upon notice to the other parties.
5. Confidentiality. Pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 and the attorney-client
and work product privileges, the parties agree that all conversations, notes, memoranda, and
documents relating to this Agreement and to the work described in paragraphs 1-3 therein are
privileged and confidential and shall not be shared with third parties, adverse or otherwise,
except to the extent that adopted ordinances and other documents not subject to the attorney-
client privilege, work product privilege, or other exemption in RCW 42.17.310 must be
disclosed pursuant to a valid request under RCW 42.17.
6. General Provisions. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the Parties with
respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement
may be amended or modified except by written agreement signed by the Parties. This Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties' successors in interest, heirs and
assigns. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way
affect or invalidate any other provision. This Agreement shall be effective whether signed by
all parties on the same document or whether signed in counterparts.
CITY OF AUBURN CITY OF BELLEVUE
Mike Reynolds, City Attorney Lori M. Riordan, Asst. City Attorney
CITY OF DES MOINES CITY OF EVERETT
Gary McLean, City Attorney Mike Weight, City Attorney
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY OF KENT
Londi K. Lindell, City Attorney Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
KING COUNTY CITY OF LAKEWOOD
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor Dan Heid, City Attorney
3
CITY OF PUYALLUP CITY OF RENTON
Leela Mills, City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, Asst. City Attorney
CITY OF SHORELINE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PLACE
Bruce Disend, City Attorney Tim Sullivan, City Attorney
CITY OF TACOMA CITY OF TUKWILA
Robin Jenkinson, City Attorney Robert Noe, City Attorney
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
John P. Watts, City Attorney
kAadultent\jointdef.k
4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, relating to adult retail establishments;
adopting findings of fact and continuing a moratorium on
the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any
business license or any building, land use, or development
permit or approval for adult retail establishments.
WHEREAS, the City Council, has previously determined, as set forth
through findings in Ordinance Nos. 3214 and 3221, that adult entertainment uses cause
negative secondary effects that are detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Kent; and
WHEREAS, there are adult bookstores, adult novelty, and adult video
store establishments (hereinafter "Adult Retail Establishments") doing business within
the City of Kent whose stock and trade is devoted in whole or in substantial or significant
part to books, magazines, cards, pictures, periodicals, pre-recorded video tapes, disks,
film, or other such media, instruments, devices, equipment, paraphernalia, toys and
novelties, games, clothing, or other merchandise which are distinguished or characterized
by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to specified anatomical areas,
specified sexual activities, and sexual conduct as those terms are defined in the Kent City
Code Section 5.10.030; and
WHEREAS, there is a possibility that the City could, in the near future,
receive applications for adult retail establishments that would significantly increase the
amount of square feet of commercial space characterized by such uses located within the
City; and
1 Moratorium Continuation
WHEREAS, the Kent City Code relating to adult retail establishments
may not adequately address the various impacts that these uses present and the protection
of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare would be jeopardized by the
establishment of adult retail establishments prior to adoption of new regulations by the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, other cities in the surrounding Seattle-Tacoma Metropolitan
Region and elsewhere in the country have adopted ordinances regulating adult retail uses,
based upon evidence of the negative secondary effects of such uses; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Kent would be well served if the City more
fully addressed and understood the potential negative secondary effects, in the form of
health, safety, economic, and aesthetic impacts these uses imposed upon neighboring
properties and on the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the City needs time to review existing information on the
negative secondary effects of adult retail establishments and to review the Kent City
Code in a comprehensive fashion to determine whether it sufficiently addresses the
negative secondary effects of such uses; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70.390 authorize cities to
adopt moratoriums provided a public hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption;
and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 1520 imposing a moratorium barring the acceptance of all applications for the
issuance of any business license, or building, land use, or development permit or approval
under the Kent City Code for adult retail establishments until additional review has been
completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the Kent City Council;
and
- 2 Moratorium Continuation
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 provides that a city adopting a moratorium
shall adopt findings of fact immediately after the public hearing held within sixty (60)
days of adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, November 17, 1998
before the Kent City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered written comments and public
testimony received at the hearing, as well as materials presented by staff at the hearing;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals and Findings of Fact Incorporated. The recitals set
forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein and are hereby
adopted as additional Findings of Fact to the extent they are not inconsistent with the
Findings of Fact adopted in Section 2 of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Findings of Fact. The Kent City Council hereby adopts the
following Findings of Fact:
A. The City has determined previously, through public testimony and the
receipt of other evidence, that adult entertainment uses cause adverse secondary effects
that are detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, protection of minors, and the
general welfare of the citizens of Kent.
B. Many of those adverse secondary effects are summarized in the findings
of fact contained in Ordinance Nos. 3214 and 3221 and Resolution No. 1520 which are
incorporated herein by this reference. Those adverse secondary effects include
significant criminal activity not limited to prostitution, illegal employment of minors,
narcotics, and alcoholic beverage law violations, breaches of the peace, tax evasion, and
harboring of persons with outstanding arrest warrants.
3 Moratorium Continuation
C. Those adverse secondary effects also include public sexual conduct on the
premises of adult entertainment businesses, which can facilitate prostitution and related
crimes. Such conduct also causes substantial public health and safety concerns, not
limited to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
D. The City has reviewed studies from other cities concerting the adverse
secondary effects arising from adult retail establishments (a subset of adult entertainment
uses), whose stock in trade is devoted in whole or in substantial or significant part to
books, magazines, cards, pictures, periodicals, prerecorded video tapes, disks, film or
other such media, instruments, devices, equipment, paraphernalia, toys and novelties,
games, clothing or other merchandise which are distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to specified anatomical areas,
specified sexual activities, and sexual conduct, as those terms are defined in the Kent City
Code, Chapter 5.10.
E. The City is concerned that the studies from other cities conclude that
adverse secondary effects from such adult retail establishments include increased crime
rates, depreciation of property values, deterioration of community character, and a
decrease in the quality of life.
F. The City is also concerned that the studies from other cities conclude that
such adult retail establishments tend to concentrate in certain areas, and that the
proximity of those establishments to sensitive uses such as schools, residential zones,
places of religious worship, and parks result in similar or increased adverse secondary
effects.
G. Although reliance on these studies may result in decisions by the City to
regulate the location of such adult retail establishments, the City believes that the
characteristics of such establishments within the City may have an impact on the type and
manner of regulation which the City chooses to employ. The City finds that additional
review of such other studies on the secondary effects of adult retail establishments is
necessary to determine what regulations are appropriate.
H. A continuation of the moratorium established by City of Kent Resolution
No. 1520 until May 2, 1999 is necessary to take such additional action.
4 Moratorium Continuation
SECTION3. Continuation of Moratorium. Based on the Findings of Fact
adopted in Sections 1 and 2, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for
the moratorium enacted in Resolution No. 1520 to remain in effect for the entire 180-day
period set forth in Resolution No. 1520. Accordingly, the moratorium shall not expire
until midnight on May 2, 1999, unless the moratorium is shortened or extended by action
of the City Council or until the effective date of any ordinance establishing new
regulations governing adult retail establishments, which ever is sooner, and during said
moratorium, no business license and no building, land use, or development permit or
approval shall be issued nor shall any such permit or license application be accepted for
any adult retail establishment as defined in Kent City Code 5.10.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for
any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution.
SECTION 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior
to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington,this day of 11998.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
1998.
JIM WHITE,MAYOR
5 Moratorium Continuation
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 by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
, 1998.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
PALAWVtmo1utiWm=1on=oondn ion.doc
-- 6 Moratorium Continuation
...............
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action: (�
Councilmember �hn� moves, Councilmember 6)tL
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through ,�f be approved.
Discussion ft
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 3 , 1998 .
3B. Approval of Bills .
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 31
and paid on October 31 , after auditing by the Operations
Committee on November 3 , 1998 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/31/98 207761-208027 $ 213 , 926 . 64
10/31/98 208028-208493 2 , 463 , 903 .23
$2 , 677 , 829 . 87
Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through
October 31 and paid on November 5 , 1998 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/5/98 Checks 231395-231724 $ 259, 572 . 78
11/5/98 Advices 72118-72670 749 , 863 . 24
$1, 009 , 436 . 02
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent , Washington
November 3 , 1998
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt,
Brotherton, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling, Operations
Director/Chief of Staff McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Police
Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Public Works Director
Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris, Parks Director Hodgson, and
Information Services Director Mulholland. Approximately 40 people
were in attendance .
PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor White noted that
COMMUNICATIONS the Employee of the Month is unavailable .
Human Services Month. Mayor Hogan noted that the
City of Kent has addressed human services needs in
many ways and that the population growth and com-
plexity of pressures continue to present human
service needs . He added that literacy provides
the foundation for learning, and declared the
month of November, 1998 , as Human Services Month
and encouraged all citizens to recognize and
support its observance by "Reading to a Child-
Building a Bridge to the Future" , and to visit the
Human Services display in the lobbies of City Hall
and the Kent Library.
Brad Bell of the Human Services Commission
accepted the proclamation and thanked the Mayor
and Council for their leadership role in meeting
the human services needs of the City of Kent .
Introduction and Comments From Mayor Christopher
Taute, Riversdale, South Africa. Government
Affairs Manager Dena Laurent introduced Mayor
Christopher Taute from Riversdale, South Africa,
who is a student on a research internship with
Highline Community College . Mr. Taute explained
that he is studying the local government system
because they will be changing their system. Mayor
White said it has been an honor to have Mr. Taute
visit and urged him to return.
CONSENT ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through Q with a correction to Item N and with
1
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
CONSENT the exception of Items 0 and P which were removed
CALENDAR by Councilmember Brotherton. Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
Brotherton explained that he would like to dis-
cuss Items 0 (Riverbend Golf Complex Transfer and
Short Term Loan) and P (Riverbend Golf Complex
1999 Fee Increase) along with Item 7G (Riverbend
Golf Course Discussion of Options) . He said that
discussion of Item 7G may or may not lead to
amendments to Items 0 and P . Woods did not agree
and said that when Brotherton said he wanted
Council to consider looking at the long term
issues, it was noted that there was a short term
issue to be resolved by the end of the year. She
said that mixing these issues would risk not
having the budget in balance by the end of the
year, and that the decision regarding the golf
course will take time . Amodt stated that the
benefits of the fee increase will not be realized
until next April .
WOODS MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items 0
and P. Epperly seconded.
Brotherton stated that it would not be incompati-
ble to hold the discussions at one time. Epperly
agreed with Woods and noted that the Parks
Committee has dealt with Items 0 and P . She
said they need to be taken care of now and that
Brotherton' s proposal will cover the future .
Amodt said the fee increase should be discussed
under Other Business, and noted that Riverbend
already has the 4th highest green fees .
Orr said she does not feel Items 0 and P belong in
a discussion of long range plans, and that Council
should move forward with them. She noted that if
necessary, changes could be made in the future.
Brotherton emphasized that he is not opposed to
Items 0 or P, but that he would prefer to hold the
short term discussion after the long term discus-
sion in order to ensure that it is clear what is
2
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
CONSENT to be done in the long term before making a short
CALENDAR term decision which might be at odds to it . Orr
stated that there is not enough time to do the
long term plan first . Amodt reiterated her concern
about the fees, and Brotherton reiterated his
opinion that the whole issue should be discussed
before making the short term decision.
Woods ' motion to approve Items 0 and P then
carried with Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling in
favor and Amodt and Brotherton opposed.
MINUTES Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of October 20 , 1998 ,
with the following correction to Item 33 "Approval
of Bills" :
Check Numbers 205650-205886
205887-206237
Should read 206238-206507
206508-206940
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
Kent Springs Transmission Main Rebuild, SE 228th
St. ACCEPT the Kent Springs Transmission Main
Rebuild SE 288th Street contract as complete and
release retainage to Mosbrucker Excavating upon
standard releases from the State and release of
any liens, as recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee . The original contract amount
was $501, 492 . 05 . The final construction cost was
$559, 197 . 76 (11 . 51% over) . The cost overruns were
due to additional material required to complete
the project . Adequate funds exist within the
project budget to cover this overage .
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
T. I .B. Grant, S. 196th Street Corridor.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the T. I .B .
grant agreement for S . 196th Street Corridor, and
direct staff to accept the grant and establish a
budget for same, as recommended by the Public
3
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
STREETS Works/Planning Committee . The Public Works
Department has received a grant of $1 , 194 , 608
from the Transportation Improvement Board for the
construction phase of the 196th Street Corridor
project .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F)
Temporary Easement to D.O.T. For Construction
Access At Riverview Park. APPROVAL of a
temporary easement to the D.O . T for construction
access at Riverview Park. On October 20 , the
Parks Committee moved to approve and sign the
agreement for a temporary easement to D.O.T. at
Riverview Park. It will provide site access to
construct a retaining wall on state property for
the proposed HOV lane on Highway 167 . Construc-
tion would occur between 1999 and October, 2002 .
Disturbed areas would be restored upon completion
of construction.
PLATS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A)
Briarmount Final Plat FSU-96-11. This date has
been set to consider the final plat application
submitted by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,
Inc . , for the Briarmount Final Plat . The City
Council approved the preliminary plat with
conditions on June 4 , 1996 .
BROTHERTON MOVED to approve the staff ' s recom-
mendation of approval with conditions of the
Briarmount Final Plat and authorize the Mayor to
sign the final plat mylar. Epperly seconded and
the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B)
Mallory Meadows (Formerly Meridian West) Final
Plat FSU-96-2 . This date has been set to con-
sider the final plat application submitted by
Hearthside Homes, Inc . , for the Mallory Meadows
Final Plat . The City Council approved the
preliminary plat with conditions on February 3 ,
1998 .
4
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
PLATS Wickstrom answered questions from Yingling and
Brotherton regarding streets and curbs, and said
it is unlikely that speeding will be a problem.
BROTHERTON MOVED to approve the staff ' s recom-
mendation of approval with conditions of the
Mallory Meadows Crest Final Plat and authorize the
Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C)
Bayberry Crest Final Plat FSU-96-3 . This date has
been set to consider the final plat application
submitted by Bayberry Crest LLC. , for the Bayberry
Final Plat . The City Council approved the pre-
liminary plat with conditions on September 6,
1997 .
BROTHERTON MOVED to approve the staff ' s recom-
mendation of approval with conditions of the
Bayberry Crest Final Plat and authorize the Mayor
to sign the final plat mylar. Orr seconded.
Lee Robertson, 13104 S .E. 258th, stated that after
grading, his property was not restored to it ' s
original grade which has resulted in water no
longer flowing to the storm drain. He also voiced
concern about drains that have failed. Wickstrom
agreed to meet with Mr. Robertson to work out a
solution to this problem. Upon Orr' s question,
Wickstrom displayed a map of the area and ex-
plained the work that has been done . He added
that the flow has been cut down in order to
resolve the problems . Brotherton commented that
the engineering design seems adequate but that
implementation of the design has flaws, and that
the installation needs to be corrected, which
would be the responsibility of the developer.
Mark Wilson, developer of the plat, assured
Mr. Robertson and the Council that if there is a
problem, it will be taken care of immediately.
Brotherton' s motion then carried.
5
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
Puget Sound Energy Easement. AUTHORIZATION for
the Mayor to sign the Puget Sound Energy Easement
Agreement for the purpose of constructing under-
ground facilities in the vicinity of 196th Street
& 72nd Avenue South, as recommended by the Public
Works/Planning Committee .
PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G)
Consolidated Food Management Agreement. APPROVAL
of an agreement with Consolidated Food Management
Inc . for payment of $40 , 000 a year for three years
for expanded use of the Senior Center kitchen, as
recommended by the Parks Committee . The purpose
of this agreement is to provide for preparation of
off-site meals to the needy. As part of this
agreement, Consolidated Food Management will
purchase additional kitchen equipment which will
become the property of the Senior Center.
Approval also to amend the Senior Center budget to
include the first payment to the City.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
Miscellaneous Grants and Donations. ACCEPT the
funds, amend budgets and expend funds as outlined
in the Parks & Recreation Department Miscellaneous
Grants and Donations - 1998 chart, as recommended
by the Parks Committee . The Parks and Recreation
Department receives numerous grants and donations
throughout the year, each under $5, 000 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 60)
Riverbend Golf Complex Transfer and Short Term
Loan. APPROVAL to transfer $140, 000 from the CIP
to the golf operating budget to cover the green
space bond issue for 1998 ; and to provide a short
line of credit of $250 , 000 for the golf operating
budget to cover the year end deficit of approxi-
mately $100 , 000 and provide operating costs for
January through May 1999, as recommended by the
Parks Committee on October 20 , 1998 .
6
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GP)
Riverbend Golf Complex, 1999 Fee Increase.
APPROVAL to increase green fees at the 18 hole
golf course by $2 . 00 per round beginning April 1 ,
1999 and to increase driving range fees to $6 . 00
for a large bucket of 100 balls and $3 . 00 for a
small bucket of 50 balls beginning December 1,
1998 , as recommended by the Parks Committee on
October 20 , 1998 .
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7G)
Riverbend Golf Course Options. As requested by
Councilmember Brotherton at the Council meeting of
October 6 , 1998 , discussion will continue on
consideration of options for the Riverbend Golf
Complex.
Brotherton stated that since the Golf Complex was
redeveloped and put in operation as it is now, it
has never lived up to the financial expectations
that the City has had for it . He explained that
the expectations were set by a study done by
Arthur Anderson. He noted that extraordinary
measures have had to be taken in recent years to
cover shortfalls . He said the complex has been
treated as a mix of park and business enterprise
and that it must be determined if it is in the
best interests of the city to keep it or do some-
thing else with it . He said options should be
examined and the value of the asset determined.
BROTHERTON MOVED to direct staff to identify the
viable options for the golf course to include
selling all or part of it with the proviso that it
remain as a golf course . Yingling seconded. Upon
Epperly' s question, Brotherton restated his motion
to include all options and that all options be
examined by an outside consultant . Yingling
agreed.
Parks Director Hodgson opined that six months
would be a fair time frame to do a study, and that
$20 , 000 should be budgeted. McFall agreed with
7
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
PARKS that figure and noted that it would depend upon
the scope of work. Amodt was opposed to spending
money for a consultant , saying that the City
should be able to determine what to do . Mayor
White said that having someone outside the City
look at it would probably make people more
comfortable . Yingling pointed out that $20 , 000
would cover only about 100 hours of consulting
time, and that it could be money well spent .
Jim Stone of Riverbend stated that the golf course
is not in bad shape, that the facility has been
improved and that there is a good staff . He said
there have been problems , but that his corporation
has attempted to fix them. He read a memo he had
written to the Mayor and Council assuring them
that they are working with staff to address the
problems . He noted that they are doing a compre-
hensive study regarding a long term solution and
will bring their findings and recommendations back
to the Parks Committee by the end of the year. He
asked the Council to be patient and said that
solutions will be found.
Brotherton restated his motion to specify an
outside consultant in an amount not to exceed
$20 , 000 . Yingling agreed.
Upon Orr' s question, McFall said individual
Councilmembers should offer suggestions as to the
scope of work to himself or Mr. Hodgson as early
as possible, and that the scope of work would be
brought back to the Operations Committee for
recommendation. Orr urged Councilmembers to get
any suggestions or options to them in the next
week. It was clarified that the study by the
consultant would compliment the study being done
by SSMD, as one addresses owner interest and the
other focuses on improving the existing situa-
tion. Upon Yingling' s suggestion that the
consultant complete the study in three months
rather than six, Woods said it is more important
that the study be done extremely well . Orr
8
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
PARKS agreed, noting that if the information is re-
ceived in June there is still time to get it in
the budget cycle . Brotherton said the challenge
for the Council is to decide whether it is a park
or a business enterprise, and that the study won' t
be effective unless they know what they are look-
ing for and are able to tell the consultant .
Amodt said the City should not continue to fund
the golf course . Woods called for the question.
The motion to direct staff to identify the viable
options for the golf course to include selling all
or part of it with the proviso that it remain as a
golf course, that all options be included, that
all options be examined by an outside consultant ,
and that the amount of the consultant not exceed
$20 , 000 then carried.
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I)
Kina County 1998 EMS Funding Contract.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the contract
with King County EMS, subject to City Attorney
approval of contract documents . The contract will
allow the City to receive funds as per the EMS
Levy. Earlier this year an EMS levy was passed
for a three (3) year period, beginning in 1999 .
This levy also included funding for the 2nd half
of 1998 . In order to receive these funds the City
must enter into a contract for one (1) year to
receive $330, 912 for 1998 .
The Attorney' s Office is going through the final
revisions of the contract wording. The contract
for 1998 with respect to the terms of the agree-
ment is similar to the previous six (6) year
agreement . Authorization to sign the contract
will expedite receipt of these funds . A contract
for 1999, 2000 , and 2001 will be presented to
Council after the first of the year.
SURPLUS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J)
PROPERTY Surplus Property Policy Repealer. PASSAGE of
Resolution No . 1517 repealing Resolution No. 1030
9
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
SURPLUS relating to procedures for disposal of surplus
PROPERTY property, as recommended by the Operations
Committee . Resolution No . 1030 established a
process for the disposition of surplus property.
Because of the diversity of property that the City
needs to surplus and because determining the value
of surplus property is inherently unpredictable,
procedures set forth in Resolution No . 1030 have
become cumbersome, time consuming, and sometimes
counter-productive to achieving the best market
price for the property selected for surplus .
SISTER CITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K)
Proposed Sister City, Castlereagh, North Ireland.
PASSAGE of Resolution No . 1518 relating to the
formation of a Sister City relationship between
the City of Kent and Castlereagh, Northern
Ireland, as recommended by the Operations
Committee . After receiving a presentation on
Castlereagh by the Northern Ireland Sister City
Committee, the Kent Sister City Association Board
reviewed the proposed relationship under the
City of Kent ' s Sister City Selection Criteria
and recommended that the City of Kent accept
Castlereagh as a new Kent sister city so that both
communities can benefit through the development of
economic, cultural, educational, professional/
technical, and people exchanges .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M)
Boater Registration Fee Allocation Proiect.
APPROVAL to establish a separate project to
receive revenues from the distribution of vessel
registration fees, and to make appropriate
expenditures . The City has received two allo-
cations so far for a total of $34 , 946 . 60 . The
major portion of this revenue is for 1996 and
1997 .
With the annexation of Lake Meridian, the Kent
Police Department is now eligible to receive funds
from the distribution of vessel registration fees .
The State of Washington Parks and Recreation
10
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
POLICE Commission has advised that the funds were to be
used solely to support the boating safety program.
Program activities include enforcement , education,
navigational aids, or program administration.
These funds cannot be used to supplant local
funding for Boating Safety Program activities .
Along with the distribution of funds there will be
forms for reporting annual marine law enforcement
activities and expenditures .
ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7D)
Annexation Policy. On April 1 , 1997 , the City
Council approved the current annexation policy for
the City. At the Council retreat earlier this
year, the Council decided to review the annexation
policy to determine if it needed to be updated.
The Planning/Public Works Committee met three
times to consider revisions and decided to forward
the proposed revisions to the full Council without
a recommendation.
Planning Director Harris went over the City' s
potential annexation area, noting that Kent is
mostly surrounded by other cities . He pointed out
an area northeast of the city which is approxi-
mately four square miles in size and has a
population of approximately 20 , 000 people, and
said there are a few other areas as well .
Harris explained that some modifications, based on
what is left to annex, have been made to the
Annexation Policies . He noted that they have been
to the Public Works & Planning Committee, who
recommended that they come to Council for review
without a recommendation of approval . He noted
that the report shows where changes were made,
and pointed out that the policies are not time-
sensitive, that they are friendly to those who may
want to come into the city, and that they address
not diminishing existing levels of service for the
sake of annexing. Harris displayed a map and
showed and explained the logical areas for annexa-
tion. He clarified that there is no timeline and
11
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
ANNEXATION that annexations could be done whenever the City
feels it is appropriate .
Upon Orr ' s suggestion, Harris agreed to change
the word "initiating" in Policy No . 3 to
"considering" , so that it would read "To the
extent possible, operating impacts from previous
annexations need to be absorbed prior to
considering additional annexations . He also
agreed that the word "to" should be added to
Policy No. 8 after the phrase "to the maximum
extent possible, " so that it would read "After the
City Council adopts an annexation ordinance, the
actual date the annexation takes place shall
coincide with the availability of revenue, to the
maximum extent possible , to be received by the
City for the annexed area . "
BROTHERTON MONIED to approve the proposed amend-
ments to the Annexation Policy and Annexation
Strategies, as amended. Yingling seconded and the
motion carried.
TECHNOLOGY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N)
PLAN Telephone System Purchase. AUTHORIZATION for
the Mayor to sign a contract with Williams
Communications for the purchase of
Telecommunications Systems and Services,
subject to City Attorney approval of contract
documents .
As part of the Technology Plan, the City Council
authorized a budget of $1, 215 , 000 to replace many
of the aging phone systems in the City. Together
with the Telecommunications Consultant, the TMC
Group, a comprehensive Request For Proposal was
issued on 7/31/98 . A Phone System Selection
Committee with representatives from each depart-
ment participated in the education and evaluation
process, demonstrations, and site visits to
determine the best fit for the City' s require-
ments . The Committee unanimously recommended the
Williams Communications proposal , based on
usability, feature sets , and technology. This
12
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
TECHNOLOGY purchase achieves E911 compliance on all phone
PLAN systems . It is anticipated that the first phase
of this project (including the main PBX) will be
done in mid-January, 1999 .
McFall pointed out a typographical error in the
expenditure required and said it should be
$1 , 052 , 184 . 00 .
PUGET SOUND (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7E)
ENERGY BPA Power Allocation Policies. Under the
Northwest Regional Power Act and other statutes,
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has an
obligation to provide federal power to Northwest
investor-owned utilities serving residential and
small farm customers . The BPA has released a
draft proposal for the sale of all electricity
generated at the federal dams on the Columbia
River and its tributaries . The BPA' s proposed
allocation for residential and small farm
customers is short of the minimum allocation
recommended by the Northwest State Public Utility
Commissions . The proposal includes an allocation
for direct service to industries such as aluminum
companies while it falls short of meeting the
supply needs for the residential and small-farm
customers . Puget Sound Energy has requested that
the City of Kent adopt a resolution objecting to
the EPA' s current allocation proposal .
Bob Braukus, Manager of Community Relations, Puget
Sound Energy, explained the situation and said it
is an issue of equity. He noted for Brotherton
that the impact could be as much as $100 , 000 , 000
to PSE rate payers, based upon the BPA' s current
proposal, and urged the Council to pass the
proposed resolution.
ORR MOVED for passage of Resolution No. 1519
relating to the Bonneville Power Administration' s
proposed sale of electricity and its impacts of
the allocation to residential and small-farm
customers . Epperly seconded and the motion
carried.
13
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
MORATORIUM (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7F)
Adult Retail Establishment Moratorium. Adult book
stores, adult novelty, and adult video store
establishments are doing business within the City
of Kent whose stock and trade is devoted in whole
or in part to adult entertainment merchandise as
such is defined in the Kent City Code . There is a
possibility that the City could receive applica-
tions for adult retail establishments that would
significantly increase the amount of square feet
of commercial space characterized by such uses
located within the City. The Kent City Code
relating to these establishments may not adequate-
ly address the impacts that these uses present ;
therefore, the City needs time to review existing
information on the impacts of these facilities .
State law authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums,
provided a public hearing is held within sixty
days of adoption. Staff recommends passage of a
resolution establishing a moratorium and the
scheduling of a public hearing at the next Council
meeting of November 17, 1998 .
The City Attorney said this issue was addressed by
the Public Works & Planning Committee and the
Operations Committee, and clarified that this
deals with adult book stores, video stores and
novelty stores . He explained the regulations and
said it has been determined that 10% stock or
trade is not enough material to be defined as an
adult entertainment facility. He said staff
recommends that a moratorium be established for
six months to allow time for staff to review the
history of these types of facilities, to deter-
mine whether or not to remain with the current 20%
criteria for defining these types of facilities,
and to determine whether or not there are any
significant impacts resulting from these facili-
ties that would require them to remain regulated
with zoning criteria.
Lubovich pointed out that if Council decides to
make a change at a later date, the matter would
probably have to go to the Land Use & Planning
14
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
MORATORIUM Board. He said there are some such establish-
ments in the city, and this is not to say there
have been any problems with them. He said he is
not aware of any pending applications, but it is
appropriate to ensure that the Constitutional
standards set by the court have been met . He
noted for Yingling that this type of business
cannot be banned, and that he wants to be sure the
existing controls are adequate .
WOODS MOVED for the passage of Resolution No . 1520
imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of appli-
cations for and the issuance of any business
license or any building, land use, or development
permit , and further setting November 17 , 1998 as
the hearing date for a hearing on this matter
before the City Council . Epperly seconded and the
motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L)
1999 Budget and Tax Levy. SET November 17 , 1996 ,
as the date for a public hearing on the 1999
Budget and Tax Levy.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 62)
Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through October 15 and paid on
October 15 , after auditing by the Operations
Committee on October 20 , 1998 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/15/98 206941-207295 $ 849, 239 . 25
10/15/98 207296-207760 2 , 626 , 310 . 20
$3 , 475, 549 .45
Approval of checks issued for special payroll of
October 15 and paid on October 15 , 1998 .
15
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
FINANCE AFSCME Contract Settlement Checks :
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/15/98 Checks 231029-231065 $ 27 , 257 . 15
10/15/98 Advices 71450-71566 120 , 961 . 39
$148 , 218 . 54
Approval of checks issued for pavroll for
October 1 through October 16 and paid on
October 20 , 1998 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/20/98 Checks 231066-231394 $ 257, 721 . 44
10/20/98 Advices 71567-72117 781 , 703 . 80
$1, 039, 425 . 24
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6Q)
(ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WOODS)
Excused Absence. APPROVAL of an excused absence
from tonight ' s Council meeting for Councilmember
Clark, who is unable to attend.
REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers of
the Suburban Cities dinner tomorrow night and of
the Food World luncheon on November loth.
Operations Committee. Woods noted that the next
Operations Committee meeting will be held at
3 : 30 p.m. on November 17 and that the 1999 Budget
will be discussed.
Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Parks
Committee will meet on November 17 at 4 : 30 p.m.
Administrative Reports. McFall noted that the
Public Works Department staff will hold an
informal informational meeting with affected
property owners regarding the potential formation
of an LID to pay for a portion of the 277th
corridor project on November 5 at 4 : 00 p .m.
16
Kent City Council Minutes November 3 , 1998
REPORTS McFall noted that the Public Works & Planning
Committee will conduct the final assessment roll
hearing on LID 340 at 3 : 30 p .m. on November 16 ,
1998 in the Council Chambers .
EXECUTIVE At 8 :45 p .m. , the meeting recessed to Executive
SESSION Session for approximately twenty minutes .
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 9 : 00 p .m.
Brenda Jac ober, CMC
City Cler
17
............ _.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to finalize
and execute a contract for public defense services with Scott
Stewart for a term of two years in a form and with terms
substantially similar to the proposed contract .
The City ' s current contract for public defense services at
the Municipal Court expires December 31 , 1998 . Staff has
negotiated a new two-year contract with the current contractor,
Scott Stewart , to provide these services at the same cost as
the current contract . The City will pay $16, 500 per month plus
the cost of appeals such as the cost of transcripts . The
contract has a ninety day cancellation provision for both
parties .
3 . EXHIBITS: Contract and memo from Brent McFall
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $198 , 000 annually
SOURCE OF FUNDS : General Fund Budget
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6C
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
t0: Operations Committee
hOm: Brent McFall, Chief of Operations
re: Public Defense Services Contract
date: October 29, 1998
The City's current public defense services contract is with Stewart & Goss, P.S. They are
completing their fourth year of services to the City. The current contract is a two-year contract
expiring December 31, 1998. What is proposed is another two-year contract beginning in 1999 with
the same compensation level and under the same terms and conditions as the current contract. Chip
Goss of Stewart& Goss is leaving the firm by the end of 1998; therefore, the new contract would
be with Scott Stewart who has been the attorney providing the services under this contract.
The contract provides that at least two defense counsel will be present at routine pre-trial
calendars. Including intems,there are up to four defense counsel working on the City's cases. Our
public defenders provide services not only at the Kent Municipal Court, but also at the Kent
Corrections Facility regarding in-custody clients. Under the current contract and that proposed for
the years 1999 and 2000, the City would pay$16,500 per month throughout the term of the contract
for a total of$198,000 per year. Further, the City would pay for the cost of appeals, basically the
cost of transcripts. This amounts to only a few hundred dollars each year. The public defenders,
however, receive no additional compensation for appeals filed on behalf of their clients with the
exception of the costs mentioned above.
During 1996 and 1997 there were close to 2,400 cases assigned to the public defenders.
Appointments this year total 1,845 cases through September. It appears that appointments will
exceed 2,400 cases for 1998. Assuming 1999 appointments of 2,400 cases, compensation to the
public defenders would be $82.50 per case.
What is proposed is another two-year contract with Scott Stewart under the same terms and
conditions as the current contract and with the same compensation level. The safety valve for either
party is a ninety (90) day right to terminate. In the event the appointments deviate grossly one way
or the other, either party could exercise a right to terminate the agreement and the parties would have
to either renegotiate or the City would have to look for other options for services.
The Operations Committee is asked to approve the proposed contract in substantially the
same form as presented in order to allow changes to the contract during final negotiations that do
not substantially alter the terms of the contract as proposed.
P-V.AW\AT[ORNEY.S\ROGER\MEMOS\OPan .MEM.dm
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF KENT, Washington, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and N. SCOTT STEWART, hereinafter
referred to as "Attorney".
In consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Scope of Services. The Attorney agrees to provide public defender services for
indigent criminal defendants charged with criminal violations of Title 8 and 9 of the Kent City Code
(KCC), as set forth in this Agreement. All indigent criminal defendants charged with committing
an offense under Title 8 and 9 KCC who qualify for appointed counsel or are appointed from the
bench shall be referred to the Attorney. The Attorney shall enter a notice of appearance and provide
legal representation for each of these defendants from the time of receiving notice or order of
appointment through arraignment, if appropriate, pretrial hearings, trial and sentencing, review
hearings as required by the judge, revocation hearings, and appeals.
2. Number of Attorneys. The attorney will provide an adequate number of defense
counsel to efficiently manage each court calendar, in a manner which avoids unnecessary delay in
completing the calendar. The attorney shall ensure that multiple defense counsel are present
whenever the court's caseload necessitates the presence of more than one attorney to effectively and
efficiently manage the calendar, unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto. Sufficient counsel
shall be provided to represent defendants during vacation, illnesses, and settings in more than one
courtroom.
3. Defendant's Access to Attomey. The parties agree that client access to Attorney prior
to appearance in court is paramount. Qualifying criminal defendants shall be provided access to the
Attorney by means of a toll-free local from Kent telephone number made available by the Attorney.
Attorney currently maintains offices at 15 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, and will, at all
times during the term of this agreement,maintain an office at such location or in South King County
1
at such location as to facilitate client access for purposes of providing services required herein. The
Attorney shall see all in-custody clients at the Kent Corrections facilities within 48 hours of
notification of appointment, excluding weekends and holidays, and will return to said facilities to
consult with client as necessary. The Attorney shall see all in-custody clients at the King County
Jail within a reasonable period of time following notice of appointment and further shall see such
clients in follow-up meetings as is necessary.
4. Applicant Screening. Determinations of indigency for purposes of eligibility for
appointed counsel under this contract shall be determined by an independent screening process
established by the City, and by direct appointments from the bench. Such appointment shall be in
accordance with State law. Should the Attorney determine a defendant is not eligible for assigned
counsel prior to the establishment of the attorney/client relationship, the Attorney shall promptly
advise the City to reconsider the eligibility of that defendant. The City's determination of indigency
shall be final and binding upon Attorney.
5. 24-Hour TeleRhone Access. The Attorney shall provide to the City Police
Department the telephone number or numbers at which an attorney can be reached twenty-four hours
each day for "critical stage" advice to defendants during the course of police investigations and/or
arrest. Such telephone numbers shall be serviced by a telephone paging device or other similar
monitoring method so that direct contact can be made with an attorney at any time of the day or
night, seven days a week.
6. Associated Counsel. Any counsel associated with or employed by the Attorney shall
have the authority to perform the services called for herein, and the Attorney may employ and/or
associate counsel to assist him at the Attorney's expense. The Attorney and all counsel employed
or associated pursuant to this section shall be admitted to the practice of law in the State of
Washington and be in good standing as such,pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of the State
of Washington.
The Attorney shall be responsible for performance of this Agreement,
notwithstanding that other counsel may be employed or associated by the Attorney to perform
services hereunder. The Attorney shall actively supervise associated and employed counsel
throughout the term of this Agreement, and any renewals hereof,to ensure that all cases are promptly
2
and effectively handled from the time of appointment until conclusion of the Attorney's
representation of the client.
The Attorney shall notify the City of any proposed association or employment of
counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein, and shall include in such
notification information regarding the background, education,training, experience and qualifications
of such counsel and any additional training and supervision that is proposed to be provided to such
associated or employed counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein. The
Attorney shall be responsible for providing all such training and/or supervision at the Attorney's sole
cost and expense.
No legal intern shall perform the services called for herein without the prior approval
of the City.
7. Term of this Agreement. This agreement shall commence on the 1st day of
January, 1999 and shall be in force and effect through December 31, 2000, unless terminated earlier
pursuant to the provisions hereof.
8. Proof of Professional Liability Insurance. During the term of this agreement and
any extension thereof,the Attorney shall secure and maintain a policy of comprehensive professional
liability insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Washington.
Said policy shall (a) provide protection and indemnification against any and all claims arising out
of the Attorney's representation pursuant to this agreement; and(b)have policy limits not less than
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
9. Indemnification. The Attorney shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its
elected officials, officers and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever arising out
of performance of the Attorney's obligations pursuant to the Agreement, including but not limited
to claims arising out of errors or omissions of the Attorney and/or by reason of accident, injury or
death caused to persons or property of any kind occurring, except to the extent they are caused by
the fault or neglect of the City.
10. Compensation.
a. Payment for Services: The City shall pay the Attorney for services rendered
under this Agreement as follows:
3
The City of Kent shall provide to Attorney for services rendered under this contract
the sum of One Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($198,000.00) per year to be
paid at the rate of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 ($16,500.00) per month. Attorney
shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this agreement is terminated
pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Attorney's compensation hereunder shall
be prorated based upon the number of months and portions of months which have elapsed between
the commencement of the year and the effective date of termination.
b. Appeals: The Attorney shall handle appeals taken by indigent defendants,
regardless of whether Attorney represented said defendant at trial. This service is to be included
within the "scope of services" described in Section 1 of this contract and the "compensation"
provided for in paragraph 9(a) above.
C. Miscellaneous Costs: The City agrees to reimburse the Attorney for all
reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes
if such costs have not been waived.
d. Billing: The Attorney shall bill the City, in care of the City Attorney's Office,
on the first day of the month, or the first work day thereafter:
i. for the monthly installment set forth in subsection 10.a. above;
ii. for all costs incurred by the Attorney under subparagraph 10.c.,
above; for the previous month or months.
Notwithstanding the reporting requirements of Section 16 of this Agreement, the
Attorney shall submit with the monthly bill, a report which sets forth the number of cases to which
the Attorney was appointed. The submission of the report with the monthly bill is a condition of
payment under this Agreement. The City shall make payments on or before the 20th day of the
month following the month for which services were rendered with the first payment due February
20, 1999; provided,that any billing not received by the City Attorney's Office on or before the fourth
working day of the month shall not be due and payable until the next City billing period.
11. Discovery Provided. The City shall provide Attorney one (1) copy of all
discoverable material concerning each assigned case.
4
12. No Assignments or Subcontracts. No assignment or transfer of this Agreement
nor of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written
consent, except that Attorney may assign this Agreement to another entity naming N. Scott Stewart
as a partner without the prior written consent of the City.
13. Attorney Conflict. In the event the representation of a defendant hereunder raises
a conflict of interest such that the Attorney cannot represent the defendant, said defendant shall be
promptly referred to the Kent Municipal Court for further assignment.
14. Termination.
a. For Cause: City or Attorney may terminate this Agreement immediately in
the event the other party fails to perform its obligations as described in this Agreement and such
failure has not been corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner
after notice of breach has been provided to the other party.
b. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties: Either party may terminate this
Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable
for reasons beyond such party's reasonable control such as but not limited to acts of nature; war or
warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout;
sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control.
Notice of termination pursuant to this subparagraph b. shall be given by the party
terminating this Agreement to the other not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of
termination.
C. Without Cause: Either party for necessary budgetary reasons may terminate
this Agreement without cause by giving written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days
prior to the end of any calendar year during the term of the Agreement.
15. Amendments. No modification or amendment of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
16. Reports. At the end of every third month during the term of this agreement,Attorney
shall provide the City a full accounting of all cases assigned and all in-court appointments made
during that three month period, segregated for each month. These itemized quarterly reports to the
City shall contain the number of cases to which the Attorney was appointed, a breakdown of the
5
types of criminal charges to which the Attorney was appointed and a list of cases in which a notice
of appeal was filed. Such reports shall be submitted to the City within ten(10) calendar days from
the end of each quarter. The Attorney shall have the option of submitting monthly itemized reports
in lieu of quarterly reports.
17. Status of Attorney. This agreement calls for the performance of the services of
the Attorney as an independent contractor and Attorney will not be considered an employee of the
City for any purpose. The Attorney and/or its subcontractor(s) shall secure at its own expense and
be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance
compensation, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and all other payroll
deductions for the Attorney and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all business
licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder.
18. Case Load Limits. The Attorney shall establish case load limits for attorneys
assigned to perform services under this Agreement that ensure effective representation of each and
every client.
19. Compliance with Laws. The Attorney shall be in compliance with applicable state,
federal and city laws and regulations.
20. Additional Services. The Attorney may be requested to perform additional services
beyond the original Scope of Services as defined in Section 1 of this Agreement. Such work will
be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of
compensation.
21. Notices. All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at
the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing:
City of Kent Attorney
Kent Mayor N. Scott Stewart
220 4th Avenue South 15 South Grady Way, #600
Kent, Washington 98032 Renton, Washington 98055
6
22. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the
parties and may not be enlarged, modified or altered except in writings signed by the parties and
endorsed herein.
23. Duplicate Originals. This agreement is executed in duplicate originals.
CITY OF KENT ATTORNEY
Jim White, Mayor N. Scott Stewart
Dated: Dated:
ATTEST:
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
City of Kent
PALAWTONTRACRPDCON7RIRAL
�..... .. ....
................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: TACOMA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT INTERIM FUNDING
AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee, authorization to direct staff to increase
the previous authorization ($791 , 000) associated with the
design work of the Tacoma Second Supply Project to $975 , 160, in
order to keep the project moving ahead towards a 2004
completion date .
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works/Planning Committee minutes and Public
Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6D
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 2, 1998
COMMITTEE MEMBRS PRESENT: Tim Clark, Chair, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Lubovich, Don Wickstrom, Fred Satterstrom
PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim & Elsy Rust
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tim Clark, at 3:35PM.
Approval of Minutes of October 19, 1998
Committee member, Tom Brotherton, made the motion to approve the minutes from the October 19,
1998 Public Works/Planning Committee. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0.
Tacoma Water Supply Proiect— Interim Fundins Agreement
`y Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, informed the Committee that the contract for the Tacoma
Water Supply Project was first executed in 1986, and implementation of the project has been in
process since then. The project is now the only near-term new water supply project in King, Pierce,
and Snohomish Counties. He said water rights are very difficult to achieve, either surface or ground
water, and this project is probably the only new central source that has already been permitted. In
1995, the Council authorized spending $791,000 on preliminary design of the project to get it moving
and to keep it on schedule. Right now the project is scheduled for operation in 2004.
The work involves raising the summer time pool another 20,000 acre feet from the existing 25,000
acre feet at the Howard Hansen Dam. That water will then be used by the municipalities that are
involved in the project for their water supply. Kent would store the water allowed in the winter
behind the dam from Feb. 15"'until June 30`h, and then start using it. During the balance of the year
there would not be any water available. Project elements include dams, habitat work, a fish passage
for the dam which is being sponsored and done by the Corp with Kent participating in a local match,
pipeline, headworks, Muckleshoot mitigation, King County mitigation, and some"friends of the
river" mitigation, all to a cost over$200,000,000. Kent's share is 1/9, which in 1996 was
$22,000,000 and now is probably close to $28,000,000.
Mr. Wickstrom said a letter was received from the Corp asking Tacoma to come up with local money
to pay the Corp's costs for moving ahead towards the completion date. Kent's share would be
$100,000 in the fiscal year 1999 and another$500,000 in the following fiscal year. Tacoma says
they've already invested$22,000,000 in the project and they want Kent, Covington Water District,
Lakehaven Water and Sewer District, and Seattle to fund the study costs. The costs are divided, with
the Districts and Kent picking up a third, Seattle a third, and Tacoma a third. Tacoma is asking the
other participants to front the money to proceed with the design, which would require boosting
Kent's $791,000 limit up to a$975,160 limit. The Public Works Department is recommending an
increase of the previous authorization to that amount.
Tom Brotherton asked for a rough estimate on how long this project would supply Kent's water
needs. Don Wickstrom said the City is running around 15 million gallons a day in demand now and
the ultimate, maximum needs should be around 30,000,000 gallons per day at peak demand. This
project and the construction of the impoundment at the 124`h St. property would give the City
32,000,000 gallons a day capability.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 29, 1998
TO: Public Works and Planning Committee
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: Tacoma Second Supply Project
Back in February of 1995 Council authorized proceeding with funding a portion the design costs for
the above reference project (copy of minutes attached). That authorization was for $791,000 of
which to date $284,877 has been paid to Tacoma. In order to keep the project moving ahead towards
a 2004 completion date Tacoma has asked its partners to pay the local match of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers costs to pursue the pre-construction engineering and design work for the Howard
Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project(See attached letter.). For the Federal Fiscal Year 1999 and
2000 our respective share would be $103,167 and$578,116. To concur with this commitment the
present authorization would have to be increased to $975,160. Since this is the only foreseeable near
term additional water supply project available to us it is recommended that the committee approve
the increase in authorization. Monies for this are presently available in the Tacoma intertie fund
(W17). It should be noted that our present supplies are not adequate to last to 2004 so any delay in
this project beyond said date will just increase our hardship.
Motion: Recommend to full Council to increase the previous authorization associated with the
design work of the Tacoma Second Supply Project to $975,160.
February 21, 1995
HEALTH & $'��-/l release of bonds after expiration period, as
SANITATION;`^ recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 27710 108th Avenue SE.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline. AUTHORIZATION
for the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding with Tacoma relating to funding
I 65 Kent's share of the design work associated with
/ Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project upon
concurrence of the Public Works Director and the
City Attorney, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
Tacoma has requested that Kent assist with the
funding of the design of the Tacoma Second
Supply Pipeline Project, our share of which
would be $791, 000. This project has long been
anticipated to be a future water supply source.
Due to the Department of Ecology's present
moratorium on new water right certificates,
future sources are presently limited to either
_ Tacoma's project or the development of the City's
Impoundment Project.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
King County Regional Water Association Joint
Operating Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the
r/i 3 Mayor to execute the South King County Regional
(( Water Association Joint Operating Agreement, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee. This
Agreement establishes a cooperative framework
for the development of future water supply
sources.
SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens.
AUTHORIZATION for staff to prepare and for the
Public Works Director to sign a Latecomer Agree-
ment for the sanitary sewer improvements of
Stillwater Greens, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
The owner/developer of Stillwater Greens sub-
division has completed a sewer extension along
128th Ave. SE between SE 272nd St. & SE 264th
St. , and has requested that the City implement a
Latecomer Agreement for future connections onto
the sewer main in order to recover a portion of
3
3628 South 35th Street P.O Box 11007
„_.� Tacoma, Washington 98411-0007
-------- -------
WATER
TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES
August 20, 1998
Diana Gale Don Perry
Seattle Public Utilities Lakehaven Utility District
Judy Nelson Don Wickstrom
Covington Water District City of Kent
Dear Partners:
SUBJECT: Proposed Partner Contributions for Howard Hanson Dam
Pre-construction Engineering Study, Fiscal Year 1999 & 2000
Tacoma Water has recently been advised by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
that the local partner-share of costs to pursue the pre-construction engineering
and design work for the Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project in B__�OGC
Federal Fiscal Year 1999 and 2000 will be $619,000 and $3,468,000, L
respectively. Tacoma Water has previously provided $3 million in cash and
contributed services to the Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project
during the reconnaissance and feasibility portions of the study.
As partners in the Howard Hanson Additional Storage Project as well as the
other aspects of the Second Supply Project, we are requesting that you agree to
fund these study costs during FY 1999 and 2000. It is proposed that these costs
would be divided 50 percent to the City of Seattle/CWA and 16.67 percent to
each of the entities making up the South King County Regional Water
Association who are participants in this project.
It is expected that each of our project partners would enter into an agreement
with the City of Tacoma to provide this funding in advance of Tacoma's required
payments to the Corps of Engineers. Since the Corps will be without funding to
pursue the additional storage project after the start of the fiscal year in October,
1998, the expeditious development and signing of funding agreements is
important. Please advise us of your willingness to provide this funding and to
execute funding agreements.
We request your reply within two weeks.
Sincerely,
John C. Kimer '
Deputy Water Superintendent
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: TRI-STAR DISPOSAL, CHANGE IN CONTROL - CONSENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Grant consent to the acquisition of Tri-
Star Disposal by Waste Management , Inc . as required under
Section 4 . 4 . 2 of the existing contract between the City and
Tri-Star.
Section 4 .4 . 2 of the City ' s contract with Tri-Star Disposal
provides that any change in control or controlling interest in
ownership of the company must have the consent of the City or
the contract shall be in default . Tri-Star is being sold to
Waste Management , Inc . Therefore , City consent is required.
3 . EXHIBITS : Letter from Tri-Star Disposal and Section 4 . 4 . 2 of
existing contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 6E
Tri-Star Disposal Co., Inc.
P.O. BOX 1877
AUBURN, WA 98071-1877
A service for every need."
J. Brent McFall
Director of Operations October 28, 1998
Kent City Hall
220— Fourth Avenue South
A.)Kent, WA 98032 Hand Delivered �?
Re: Change in Control of TriStar Disposal 1S
S
Dear Mr. McFall:
Pursuant to Section 4.4.2 of the Solid Waste Collection Contract between
the City of Kent and TriStar Disposal, please accept this letter as formal
notification that Waste Management, Inc. has entered into an agreement to
acquire control of TriStar Disposal. This letter of notification is also a formal
request for the City to approve Waste Management's acquisition of control of
TriStar Disposal, allowing the new ownership to continue to provide the service of
Contractor in the above referenced agreement.
Should you have any questions regarding any specific matter relating to
the acquisition of the control of TriStar Disposal, please contact the undersigned
at (253) 939-2065. Thank you for your prompt attention and consideration in this
matter.
Very truly yours,.
0�
C. Anthony Vavis
Service: Commercial 939-9792 - Residential 833-3333
P"*d
4 .2 .2 Contractor' s Control of Project. The Contractor
shall have the exclusive right to control the Services and Work
performed under the Contract and, except as otherwise provided in
section 4 .5 , the persons performing those Services and Work. The
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions
Of its officers, agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors .
Nothing in the Contract creates or shall be construed to create a
partnership or joint venture between the City and the Contractor
and nothing in this Contract shall be construed as giving the City
a duty to supervise or control the acts or omissions of any person
performing Services or Work under the Contract.
4 .3 Subcontractors and Other County Contractors .
4 . 3 . 1 Approval of Subcontractors . Within sixty (60)
days of execution of the Contract, the Contractor shall submit to
the Director for approval, acting reasonably, the names and
addresses of existing subcontractors for Services related to this
Contract equal to or exceeding $100, 000 per year. Thereafter, the
names and addresses of proposed additional such subcontractors
shall be submitted for Director approval at least thirty (30) days
(except in emergency) prior to the execution of a subcontract .
4 . 3 .2 Assignment of Subcontracts . All contracts or
agreements entered into by the Contractor with its subcontractors,
officers, employees and. agents for performance of the Contract,
including all contracts or agreements relating to the operation or
ownership of any Facilities, shall include and be consistent with
-. all terms and conditions of the Contract . The Contractor shall be
as fully responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of its
subcontractors and suppliers and of the subcontractors' suppliers,
employees, firms, agents, servants or subcontractors as it is for
the acts or omissions of its own employees or agents .
4 .4 Assignment.
4 .4 . 1 Nonassignment of the Contract. The Contract or
any interest therein or part thereof shall not be assigned, whether
by operation of law or otherwise, nor shall any part thereof be
subcontracted without the prior written consent of the City first
having been obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The City reserves the right to cancel or terminate the
Contract at any time in case the Contractor fails to obtain City
approval .
4 .4 .2 Change in Control . Any change in control or the
transfer of a controlling interest in the ownership of the
Contractor shall constitute a default under the terms of the
Contract, unless the City consents to that transfer, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld. "The transfer of a controlling
interest of Contractor" shall include but is not limited to the
transfer of fifty (50) percent or more of the voting stock or the
ownership of the Contractor to or from a single entity, unless the
City, at the Contractor' s request, approves that transfer in
2907.5
10/30/92 10:43pm -2 3-
writing. However, intracompany transfers, such as transfers
between different subsidiaries or branches of the parent
corporation of the Contractor, or transfers to corporations,
limited partnerships or any other entity owned or controlled by the
Contractor as of January 1, 1992, shall not be construed as the
transfer of a controlling, interest of the Contractor. If the City
determines that the new ownership can adequately and faithfully
render the service required in the Contract for the remaining term
of the Contract, the City may elect to execute a novation, allowing
the new ownership to assume the rights and duties of the Contract
and release the previous ownership of all obligation and liability.
The new ownership would then be solely liable for any work and/or
claims related to the Contract.
The term "transfer" includes a sale, merger, or change in
ownership by operation of law, the issuance of new shares, or
conversion of shares without voting rights to voting shares.
"Voting stock" means the shares entitled to vote for election of
the directors of the corporation.
4 .4 .3 Binding Effect. The Contract shall be binding on
any and all successors or assignees of the Contractor or the City
in accordance with this Article.
4 . 5 Indemnification.
4 .5 . 1 Contractor' s Indemnification of Cif. Except as
expressly provided in this section, the Contractor shall at all
times during the term of the Contract indemnify, hold harmless and
defend the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents
and representatives from and against any and all losses, damages,
costs, charges, expenses, judgments and liabilities, including
attorney fees (collectively, "losses") , directly or indirectly
resulting from, arising out of, or related to any occurrence,
conduct, or operation of or by the Contractor under this Contract,
including but not limited to one or more claims described in
section 4 .5 .2 . The indemnity provided in this section shall not
apply to losses solely resulting from the negligence or intentional
acts of the City, its agents or employees . Except as otherwise
provided immediately above, it is the intention of the parties that
the Contractor's indemnification apply to claims arising from the
concurrent negligence of the City and the Contractor, or their
respective agents, employees or subcontractors .
4.5 .2 Claims Subject to Indemnification. The term
"claims" as used in this section means all claims, lawsuits, causes
of action, damages, penalties, charges, judgments, losses,
liabilities of any character or kind and other legal actions and
proceedings of any nature, whether or not asserted in a judicial
forum, including but not limited to claims, lawsuits, causes of
action, and other legal actions and proceedings involving bodily or
personal injury or death of any person or damage to any property
(including but not limited to persons employed by the City, the
Contractor or any other person and all property owned or claimed by
2907.5
10/30/92 10:43pm -2 4-
.............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 1724 REGULATIONS, LAND USE & PLANNING - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.
relating to land use and zoning, adopting new administrative
procedures for the processing of project permit applications as
required by the Regulatory Reform Act , Chapter 347 1995 Laws of
Washington, describing general requirements for a complete
application; allowing for optional consolidated permit proces-
sing, describing the process for issuance for a notice of
application, setting forth the initial steps to the determina-
tion of consistency with the development regulations in SEPA,
setting a timeframe for the issuance of project permits;
describing the required public notice procedures for a public
hearing; establishing a process for the conduct of an open
record hearing and closed record decisions and appeals,
describing the process for issuance of a notice of decision,
adding a new Chapter 12 . 01 to the Kent City Code, in order to
implement the new project permit administrative procedures, and
repealing existing notice process and appeals provisions in
Chapters 2 . 32 , 11 . 03 , 11 . 04 , 12 . 04 , 15 . 06, and 15 . 09, as recom-
mended by the Land Use and Planning Board.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, memo of 11/17/98, letter of 5/23/98 from
Boeing, letter of 6/10/98 to Boeing, Land Use & Planning Board
minutes of 5/26/98
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, adopting
new administrative procedures for the processing of project
permit applications as required by the Regulatory Reform
Act, Chapter 347 1995 Laws of Washington, describing
general requirements for a complete application; allowing for
optional consolidated permit processing, describing the
process for issuance of a notice of application, setting forth
the initial steps to the determination of consistency with the
development regulations in SEPA, setting a timeframe for the
issuance of project permits; describing the required public
notice procedures for a public hearing; establishing a process
for the conduct of an open record hearing and closed record
decisions and appeals, describing the process for issuance of
a notice of decision, adding a new Chapter 12.01 to the Kent
City Code, in order to implement the new project permit
administrative procedures, and repealing existing notice,
process, and appeals provisions in Chapters 2.32, 11.03,
12.04, 12.07, 15.06, 15.08, and 15.09.
I
WHEREAS, the Regulatory Reform Act(Chapter 347 of the 1995 Laws of
Washington) require that the City establish a permit review process which, among other
things: (1) provides for the integrated and consolidated review and decision on two or
more project permits relating to proposed actions; (2)combines the environmental review
process, both procedural and substantive, with the procedure for review of project permits;
(3) provides for no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal on
such permits, except for the appeal of a determination of significance; and(4)provides for
the issuance of the City's final decision within 120 days after submission of a complete
application; and
1 1724 Regulations
WHEREAS,the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing
on May 26, 1998 to consider the proposed changes and voted unanimously to send the
ordinance to the Kent City Council with their recommendation to adopt the proposed
changes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has a strong interest in efficient permitting
and the purpose of these regulatory reform procedures is to enhance efficiency,
consistency, and predictability;NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.32.090 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2.32.090. Duties. The hearing examiner shall have the following duties with
respect to applications of matters submitted before him or her.
A. Decisions of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner shall receive and examine
available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof, and enter
findings of fact and conclusions based upon these facts, which conclusions shall
represent the final action on the application, unless appealed, as specified in this
P PP PP � P
section for the following:
b sherekne pei
e- SigFvafiafses;
4- PIRAIRAd unit ;
e ; and
I. All process III applications as follows:
a. Conditional use permits;
b. Sian variances;
2 1724 Regulations
C. Planned unit developments not requiring a change of use;
d. Preliminary plat:
e. Shoreline variance:
f. Shoreline conditional use permit;
g, Special home occupation permit: and
h. Applications for variances from the terms of the zoning code;
provided, however, that no application for a variance shall be
granted unless the hearing examiner finds:
i. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties
in the vicinity and zone in which the property on behalf of
which the application is located;
i
ii. That such variance is necessary, because of special
circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide
it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties
in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property
is located, and
iii. That the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property
or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated.
2.€ Business license denials, revocations.
Code violations pursuant to chapter 1.04.
B. The Hearing Examiner shall have the following duties with respect to appeals
submitted before him or her.
1. All process I appeals as follows:
a. Appeals from Development Plan and zoning permit review
decisions,
3 1724 Regulations
b. Anneals from performance standards procedure decisions;
C. Appeals from sign permit decisions; and
d. Appeals from administrative interpretation decisions.
2. All process II appeals as follows:
a. Apeals from administrative design review decisions:
b. AARpeals from shoreline substantial development permits decisions;
C. .Appeals from accessory dwelling unit permit decisions:
d. Appeals from administrative variance decisions;
e. Appeals from downtown design review decisions;
f. Appeals from multi-family design review decisions, and
g: Appeals from short subdivision committee decisions.
;I
3.i- Appeals from stop work orders; or notices of violation issued
by a city
official in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Kent
City Code .
I -
vd;ieh the applieat;aa is
t
!..\ ;
CT�7
,
i5-1e6&tad-, eta
4 1724 Regulations
f3
4. Appeals of SEPA determinations.
51- Such other matters as may be designated by ordinance.
C.2- Recommendations of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner shall receive and
examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof
and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts, together with a
recommendation to the city council, for the following:
La- Rezones;
2.b. PfeliFainefy ple Planned unit developments with a change of use;
3.s- Special use combining districts, including mobile home park combining
districts;
i
4.e-. Such other matters as may be designated by or-diRgRee the Council.
D.3 {Public hearings. The hearing examiner shall conduct public hearings when
required under the provisions of the sState eEnvironmental pPolicy aAct; conduct
open-record public hearings or closed-record appeals in accordance with the
provision of Ch. 12.01 KCC;
conduct such other hearings as the city council may€ff from time to time
g tY Y
deem appropriate.
E.4. References. All references in the city 6code and elsewhere to the board of
adjustment shall be construed as referring to the hearing examiner.
F.4- Recommendation or decision.
1. The hearing examiner's recommendation or decision may be to grant or
deny the application, or the hearing examiner may recommend or require
of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the
i
5 1724 Regulations
hearing examiner fords necessary to make the application compatible with
its environment, with applicable state laws, and to carry out the objectives
and goals of the comprehensive plan,the zoning code,the subdivision code,
and other codes and ordinances of the city. Conditions, modifications and
restrictions which may be imposed are, but are not limited to, additional
setbacks, screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants,
easements and dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance
bonds or other financial assurances may be required to insure compliance
with conditions, modifications and restrictions.
2. In regard to applications for rezones,
I
planned unit development applications which require a change in use and
special use combining districts, the hearing examiner's findings and
conclusions shall be submitted to the city council,which shall have the final
authority to act on such applications. The hearing by the hearing examiner
shall constitute the an open-record pre-decision hearing before the final
decision is made by the city council.
SECTION 2. Section 2.32.100 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2.32.100. Applications. Applications for all matters to be heard by the
hearing examiner shall be presented to the planning department. When it is found an
application meets the filing requirements of the planning department,it the application shall
be accepted. The planning department shall be responsible for assigning a date for the
public hearing for each application. 44ie date shall not he mor-a then @He
The date set for a public hearing shall not be more than 100 days after the applicant has
complied with all requirements and furnished all necessary data €ff to the planning
department. Hearings on project permit applications are subject to the notice and hearing
requirements set forth in Ch. 12.01 KCC.
i
6 1724 Regulations
SECTIONS. Section 2.32.110 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2.32.110. Report by planning department. For Process III and IV project
permit applications,tThe planning department shall coordinate and assemble the comments
and recommendations of other city departments and governmental agencies having an
interest in the application and shall prepare a report that includes the information described
in 12 01 160(B)(3) For all other matters,the appropriate City department shall prepare a
report summarizing the factors involved and the plaffilifig department findings and
supportive recommendations. At least seven (7) calendar days prior to the scheduled
hearing, the report shall be filed with the hearing examiner and copies shall be mailed to
the applicant and shall be made available for use by any interested party for the cost of
reproduction.
SECTION4. Section 2.32.120 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2.32.120. Open-record al?ublic hearing.
A. Before rendering a decision or recommendation on any application, the hearing
examiner shall hold at least one (1) open record public hearing thereon.
B. For project permit applications,nhiotice of the time and place of the public hearing
shall be given as provided in Section 12.01.140(H)(1). For all other applications,
notice of the time and lace of the public hearing shall be given as provided in the
� P g s
ordinance governing the application. If none is specifically set forth, such notice
shall be given at least ten (10) working days prior to such hearing.
C. The hearing examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the
conduct of hearings under this chapter and also to administer oaths, and preserve
i order.
SECTIONS. Section 2.32.130 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
i as follows:
7 1724 Regulations
Sec. 2.32.130. Decision and recommendation.
A. When the hearing examiner renders a decision or recommendation, the hearing
examiner shall make and enter written findings from the record and conclusions
therefrom which support such decision. The decision shall be rendered within ten
(10) working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings, unless a
longer period is mutually agreed to on the record in wFitifig by the applicant and the
hearing examiner. The copy of such decision, including findings and conclusions,
shall be transmitted by first class mail, to the applicant and other parties of record
in the case requesting the same. There shall be kept in the planning department a
signed affidavit which shall attest that each mailing was sent in compliance with
this provision.
B. In the case of Process IV applications requiring city council approval, the hearing
examiner shall file a decision with the city council at the expiration of the period
provided for a r-okearing reconsideration,or if reconsideration is accepted,his
seMils#ed-e:within ten (10) working days
after the decision on reconsideration.
SECTION 6. Section 2.32.140 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2.32.140. Reconsideration. A party of record
believine that toe a decision or recommendation of the hearing examiner is based on
i erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, eFrer+H}ate or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written
request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner within€ekuuen{-14)five (5) working
days of the date the decision or recommendation is rendered. This request shall set forth the
specific errors or new information relied upon by such appellant, and the hearing examiner
may, after review of the record, take further action as he or she deems proper. If a request
for reconsideration is accepted, a decision is not final until after a decision on
reconsideration is issued.
8 1724 Regulations
SECTION 7. Section 11.03.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.020. Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part
contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA process. The city adopts the
following sections and subsections of chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) by reference:
197-11-040 Definitions.
197-11-050 Lead agency.
197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process.
197-11-060 Content of environmental review.
197-11-070 Limitations on action during SEPA process.
197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
197-11-090 Supporting documents.
197-11-100 Information required of applicants.
197-11-158 GMA project review—reliance on existing plans, laws,and
regulations.
197-11-164 Planned actions—definition and criteria.
197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating_planned actions —
procedures for adoption.
197-11-172 Planned actions —project review.
197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.
197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.
197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures.
197-11-230 Timing of an integration procedure for preliminary planning,
environmental analysis, and expanded scoping_
197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary
planning, environmental analysis, and expanded scoping.
197-11-235 Documents.
197-11-238 Monitoring.
9 1724 Regulations
SECTION 8. Section 11.03.050 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.050. EThreshold
determinations. The following 6m@ liff&s,
app1jeatiefis an4 site plans fef:any building er-land ose peffaits.
a- 4:h eity shall a uh-re-she'd- dese--- in—Ations on a mr„letea
I
A. If the City has made a determination of significance(DS) under Ch. 43.21C RCW
concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application shall be
combined with the DS and scoping notice. Nothing in this section prevents a DS
and scoping notice from being issued prior to a notice of application.
1 13.4. 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 state department of ecology pertaining
to the issuance of a threshold determination.
ageneies with
Except for a DS, and except as expressly allowed by RCW 36.70B.110, Laws of
1997 Ch. 429, Tthe city shall, in , not issue its threshold determination
10 1724 Regulations
until the expiration of the pubic comment period on a notice of application subject
to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. ...:thia fie", (90) days of _e e
d-
z-fe�: ♦::e evioiae ffisHie.: vf-♦al:e sl 117 7a : we�:e.. Vhieh iogno"r .hali net L.e
SECTION 9. Section 11.03.060 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.060. Same—Submission of determination of nonsignificance, draft
environmental impact statement, final environmental impact statement.
A. For nonexempt proposals, the determination of nonsignificance or final
environmental impact statement for the proposal shall normally accompany the
j city's staff recommendations to the planning commission or hearing examiner. The
draft environmental impact statement for a proposal may accompany the city's staff
recommendations when a hearing pursuant to WAC 197-11-535 is held.
B. For any nonexempt proposal, the applicant must submit a completed environmental
checklist_,
A checklist shall be submitted in
I
conjunction with a permit application and detailed plans and specifications. :Phi6
it
�' fe�ieiv-
I
i
i'
11 1724 Regulations
SECTION 10. Section 11.03.200 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.200. Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part
contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a "probable significant, adverse
environmental impact"requiring an environmental impact statement to be prepared. This
part also contains rules for evaluating the impacts of proposals not requiring an
environmental impact statement and rules applicable to categorical exemptions. The city
adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference, as
supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-300 Purpose of this part.
197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-310 Threshold determination required.
197-11-315 Environmental checklist.
197-11-330 Threshold determination process.
197-11-335 Additional information.
197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-350 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping.
197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination.
197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-880 Emergencies.
197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions.
SECTION 11. Section 11.03.230 of the Kent City Code is amended by
adding a new subsection D as follows:
Sec. 11.03.230. Environmental checklist.
A. A completed environmental checklist or a copy in the form provided in WAC 197-
11-960 shall be filed prief-te in conjunction with an application for a permit,
12 1724 Regulations
license, certificate or other approval not specifically exempted in this chapter;
- except, a checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree that an
environmental impact statement is required, SEPA compliance has been completed
or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. The city shall use the
environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead
agency, for determining the responsible official and for making the threshold
determination.
B. For private proposals, the city will require the applicant to complete the
environmental checklist,providing assistance as necessary. For city proposals, the
department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for
that proposal.
C. The city may assist the applicant in completing the environmental checklist for a
private proposal, if either of the following occurs:
i
1. The city has technical information on a question or questions that is
unavailable to the private applicant; or
2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals
or on proposals currently under consideration.
D. For projects submitted as planned actions under WAC 197-11-164, the City shall
use its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental
checklist form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. If a modified form is prepared,
it must be sent to the department of ecology to allow at least a thirty-day review
prior to use and the City shall:
I. Develop a modified environmental checklist form and adopt it along with
or as part of a planned action ordinance: or
2. Develop a modified environmental checklist form and send it to the
Department of Ecology.
SECTION 12. Section 11.03.240 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
13 1724 Regulations
Sec. 11.03.240. Mitigated determination of nonsignificance.
A. As provided in this section and in WAC 197-11-350,the responsible official may
issue a determination of nonsignificance based on conditions attached to the
proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarifications of the
proposal made by the applicant.
B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a determination of
significance is likely under WAC 197-11-350. The request must:
1. Follow submission of a project permit application and an environmental
checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is the lead
agency and include detailed site plans and a description of the proposal; or
2. Follow a pre-application conference;
3. Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal; and
4. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the
indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or rp oject
permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
5. The responsible official should respond to the request for early notice within
thirty (30) working days. The response shall:
a. Be written;
b. State whether the City currently considers issuance of a DS likely
and, if so, indicate the general or specific area(s) of concern that
is/are leading the City to consider
er a DS• and
C. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to
mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist
and/or hermit application as necessary to reflect the changes or
clarifications.
C. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of
impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
14 1724 Regulations
D. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised
environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination.on the
changed or clarified proposal and should make the determination in accordance
with the timing requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
1. If the city indicates in writing specific mitigation measures which will allow
it to issue a determination of nonsignificance in its response to the request
for early notice, and the applicant changes or clarifies the proposal to
include those specific mitigation measures,the city shall issue and circulate
a determination of nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2). This section
shall not be construed so as to interfere with the city council's ability to
impose conditions on a project or application for which it is the final
decision maker.
2. If the city indicated areas of concern,but did not indicate specific mitigation
measures that would allow it to issue a determination of nonsignificance,
the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a determination of
nonsignificance or determination of significance, as appropriate.
3. The applicant's proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes or
conditions)must be in writing and must be specific. For example,proposals
to "control noise" or"prevent storm water runoff' are inadequate, whereas
proposals to "muffle machinery to X decibel" or "construct two hundred-
foot storm water retention pond at Y location" are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated determination of
nonsignificance may be incorporated in the determination of
Y rP
nonsignificance by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other
documents.
E.
. A mitigated DNS is issued
under either WAC 197-11-340(2), requiring a fourteen calendar day comment
it
15 1724 Regulations
period and public notice or WAC 197-11-355(5). which may require no additional
comment period beyond the comment period on the notice of annlication.
F. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated determination of nonsignificance
shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced
in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any
manner specifically prescribed by the city.
G. If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation
measures that were incorporated in a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for
the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure
consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a)regarding withdrawal of determination of
nonsignificance.
H. The city's written response under subsection (D)(2) of this section shall not be
construed as a determination of significance. In addition,preliminary discussion of
clarifications or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early
notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its
threshold determination.
SECTION 13. Section 11.03.310 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.310. Preparation of environmental impact statements; additional
considerations.
A. Preparation of draft and final environmental impact statements (DEIS and FEIS)
and draft and final supplemental environmental impact statements S( EISs) is the
responsibility of the planning department under the direction of the responsible
official. Before the city issues an environmental impact statement, the responsible
official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and�I'-., "ter Ch. 197-11
WAC.
B. The d£a# DEIS and FEIS or super
past stmefHmt draft and final SEIS shall be prepared by city staff,
16 1724 Regulations
the applicant, a consultant selected by the city at the applicant's request, or a
consultant selected by the applicant with confirmation of the planning department.
The responsible official shall notify the applicant of the city's procedure for
EIS preparation, including approval of the 444
DEIS and FEIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide information the city does not possess,
including specific investigations. However, the applicant is not required to supply
information that is not required under this chapter or that is being requested from
another agency. This does not apply to information the city may request under
another ordinance or statute.
D. A DEIS and FEIS shall be completed within one (1) year of the scoping meeting
or as otherwise agreed to by the applicant.
SECTION 14. Section 11.03.410 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
by adding new subsections 1, 2, and 3 as follows:
Sec. 11.03.410. Public notice.
A. Whenever the city issues a determination of nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-
j 340(2), a determination of significance under WAC 197-11-360(-34, an addendum
to any existing environmental document or any existing environmental document
as defined in section 11.03.320, the city shall give public notice as follows:
1.
If a SEPA document is issued concurrently with the notice of application,
the public notice requirements for the notice of application will suffice to
meet the SEPA public notice requirements.
2. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City
shall give notice of the DNS or DS by:
17 1724 Regulations
a. Posting the property for site specific proposals;
b. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the
county, city or general area where the proposal is located; and
C. Notifying all parties of record, any individual or group which has
appeared at a City of Kent public hearing relating specifically to the
issue of environmental review or submitted comments on a certain
proposal.
a- ,
1}
00
publie Hatiee.
3. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360, the City shall state
the scopine procedure of the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-
11-408 and in the public notice.
B. Whenever the city issues a DEIS under WAC
197-11-455(34 or a SEIS under WAC
197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
18 1724 Regulations
� 8
1. Indicating the availability of the DEIS
in any public notice required for a nonexempt license, and the followin
additional methods:
a. Posting the property for site specific proposals;
b. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in th
county, city or general area where the proposal is located; and
C. Notifying and all parties of record, any individual or grou
which has appeared at a City of Kent public hearing relatin
specifically to the issue of environmental review or ha*e h
expressed interest in a certain proposal.
C. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under thi
section with existing notice procedures for the city's nonexempt permits o
approvals required for the proposal.
D. If any costs are incurred beyond the initial notice of the department's action,
provided in subsection A-.24A 21 above, the city may require an applicant t
complete the public notice requirements for the applicant's proposal at his expense
SECTION 15. Section 11.03.520 of the Kent City Code is hereby amende
as follows:
jSec. 11.03.520. Appeals.
i
A. Administrative appeals.
1. Procedural appeals. The city establishes the following administrativ
i
appeal procedures under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680:
a. Any party of record may appeal the city'
procedural compliance with W A G A r Ch. 197-11 WAC fo
issuance of the following:
(1) A final determination of nonsignificance: Appeal of the DN
must be made to the hearing examiner within ton (IQ
fourteen(14) calendar days of the date the determination o
19 1724 Regulation
nonsignificance is final. Notice of the issuance of a final
DNS shall be provided in accordance with section 11.03.410
A.2.
(2) A determination of significance: The appeal must be made
to the hearing examiner within too (19) fourteen (14)
calendar days of the date the determination of significance
is issued. Notice of the issuance of a determination of
significance shall be provided inaeeer-danse in accordance
with section 11.03.410 A�1(2)A.4.
b. The decision of the land use hearing examiner shall be final,pursuant
to RCW 4-543.21 C.075(3)(a). No right to appeal the decision of the
hearing examiner is granted by this section.
C. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall
carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.
2. Substantive appeals. Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to the
city shoreline master program, resolution number 907, when any proposal
or action not requiring a decision of the city council is conditioned or
�I
denied on the basis of state environmental policy act by a nonelected
official, the decision shall be appealable to the hearing examiner. Such
appeal shall be pursuant to sheptef Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01. Appeals to the
city
council c from the land use hearing examiner are governed by section
2.32.150.
3. No other appeal provided. Except as provided in subsections A4. -. (AIW
and . (2). above, or as otherwise provided by law, no right to appeal is
created by this section.
B. Judicial appeals.
1. No right to judicial review or appeal, which does not now exist, is created
by this chapter. The decision by the city to issue or deny nonexempt permits
or licenses shall be final. A writ of review must be sought within fourteen
20 1724 Regulations
(14)calendar days, if at all, by an aggrieved party or person by application
to the superior court. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(5) and (6), such a writ
application shall include, or be amended within thirty (30) days of the
issuance or denial of the permit or license to include, issues relating to this
chapter.
2. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-680(5) whenever it
issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a
time limit for commencing judicial review.
SECTION 16. Section 11.03.600 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
See. 11.03.600. Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part
I contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under state environmental protection act.
The city adopts the following sections by reference, as supplemented by WAC 173-806-
I
040.
197-11-700 Definitions.
I
197-11-702 Act.
197-11-704 Action.
197-11-706 Addendum.
197-11-708 Adoption.
197-11-710 Affected tribe.
197-11-712 Affecting.
197-11-714 Agency.
197-11-716 Applicant.
197-11-718 Built environment.
197-11-720 Categorical exemption.
197-11-721 Closed record appeal.
197-11-722 Consolidated appeal.
197-11-724 Consulted agency.
j 21 1724 Regulations
197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-728 County/city.
197-11-730 Decision maker.
197-11-732 Department.
197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-736 Determination of significance(DS).
197-11-738 Environmental impact statement(EIS).
197-11-740 Environment.
197-11-742 Environmental checklist.
197-11-744 Environmental document.
197-11-746 Environmental review.
19'7 11 7AQ w ♦'
rs�—rr-r+�—�ATiiviaiaviaaeer�T-5eI1$e�i+v-eereie.
197-11-750 Expanded scoping.
197-11-752 Impacts.
197-11-754 Incorporation by reference.
197-11-756 Lands covered by water.
197-11-758 Lead agency.
197-11-760 License.
197-I1-762 Localagency.
197-11-764 Major action.
197-11-766 Mitigated DNS.
I
197-11-768 Mitigation.
197-11-770 Natural environment.
197-11-772 National environmental protection act (NEPA).
197-11-774 Nonproject.
197-11-775 Open record hearing.
197-11-776 Phased review.
197-11-778 Preparation.
197-11-780 Private project.
22 1724 Regulations
197-11-782 Probable.
197-11-784 Proposal.
197-11-786 Reasonable alternative.
197-11-788 Responsible official.
197-11-790 State environmental protection act(SEPA).
197-11-792 Scope.
197-11-793 Scoping.
197-11-794 Significant.
197-11-796 State agency.
197-11-797 Threshold determination.
197-11-799 Underlying governmental action.
SECTION 17. Section 11.03.700 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.700. Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part
contains rules for the city's compliance with the state environmental policy act, including
1 rules for charging fees, categorical exemptions that do not apply within critical areasElesigRa6iig of"49FAiientally sensitive ,
'I
, listing agencies with environmental expertise,
j selecting the lead agency and applying these rules to current agency activities. The city
adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference:
197-11-900 Purpose of this part.
197-11-902 Agency state environmental policy act policies.
197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions.
197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise.
197-11-922 Lead agency rules.
197-11-924 Determining the lead agency.
197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals.
197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals.
197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one (1) agency with
23 1724 Regulations
jurisdiction.
197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from
more than one(1)agency, when one(1)of the agencies is a
county/city.
197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a
local agency, not a county/city, and one (1) or more state
agencies.
197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses for more
than one (1) state agency.
197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals.
197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency.
197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency status.
197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties.
i
197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes.
197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status.
I
i
SECTION 18. Section 11.03.720 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 11.03.720. seaskove Critical areas. Water quality and
hazard area development map and hazard area classifications:
A.4- WAC 197-11-908 is hereby adopted by reference.
13.-;�- Wetlands, as defined under section 11.05.020, the wetlands inventory,:=the maps
filed under section 15.08.222, entitled water quality and hazard area development
map, and hazard area classifications under section 15.08.224 designate the location
of critical seRsitive areas within the city and are adopted by
reference. Within those critical riansitive areas, the exemptions of
WAC 197-11-800 which are inapplicable are (1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (6)(a),
(24)(a)through (g). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within critical
areas of the city.
24 1724 Regulations
C. The scope of environmental review of actions within these areas shall be limited to:
1. Documenting whether the proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the critical areas ordinance. and
2. Evaluating potentially significant impacts on the critical area resources not
adequately addressed by GMA planning documents and development
regulations if any, including any additional mitigation measures needed to
protect the critical areas in order to achieve consistency with SEPA and
with other applicable environmental review laws.
3. All other categorical exemptions apply whether or not the proposal will be
located in a critical area.
SECTION 19. A new Chapter 12.01 is added to the Kent City Code as
follows:
CHAPTER 12.01
ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Sec. 12.01.010. Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this chapter is to
establish a set of processes to be used for land use and development proposals subject to
review under the following portions of the Kent City Code_
A. Chapter 2.32 Hearing Examiner.
B. Chapter 11.03 Environmental Review;
C. Chapter 12.04 Subdivisions; and
D. Title 15 Zoning Code.
Sec. 12.01.020. Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the
definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
A. "Closed record appeals"are administrative appeals under Ch. 36.7013 RCW which
are heard by the city council or hearing examiner, following an open record hearing
on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited
new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal arguments
allowed.
25 1724 Regulations
B. "Judicial appeals" are appeals filed by a party of record in King County Superior
Court.
C. "Open record hearing"means a hearing held under Ch. 36.70B RCW and conducted
by the Kent Hearing Examiner who is authorized by the city to conduct such
hearings, that creates the city's record through testimony and submission of
evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the city by ordinance or
resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a
project permit to be known as an "open record pre-decision hearing." An open
record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal
hearing," if no open record pre-decision hearing has been held on the project
permit.
D. "Parties of record"means:
1. The applicant;
2. The property tax payer as identified by the records available from the King
County Assessor's Office;
3. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application and/or;
4. Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review
or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open
record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or
mechanically produced form letters).
E. "Project permit' means any land use or environmental permit or license required
from the City of Kent for a project action, including but not limited to building
permits, site development permits, land use preparation permits, subdivisions,
binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline
substantial development permits, development plan review, site specific rezones
authorized by the comprehensive plan; but excluding adoption or amendment of the
comprehensive plan and development regulations, zoning of newly annexed land,
26 1 724 Regulation
area-wide rezones, and zoning map amendments except as otherwise specifically
included in this subsection.
F. "Planning director" means the director of the planning department of the city of
Kent or his/her designee.
G. "Public meeting"means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public
gathering of persons to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a
proposed project permit prior to the city's decision. A public meeting may include,
but is not limited to, a design review meeting,a special committee meeting, such
as the Short Subdivision Committee,or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental
impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The
proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation
may be included in the city's project permit application file.
Sec. 12.01.030. Application processes and classification.
A. Application Processes. Project permit applications for review pursuant to this
chapter shall be classified as a Process I, Process II, Process III, Process IV, or
jProcess V action. Process VI actions are legislative. Project permit applications
and decisions are categorized by type as set forth in Section 12.01.040.
B. Determination of Proper Process Type. The planning director shall determine the
proper procedure for all applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate
type of procedure, the planning director shall resolve it in favor of the higher
procedure type number. Process I is the lowest and Process VI is the highest.
C. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or
more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered
procedure required for any part of the application or processed individually under
each of the procedures identified by the chapter. An applicant may ask that his or
her application be processed collectively or individually. If the application is
processed under the individual procedure option, the highest numbered process
procedure must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered procedure.
27 1724 Regulations
D. Decision maker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (C) of
this section which have the same highest numbered procedure but are assigned
different hearing bodies shall be heard collectively by the highest decision
maker(s). The city council is the highest, followed by the hearing examiner, and
then the short subdivision committee and the downtown design review committee.
Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to KCC
12.01.060, Joint Public Hearing.
E. Environmental Review. Process I, II, III, IV, and V permits which are subject to
environmental review under SEPA(RCW 43.21 C)are subject to the provisions of
this chapter. An environmental checklist shall be submitted in conjunction with the
submittal of a project permit application. One environmental threshold
determination shall be made for all related project permit applications. The City
will not issue a threshold determination, other than a DS, prior to the submittal of
a complete project permit application and the expiration of the public comment
period in the Notice of Application pursuant to Section 12.01.140, but may utilize
the public notice procedures as outlined in Section 11.03.410(A)(1)to consolidate
public notice.
28 1724 Regulations
Sec. 12.01.040. Project permit application framework.
A. Process Types.
PROCESS I PROCESS II PROCESS III PROCESS IV PROCESS V PROCESS VI
APPUCATIONS: Development plan and Adninisbrative design Conditional use permit Planed unit Final plat(5)(8) Zoning of newly
..,.. zordng permit review(1) review(1)(6) 14)(7) M(5)(8) annexed lands(5)(8)
(6) with charge of use
Performance standards Shoreline Substantial Sign valence(4)(8) Arse wide rezones to
procedures(1)(6) Development Permit implement new city
1 9 Policies(5)(a)
Sign pemm(1)(6) Accessory dealing unit Special hone Rezone 15)(8) Comprehensive den
permit 11)(6) oavpaticn permit(4)(8) amendments(5)(8)
Lot Une Adjustment Adrrinisbative variance Vaiarce(4)(8) Development
(1)(6) (1)(6) regulations(5)(8)
Administrative Downtown design Shoreline conditional Zoning map
Interpretation (1)(6) review,all except for use permit(4) (7)(9) anendmente(5)(8
mina remodels(2)(6)
Downtown design Shoreline instance (4) Zoning text
review,only mina (8)(9) amendments(5)(8)
remodels(1)(6)
Multi•famiy design Preliminary Plat(4)(7)
review(1)(6)
Admin ApprovA WTF Binding Site Plan(10)(7)
Short subdivision(3)(6) fined Unit
Development(4)(7)
without a change of
use.
(1) Final decision made by Planning Director. (4) Final decision made by Hearing Examiner. (7) Appeal to City Council.
(2) Final decision made by Downtown Design Review Committee. (5) Final decision made by City Council. (8) Appeal fo Superior Court.
(3) Final decision made by Short Subdivision Committee. (6) Appeal to Hearing Examiner. (9)Appeal to Shoreline Hearings Board
(10) Final decision by Binding Site Plat Comm tree
B. Process Decisions.
PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS(PROCESSES I-V) LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS I PROCESS II PROCESS III PROCESS IV PROCESS V PROCESS VI
Requires Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes No No
Pre-Application requiring SEPA review. requiring SEPA review. requiring SEPA review.
Conference:
Notice of Application: Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes Yes No No
requiring SEPA review. requiring SEPA review.
Recommendation Made WA WA NIA Hearing Examine WA Land Use and Planning
by Board
Final Decision Made III Planning Director Planning Director, Hearing Examiner Oty Council City Council City Council
by. Downtown Design
Review Committee,
Binding Site Plan
Committee or Short
Subdivision Committee,
as noted in 12.01.140
Open Record i Only it appealed.then Only it appealed.then Yes,before Hearing Yes,before Hearing No Yes,before Land Use
Hearing/Open Record I before Hearing before Hearing Examiner to make final Examiner to make and Planning Board to
Appeal Hearng. 1 Examine 0 Examiner decision recommendation to City make recommendation
Council fo City Council
Reconsldeaion: No No Yes,of Hearing Yes,of Hearing No No
Examinees decision Examinees
recommendation
Final DeciswnlGosed I No No Only it appealed,then Yes,before City Council Yes,before City Council Yes,or City Council
Record Appeal. before City Council, to render final decision to render final decision could hold its own
except special home hexing
occupation permits and
variances,where only
appeal is to superior
court.
Judicial Appeal: Yes Yes Yes !� Yes Yes Yes
Z'\
Sec. 12.01.050. Exemptions from project permit application processing.
A. General Exemptions. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded
from the procedures set forth in this chapter:
1. Landmark designations;
2. Street vacations; and
3. Street use permits.
4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(6), building permits which are categorically
exempt from environmental review under SEPA or that do not require street
improvements, boundary line adjustments, or other construction permits.
5. Administrative approvals which are categorically exempt from
environmental review under SEPA (43.21C RCW) and the city's
SEPA/Environmental Policy Ordinance,chapter 11.03 KCC, or for which
environmental review has been completed in connection with other project
permits.
I
Sec. 12.01.060. Joint public hearings.
A. Planning Director's Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The planning director may
combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that
may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the
proposed action, as long as:
1. The other agency consents to the joint hearing;
2. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
3. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies'
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule;
4. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same
time as the local government hearing; and
5. The hearing is held within the Kent city limits.
30 1724 Regulations
l
i
B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearings. The applicant may request that the public
hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held
within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant
may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete
the hearings.
Sec. 12.01.070. Process VI legislative actions.
A. Legislative Actions. The following Process VI actions are legislative, and are not
subject to the procedures in this chapter, unless otherwise specified:
1. Zoning newly annexed lands;
2. Area-wide rezones and zoning map amendments to implement city policies;
3. Comprehensive plan amendments;
4. Development regulations and zoning text amendments; and
5. Other similar actions that are non-project related.
Sec. 12.01.080. Pre-application conference.
A. Applicability. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to provide City staff
with a sufficient level of detail about a proposal so that the applicant can be
acquainted with the requirements of the Kent City Code. Pre-application
conferences are required for process I, II, III, and IV permits which require
environmental review. Only one pre-application conference shall be required for
all project permit applications related to the same project. Pre-application
conferences shall precede the submittal of any project permit application, including
an environmental checklist. The planning director may waive in writing the
requirement for a pre-application conference for proposals that are determined not
to be of a size and complexity to require the detailed analysis of a pre-application
conference.
B. Pre-Application Conference Initiation. To initiate a pre-application conference,an
applicant shall submit a completed form provided by the city and all information
pertaining to the proposal as prescribed by administrative procedures of the
31 1724 Regulations
planning department. Failure to provide all pertinent information may prevent the
city from identifying all applicable issues or providing the most effective pre-
application conference.
C. Scheduling. A pre-application conference may be conducted at any point prior to
application for a project permit. A pre-application conference shall be scheduled
by the city within five(5)working days of a completed pre-application conference
request. The pre-application conference shall be held within thirty (30) calendar
days of the receipt of a completed request, unless the applicant agrees to an
extension of this time period in writing.
D. At the conference the applicant may request the following information be provided:
1. A form which lists the requirements of a complete application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions on development; and
4. The City's design guidelines.
E. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues.
The discussion at the conference or the form sent to the applicant under
12.01.080(D)(1) shall not bind or prohibit the City's future application or
enforcement of the applicable law.
Sec. 12.01.090. Project permit applications. Required Materials. Applications
for all project permits shall be submitted upon forms provided by the city.
Sec. 12.01.100. Submission and acceptance of application.
A. Determination of Completeness. Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days after
receiving a project permit application for review for completeness, the city shall
mail or personally provide a written determination of completeness to the applicant
which to the extent known by the City identifies other agencies with jurisdiction
j over the project permit application and states either:
1. That the application is complete; or
i'
32 1724 Regulations
2. That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the
application complete.
If the city does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the
application is incomplete,the application shall be deemed complete. The
time period guidelines for review of project permit applications begin
following the determination of a complete application.
B. Additional Information for "Complete Applications". A determination of
completeness shall be made when an application is sufficient for continued
processing even though additional information may be required or project
modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The city's determination of
completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or
studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or at some later time, if new
information is required or where there are substantial changes in the proposal.
i
I C. Procedure for "Incomplete Applications".
1. Prior to a determination of a complete application, if the applicant receives
a written determination from the city that an application is not complete,the
applicant shall have up to ninety (90)calendar days to submit the necessary
information to the city. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after an
applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the city shall
make the determination as described in section 12.01.100(A) above, and
notify the applicant in the same manner.
2. If the applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or
does not submit the required information within the ninety (90) calendar
day period, the application shall lapse because of a lack of information
necessary to complete the review.
D. Date of Acceptance of Application. When the project permit application is
determined to be complete, the planning director shall accept it and note the date
of acceptance.
33 1724 Regulations
E. Project Review. Following a determination that an application is complete,the city
shall begin project review.
Sec. 12.01.110. Procedure for"incorrect applications".
A. Following a determination of a complete application and the commencement of
project review,the city may make a determination in writing that some information
is incorrect, and that corrected information be submitted. The applicant shall have
up to ninety (90) calendar days to submit corrected information.
B. The city shall have fourteen(14)calendar days to review the submittal of corrected
information. If the corrected information is still not sufficient,the city shall notify
the applicant in writing that the submitted information is incorrect, and the time
period set forth in sub-section (A) shall be repeated. This process may continue
until complete or corrected information is obtained.
C. If the applicant either refuses in writing to submit corrected information or does not
submit the corrected information within the ninety (90) calendar day period, the
application shall lapse.
D. If the requested corrected information is sufficient, the city shall continue with
project review, in accordance with the time calculations exclusions set forth in
Section 12.01.100.
I
Sec. 12.01.120. Referral and review of project permit applications. Within ten
(10) calendar days of accepting a complete application, the planning director shall do the
following:
A. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application,to each
affected agency and city department for review and comment, including those
responsible for determining compliance with state, federal and county requirements.
The affected agencies and city departments shall have fifteen (15) calendar days
to comment. The referral agency or city department is presumed to have no
comments if comments are not received within the specified time period. The
planning director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves
34 1724 Regulations
unusual circumstances. Any extension shall only be for a maximum of three (3)
additional calendar days.
Sec. 12.01.130 Public notice - generally. The available records of the King
County Assessor's Office shall be used for determining the property taxpayer of record.
Addresses for mailed notice shall be obtained from the county's real property tax records.
All public notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice
is deposited in the mail or personally delivered,whichever occurs first. Failure to provide
the public notice as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of any
permit decision.
Sec. 12.01.140 Notice of application.
A. Notice of Application. A notice of application shall be issued for Process I and
Process II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats, shoreline substantial
development permits, and all Process III and Process IV applications within
fourteen(14)calendar days after the city has made a determination of completeness
pursuant to section 12.01.100(A); provided, that if any open record hearing is
required for the requested project permit(s), the notice of application shall be
provided at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the open record hearing. One
notice of application will be done for all permit applications related to the same
I ICI
project at the time of the earliest complete project permit application.
I
B. SEPA Exempt Projects. A notice of application shall not be required for project
permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public comment period
or an open record re-decision hearing is required.
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include:
i
1. The case file number(s), the date of application, the date of the
determination of completeness for the application and the date of the notice
of application;
j 2. A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits
it
included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
by the review authority pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070;
i' 35 1724 Regulations
3. The identification of other permits not included in the application, to the
extent known by the city;
4. The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the
proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing
notice of application,the location where the application and any studies can
be reviewed;
5. A statement of the limits of the public comment period,which shall be not
less than fourteen(14)nor more than thirty(30)calendar days following the
date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to
comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any
hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights;
6. The tentative date, time, place and type of hearing. The tentative hearing
date is to be set at the time of the date of notice of the application;
7. A statement of the preliminary determination of consistency,if one has been
made at the time of notice, and of those development regulations that will
be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in section
12.01.150 ;
8. The name of the applicant or applicant's representative and the name,
address and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any;
9. A description of the site, including current zoning and nearest road
intersections, reasonably sufficient to inform the reader of its location; and
10. An other information determined appropriate b the cit , such as a DS, if
YY Y
complete at the time of issuance of the notice of application or the City's
statement of intent to issue a DNS pursuant to the optional DNS process set
forth in WAC 197-11-355.
D. Mailing of Notice of Application. The City shall mail a copy of the notice of
application to the following:
j
1. Agencies with jurisdiction; and
I
36 1724 Regulations
2. Any person who requests such notice in writing.
E. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments received on
the notice of application must be received by the Planning Department by 4:30 p.m.
on the last day of the comment period. Comments may be mailed, personally
delivered or sent by facsimile. Comments should be as specific as possible.
F. Posted Notice of Application. In addition to the mailed notice of application, the
City will provide notice of application at Kent City Hall, and in the register for
public review at the planning department office. The applicant shall be responsible
for posting the property for site-specific proposals with notice boards provided by
the city. Public notice shall be accomplished through the use of a four(4) by four
(4) foot plywood face generic notice board to be issued by the planning department
as follows: the applicant shall apply to the City for issuance of the notice board, and
shall deposit with the planning department the amount of one-hundred fifty dollars
($150). Upon return of the notice board in good condition to the planning
department by the applicant, seventy-five dollars ($75) of the initial notice board
deposit shall be refunded to the applicant.
1. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of
�I
one or more notice boards as follows:
a. A single notice board shall be placed by the applicant in a
conspicuous location on a street frontage bordering the subject
property.
b. Each notice board shall be visible and accessible for inspection by
members of the public.
C. Additional notice boards may be required when:
1 The site does not abut a public road; or
( )
(2) The planning director determines that additional notice
boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice.
d. Notice boards should be:
37 1724 Regulations
(1) Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the
notice period;
(2) In place at least fifteen(15)calendar days prior to the end of
any required comment period; and
(3) Removed by the applicant and returned to the City within
seven (7)calendar days after the end of the notice period.
e. Notice boards that are removed, stolen,or destroyed prior to the end
of the notice period may be cause for discontinuance of the
departmental review until the notice board is replaced and remains
in place for the specified time period. The City shall notify the
applicant when it comes to their attention that notice boards have
been removed prematurely, stolen, or destroyed.
f. An affidavit of posting shall be submitted by the planning director
at least seven(7)calendar days prior to the hearing. If the affidavits
are not filed as required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the
public may comment on the application,may be postponed in order
to allow compliance with this notice requirement.
g. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
specifications determined by the planning director.
h. SEPA information shall be added by the City to the posted sign
within applicable deadlines. An affidavit of posting shall be
submitted by the planning director.
G. Published Notice of Application. Published notice of application in an official
j
newspaper of general circulation in the area where the proposal is located is
I
required for process I and II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats and all
Process III, IV, and V applications. Published notice shall include at least the
following information:
l. Project location;
J >
38 1724 Regulations
2. Project description;
3. Type of permit(s)required;
4. Comment period dates; and
5. Location where the complete application may be reviewed.
H. Notice ofpublic hearing.
1. Notice of Public Hearing for All Types of Applications. The notice given
of a public hearing required in this chapter shall contain:
a. The name of the applicant or the applicant's representative;
b. Description of the affected property, which may be in the form of
either a vicinity location or written description, other than a legal
description;
C. The date, time, and place of the hearing;
d. The nature of the proposed use or development;
e. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide
testimony;
g. When and where information may be examined, and when and how
written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the
hearing body may be admitted;
h. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone
number where additional information may be obtained;
i. That a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied
upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for
inspection at no cost and will be provided at the cost of
reproduction; and
j. That a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no
cost at least five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing and copies
will be provided at the cost of reproduction.
I
39 1724 Regulations
2. Mailed Notice of Public Hearing. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall
be provided by the City as follows:
a. Process I, II & V actions. No public notice is required because no
public hearing is held. Notice for short plat meetings is mailed to
property owners within 200 feet. Shoreline permit notices shall be
in accordance with the requirements of WAC 173-27-110.
b. Process III and Process IV actions. The notice of public hearing
shall be mailed to:
(1) The applicant;
(2) All owners of real property as shown by the records of the
county assessor's office within three-hundred(300) feet of
the subject property; and
i
(3) Any person who submits written comments on an
application.
C. Process IV Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the general
notice of public hearing requirements for Process IV actions above,
additional notice shall be provided as follows:
(1) Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed
subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state
highway or within two (2) miles of the boundary of a state
or municipal airport shall be given to the secretary of
i�
transportation, who must respond within fifteen (15)
calendar days of such notice.
(2) Special notice of the hearing shall be given to adjacent land
j owners by any other reasonable method the city deems
necessary. Adjacent landowners are the owners of real
property, as shown by the records of the King County
Assessor, located within three-hundred (300) feet of any
40 1724 Regulations
portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the
owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property
which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be
subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.909(1)(b) shall be
given to owners of real property located with three-hundred
(300) feet of such adjacently owned parcels.
d. Process VI Actions. For Process VI legislative actions,the city shall
publish notice as described in 12.01.140(H)(3), and use all other
methods of notice as required by RCW 35A.12.160.
3. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing.
a. Posted notice of the public hearing is required for all Process III and
IV actions. The posted notice of hearing shall be added to the sign
already posted on the property pursuant to Section 12.01.140(F).
b. Published notice of the public hearing is required for all Process III
and IV procedures. The published notice shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City and contain the
following information:
(1) Project location;
(2) Project description;
(3) Type of permit(s) required;
(4) Comment period dates; and
(5) Location where the complete application may be reviewed.
4. Time and Cost of Notice of Public Hearing.
a. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than ten
I
10) calendar days prior to the hearing date. Any posted notice shall
be removed by the applicant within seven (7) calendar days
following the conclusion of public hearing(s).
41 1724 Regulations
I. Shoreline Master Program Permits.
i. Notice of the application of a permit under the purview of the city's
Shoreline Master Program shall be given in accordance with the
requirements of KCC 11.04 of the Kent Shoreline Management Master
Program.
Sec. 12.01.150. Consistency with development regulations and SEPA.
A. Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application,consistency between
the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan should
be determined through the process in this chapter and the city's adopted SEPA
ordinance, Ch. 11.03 KCC
B. Consistency. During project permit application review, the city shall determine
whether the items listed in this section are defined in the development regulations
applicable to the proposed project. In the absence of applicable development
regulations, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this section are
defined in the city's adopted comprehensive plan. This determination of
consistency shall include the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be
allowed under certain circumstances, if the criteria for their approval have
been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential
development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure, including public facilities and
services identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development
Ili
regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by chapter
36.70A RCW; and
4. Characteristics of the development, such as development standards.
5. In deciding whether a project is consistent, the determinations made
pursuant to section 12.01.150(B) shall be controlling.
42 1724 Regulations
6. Nothing in this section limits the city from asking more specific or related
questions in subsections 1-5 of this section.
C. Initial SEPA Analysis. The city shall also review the project permit application
under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA"), chapter
43.21C RCW,the SEPA Rules, chapter 197-11 WAC, and Ch. 11.03 KCC.
1. This SEPA analysis shall:
a. Determine whether the applicable federal,state and local regulations
require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit
application's specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
b. Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that
adequately address such environmental impacts;
C. Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether
the project permit application should be conditioned with additional
mitigation measures; and
d. Provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and
the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and
plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not
been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level.
2. In its review of a project permit application,the city may determine that the
requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation
measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan
and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate
analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts
of the application.
3. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of and mitigation for the
specific adverse environmental impacts of an application when:
43 1724 Regulations
a. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
b. The city has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land
use designations, development standards or other land use planning
required or allowed by chapter 36.70A RCW.
4. The city's determination of consistency with the items identified in
12.01.150(B) shall not prohibit the city from denying, conditioning, or
mitigating impacts due to other aspects of the project.
5. In its decision whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction
with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental
impact,the city shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may
expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the city shall base
or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing
rules or laws.
6. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the city in its review or
mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses
and requirements under other laws, as provided by chapter 43.21C RCW.
7. The city shall also review the application under chapter 11.03, the city's
environmental policy provisions.
D. Categorically Exempt Actions. Actions categorically exempt under chapter
43.21 C.110(1)(a) RCW do not require environmental review or the preparation o
ii
an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under
the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (chapter 197-11 WAC) may not
be conditioned or denied under SEPA.
E. Planned Actions. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or
the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject
to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
1. A "planned action" means one or more types of project action that:
44 1724 Regulations
it
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution
adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an
environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
(1) A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under chapter
36.70A RCW; or
(2) A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a
master planned development or a phased project.
C. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in
subsection 12.01.150.(E)(1)(b)above;
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities,as defined in RCW 36.70A.200;
f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under
chapter 36.70A RCW.
2. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to
specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional
boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period
identified in the environmental impact statement or in the ordinance or
resolution designating the planned action under RCW 36.70A.040.
3. During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives or hear
appeals on the items identified in 12.01.150(B) except for issues of code
interpretation, the process for which is outlined in Section 15.09.060 of the
Kent City Code.
I
4. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and
conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of
site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other
measures to mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts.
45 1 724 Regulations
Sec. 12.01.160. Open record public hearings.
A. General. Open record hearings shall be conducted in accordance with this section.
B. Responsibility of the Planning Director for Hearing. The planning director shall:
l. Schedule an application for review and public hearing;
2. Give notice (applicant responsible for some of the notice requirements);
3. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report
stating all of the decisions made as of the date of the report, including
recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that
do not require an open record pre-decision hearing. The report shall state
any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or
the city's authority under SEPA. If the threshold determination other than
a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the city,
the report shall include or append this determination. In the case of a
Process I or II project permit application,this report may be the permit; and
j 4. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and/or mail
i
a copy of the notice of decision to those required by this code to receive
such decision.
C. Conflict of Interest. The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics and
prohibitions on conflict of interest as set forth in RCW 35A.42.020 and chapter
42.23 RCW, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
D. Ex Porte Communications.
l. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly,
regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to
participate in communications necessary to procedural aspects of
maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and
opportunity for all parties to participate; except as provided in this section:
a. The hearing body may receive advise from legal counsel; or
46 1724 Regulations
b. The hearing body may communicate with staff members (except
where the proceeding relates to a code enforcement investigation or
prosecution).
2. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any
member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type
that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the
hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the
communication as described in Section 12.01.180(D)(3) KCC below.
3. If the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this
section, he or she shall place on the record:
a. All written communications received;
b. All written responses to the communications;
C. The substance of all oral communications received and all responses
made; and
d. The identity of each person from whom the hearing body received
any ex parte communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have
I
been placed on the record. Upon request made within ten (10)
calendar days after notice of the ex parte communication, any party
desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a
rebuttal statement on the record.
E. Disqualification.
1. A member of the hearing body who is disqualified may be counted for
purposes of forming a quorum. Any member who is disqualified may be
counted only by making full disclosure to the audience, abstaining from
voting on the disqualification, v
catin the seat on the hearing body and
physically g g
leaving the hearing.
47 1724 Regulations
2. If all members of the hearing body are disqualified, all members present
after stating their reasons for disqualification shall be re-qualified and shall
proceed to resolve the issues.
3. Except for Process VI actions, a member absent during the presentation of
evidence in a hearing may not participate in the deliberations or decision
unless the member has reviewed the evidence received.
F. Burden and Nature of Proof. Except for Process VI actions, the burden of proof is
on the proponent. The project permit application must be supported by proof that
it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations,
comprehensive plan and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately addressed.
G. Order of Proceedings. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part
on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by
administrative procedures as appropriate.
1. Before receiving information on the issue, the following shall be
determined:
I
a. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the
j record and if there is objection, the hearing body has the discretion
to proceed or terminate; and
b. Any abstentions or disqualifications shall be determined.
2. The presiding officer may take official notice of known information related
to the issue, such as:
a. A provision of any ordinance, resolution, rule, officially adopted
development standard or state law; and
b Othe
r public records and facts judicial] noticeable b law.
P judicially Y
3. Matters official] noticed need not be established b evidence and may be
Y Y Y
considered by the hearing body in its determination. Parties requesting
notice shall do so on the record; however, the hearing body may take notice
I
48 1724 Regulations
of matters listed in subsections 12.01.180(G)(1) and (2) of this section if
stated for the record. Any matter given official notice may be rebutted.
4. The hearing body may view the area in dispute with or without notification
to the parties,but shall place the time,manner, and circumstances of such
view on the record.
5. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and
opponents. The presiding officer may approve or deny a request from a
person attending the hearing to ask a question. Unless the presiding officer
specifies otherwise, if the request to ask a question is approved, the
presiding officer will direct the question to the person submitting testimony.
6. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the
hearing, the hearing body shall openly discuss the issue and may further
question a person submitting information or the staff if opportunity for
rebuttal is provided.
7. When the hearing examiner is unable to formulate a recommendation on a
project permit, the hearing examiner may decide to forward the project
permit to the city council to render a decision without a recommendation.
H. Recommendation/Decision. The hearing body shall issue a recommendation or
decision, as applicable, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the record being
closed.
L Reconsideration by Hearing Examiner. Reconsideration is not authorized for
Process I and Process II applications. A party of record may ask for a
reconsideration of a decision by the hearing examiner for a Process III action or a
recommendation by the hearing examiner for a Process IV action. A
reconsideration may be requested if either:
1. A specific error of fact or law can be identified; or
2. New evidence is available which was not available at the time of the
!, hearing.
49 1724 Regulations
A request for reconsideration shall be filed by a party of record within five
(5) working days of the date of the initial decision/recommendation. Any
reconsideration request shall cite specific references to the findings and/or
criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being
reviewed. A request for reconsideration temporarily suspends the appeal
deadline. The hearing examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration
request and within five (5) working days issue a written response, either
approving or denying the request. If the reconsideration is denied, the
appeal deadline of the hearing examiner's decision shall recommence for
the remaining number of days. If a request for reconsideration is accepted,
a decision is not final until after a decision on reconsideration is issued.
Sec. 12.01.170. Notice of decision.
A. Following a decision on a project permit by the applicable decision-maker, the city
shall provide a notice of decision that also includes a statement of any threshold
determination made under SEPA (chapter 43.21C RCW) and the procedures for
appeal;
B. The notice of decision shall be issued within one-hundred and twenty(120) calendar
days after the City notifies the applicant that the application is complete. The time
franies set forth in this section shall apply to project permit applications filed on or
after April 1, 1996.
C. The notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who,
prior to the rendering of the decision,requested notice of the decision or submitted
substantive comments on the application.
D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public as set forth in section
12.01.140(H)(2)(b)(1) and (3) KCC. Affected property owners may request a
change in valuation for property tax purposes. The city shall provide notice of the
decision to the County Assessor's Office in which the property is located.
50 1724 Regulations
E. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within
the time limits provided for in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this
fact to the parties of record. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the
time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of
decision.
See. 12.01.180. Time limitations.
A. Calculation of Time Periods for Issuance of Notice of Final Decision. In
determining the number of days that have elapsed after the city has notified the
applicant that the application is complete for purposes of calculating the time for
issuance of the notice of decision, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to
correct plans, perform required studies, provide additional required
information, or otherwise requires the applicant to act. The period shall be
calculated from the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for
additional information until the earlier of the date the local government
determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for
I
information or fourteen(14)calendar days after the date the information has
been provided to the city;
2. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under
sections 12.01.100 and 12.01.110 is insufficient or incorrect;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being
prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to chapter
43.21C RCW, if the city by ordinance has established time periods for
completion of environmental impact statements or if the city and the
P P Y
applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an
environmental impact statement;
51 1724 Regulations
I I
4. Any period for administrative appeals of project permit applications, if an
open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed.
The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed:
a. Ninety (90)calendar days for an open record appeal hearing; or
b. Sixty (60) calendar days for a closed record appeal.
The parties may agree to extend these time periods; and
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the local
government.
B. Time Limit Exceptions. The time limits established in this section do not apply if
a project permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall
start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to
be complete pursuant to RCW 12.01.100.
C. Failure to Meet Time Limit. If the city is unable to issue its final decision within
the time limits provided in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact
to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the
time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of a final decision.
The city is not liable for damages due to the city's failure to make a final decision
within the time limits established in this chapter.
Sec. 12.01.190. Closed record hearings and administrative appeals.
A. Appeals of Decisions. This section allows for administrative appeals as provided
in the framework in section 12.01.040. Administrative appeals are heard by the
hearing examiner or city council, as applicable.
52 1724 Regulations
B. Consolidated Appeals.
1. All appeals of project permit application decisions, other than an appeal of
Determination of Significance ("DS"), shall be considered together in a
consolidated appeal.
2. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, Ch. 11.03 KCC,
including administrative appeals of a threshold determination shall proceed
as provided in that chapter.
C. Administrative Appeals. Only parties of record may initiate an administrative
appeal on a project permit application. If an applicant initiates an administrative
appeal, the administrative appeal of the project decision and of any environmental
determination issued at the same time as the project decision shall be filed within
twenty-one (21) calendar days after the notice of decision has been made and is
appealable.
D. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within fourteen(14)calendar days following
issuance of the notice of decision. Appeals must be delivered to the planning
department by mail, personal delivery or by fax before 4:30 p.m. on the last
business day of the appeal period.
E. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal,
the day the notice of decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the
appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by
RCW 1.16.050 or by the city's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is
excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day (RCW
35A.28.070)
F. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee
as set by the city council, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant's name, address and phone number;
2. Appellant's statement describing his or her standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
53 1724 Regulations
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the
appeal is based;
5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents
to be true, followed by the appellant's signature.
G. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision
until such time as the appeal is adjudicated by the hearing examiner or city council,
as applicable, or is withdrawn.
H. Notice of Administrative Appeal. Public notice of the appeal shall be given as
provided in Section 12.01.140(H)(2)(b)(1) and(3) KCC.
I. Procedure for Closed Record Decision/Appeal. The closed record appeal/decision
hearing shall be on the record before the hearing body and no new evidence may
be presented. The following subsections of this chapter shall apply to a closed
record decision/appeal hearing:
1. 12.01.160(C) Conflict of Interest;
2. 12.01.160(D) Ex Parte Communications;
3. 12.01.160(E) Disqualification;
4. 12.01.160(F) Burden and Nature of Proof,
5. 12.01.160(G)(1)-(2), (3), (4), and (6) Order of Proceedings; and
6. 12.01.190 Notice of Decision.
jSec. 12.01.200. Judicial appeals.
I A. Appeal. The city's final decision or appeal decision on a Process I, II, III, IV, or V
application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use
petition in King County Superior Court.
B. Petition Period. A land use petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of issuance of the notice of decision or appeal decision.
j
I
54 1724 Regulations
C. Filing and Content of a Land Use Petition. A land use petition shall be filed
according to the procedural standards outlined in chapter 36.70C RCW, Judicial
Review of Land Use Decisions, also known as the "Land Use Petition Act".
SECTION20. Section 12.04.080 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.080. Hearing examiner. The hearing examiner is authorized to hold a
public hearing and make a final decision on all preliminary plats. ands--mom
i
SECTION 21. Section 12.04.100 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.100. City council. The city council shall conduct any closed record
appeal from a hearing examiner's final decision on a all
preliminary plats. The city council shall have.sole authority to approve final plats. An
appeal of a final plat decision shall be in Superior Court.
SECTION22. Section 12.04.200 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.200. Applications for short subdivision. The application for a short
subdivision is filed with the planning department. It is reviewed by the short subdivision
committee. The committee may approve, modif} or deny the short subdivision. An appeal
of the decision of the short subdivision committee shall be to the eity-seuffsrl hearing
examiner.
SECTION 23. Section 12.04.250 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
55 1724 Regulations
Sec. 12.04.250. Appeal of short subdivision committee decision. The decision
I of the short subdivision committee shall be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party
is made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days after the short
subdivision committee's decision. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be processed
pursuant to Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The decision of the hearing examiner shall
represent final action of the city and is appealable only to the superior court. Such appeal
I must be filed with the superior court within twenty-one(.2 21)calendar days from the date
the decision was issued.
SECTION 24. Section 12.04.310(2) of the Kent City Code is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 12.04.310. Application for a subdivision. An application for a
subdivision consists of fetf(4)five 5 separate steps as follows:
1. Preparation and submission to the planning department of a tentative map
of the proposed subdivision;
2. Submission of a preliminary plat of the proposed subdivision to the land use
hearing examiner an-eityseeneif for public hearing;
3. Installation or bonding of improvements according to the approved
preliminary plat;
4. Submission of the final plat to the city council for approval;
5. The approved final plat is recorded in the office of the King County
department of records and elections.
SECTION 25. Section 12.04.360 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.360. Hearing examiner public hearing on subdivision preliminary
plat.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold an open record a public hearing on any subdivision
56 1724 Regulations
jpreliminary plat and render a decision based on written findings and conclusions.
i
The hearing examiner public
hearing shall be held within one hundred(100)days of the planning department's
acceptance of the application.
B. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in accordance with 12.01.140(H)(1). e
€elleWilig-
e
2
Publie
eafing-
(900) feet of tho a
57 1724 Regulations
aFW
SECTION26. Section 12.04.380 of the Kent City Code is hereby repealed
in its entirety and a new Section 12.04.380 is hereby adopted as follows:
Sec. 12.04.380. City council closed record appeal. Any person aggrieved by a
hearing examiner's final decision on a preliminary plat must file an appeal within fourteen
i
(14) calendar days following the issuance of the notice of decision and in accordance with
I
the requirements of Section 12.01.190.
i
SECTION 27. Section 12.04.390 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.390. Subdivision preliminary plat approval.
A. Subdivision preliminary plat approval shall lapse thxee(9)five 5 years from the
date of approval unless a final plat based on the preliminary plat, or any phase
thereof, is submitted within t4ee-(3) five 5 years from the date of subdivision
preliminary plat approval. One (1) one-year extension shall be granted to an
applicant who files a written request with the city council and planning department
at least thirty (30) calendar days before the expiration of the tlwee five-year period,
58 1724 Regulations
if the applicant can show that he has attempted in good faith to submit the final plat
i
-., within the twee five-year period.
i
B. Additional time extensions beyond the one-year period may be granted by planning
director if the applicant can show unusual circumstances or situations which make
it impossible to file the final plat within the few six-year period. The applicant
must file a written request with the city council and planning department for this
additional time extension. The request must be filed at least thirty (30) calendar
days prior to the subdivision preliminary plat expiration date. The request must
include documentation as to the need for the additional time. Additional time
extensions shall be granted in not greater than one-year increments.
C. In the case of a phased subdivision, final plat approval by the city council of any
phase of the subdivision preliminary plat will constitute an automatic one-year
extension for the filing of the next phase of the subdivision.
I
SECTION 28. Section 12.04.530 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 12.04.530. Exceptions.
A. The hearing examiner may grant an exception from
the requirements of this chapter when undue hardship may be created as a result of
strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter. In r� anting r-aeeex4ing any
exception, the hearing examiner may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary
to or desirable for the public interest. No exceptions shall be granted unless the
hearing examiner finds that:
1. There are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that the strict application of the provisions of this code would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of development of his land;
2. The exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances;
59 1724 Regulations
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property in the vicinity.
B. Application for any exception shall be submitted in writing by the subdivider at the
time the preliminary plat is submitted to the planning department. The application shall
state fully all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the request.
I
SECTION 29. Section 15.06.080 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
See. 15.06.080. Administrative procedures.
A. Permits.
1. To ensure compliance with the regulations of this chapter, a permit shall be
required for all signs hereafter installed or altered within the corporate
boundaries of the city, except those signs enumerated in subsection
(AIM of this section. No sign shall be erected, installed, applied, affixed,
altered or relocated without a permit from the building department and the
planning department. The sign permit shall certify that the sign, as
represented by plans, drawings or statements, is in conformance with the
regulations of this chapter.
2. The following signs must conform with the regulations of this chapter but
may be erected, installed, affixed, altered or relocated without a sign permit:
a. For sale, lease or rent signs.
b. Farm signs.
C. Residential signs for singe-family dwellings.
3. The following information must be provided as part of the application for
a sign permit:
a. Name, address and phone number of the applicant.
b. Name and address of the activity for which the sign is intended and
parcel number of land on which it is to be placed.
60 1724 Regulations
C. Three(3)copies of a dimensional drawing showing the type of sign
as designated in this chapter, and, if lighted, the method of
illumination, and the height of the sign.
d. Four (4) copies of a dimensional plot plan, accurate as to scale,
showing all structures, the abutting right-of-way line of each street,
and location of proposed sign and each existing sign on the
property.
e. If the sign is a wall sign, four (4) copies of an elevation of the
building facade. This elevation shall be fully dimensional and
accurate as to scale. It shall show the proposed sign and each
existing sign.
f. One (1) or more photographs (snapshots are adequate) showing the
location of the proposed sign and its relationship to the remainder
of the property.
g. A minimum of two (2) copies of a plot plan showing the location of
the proposed sign with computations, diagrams and other data
sufficient to show proper structural stability of the installation.
B. Fees and deposits. Fees shall be governed by the fee schedule contained in the
building code adopted by the city.
iR .h@ «t FPf:et.,t;,,« 64 th;. @.t;,.« tho h@ shalt e >
«1;,.at;,.« e .,«ao. doeiv: « a,; t,. ...hother the adwipirsratiye decision
C. The planning_director shall make the final decision on a sign permit application
submitted pursuant to Ch. 15.06 KCC. Any appeal from the final decision of the
planning director shall be to the Kent Hearing Examiner pursuant to the
requirements of Ch. 2.32 KCC and the appeal provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
61 1724 Regulations
D. Abatement of illegal signs. Any sign that violates the provisions of this chapter shall
be deemed a public nuisance and shall be in lien against the property on which the
sign was maintained and a personal obligation against the property owner. The
property owner shall first be served with a notice to abate the nuisance, except in
the case of portable signs. Illegal portable signs may be immediately removed by
the city, and the owner shall be given notice that the sign will be destroyed if not
claimed within ten (10) days. Appeal of the abatement notice may be made to the
hearing examiner. If,after such a hearing,the hearing examiner orders agents of the
city to remove the nuisance,they shall have authority to enter upon private property
to remove the nuisance.
E. Variances.
1. A sign variance is categorized as a Process III application and shall be
subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. Variances from the terms
of this chapter may be granted by the hearing examiner upon proper
application. Variances may be granted when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,topography,
location or surroundings, the strict interpretation of the regulations of this
chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications.
2. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which such property is situated.
SECTION30. Section 15.08.035 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
by amending sections 15.08.035(H) and (I) as follows:
Sec. 15.08.035. Wireless telecommunications facilities.
A. Purpose and goals. The purpose of this section 15.08.035 is to establish general
guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs"),
62 1724 Regulations
specifically including, without limitation, towers and antennas, in light of the
_,. following goals:
1. Protectingresidential areas from potential adverse impacts;
P
2. Enhancing the ability of the providers of wireless telecommunications
services to provide those services quickly,
effectively, and efficiently;
3. Encouraging location in non-residential areas;
i
4. Minimizing the total height of towers within the community;
5. Encouraging the joint use of new and existing sites;
6. Encouraging service providers to locate and configure facilities to minimize
adverse impacts through careful design, siting, landscaping, screening, and
innovative camouflaging techniques; and
�I
7. Considering potential adverse impacts to the public health and safety from
these facilities except where preempted by other laws,
rules, and regulations.
In furtherance of these goals, the city shall give due consideration to the city's
comprehensive plan, zoningmap, existing land uses and environmental) sensitive
P P g Y
areas in approving sites for the location of WTFs, including towers and antennas.
B. Definitions. As used in this section 15.08.035 only, the following terms shall have
the meanings set forth below:
Abandon or abandonment means:
(a) To cease operation for a period of one hundred eighty (180) or more
consecutive calendar days. or
(b) To reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five (75)
percent for one hundred eighty (180) or more consecutive calendar days
unless new technology or the construction of additional cells in the same
locality allows reduction of effective radiated power by more than seventy-
63 1724 Regulations
five (75) percent, so long as the operator still serves essentially the same
�I
customer base.
Antenna means any exterior transmitting or receiving device used in
communications that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves.
Backhaul network means the lines that connect a provider's WTFs/towers/cell sites
to one or more cellular telephone switching offices, and/or long distance providers,
or the public switched telephone network.
Camouflage means to disguise, hide, or integrate with an existing or proposed
structure or with the natural environment so as to be significantly screened from
view.
Co-locate means use of a WTF by more than one service provider.
COW means cell on wheels or Cellular on Wheels.
EIA means Electronic Industries Association.
FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission.
Guyed tower means a wireless communication support structure which is typically
over one hundred (100) feet tall and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern
around the tower.
Height means, when referring to a tower or other WTF,the distance measured from
the finished grade of the parcel at the base of the WTF to the highest point on the
tower or other WTF, including the-base pad and any antennas.
Lattice tower means a support structure which consists of a network of crossed
metal braces, forming a tower which is usually triangular or square in cross-section.
Monopole tower means a support structure which consists of a single pole sunk into
the ground and/or attached to a foundation.
]Von-whip antenna' means an antenna that is not a whip antenna, such as dish
antennas, panel antennas, etc.
Preexisting WTF means any VdTF for which a building permit has been properly
64 1724 Regulations
issued prior to July 7, 1997, including permitted WTFs that have not yet been
constructed, so long as that permit or approval has not expired.
Telecommunications means the transmission, between or among points specified
by the user, of information of the user's choosing without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.
Telecommunications service means the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
it
directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.
Tower means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the
jll
purpose of supporting one or more antennas for telecommunications, telephone,
radio and similar communication purposes. The term includes the structure, all
structural supports, and all related buildings and appurtenances.
Whip antenna means an omnidirectional dipole antenna of cylindrical shape that is
I
no more than six (60 inches in average diameter.
I
Wireless telecommunications facility or WTF includes "personal wireless service,"
"personal wireless service facilities," and "facilities" as defined in Title 47, United
States Code, Section 332(c)(7)(C), including all future amendments, and also
includes facilities for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals
used for communication, telecommunication, cellular phone personal
communications services, enhanced specialized mobile radio, and any other
services licensed by the FCC, and also includes any other unlicensed wireless
services.
C. Applicability.
1. New uses. All WTF proposals made in the city, whether for new
construction or for modification of existing facilities, shall be subject to the
regulations set forth in this code, except as provided in subsection D.
D. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section 15.08.035
and are allowed in all zoning districts.
65 1724 Regulations
li 1. Existing Uses. WTFs that currently exist on July 7, 1997, or for which a
valid building permit has been obtained and remains in effect on July 7,
1997, except this exemption does not apply to modifications of existing
facilities.
2. Industrial/scientific equipment. Industrial processing equipment and
scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by the FCC.
3. Amateur radio station operators or receive-only antennas. Any tower or
antenna that is under seventy (70) feet in height and is owned and operated
by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator or is used exclusively
for receive-only antennas.
4. Home satellite services. Satellite dish antennas less than two (2) meters in
diameter, including direct-to-home satellite services, when used as a
secondary use of the property.
5. COW A COW or other temporary WTF, but its use anywhere in the city
cannot exceed thirty (30) days, unless extended by permit issued by the
planning director or unless the city has declared an area-wide emergency.
6. Public safety WTFs and equipment. Public safety WTFs and equipment,
including, but not limited to. the regional 911 system.
E. General.
1. Principal or accessory use. WTFs may be considered either principal or
accessory uses. A different use of an existing structure on the same lot shall
not preclude the installation of WTFs on that lot.
2. Not essential services. WTFs shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to
this section 15.08.035 and shall not be regulated or permitted as essential
public services.
F. General requirements.
1. Siting. Anyone who applies to construct a WTF or to modify or add to an
existing WTF shall demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that the proposed
66 1724 Regulations
facility is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate available
site to function in the applicant's grid system.
2. FCC licensing. The city will only process WTF permit applications upon
a satisfactory showing of proof that the applicant is an FCC licensed
telecommunications provider or that the applicant has agreements with an
FCC licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the facility.
3. Compliance with other laws. Applicants must show, to the satisfaction of
the planning director, compliance with current FCC and FAA rules and
regulations and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and
regulations.
j 4. Lot size. For purposes of determining whether the installation of WTFs
complies with district development regulations including, but not limited
to, setback requirements, lot-coverage requirements, and other
requirements,the dimensions of the entire lot shall control,even though the
WTFs may be located on leased parcels within that lot.
5. Height. Unless further restricted or expanded elsewhere in this section
15.08.035, no WTFs may exceed the following height and usage criteria:
(a) For a single user, up to ninety (90) feet in height; and
(b) For two (2) or more users, up to one hundred twenty (120) feet in
height.
6. Security fencing. WTFs shall be enclosed, where appropriate, by security
fencing not less than six (6) feet in height; provided however, that the
planning director or, where applicable, the hearing examiner may waive
these requirements. as appropriate.
7. Landscaping. WTFs shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that
effectively screens the view of the WTF compound; provided,however, that
the planning director or, where applicable, the hearing examiner may waive
67 1724 Regulations
these requirements if the goals of this section 15.08.035 would be better
served.
8. WTFs mounted on structures or rooftops. WTFs mounted on existing
structures or rooftops shall be designed and located so as to minimize visual
and aesthetic impacts to the adjoining land uses and structures and shall, to
the greatest extent practical, blend into the existing environment.
9. Aesthetics. WTFs shall meet the following requirements:
(a) WTFs shall be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual
obtrusiveness.
(b) At a WTF site, the design of the buildings and related structures
shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures,
screening, and landscaping that will blend into the existing natural
and constructed environment.
10. Lighting. Towers shall not be artificially lighted,unless required by the FAA
or other applicable authority. If lighting is required for any WTF> the
lighting must cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area.
11. Measurement. For purposes of measurement, WTF setbacks and separation
distances shall be calculated and applied irrespective of municipal and
county jurisdictional boundaries.
12. Franchises, licenses, and permits. Owners and/or operators of WTFs shall
certify that they have obtained all franchises, licenses, or permits required
by law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless
telecommunication system in the city and shall file a copy of all required
franchises, licenses, and permits with the planning director.
13. Signs. No signs shall be allowed on an antenna or tower.
14. Backhaul providers. Backhaul providers shall be identified and they shall
have and maintain all necessary approvals to operate as such, including
68 1724 Regulations
holding necessary franchises, permits, and certificates. The method of
providing backhaul, wired or wireless, shall be identified.
G. Tower requirements.
1. Tower setbacks. All towers, support structures and accessory buildings must
satisfy the minimum setback requirements for that zoning district.
2. Support systems setbacks. All guywires, anchors, and other support
structures must be located within the buildable area of the lot and not within
the front, rear, or side yard setbacks and no closer than five (5) feet to any
property line.
j3. Monopole construction required. All towers will be of a tapering monopole
construction; however, the planning director or, where applicable, the
hearing examiner, may allow another type tower upon a showing that it
would cause less impact to the surrounding property than a similar
monopole structure or would further the purposes and goals in this section
15.08.035.
4. Inventory of existing sites. Each applicant for a tower shall provide an
inventory of its existing WTF sites that are either within the jurisdiction of
the city or within one (1) mile of its borders, including specific information
about the location, height, and design of each facility.
5. EL4 standards. Towers shall be constructed so as to meet or exceed the most
recent EIA standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the building
official shall be provided with an engineer's certification that the tower's
design meets or exceeds those standards.
6. Site selection and height. Towers shall be located to minimize their number
and height and to minimize their visual impacts on the surrounding area in
accordance with the following policies:
(a) Ensure that the height of towers has the least visual impact and that
69 1724 Regulations
the height is no greater than necessary to achieve service area requirements
and to provide for potential co-location; and
(b) Demonstrate that the owner or operator has, to the greatest extent
practical, selected a new tower site that provides the least visual
impact on residential areas. This shall include an analysis of the
potential impacts from other vantage points in the area to illustrate
that the selected site and design provides the best opportunity to
minimize the visual impact of the proposed facility.
(c) Site so as to minimize being visually solitary or prominent when
j viewed mom surrounding areas, especially residential areas. The
facility should be camouflaged to the maximum extent feasible.
r' ri Co-location of antennas b more than one 1 carrier
7. Co location p to ty C o y ( )
on existing towers is preferred to construction of new towers, provided that
w the co-location is consistent with the following:
� g
(a) Redesign restrictions. A tower that is modified or reconstructed to
accommodate the co-location of an additional antenna shall be of
the same tower type as the existing tower, or of a less obtrusive
design (such as a monopole), if practical.
(b) Height. Except as may be modified in subsection I(1)(a), an existing
tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height, not to exceed
thirty (30) feet over the tower's existing height or one hundred
twenty (120) feet, whichever is lower, to accommodate the co-
location by another provider or operator of an additional antenna
system in any district except DC, DCE, NCC and all SR districts.
This additional height shall not require an additional distance
separation.
(c) Onsite relocation. A tower that is being rebuilt to accommodate the
co-location of an additional antenna may be relocated on its existing
70 1724 Regulations
site within fifty (50) feet of its existing location. If consistent with
the purposes and goals in subsection A., the planning director or,
where applicable, the hearing examiner, may permit the onsite
relocation of a tower which comes within the separation distances
to residential units or residentially zoned lands.
8. Separation distances between towers. Separation distances between towers
shall be measured between the proposed tower and preexisting towers.
Measurement shall be from base of tower to base of tower, excluding pad,
footing or foundation. The separation distances shall be measured by
drawing or following a straight line between the nearest point on the base
of the existing tower and the proposed tower base,pursuant to a site plan of
the proposed tower. The separation distances(listed in linear feet) shall be
as shown in Table 1, unless the distance is reduced by the planning director
when administratively approving a WTF or by the hearing examiner
through issuance of a conditional use permit.
Table 1:
Lattice Guyed Monopole 75 feet Monopole less
in height or than 75 feet in
greater height
Lattice 5000 5000 1500 750
Guyed 5000 5000 1500 750
Monopole 75 1500 1500 1500 750
feet in height
or greater
Monopole less 750 750 750 750
than 75 feet in
height
H. Administratively approved WTFs. The planning director may administratively
approve the uses listed in this subsection, once each applicant has applied for and
provided all necessary information required in this Code and in the city's
71 1724 Regulations
application form. This administrative approval is classified as a Process I
gpplication and is subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
1. Time for approval. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the city
receives a complete, valid, and properly executed application, the planning
I
director shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application. If the planning director fails to approve or deny the application
i
within this sixty-calendar-day period,then the application shall be deemed
approved unless the time for determination is extended by agreement of the
I,
city and the applicant.
2. Administratively approved uses. The following uses may be approved by the
it
planning director after conducting an administrative review:
(a) Industrial/commercial zones. Locating WTFs, including the
placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment
P g PP g qment P
used in connection with WTFs, that do not exceed ninety (90)feet
in height for a single user and one hundred twenty (120) feet in
height for two (2) or more users in the following districts: MA; M1;
Ml-C; M2; M3; CM-1; CM-2; GC; and GWC.
(b) Antennas on existing structures. Locating a WTF other than a tower
as an accessory use by attachment to any building or structure other
than a single-family dwelling or multifamily structure of fewer than
eight dwelling units in any zoning district provided:
(i) The antenna does not extend more than twenty (20) feet
above the highest point of the structure if a whip antenna, or
ten (10) feet above the highest point of the structure if a
non-whip antenna; and
(ii) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes; and
72 1724 Regulations
(iii) All associated equipment is placed either within the same
building or in a separate structure that matches the existing
building or structure in character and materials.
(e) WTFs on existing towers. Locating a WTF through co-location by
attaching the antenna to an existing tower.
(d) WTFs within allowable building height. Locating WTFs, including
placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment
used in connection with the WTF in O, CC, MRG, MRM, MRH,
AG, and A-I districts, so long as the WTF does not exceed the
allowable building height for that district.
(e) COWS for greater than thirty-day periods. Upon a proper showing
of extreme necessity (for example, if repair or modification of an
existing WTF clearly and legitimately cannot be completed within
thirty (30) days), locating a COW at a single location for more than
thirty (30) calendar days; however, purely economic convenience
shall not be considered a viable factor in making this determination.
3. Authority to waive certain requirements. In connection with this
administrative approval, the planning director may, in order to encourage
camouflaging and co-location of WTFs, administratively waive separation
distance requirements between WTFs by up to fifty (50) percent in non-
residential zones. Additionally, the planning director may, in order to
encourage the use of the least obtrusive type of WTF, administratively
allow the reconstruction of an existing WTF to that less obstructive use.
4. Appeal.
. An appeal from a final decision of
the planning director shall be applicable to the hearing examiner in
accordance with the requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Section 12.01.190 KCC.
73 1724 Regulations
I. Conditional use permits. Applications for conditional use permits under this
subsection shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of section 15.09.030
of the Zoning Code and Ch. 12.01 KCC, except as modified by this subsection. If
the WTF is not subject to administrative approval pursuant to subsection H., then
a conditional use permit shall be required.
I. Conditional WTF uses. Specifically, conditional use permits shall be
required for the following WTFs:
(a) IndustriaUcommercial zones. Locating WTFs that exceed ninety(90)
feet in height for a single user or one hundred twenty (120) feet for
two(2)or more users or locating antennas on existing structures that
exceed the height limitations in subsection #jH)(2)(b) in the
following districts: MA; MI; MI-C; M2; M3; CM-1; CM-2; GC;
h and GWC.
(b) Government property. Locating WTFs (1) separate from existing
structures on property owned, leased,or otherwise controlled by the
city or other governmental entity or (2) attached to existing
structures on property owned. leased or otherwise controlled b the
struc y
P P .
city or other governmental entity exceeding the height limitations
in subsection �(2)(b), but only on the condition that the total
height, of the attached WTF, including the structure, does not
exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet, unless permitted under
subsection I41)(1)(a): however, this subsection shall not apply in
DC. DCE, and NCC districts.
(c) WTFs exceeding allowable building height. Locating WTFs that
exceed the allowable building height in the following districts: O;
CC; MRG, MRM; MRH: AG; and Al.
(d) Tower construction under allowed separation distances. Locating
towers that do not meet the separation distance requirements in
74 1724 Regulations
subsection G.B. or that do not meet administratively approved
separation distance limits.
2. Factors considered in granting conditional use permits for towers. In
addition to section 15.09.030(D), the hearing examiner shall also consider
the following factors when considering a CUP application for WTF towers:
(a) Height of the proposed tower;
(b) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district
boundaries;
(c) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
(d) Surrounding topography;
(e) Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
(f) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design
characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual
obtrusiveness;
(g) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or
alternative technologies not requiring the use of towers or
structures.
(h) Obstruction of or interference with views.
(i) Consistency with purpose and goals set forth in subsection A. of this
section 15.08.035.
3. Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternative
technology. No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant
demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the hearing examiner that no
existing tower, structure, or alternative technology that does not require the
use of towers can accommodate the applicant's proposed WTF. An
applicant shall submit information requested by the hearing examiner
related to the availability of suitable existing towers, other structures or
alternative technology. Evidence submitted To demonstrate that no existing
75 1724 Regulations
tower, structure or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's
proposed WTF may consist of any of the following:
(a) No existing WTF is located within the geographic area that meets
applicant's engineering requirements.
(b) Existing WTFs are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's
engineering requirements.
(c) Existing WTFs cannot practically be reconstructed to provide
sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna
and related equipment.
(d) Electromagnetic interference would occur between two (2)or more
WTF systems.
(e) The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in
order to share an existing WTF or to adapt an existing WTF for co-
location are unreasonable. Fees or costs that exceed new WTF
development shall not be presumed to render sharing facilities
unsuitable.
(f) Other limiting factors render existing WTFs unsuitable.
(g) An alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or
structures would be unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that
exceed new WTF development shall not be presumed to render the
technology unsuitable.
4. Separation requirements. The hearing examiner may reduce tower
separation distance requirements. including administratively approved
separation distance reductions. if the purposes and goals of this section
15.08.035 would be better served: however, development of multiple tower
locations on a single site (often referred to as "antenna farms") are
specifically discouraged wherever possible.
J. Removal of abandoned towers.
76 1724 Regulations
1. Abandonment and removal. The owner or operator of any abandoned tower
shall notify the city's planning director, in writing, of that abandonment and
I
j shall remove the same within ninety (90)calendar days. Failure to remove
an abandoned tower within ninety (90) calendar days shall be grounds to
remove the tower at the owner's expense. If there are two (2) or more users
of a single tower,then the city's right to remove the tower shall not become
effective until all users abandon the tower.
2. Partial abandonment and removal. If the antennas on any tower are
removed or relocated to a point where the top twenty (20)percent or more
i
of the height of the tower is no longer in use, the tower shall be deemed
jpartially abandoned. The owner or operator of any partially abandoned
tower shall notify the city's planning director, in writing, of that partial
abandonment and shall remove the partially abandoned portion within
ninety (90) calendar days. Failure to remove a partially abandoned tower
within ninety (90)calendar days shall be grounds to remove the abandoned
portion of the tower at the owner's expense.
3. Security and lien. Each applicant, prior to commencement of construction,
shall post sufficient security in the form of a bond, assignment of funds,
cashier's check, or cash, in a form acceptable to the city, to cover the
estimated cost of demolition or removal of the tower and support structures,
including complete site restoration. if for any reason the posted funds are
not adequate to cover the cost of removal, then the city may charge the
facility owner or operator with the city's total cost incurred in removing the
abandoned structures. If the owner or operator fails to make full payment
within thirty (30) calendar days, then the amount remaining unpaid shall
become a lien on the facility property.
K. Nonconforming uses.
77 1724 Regulations
1. Preexisting towers. Preexisting towers shall be allowed to continue their
usage as they presently exist. Routine maintenance shall be permitted. Any
i
construction other than routine maintenance on a preexisting tower shall
comply with the requirements of this section 15.08.035.
2. Damage or destruction not the fault of owner/occupant. Bona fide
nonconforming WTFs that are damaged or destroyed without fault
attributable to the owner or entity in control may be rebuilt without first
having to obtain administrative approval or a conditional use permit and
j without having to meet separation requirements. The type, height, and
i
location of the tower onsite shall be of the same type and intensity as the
original facility. Building permits to rebuild the facility shall comply with
applicable building codes and shall be obtained within one hundred eighty
(180) days from the date the facility is damaged or destroyed. If no permit
is obtained or if the permit expires, the tower or antenna shall be deemed
abandoned as specified in subsection J.
SECTION31. Section 15.08.040 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
by amending subsection 15.08.040(F) as follows:
Sec. 15.08.040. Home occupations.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to outline general conditions in which
home occupations may be permitted in all zoning districts. These conditions have
been designed to help preserve the residential character of the city's neighborhoods
from commercial encroachment while recognizing that certain selected business
activities are compatible with residential uses.
B. Home occupations permitted. Home occupations which meet the requirements of
this section are permitted in every zone where a dwelling unit was lawfully
established. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the following home
occupations:
78 1724 Regulations
1. Home child care.
2. The sale of agricultural products produced on the premises.
i
C. Development standards. All dwelling units in which a home occupation is located
must meet the following minimum development standards:
1. The residential character of the exterior of the building shall be maintained.
2. The outdoor storage or display of materials, goods,products or equipment
is prohibited.
3. A home occupation shall not occupy more than three hundred (300) square
feet.
4. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply.
D. Performance standards. All home occupations must meet the following minimum
performance standards:
l. Employees. A home occupation may not employ on the remises more than
P Y P Y P
�I
one (1) person who is not a resident of the dwelling unit.
2. Traffic. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall be limited to four
(4) two-way client-related trips per day and shall not create a need for
additional onsite or offsite parking spaces.
3. Sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services from a home
occupation shall be to one (1) customer at a time, by appointment only,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
only.
4. Electrical or mechanical equipment usage. The use of electrical or
mechanical equipment that would change the fire rating of the structure or
create visual or audible interference in radio or television receivers or
electronic equipment or cause fluctuations in line voltage outside the
dwelling unit is prohibited.
5. Utility demand. Utility demand for sewer, water, electricity, garbage or
natural gas shall not exceed normal residential levels.
79 1724 Regulations
6. Other criteria. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat,
i
glare or other conditions produced as a result of the home occupation which
would exceed that normally produced by a single residence, or which would
create a disturbing or objectionable condition in the neighborhood.
E. Permit required. A zoning permit is required as provided in section 15.09.020.
F. Special home occupation permits. A special home occupation permit shall be
required for the following home occupations when conducted in sessions of more
j than one individual:
I
1. Music lessons.
2. Dance lessons.
3. Art lessons.
4. Academic tutoring.
A special home occupation permit may only be issued as follows:
1. Application. A lications for a special home occupation
PP .gyp �a�pl}sa�€e� P P
permit under this subsection shall be subject to the procedures and
requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC. file an appliemiRA with the
The application fee for a special home occupation permit shall be the same
as for administrative variances unless otherwise established by city council
resolution.
2. Criteria for approval. In conducting a hearing on an application for a special
home occupation permit, the hearing examiner shall consider the nature and
conditions of all adjacent uses and structures. A special home occupation
permit may only be approved by the hearing examiner if the hearing
examiner finds that such permit will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property in the zone or vicinity in which
80 1724 Regulations
property is located, and that the issuance of such special home occupation
permit will be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this section and
subject to the applicable provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
3. Conditions of approval. In approving a special home occupation permit,the
hearing examiner may impose such requirements and conditions with
respect to location, installation, construction, maintenance and operation
and extent of open spaces in addition to those expressly set forth in this
i
section, as may be deemed necessary for the protection of other properties
in the zone or vicinity and the public interest.
4. Issuance. Any special home occupation permit application approved by the
hearing examiner shall be forwarded to the planning department for
issuance.
5. Appeal of decision. The decision of the hearing examiner on a special home
occupation permit application may be appealed to the city council pursuant
to ehapter Ch. 2.32 and of the Kept G45, Godm Ch. 12.01 KCC.
�I
SECTION 32. Section 15.09.010 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.010. Development plan review.
A. Review of development plans shall be carried out by the planning department for
all buildings and structures hereafter erected, constructed, structurally altered,
repaired or moved within or into any district requiring development plan review
and whenever a city permit is required, and for the use of vacant land or for a
change in the character of the use of land or buildings, within any district requiring
development plan approval.
B. The development plan review is an administrative review, the primary purpose of
which is to define and describe the needs of the particular site covered by a
development plan in reference to the requirements of this title. The plannine
81 1724 Regulations
director shall make the final decision on development plan review. Development
I
Plan Review is categorized as a Process I application and shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Ch. 12.01KCC. Any ppeal from the final decision of
the planning director shall be to the hearing examiner in accordance with the
requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC. In addition to the other requirements
of this title, the planning department shall approve a development plan only after
the following standards, as a minimum, when applicable, have been incorporated
into the development plan:
1. Storm drainage must be handled by each proposed development in
conformance with existing storm drainage plans and in conformance with
city policies for storm drainage.
2. A planned street system is a primary element of any development plan
proposed within the city and must be compatible with the city's circulation
plans. Development which is proposed in areas of the city which have a
planned street system which is a part of the comprehensive plan or the city's
six-year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such
streets and must not cause implementation of such street plans to become
unattainable because the street plan is considered secondary to the
development plan.
3. A pedestrian circulation system must become a part of any development
plan when the proposed development will generate or attract pedestrians.
The planning department shall conduct site plan review to ensure that
adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance.
4. The proposed development shall be compatible with existing development
adjacent to or within five hundred (500) feet of the property line of the
proposed development. Compatibility shall not refer to architectural design
features, but to siting of building and location of off-street parking.
82 1724 Regulations
5. Efforts shall be made to preserve trees, natural vegetation, creeks or other
environmental amenities.
SECTION33. Section 15.09.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
by adding a new subsection 15.09.020(C).
Sec. 15.09.020. Zoning permit.
A. Zoning permits shall be required for all grading permits, buildings and structures
hereafter erected, constructed, altered,repaired or moved within or into any district
established by this title, and for the use of vacant land or for a change in the
character of use of land or buildings within any district established by this title.
B. The zoning permit shall certify that the proposed use is in accordance with the
requirements and standards of this title. A zoning permit shall not be issued until
the development plan has been approved.
C. Zoningcategorized as Process I pertntts are ca eo applications and shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. Any appeal of the final decision of the
i�
planning director shall be to the hearing examiner pursuant to the requirements of
Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
SECTION 34. Section 15.09.030 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.030. Conditional use permit.
A. Purpose.
1. Conditional use permits. revocable, conditional or valid for a time period
may be issued by the hearing examiner for any of the uses or purposes for
which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this title. The
purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow the proper integration into
the community of uses which may be suitable only on certain conditions in
specific locations in a zoning district, or if the site is regulated in a
83 1724 Regulations
particular manner. A conditional use permit is categorized as a Process III
ayplication and shall be subiect to the requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch.
12.01 KCC.
2. Any use existing at the time of adoption of this title which is within the
scope of uses permitted by a conditional use permit in the district in which
the property is situated shall be deemed a conforming use without necessity
of a conditional use permit.
3. Any expansion of an existing conditional use may be required to apply for
j a new conditional use permit if the planning director finds that there is a
change in the nature of the use by such expansion.
B. Application.
1. The owner or his agent may make application for a conditional use permit,
which shall be on a form prescribed by the planning department and filed
with the planning department. Applications for conditional use permits shall
be filed in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. eke
2. Development plans shall be submitted, drawn to scale, showing the actual
dimensions and shape of the let to be built upon, the exact sizes and
locations on the lot of buildings a'ready existing, if any, and the location on
the lot of the proposed building or alteration. The plans shall show proposed
landscaping, off-street parking, signs, ingress and egress and adjacent land
uses. The plan shall include other information as may be required by the
planning department.
84 1724 Regulations
C. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold a an open record public
hearing on any proposed conditional use, and shall give notice thereof in at
to the-public hearing-accordance with the procedures established pursuant
to Ch. 2.32 and Sections 12.01.130 and 12.01.140 KCC.
b8aFd, ,
the subjeet 4 the .. plieation at l ast F.,,too« /1 A\ a.,,,S « ff♦..thA dAIA 0
D. Standards and criteria for granting. A conditional use permit shall only be granted
after the hearing examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine if it
85 1724 Regulations
complies with the standards and criteria ' set forth below
and in accordance with the requirements for Process III applications under Ch.
12.01 KCC. A conditional use permit shall only be granted if such finding is made.
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other
uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district.
2. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
3. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic
circulation system in the vicinity.
4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible
with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity.
5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping or topographic
�I
characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the
proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects.
6. The other uses in the vicinity o e f the proposed site are such as to permit the
proposed use to function effectively.
e complies with the performance standards parking
7. The proposed use p p p g
P P
requirements and other applicable provisions of this title.
8. Any other similar considerations may be applied that may be appropriate to
a particular case.
E. Action of hearing examiner.
1. Special conditions may be imposed on the proposed development to ensure
that the proposed use will meet the standards and criteria of subsection D.
of this section in granting a conditional use permit. Guarantees and
evidence that such conditions are being complied with may be required.
2. If the proposal also involves the requirement to obtain exceptions to
development standards, the hearing examiner may approve, modify or deny
conditional exceptions to those development standards, including height,
unique structures, signage and setbacks, when considering a conditional use
86 1724 Regulations
permit application for that same proposal.
F. Appeals. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, unless an appeal is
made to the city council within 8) fourteen (14) calendar days after the
hearing examiner's decision notice of decision. The appeal shall be in writing to the
city council and filed with the city clerk- in accordance with the procedures
established in Section 12.01.190.
G. Period of validity. Any conditional use permit granted by the hearing examiner shall
remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or
construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced
within one (1) year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid.
SECTION35. Section 15.09.040 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.040. Variances. The hearing examiner shall have the authority to grant
i
a variance where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with
the general purposes of this title might result from the strict application of certain
provisions. A variance may not be granted to allow a use that is not in conformity with the
uses specified by this title for the district in which the land is located. (Note: Sign variances
are heard by the city hearing examiner.)
A. Application. The owner or his agent may make application for a variance, which
shall be on a form prescribed by the planning department and filed with the
planning department. An application for a variance shall be filed in accordance with
the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. The a ..heation s"-An he ....h__ iaed as least
1. A variance is categorized as a Process III application and shall be subject
87 1724 Regulations
to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
B. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold a an open record public hearing
on any proposed variance,
in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
ill
2-
te the PFBP@14)'Whiek is the 601�06t of the appheation EA least ton (IQ)
days
.,a ,l H f at: CIE@tS 814 ♦hA- HO I..te tha W14 (I-Q4
to the ..1.,.,..;.... .l@paf4Fa@ .t 1... tl.e .. plie w f f4y five jelly fs /CAC 09 4
C. Conditions for granting. Before any variance may be granted, it shall be shown and
the hearing examiner shall find that:
88 1724 Regulations
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located;
2. Such variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the
size, shape,topography, location or surroundings of the subject property,to
provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the
vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located; and
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the subject property is situated.
D. Hearing examiner action. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final and
conclusive, unless within wR (194 twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of
the notice of decision ae4ion the original applicant or an adverse party makes
appliea4ieft thee mqFit of
}files a petition in the superior court pursuant toCh. 36.70C
RC W.
E. Period of validity. Any variance authorized by the hearing examiner shall remain
effective only for one (1) year, unless the use is begun within that time or
construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced
within one (1) year, the variance shall become invalid.
SECTION 36. Section 15.09.042 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.042. Administrative variances.
A. Scope. The planning director shall have the authority to grant an administrative
variance for up to twenty-five (25) percent of the numerical zoning code standard
for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height as provided in this title.
89 1724 Regulations
B. Application. The owner or his/her agent may make application for an administrative
variance, which shall be on_a form prescribed by the planning director and filed
with the planning department. An administrative variance is classified as a Process
II application and shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Ch. 12.01. The
planning director shall review applications for completeness, and a notice of
completeness will be issued within ten(10)twenty-eight(28)calendaz days e€after
submittal. Those applications deemed incomplete shall be returned to the applicant
for further action in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.01.100 KCC.
have ton /1 M .lays to a e appFeve ..th B aditie.,.. r- deny the .. pliesmie.,
C.P- Conditions for granting an administrative variance. The planning director may
grant an administrative variance if it is shown that:
1. The administrative variance does not detract from the desired character and
nature of the vicinity in which it is proposed;
2. The administrative variance enhances or protects the character of the
neighborhood or vicinity by protecting natural features, historic sites, open
space, or other resources;
3. The administrative variance does not interfere with or negatively impact the
operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the
zoning district it occupies; and
4. Granting the administrative variance does not constitute a threat to the
public health. safety and welfare within the city.
D.€- Appeals. Appeals of the planning directory� stay shall be submitted within
tefi F10) fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the director's decision by the
90 1724 Regulations
applicant or any party of record. The city hearing examiner shall hold a-oohs an
oven record appeal hearing to consider the appeal in accordance with the
requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
e
—Rd—mi-A—istWat-kwe aaee *e he..fi fi. a eF f« .. ..ublie hearing
E.l Fee. The fee for an administrative variance shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00).
SECTION 37. Section 15.09.045 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
by amending subsection 15.09.045(B) and (F) as follows:
Sec. 15.09.045. Administrative design review.
A. Purpose and scope. Administrative design review is an administrative process,
the purpose of which is to implement and give effect to the comprehensive plan, its
policies or parts thereof through the adoption of design criteria for development
relative to site layout, landscape architecture and exterior structure design. It is the
�I
intent of the city that this process will serve to aid applicants in understanding the
principal expectations of the city concerning design, and encourage a diversity of
imaginative solutions to development through the planning department review and
application of certain criteria. These criteria have been formulated to improve the
design, siting and construction of development projects so as to be compatible, both
visually and otherwise, with the topographic, open space, urban or suburban
characteristics of the land or adjacent properties, while still maintaining allowable
densities to be applied in a manner consistent with established land use policies,the
comprehensive plan, this title, and community development goals of the city.
The adoption of design criteria is an element of the city's regulation of land use,
which is statutorily authorized. Application of the multifamily design process to the
design criteria adopted in this section is established as an administrative function
delegated to the planning department pursuant to RCW Title 35A, therefore, in
implementing the administrative design review process, the planning director may
91 1724 Regulations
I
adopt such rules and procedures as are necessary to provide for expeditious review
of proposed projects. Further rules may be promulgated for additional
administrative review.
B. Application and review process. fie-&Administrative design review process is is
classified as a Process II application
and shall be subiect to the applicable requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. The
applicant must make application for the design review process on forms provided
by the planning department. Upon receipt of an application for design review, the
planning director shall circulate the application to the public works director,
building official and the city administrator for review. Prior to making a final
'll
decision, the planning director shall review any comments submitted for
consideration. In the administration of this process, the planning director may
develop supplementary handbooks for the public, which shall pictorially illustrate
and provide additional guidance on the interpretation of the criteria set forth in
subsection C. of this section, as well as a detailed explanation of the design review
process.
C. Multiple Family Design Review. The planning department shall use the following
p 8 P g P g
criteria in the evaluation and/or conditioning of applications under the multifamily
design review process:
1. Site design.
a. The site plan for the development should be integrated with the
surrounding neighborhood.
b. The site plan should take into consideration significant
environmental considerations and the lay of the land.
C. The site plan should provide an open space network which will
accommodate a wide variety of activities, both semipublic and
private.
92 1724 Regulations
d. The site plan should accommodate vehicular access and parking in
a manner which is convenient, yet does not allow the automobile to
dominate the site.
e. The site plan should provide safe and convenient pedestrian
circulation.
2. Landscape design.
a. The landscape plan should integrate with and enhance the
surrounding neighborhood landscape.
b. The landscape plan should incorporate existing natural features of
significance.
C. The landscape plan should enhance the planned open space
I
network..
d. The landscape plan should enhance the parking and utility areas on
the site.
e. The landscape plan should enhance building forms and orientation.
f. The landscape plan should indicate the use of plant species suited
to the microclimate of the site and should provide for maintenance
of these plants.
3. Building design.
a. The buildings in the development should, where appropriate,
maintain neighborhood scale and density.
b. The buildings in the development should be oriented to provide for
privacy of residents.
C. The exterior design of all buildings in the development should
provide for individual unit identity.
D. Multifamily Transition Areas. Through the administrative design review process,
specific multifamily transition area requirements may be waived or modified where
the applicant demonstrates an alternative site plan which fulfills an equivalent
93 1724 Regulations
function to the multifamily transition area requirements. Elements which may be
evaluated under this process include general site layout, building placement and
orientation, parking and maneuvering arrangements, landscaping and other
screening and buffering provisions.
1. Required findings. In order to modify or waive any multifamily transition
area requirement, the planning director must find that all of the following
criteria have been met:
a. The proposal will accomplish the same or better protection of an
abutting single-family district from impacts of noise, traffic, light
and other environmental intrusions caused by the multifamily
development.
b. The proposal will accomplish the same or better transition between
the multifamily development and abutting streets, including
adequate buffering of the multifamily development from the street,
i
and vice versa.
C. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. Compatibility
includes but is not limited to site layout, size, scale, mass and
provisions for screening and buffering. The planning director shall
issue a report of his findings, conclusions and determination for
each proposal under this section.
E. Mixed Use Design Review. The planning department shall use the following criteria
in the evaluation and/or conditioning of applications under the mixed use design
review process when a project includes residential use:
1. The following criteria should apple to all mixed use with a residential
component development:
a. Some common recreation space roofs, terraces, indoor rooms,
courtyards.
b. Lighting features that are shielded, directing light downwards.
94 1 724 Regulations
C. The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential
details, such as widow trim, trellises, balconies, and bay windows.
d. The residential component should have an obvious generous
entrance, within features suggesting a"front door" for example, a
lobby, trellis, gate, archway or courtyard.
2. The following criteria shall apply to mixed use development:
a. If the residential component is located away from the main street,
a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the
entrance and public sidewalk.
b. Although the commercial and residential components may have
different architectural expressions,they should exhibit a number of
elements that produce the effect of an integrated development.
C. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an
amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first
floor.
3. The following criteria shall apply to mixed use buildings with a residential
component:
a. Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments,
separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not
dominate the site.
b. Articulated by use of different materials, generous windows with
low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies, and planters.
C. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner, with
stepbacks, change in materials or color, and overhangs.
d. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor
commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor
facades.
95 1724 Regulations
F. Appeals. The decision of the planning director to condition or reject any application
under the administrative design review process is final unless an appeal is made by
the applicant or any party of record to the hearing examiner within ten-(10) fourteen
(14) calendar days of either the issuance of the director's conditional approval
under this section of any application, or the director's written decision rejecting any
application under this section.
in,,, ante_' 92 The appeal shall be conducted by the hearing examiner as an open
record anneal hearing in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 2.32 and Ch.
12.01 KCC. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final unless an appeal
is made to the city eeomil superior court within tea-(I @)twenty-one (21) calendar
days after the hearing examiner's notice of decision.
IC
SECTION 38. Section 15.09.048 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
to read a follows:
Sec. 15.09.048. Downtown design review.
A. Purpose and scope.
1. Downtown design review is an administrative process, is categorized as a
Process II application, and shall be subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01
KCC. Tthe purpose of downtown design review whist}is to implement and
give effect to the downtown plan. its policies or parts thereof, through the
adoption of design criteria for development within the downtown planning
area, which is bounded by siate route 167 to the west, James Street to the
north, Jason/Titus/Central Avenue to the east, and Willis Street to the south.
The area is shown on the map below:
96 1724 Regulations
jDowntown Planning Area
c[exc[ ST
z
w >
S ixatx
> W
SMM ST
u 's 'a c w
a
r SMfTM ST '
SntiT�
TNARATSBM
ceu[ ST
I
� e
e
i DEAN ST
MMCITM ST
cutSCASSM
w xi 17 S[MTTLE S'
cxev
It is the intent of the city that this process will serve to aid applicants in
l
understanding the principal expectations of the city concerning
development in the downtown planning area and encourage a diversity of
imaginative solutions to development through the review and application
of the design criteria described in this section. These criteria have been
formulated to ensure that the design, siting and construction of development
will provide a quality pedestrian oriented urban environment in a manner
consistent with established land use policies, the comprehensive plan, and
zoning code of the city.
2. The adoption of design criteria is an element of the city's regulation of land
use, which is statutorily authorized. The downtown design review process
adopted herein is established as an administrative function delegated to the
planning department pursuant to RCW Title 35A. Therefore, in
implementing the downtown design review process, the planning director
may adopt such rules and procedures as are necessary to provide for review
of proposed projects.
97 1724 Regulations
3. Development in the downtown commercial (DC), downtown commercial
enterprise (DCE) and downtown limited manufacturing (DLM) zoning
districts within the downtown planning area shall be subject to the
provisions of this section.
4. Applications for multifamily development in the DC, DCE and DLM
zoning districts shall not be subject to the provisions of section 15.09.045,
administrative design review.
5. The downtown design review process is distinct from the administrative
FRol6family design review process set forth in section 15.09.045447-.
Applications for multifamily development within the DC, DCE and DLM
zoning districts shall be subject to the provisions of section 15.09.04544-7
in addition to the provisions of this section_,
5.^rr99 047 ; However, the provisions of this section shall prevail in cases
where a conflict may arise between the requirements of the two (2) sections.
B. Application and review process. The downtown design review process is
administrative and is conducted as part of the rp oiect permit review process. The
applicant must make application for the design review process on forms provided
by the planning department. Upon receipt of an application for design review, the
planning director shall circulate the application to the public works director,
building official, and the city administrator for review. Prior to issuing a final
decision, the planning director shall review any comments submitted for
consideration. In the administration of this process, the planning department may
develop supplementary handbooks for the public, which shall pictorially illustrate
and provide additional guidance on the interpretation of the criteria set forth in
subsection LC�C—. of this section.
C. Downtown Ddesign review committee. There is hereby established the Doowntown
adwi;;ir,1rR4i—P Ddesign Rfeview Ceommittee, which shall make all final decisions
on applications for downtown design review, provided that the planning director
98 1724 Regulations
shall make the final decision on downtown design review applications for minor
remodels. The committee shall be comprised of three (3) members, who shall be
appointed by the planning director under the authority delegated to him under RC W
Title 35A. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the planning director. The
planning director shall, by administrative rule, establish the rules of procedure for
the committee, which shall be made available to the public upon publication.
D. Design review criteria. The downtown administrative design review committee
shall use the following criteria in the evaluation and/or conditioning of applications
under the downtown design review process:
i
1. Site design.
a. The site plan conforms with the pedestrian plan overlay frontage
requirements for class A and class B streets as included in the
administrative guidelines of the planning department.
b. The site plan conforms with the maximum setback requirements as
specified by the pedestrian plan overlay.
C. The site plan provides for a zero setback for properties abutting
Meeker Street and First Avenue within the downtown commercial
district.
d. The site plan restricts the number of curb cuts necessary to meet
automobile circulation requirements.
e. Off-street parking areas are located to the rear or side of buildings
and are well lighted.
f. The site plan provides for sidewalks and pedestrian corridors in both
public right-of-ways and privately owned areas.
g. Pedestrian corridors outside of buildings are clearly marked and well
lighted.
h. Pedestrian throughways are provided in long buildings.
99 1724 Regulations
i. The site plan provides for semiprivate and/or private useable open
space for any development with a residential component.
2. LandscaP a design.
a. The landscape plan provides for extensive landscaping of large
parking areas or other open areas which can be seen from the street
or other pedestrian oriented area.
b. The landscape plan enhances pedestrian activities for any setback or
other open space areas which are being provided on the site.
C. The landscape plan enhances any private and/or semiprivate open
spaces which are being provided for multifamily residential units.
3. Building design.
a. Building floor area above four (4) stories in height is setback as
appropriate to maintain human scale.
b. Buildings in the downtown commercial zoning district are designed
to be compatible with the existing historic buildings in terms of
bulk, scale, and cornice line.
c. Buildings in the downtown commercial zoning district provide
cover for pedestrians such as awnings along the length of any facade
abutting a sidewalk.
d. Building facades facing a public right-of-way or other pedestrian
oriented space minimize blank walls by providing windows and/or
providing an interesting design features.
e. Windol s make up the grectest percentage of the street level facade
area to minimize blank walls in the downtown commercial zoning
district.
E. Appeals. The decision of the Ddowntown a&Rinir,#:144ive D4esign Rreview
Ceommittee or, for minor remodels, the planning director, to approve, condition or
reject any application under the downtown design review process is a final decision
100 1724 Regulations
unless an appeal is made to the hearing examiner within tee (194 fourteen (14)
calendar days of either the issuance of the committee's conditional approval or
rejection of any application under this section. Appeals to the hearing examiner
shall be as set forth in chapter. Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
SECTION 39. Section 15.09.050 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.050. Amendments. This title may be amended by the city council by
changing the boundaries of zoning districts(rezones which change the official zoning map)
or by changing any other provisions thereof (text amendments which add, delete or
i otherwise modify the text of this title) whenever the public necessity and convenience and
the general welfare require such amendment, by following the procedures of this section.
A. Initiation. An amendment may be initiated as follows:
1. Amendments to the text of this title and official zoning map amendments
may be initiated by resolution of intention by the city council. Text
amendments are heard by the Land Use and Planning. Board piaFmiRg
se 4oH and city council, zoning map amendments are heard by the
hearing examiner. In the case of area-wide zoning or rezoning, both text
amendments and zoning map amendments may be heard by the Land Use
and Planning Board and city council in accordance
with Ch. 12.01 KCC.
2. Amendments to the text of this title may be initiated by resolution of
intention by the Land Use and Planning Board .
3. Official zoning map amendments (rezones), including the application of the
"C" suffix, may be initiated by application of one (1) or more owners, or
101 1724 Regulations
their agents, of the property affected by the proposed amendment, which
shall be made on a form prescribed by the planning department and filed
with the planning department. The application shall be submitted as least
date Ofia Ahmil be h@aFa by in the manner required for Process VI
applications. Tthe hearing examiner
shall
consider the application in an open record pre-decision hearing in
I
accordance with Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
B. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold an
open record pre-decision hearing on any proposed amendment, and shall give notice
thereof in 9A least an@ (4) publisatien ia 4he leeai newspaper.M least ton (IQ) days
prior to the poblie heaFiffg. accordance with the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
Rtf .7:St.. f A 440 ..to h_A_4_H;d_ffieS 4 the PFaPeFPert„
oa:
.J.,... iHg d@PaI4ffieHi'a Rd ., f 11..wsi The ., plieant shall a pPf t„
102 1724 Regulations
I
C. Standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone. The following standards
and criteria shall be used by the hearing examiner and city council to evaluate a
request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council
determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria- and
subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with development in the vicinity.
3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the
vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the
current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the cite.
D. Rezoning to MI-C. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the
standards and criteria provided in subsection C. of this section to evaluate a request
for rezone to MI-C. In addition, the hearing examiner and city council shall
103 1724 Regulations
evaluate a request for M1-C on the basis of the following standards and criteria.
Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request
is consistent with these standards and criteria and subject to the requirements of Ch.
12.01 KCC.
1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial
intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as being appropriate
locations for commercial type land uses.
2. Rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on
generalized development plans and uses.
E. Rezone to mixed use overlay. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use
the standards and criteria provided in subsection C. of this section to evaluate a
request for expanding the boundaries of the mixed use overlay boundary which is
located in the GC, CC,and O zoning districts. In addition,the hearing examiner and
city council shall evaluate a request for expanding the mixed use overlay on the
basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be
�I
granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards
and criteria and subiect to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
1. The proposed rezone is contiguous to an existing mixed use overlay area,
or is at least one (1) acre in size.
2. The proposed area is located within close proximity to existing residential
uses and existing commercial uses which would support residential use.
3. The proposed area is located in close proximity to transit stops, parks, and
community facilities.
F. Recommendation of hearing examiner. Following the public hearing provided for
in this section, the hearing examiner shall make a report of findings and
recommendations with respect to the proposed amendment and shall forward such
to the city council, which shall have the final authority to act on the amendment.
G. Ciry council action appeal.
104 1724 Regulations
1. Within thifty t394 E63's e€ meoipt of the hetfingexaminer's
!die city council shall, at a regular public meeting,
consider the recommendation-and issue a final decision. The decision of
the city council is appealable to the King County Superior Court within
twenty-one (21)calendar days from the issuance of a notice of decision and
in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC and Ch. 36.70C
RCW.
2. If the application for an amendment is denied by the city council, the
application shall not be eligible for resubmittal for one (1) year from date
of the denial, unless specifically stated to be without prejudice. A new
application affecting the same property may be submitted if, in the opinion
of the hearing examiner, circumstances affecting the application have
I I
changed substantially.
SECTION 40. Section 15.09.055 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
See. 15.09.055. Zoning of annexed lands.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide a procedure to ensure that the
initial zoning of annexed territories is in conformance with city goals, policies and
plans.
B. Determination ofplanning director. Whenever the council shall determine that the
best interest and general welfare of the city would be served by annexing territory,
the planning director will cause an examination to be made of the comprehensive
plan of the city.
plaH If the city council determines that the comprehensive plan is not current for
the area of the proposed annexation, the planning director will cause an application
to be made to the Land Use and Planning Board for an update
of the comprehensive plan. If the planning director determines that a current
105 1724 Regulations
comprehensive plan exists for the area of the proposed annexation, the planning
director will cause an application to be filed with the leafing e*amiHef Land Use
and Planning Board for an initial zoning recommendation.
C. Recommendation of#a+Q sowm&&ien Land Use and Planning Board. Upon
application by the planning director, the plawiiag eeffHnissie Land Use and
Planning_Board shall hold at least one (1) oven record public hearing to consider
the comprehensive plan for the area of the proposed annexation. Notice of the time,
place and purpose of such hearing shall be mailed to all property owners in the area
to be annexed and given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city and in the area to be annexed at least ten(10) days prior to the hearing. Upon
completion of the hearing, the plam4ag sawAnission Land Use and Planning Board
shall transmit a copy of its recommendations for the comprehensive plan to the
council for its consideration.
D. Recommendation of the hearing examiner. Upon application by the planning
director,the hearing examiner shall hold at least one(1) onen record public hearing
to consider the initial zoning for the area of the proposed annexation. Notice of the
time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be mailed to all property owners in
the area to be annexed and given by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the citv and in the area to be annexed at least ten(10)days prior to the
hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the examiner
shall make written findings from the record and conclusions therefrom as to the
initial zoning of the area of the proposed annexation. The decision of the hearing
examiner shall be limited to recommending initial zoning designation which are
consistent with the current comprehensive plan. The e a—mi er .hail file the
106 1724 Regulations
E. City council action.
1. Comprehensive plan. Within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the
recommendation from the plwA4ag-eemwiissiea Land Use and Planning Board for
the comprehensive plan for the area of the proposed annexation, shall include
determinations of uses permitted in the various districts, and approval or
disapproval of development plans and zoning permits. Other interpretations may
be made as specific circumstances arise which require such interpretations. The
purpose of such administrative interpretations is to provide a degree of flexibility
in the administration of this title while following the intent of the city council.
Administrative Interpretations are subject to the requirements of Process I
applications.
SECTION 41. Section 15.09.060 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.060. Administrative interpretation generally. The planning director
may make interpretations of the provisions of this title. Such administrative interpretations
shall include determinations of uses permitted in the various districts, and approval or
disapproval of development plans and zoning permits. Other interpretations may be made
as specific circumstances arise which require such interpretations. The purpose of such
administrative interpretations is to provide a degree of flexibility in the administration of
this title while following the intent of the city council. Administrative Interpretations are
subject to applicable requirements of Process I applications per Ch. 12.01 KCC.
SECTION 42. Section 15.09.065 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.065. Interpretation of uses.
A. Land uses which are listed as principally permitted uses in the Land Use Tables
shall be permitted subject to the review processes, standards, and regulations
107 1724 Regulations
specified in Title 15. If a use is not listed in the Land Use tables, it shall be
considered to be a prohibited use unless the Planning Director determines it to be
a permitted use following the process outlined below. If a proposed use is not
specifically listed in the Land Use Tables, an applicant may request from the
Planning Director an interpretation as to whether or not such use is a permitted use.
In determining whether a proposed use closely resembles a use expressly
authorized in the applicable zoning district(s),the Planning Director shall utilize the
following criteria:
4- 1. The use resembles or is of the same basic nature as a use expressly
authorized in the applicable zoning district or districts in terms of the
following:
4- a. the activities involved in or equipment or materials employed in the
use;
2- b. the effects of the use on the surrounding area, such as traffic impacts,
noise, dust, odors, vibrations, lighting and glare, and aesthetic
appearance.
l 2. The use is consistent with the stated purpose of the applicable district or
districts.
3. The use is compatible with the applicable goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. A record shall be kept of all interpretations and rulings made by the Directory
Such decisions shall be used for future administration. The
Director shall report decisions to the Land Use and Planning
Board when it appears desirable and necessary to amend this Code. The Planning
Director's determination is classified as a Process I application and shall be
processed and subject to the applicable requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC and may
be appealed as provided in Ch. 12.01 KCC.
108 1724 Regulations
C. Appeals. Any appeal from the Plannins Director's determination shall be an open
record appeal hearing and shall be filed in accordance with the procedures
established for Process I applications under Ch. 12.01 KCC.
SECTION 43. Section 15.09.070 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.09.070. Appeal of administrative interpretations.
A. Any appeal of administrative decisions relating to the enforcement or interpretation
of this title, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter, shall be in
writing, and shall be filed with the-sites the planning department within
ten(10) fourteen(14)calendar days after such decision,
eppe4 and in the manner set forth in Ch. 12.01 KCC.
B. The appeal shall be heard by the hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner shall
render his or her its decision
in accordance with the requirements of
Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC.
SECTION 44. - Severabilin If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 45. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be i
force thirty (30) days from and after its passage. approval and publication as provided b
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
109 1724 Regulations
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I PASSED: day of , 1998.
APPROVED: day of , 1998.
PUBLISHED: day of , 1998.
I
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P\LAW OROINANC11724reg2 d.c
110 1724 Regulations
CITY OF J Q��B LS
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATORY REFORM ACT
(ESHB 1724)
Attached for your consideration is an ordinance relating to the City's implementation of ESHB
1724, the Regulatory Reform Act. The ordinance has been prepared by the Law Department,
working in conjunction with Planning Department staff. The City's consultant on the zoning
code update project, McConnell/Burke, Inc., also assisted on this project. The Regulatory
Reform Act is largely procedural in scope with regard to the review of project permit application,
such as building permits and land use permits.
The provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act, and the attached ordinance, affect several portions
of the City's Code, including the Hearing Examiner (Chapter 2.32), Environmental Policy
(Chapter 11.03), Subdivisions (Chapter 12.04), and Zoning (Title 15). The Land Use and
Planning Board reviewed this issue at their public meeting on May 26, and recommended
approval. Since then, the City Attorney's office has been working with the Planning Department
to ensure that all relevant sections of the City Code have been changed to be consistent with the
state law, and also to reflect changes which have been made to the Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) which relate to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Staff from the Planning Department and Law Department will be available at the November 17
meeting to present this issue and answer questions.
KO
KO:mw:P:\PUBLIC\1724CCME.DOC
cc: James P. Hams, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Laurie Evezich,Assistant City Attorney
220 Jth AVENUE SOUTH i KENT.WASHINGTON 98012-;895/TELEPHONE (2531 859-3300
�-
i ne oceing �amoany
PO Sax 37C'
Sasttie, WA 96�Z �2C7
May 23, 1998
Kevin O'Neill, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department, City of Kent
220 4`h Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Kevin,
BOE�/YG Boeing has had an oppor'univ. to review the proposed amendments to the Kent
zoning code which you Nave sent to as. You have done an excellent job of
formatting the zoning code to be more "user friendly," as well as to provide
conformity to ESHB 1724, the Regulatory Reform Act. We also understand that
your second phase will consolidate some existing categories, include more
substantive changes and consolidate exisurg zoning districts.
Please accept the following comments knowing tat we realize the process of your
zoruna code revisions is not entirely complete. In Provision E, puge 3, of the
Draft Code - Revision, Permit Process Framcwork,we are unsure how the
applicant would act a preliminary SL•PA, when an applicant has not vet provided
application materials for consideration? This needs to be further clarified.
In Provision B, page 4, Boeing would recommend that a shoreline permit appeal
should go directly to the Shoreline Hearings Board. This provides a more
efficient time frame for the applicant as well as the City. In addition, Boeing
would want to be able to concur or be consulted when a decision is made by the
City to combine public hearings with other agencies. Boeing feels strongly that
the applicant should have the opportunity to participate in that decision.
Thank you for the ability to share these comments and suggestions with you. If
you have questions, please feel free to call me at 206-544-0182 or Laura Whitaker
at Perkins Coie who helped review the draft provisions for Boeing at 206 583-
8584.
I
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Warman
Local Government Affairs Manager-Puget Sound R i L ".1 V E D
cc: John Murdock t-U: 2 o 1_:,
Gerry Bresslour CTy Qa KENT
Laura Whitaker PLANv:,.'G
\.
city OFCx•t�f"�'
.dim White, Mayor
Planning Department (2-53) 859-3390/F.1.02J.)'1 830-2ja4
James P. Harris. Planning Director
June 10, 1998
Ms. Elizabeth Warman
Local Governmental Affairs ivlanager
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 3 707
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
RE: COMMENTS ON ZONING CODE UPDATE
Dear Ms. Warman:
Thank you for vour review of the draft changes to the Kent zoning code and our efforts to
implement ESHB 1724. Your kind words on the zoning code update are appreciated—our intent
all along has been to create a more user-friendly, streamlined document, and it is gratifying to
know that you feel that we have accomplished this. With regard to your comments on the draft
1724 ordinance. these were reviewed by the Land Use and Planning Board at the May 26 public
hearing on this issue. and the Board asked that we get back to you to respond to your comments.
I will respond to each of your comments below.
With regard to early environmental review, we concur that this process requires further
clarification. Our intent is to provide both the applicant and the Cite with the chance to revie%v a
proposed project at an early stage to identify possible impacts that would have to be mitigated.
Many developers depend on such an analysis in order to make the final decision on whether or
not to proceed with a proposed project. While we recognize that we cannot issue a formal
environmental determination until a completed project permit application is tiled, we feel that
this early identification of impacts helps both the applicant and the City. and is consistent \yith
the purpose of SEPA to provide for early environmental analysis.
For appeals of shoreline substantial development permits. while it may be more efficient for an
appeal to go directly to the Shoreline Hearings Board, the staff has always felt that it is desirable
to have a local appeals process. If an appeal issue can be resolved at the local level, it will
ultimately save time on a permit, since typically the City Council will act on an appeal faster that
the Shoreline Hearings Board would. To date, no appeal of a shoreline decision in Kent has
gone to the Hearings Board, and the City would like to preserve the local appeal provision.
Finally, with regard to joint public hearings, the intent of the ordinance is to allow the applicant
to have a sav in whether or not joint hearings are held. as outlined on page 6 of the ordinance.
which allows the applicant to request that ajoint hearing be held. However, we can also address
Zoning Code Update
June 10. 1993
Page
this concern by adding it to the issues that the Planning Director would consider in making a
decision to conduct ajoint hearing.
Thank you again for your comments. At this point, it is envisioned that the 1724 package would
go to the City Council for review in early July. If you have additional comments, or would like
to discuss any of these issues further, please contact me at 25 -850-4799.
Sincerely,
�w
Kevin O'Neill, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: James P. Harris. Plannin; Director
Fred Sanerstrom, Planning Manager
Laura Whitaker. Perkins Coie
CITY OF
,Jim White, ,NIavor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/F4.r(253) 8.50-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
Mav 26. 1998
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning, Board %gas called to order by Chair Brad Bell at
7:20 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall,
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brad Bell, Chair
Steve Dowell
.Ion Johnson
'Ferry Zimmerman
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair, excused
Ron Harmon, excused
David Malik, unexcused absence
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris. Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve the
January 26. 1998 minutes. The motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
None
'J(.(h \\F.AIFi )ITH KI:AF U'VSHIA(;MA =w= IhI.11'llnAI-. IS)-�U00
Land Use and Planning Board :Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 2
#CPA-98-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Motion carried.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom gave a brief synopsis of the proposed amendment. He explained
that this comprehensive plan amendment request is being heard outside of the City's annual review
period as it has been declared an emergency by the City Council.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City is allowed to collect school impact fees through the Growth
Management Act for residential development within the City of Kent. The City of Kent has been
collecting this fee for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts for three years. Mr. Satterstrom
said that for the City to continue collecting these fees the Capital Facilities Plans for both the Federal
Way and Kent School Districts need to be adopted by reference into the City of Kent's Capital
Facilities Plan.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that planning staff has reviewed the school's formula for charging school
impact fees to new residential development as it pertains to the Capital Facilities plan. He stated that
the plan takes into account site acquisition costs and elementary through high school facilities cost.
Mr. Satterstrom said the plan also factors in new student capacity cost based on a ratio of number
of new students per new residential construction.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the formula used by the school districts to determine a fair impact fee
took into account the aforementioned factors minus the district match, the state match and other
funding sources.
Staff recommends that the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan be amended
to adopt by reference the Capital Facilities Plans for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts.
Dan Moberly, 12033 SE 256" Street, Kent, WA represents the Kent School District as
Superintendent for Business. He referred to the Kent School District's Six-Year Capital Facilities
Plan while speaking at length on the factors used to calculate the amount of the impact fees.
Mr. Moberly explained for every 100 new homes built 84 more students need to be housed in a
school. He further stated that for every new residence approximately S 15,700 of additional funding
is needed to allow for new facilities construction, staffing and student costs. Mr. Moberly stated the
State absorbs $4,300 of the $15,700 cost per student. The remaining $11,400 is absorbed by the
local school district. Mr. Moberly said that if the impact fee were perceived as property tax relief,
the $11,400 would become a property tax debt. Mr. Moberly stated that the impact fee has been
calculated to be $3,744 per residence and the remaining $7,700 to be absorbed by the local levy. He
explained that if the impact fee is approved, the local levy could be decreased to 49 percent. Thus
the impact fees would be 24 percent of the cost, the local levy would be 49 percent and the State
match would be 27 percent.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
- Page 3
Mr. Moberly explained that the school district anticipates a growth of about 11,000 more residences
over the next five to eight years. He said that over this time period, the school district projects a
saving of approximately $50 million through school impact fees. Mr. Moberly emphasized that
school impact fees are not used for operational costs but strictly for student housing construction.
Fred High, 12033 SE 256" Street, Kent, WA 98031 represents the Kent School District as the
Executive Director of Finance. He spoke at length about the major changes in the plan currently in
effect within the City of Kent. Mr. High defined the school district's relationship between current
school construction and student enrollment projections over the course of the next six years for
kindergarten through senior high. He stated that the six-year Financial plan is a key ingredient to the
Capital Facilities plan and stressed that the impact fee plays a significant roll in paying for the cost
of facilities.
Mr. High indicated current elementary capacity is approximately 12,300 students. This year 416
student spots have been added with the Kent Learning Center(an alternative school) configured as
an elementary school. Mr. High reported that the following schools have been constructed or are
scheduled for construction:
• Glenridge Elementary School opened in 1997.
• The newly constructed Kent Elementary School is scheduled to open December 1998 with the
addition of 295 more spots.
• Elementary School Number No. 29 is scheduled to open in 1999 with 540 spots.
• Elementary School No. 30 is scheduled to open in 2000 with 540 spots.
Mr. High explained that by using portables, the school district can adequately house students through
the year 2000, based on new school construction, the district's current enrollment capacity. and
enrollment projections.
Mr. High spoke at length about the need for adequate junior high and senior high student housing.
He stated that at the end of the six-year enrollment projection, housing would need to be found for
1500 more senior high students even with the addition of Kentlake Senior High School.
Mr. High reported that the following two factors have led to changes in the fee structure. These
factors have increased the single-family school impact fees from the plan currently in effect in Kent
by a net $69.00 and reduced multifamily impact fees by $48.
1. An increase in construction cost, with bids estimated at $9 million for Kent Elementary and
Elementary School #30 with the high school bid at $1 million under budget.
2. Tax credits have increased offsetting the cost.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 4
Geri Walker,31405 181' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA has been employed in the Federal Wav
School District Business Services department since 1988 and has been a resident of South King
County since 1976.
Ms. Walker stated that six elementary schools have been built, two reopened and ajunior high built
during her tenure with the district. She explained that these facilities are at one-year capacity today.
The last schools were opened within the district two years ago and uses portables on site to house
students today.
Ms. Walker explained that with a strong economy and low vacancy rate, she foresees an increase in
new housing within Federal Way generating student growth. Ms. Walker stressed that the district
has set several goals focused on continuous improvement for student performance. She stated to
meet those goals adequate facilities are needed to house the students. She cited that 800 students are
currently housed in portables.
Ms. Walker spoke at length about Federal Way's six year planning forecast. She stated that school
impact fees play an integral roll in planning for new facilities. Ms. Walker explained that the Capital
Facilities Plan is just one tool to collect information on growth and plan for future student needs and
the continued collection of impact fees depends on the efficient use of the plan.
Ms. Walker attributed the increase in single family residents to two reasons:
• Site acquisition cost in the 1995 Capital Facilities plan was $4,500 per acre. The properties were
deeded to the Federal Way School District several years ago.
• The new plan is based on current negotiated site costs of$25,000 per acre.
Wayne Thueringer,858 First Avenue North, Kent, WA voiced concern with the implementation
and control of school impact fees. He questioned if a contingency plan was in place to control the
amount of fees requested or to amend the portion of the law dealing with impact fees.
Mr. Thueringer stated that the original proposal for school impact fees was heard before the Council
four years ago and was resisted by the citizens of Kent, developers and realtors. The proposal failed.
Mr. Thueringer explained that a group was formed by the Chamber of Commerce to study the
impact of school impact fees on the residential market in Kent. He said the group included
Associated Builders and Contractors, Master Builders, South King County Realtors and Mortgage
Bankers as well as other interest groups concerned about the impact of school impact fees on the
residential market in Kent.
Mr. Thueringer stated that the Chamber of Commerce released a report in 1995 to recommend
lobbying for repeal of impact fee collections in conjunction with other chambers in the County. He
explained that even though the chambers presented their reports before the Council in opposition to
the impact fees, the fees were retained. Mr. Thueringer said a diverse group consisting of mortgage
Land Use and Planning Board :Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 5
banking interests was appointed by the Council President at that time, Christi Houser, to studv
impact fees. Impact fees were approved.
Mr. Dowell stated his belief that the Land Use and Planning Board is not related to the group
appointed by President Christi Houser and questioned if the group was an official body. Mr. Dowell
explained that the Council is the official body elected by the citizens. The Council formed the Land
Use and Planning Board who is responsible for making recommendations to the Council. Mr.
Dowell said that to his knowledge, there has not been any input from groups other than those
representing the school districts at this hearing.
Mr. Thueringer reiterated his concern about how the difference in dollars would be obtained to meet
the six-year plans for Kent and Federal Way School Districts if we lose school impact fees.
Laurie Evezich , Assistant Citv Attorney with the City of Kent thanked Mr. Thueringer for his
comments and addressed his concerns. She stated that authorization for imposing impact fees was
coincidental with the implementation of the Growth Management Act by the Washington State
Legislature in 1990. Ms. Evezich explained that City Council has authority to direct local
jurisdictions to impose impact fees to the extent that they are done in accordance with the provisions
of RCW Chapter 82.02 and directed at the cost of new construction.
Ms. Evezich further explained that if the citizens of the State of Washington determine that they no
longer support this type of an impact fee program than the legislature could act at the state level to
repeal the provisions of the RCW. Ms. Evezich stated that a referendum could occur but was not
occurring at this time to her knowledge.
Ms. Evezich spoke at length about the process involved leading to the failure to implement the
impact fee program when Mayor Dan Kellerher was in office. She stated that during Mayor White's
tenure the impact fee program was implemented and that she was involved in that process. Ms.
Evezich explained that one provision to the plan included a low-income exemption into the City of
Kent Code Provisions under Chapter 12.1 ) of the Kent City Code.
Mr. Dowell discussed with Mr. High of the Kent School District, how impact fee rates are
determined based on assessed property evaluation which directly affects tax rates. Mr. High
emphasized that future need is the key in determining impact fees.
Connie Baesman, 10206 SE 224" Street, Kent, WA has resided in Kent for 25 years. She has
served on the Kent School District Citizens Facilities Planning Committee. Ms. Baesman said that
she understands the need to adequately house students without placing undo burden on taxpayers and
has seen the Kent School District make a strong effort to do this.
Ms. Baesman stated that the Capital Facilities Plan is not changed on a yearly basis but merely
updated. A consistent formula is used to adjust fee rates based on different student generation
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 6
factors per district as well as land cost adjustments. These factors determine the raising or lowering
of rates.
Ms. Baesman explained that impact fees play a major roll in the development of new student
housing. She stated that for every dollar not collected in impact fees a $1.80 would be asked for
from the taxpayers. Ms. Baesman cited that in 1994 there was a $130 million bond issue which
along with impact fees and a state match extended the bond issue to cover$147 million worth the
facility needs.
Mr. Dowell stated his concern is that for a tax to be implemented it needs to be broad based and fair.
He felt that taring builders or new homeowners does not equate fair. Ms. Baesman responded that
the equity issue is important. She explained that where a community is growing at a modest rate, it
becomes easier for taxpayers to handle new growth without a major struggle.
Ms. Baesman said that it is in the interest of the community that we maintain an efficient school
system with a good reputation and not a system that cannot pass its bond issues, is double shifting
or is over crowded.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve staff s recommendation
#CPA-98-1 School District Capital Facilities Plan Amendment to adopt by reference the capital
facilities plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts as an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan . Motion carried unanimously.
4ZCA-98-1 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PHASE I
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that the present Zoning Code was adopted in 1973 with over
100 amendments made to it since that time. In 1996 staff felt that it was time to look at the code
from a broader perspective and the Council concurred. Staff felt it best to split this project into
phases. The first phase is to look at the code in terms of:
• reformatting it to make it user friendly for staff and the public,
• to clean up areas where the code is in conflict with itself or other sections of the Code,
• to bring into compliance with State law those sections that are currently not in compliance.
Mr. O'Neill stated that this project began one year ago by meeting with developers, architects and
Chamber of Commerce representatives as well as City departments to determine where the code was
not working well.
Mr. O'Neill covered the proposed changes to the Zoning Code by referencing the report entitled
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 7
"Summary of Proposed Updates to Title 15". He noted staffs recommended changes to definitions
in Chapter 15.02. He explained that several definitions were not up to date with City Code or State
Law. Terminology not being used was deleted. In addition, there was some terminology added as
well as revisions were made to current terminology.
Mr. O'Neill explained that Chapter 15.03 establishes current zoning districts and Phase II of the
Zoning Code update will look at possible change or consolidation of those districts. Phase II will be
a more public involved project. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff has taken the purpose language of
those zoning districts and moved them out of Chapter 15.04 and moved them into Chapter 15.03
which establishes those districts. Staff has made recommendations on amending the purpose
language of some of those zones to correlate with the comprehensive plan adopted in 1995.
Mr. O'Neill stated that staff recommends reformatting Chapter 15.04 by reorganizing and
consolidating the existing provisions into a tabular format. He stated that reformatting Chapter 15.04
would streamline the code and consolidate handouts to the public. This is a mechanism other
jurisdictions have used successfully in presenting information. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff has
added language defined with italicized and underlined words throughout Sec. 15.04 of the Zoning
code to clarify terminology.
Mr. O'Neill referenced two new categories in Sec. 15.04.020 "Modular homes" and "Accessory
living quarters". He defined modular homes as a manufactured home that must meet uniform
building codes and Accessory living quarters as a classification where a single unit would be allowed
in a commercial or industrial building as opposed to an accessory dwelling unit.
Mr. O'Neill said staff recommends (per Laurie Evezich's request) amending the definition proposed
for Sec. 15.02.004.a Accessory Living Quarters to read"Accessory living quarters ar{ li;,,ing quaAeFs
is a single residential unit in a commercial or manufacturing building which afe is subord at�d
incidental to the commercial or manufacturing use." The purpose is to clarify this as a single unit.
Mr. O'Neill referenced Sec. 15.04.130 Resource Land Uses and Sec. 15.02 to explain new
definitions proposed for home daycare versus daycare centers based on 1994 state law changes
regulating daycare uses. Mr. O'Neill said that other substantive changes were reflected in Sec. 15.04
of Development Standards on page 21.
Mr. O'Neill said staff is recommending amending Sec. 15.05 Off-Street Parkin¢ and Loading
Requirements" by adding a section to allow for administrative flexibility to off-street parking and
by reformatting the parking use and parking garage section, making it easier to locate and understand
certain uses.
Mr. O'Neill explained that at the May workshop, the board asked about parking standards relating
to senior housing, auditoriums, and high schools. He stated that the City's consultant, Ron
McConnell reviewed parking standards for different jurisdictions. Mr. O'Neill said the results of
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 8
the survey indicated that our parking standards were fairly consistent with other jurisdictions with
the exception of senior housing. Specific standards allowed for one parking space per two units. The
City of Kent allows for one space per four dwelling units. Mr. O'Neill said that staff would like the
Board to consider an amendment to Kent's senior housing parking standards to bring it in line with
one parking space per two dwelling units.
Mr. O'Neill indicated the one change in Sec.15.06. Sign Regulations regarding a height change for
freestanding signs in the downtown district.
Mr. O'Neill said the only substantive change in Sec.15.07 Landscaping Regulations is the addition
of language to tie in the zoning code landscaping requirements with public works construction
standards and consolidating existing standards.
Mr. O'Neill spoke at length on Sec.15.08 "General and Supplemental Provisions", referring to this
section as a catchall for several different substantive issues
Mr. O'Neill said that staff recommends revising Sec. 15.08.230. "Solar access setback—Purpose"
as a design guideline as opposed to a regulatory provision. He said that staff is recommending
changes to Sec. 15.08.300 "Zero lot line development-Authorized" to bring setback standards into
alignment with other changes. Staff further recommends that the Planned Unit Development(PUD)
section be moved from Chapter 15.04 to Chapter 15.08 as a PUD is a process for review rather than
a typical zoning district.
Mr. O'Neill said Chapter 15.09 "Administration" is a consolidation of three administrative review
processes into one section. Mr. O'Neill stated that Sec. 15.09.055. Zoning of Annexed Lands brings
the code up to date in terms of how annexation-zoning issues have been handled by the Land Use
and Planning Board and predecessors on the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Neill explained that Sec.
15.09.065 "Interpretation of uses"has been added as a new section to include language on how that
the Planning Director would interpret specific uses.
Mr. O'Neill submitted for the record a letter from Elizabeth Warman, local Government Affairs
Manager, The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA as Exhibit 1.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Board member Terry Zimmerman concurred with staff's recommendation to change senior housing
parking requirements to one parking space per two dwelling units.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to change the senior housing
parking requirements from one per four units to one per two units. Motion carried.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 9
Mr. Dowell concurred that all the zoning code change requests are necessary. Mr. Johnson
questioned if staff had reviewed the Boeing letter and had any comment. Mr. O'Neill stated that
the first paragraph of the Boeing letter deals with Phase I and the second paragraph deals with the
agenda item relating to ESHB 1724.
Mr. O'Neill said staff recommends striking out Sec.15.02.031 "Easement" and adding to the
definition of Sec. 15.02.230 '`Lot Area" the term including any easement area for clarification as
recommended by Laurie Evezich with the City Attorney's office.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend to the City
Council, 4ZCA-98-1 Zoning Code Amendment Phase I with the recommendation to change the
senior housing parking space requirements. Motion carried.
4ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1 1724 ORDINANCE-LAND USE PROCEDURES AMENDMENT
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill spoke about draft ordinance. Chapter 12.01 Administration of
Development Regulations. He referred to Laurie Evezich's memorandum in pointing out that State
Legislature adopted ESHB 1724 in 1995, a procedural law, which defines the ten-n"project permit".
Mr. O'Neill defined project permits as building and land use permits, which includes conditional
use permits, shoreline substantial development permits and items heard before the hearing examiner.
Mr. O'Neill spoke at length about the project permit application framework and how the permit
process procedures will be administered as it relates to the ordinance. He referred extensively to the
Draft Code Revision for meeting ESHB 1724 provisions.
Mr. O'Neill said staff is recommending that the ESHB 1724 Draft Ordinance be moved forward to
the City Council along with Laurie Evezich's recommended procedural changes to the Subdivision
and Zoning Code as outlined in her memorandum of May 18.
Jon Johnson MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Mr. O'Neill summarized the information contained in the letter from the Boeing Company. He
stated the letter's first comment concerned a provision regarding clarification of the early
environmental review process. Mr. O'Neill defined the State Environmental Policy Act as a process
used for projects of a certain size and scope. Mr. O'Neill said the City of Kent feels that allowing
for an early review process shortens the time needed to identify conditions. This serves as a courtesy
to both the City and the applicants and meets the intent of SEPA. Mr. O'Neill explained that the
process involves:
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 10
• Receiving an environmental checklist on a project.
• The Planning Staff reviews the checklist and the Director would identify conditions.
• The applicant than submits their permit.
Mr. O'Neill clarified that ESHB 1724 does not allow the City to issue an environmental
determination without the permit application being submitted simultaneously.
Mr. O'Neill stated when an environmental checklist is submitted without an application, the
applicant must include a conceptual site plan proposal. Staff reviews the proposal. Potential
conditions are identified and notification is sent to the applicant. Mr. O'Neill explained that upon
receipt of the application, a formal determination is completed. Staff believes it benefits the
applicant to have the option of turning in their environmental checklist with or without their
application.
Mr. Harris stated based on ESHB 1724, if someone applies for a SEPA checklist along with his
permit and a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued; the applicant could appeal.
However, the Hearing Examiner cannot hear the appeal because the applicant did not turn in their
SEPA checklist prior to submitting their building permit. Mr. Harris explained that the ESHB 1724
process will not allow a person to come in with an early application for SEPA and work with the
City in meeting the condition requirements prior to going to the expense of drawing up plans. He
said that staff would continue to process the SEPA checklists as before but not issue a final DNS
until the applicant has submitted their plans.
Mr. Dowell questioned if the potential existed for an applicant's building permit to be denied after
Mr. Harris had approved the SEPA. Mr. Harris responded that if denial were to occur, it would be
at the time of a permit application submittal. Mr. Harris stated that to his knowledge, there has not
been an occurrence where a permit has been turned down.
Mr. Harris stated that staff consistently informs the applicant at the time he submits his application:
if the property is zoned properly, necessary setback requirements, height limitations, landscaping,
off-street parking requirements and any other requirements pertaining to their property.
Mr. Harris explained that SEPA addresses the applicant's responsibility in sharing in the building
of a traffic light, curb gutters and sidewalks in front of their building in addition to doing a
biofiltration swale or other environmental issues not listed in the zoning code.
Mr. O'Neill addressed concerns brought up by Mr. Dowell in connection with City liability and
staff s commitment levels to the applicant. He stated that Planning Staff issues a letter to the
applicant explaining that by applying for this project under SEPA there are likely to be conditions..
The letter will include a caveat stating conditions may change when you bring in your plans. Mr.
O'Neill explained that staff is actively working with the City Attorney's office in further clarifying
the SEPA process.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 1 I
Mr. O'Neill responded to questions addressed in the Boeing letter regarding shoreline permits. He
explained that the current Shoreline Master Program states that when a shoreline permit or
conditional use permit variance is appealed it is heard before the City Council and if necessary to
the Shoreline's Hearing Board. Mr. O'Neill stated that the Boeing letter recommends that appeals
go directly to the Shoreline Hearing Board. Mr. O'Neill commented that staff would prefer
maintaining a local appeal process prior to having an appeal move directly to the Shoreline Hearing
Board at the State level.
Mr. O'Neill addressed the final comment in the letter from Boeing regarding a section of the
ordinance regardingjoint public hearings. Mr. O'Neill remarked that Boeing stated that an applicant
should be consulted ofjoint hearings organized by the city, state or federal agencies. Mr. O'Neill
concurred and stated that the "Draft Code Revision. Subsection B 12.01.040 "Process Decisions.
Project permit application framework" explains that the applicant has the right to request a joint
hearing and be privy to that decision. Mr. O'Neill reiterated his believe that it is the intent of the
ordinance to involve the applicant in the decision process. He stated he would send a letter to
Boeing clarifying the intent of the ordinance.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to accept staff's recommendation
to approve and send to the Council, #ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1, the 1724 Ordinance (sic) relating to the
implementation of the Land Use Procedures Amendment.
Chair Bell stated that the memorandum of May 18, 1998 from the City Attorney's office be included
as part of the proposal to Council.
Ms. Zimmerman voiced her concern about recommending approval of the draft ordinance without
being given the time for the board to analyze the material. Ms. Evezich responded to her questions.
Ms. Evezich stated that staff recommends that the Board move to offer its recommendation to the
City Council that the new regulatory reform provisions be adopted and that the provisions of the
Kent City Code affected by the State law mandates be amended correspondingly as mandated by
State Law under RCW 36.70B.
Ms. Evezich explained to Chair Bell that certain provisions of the Code were no longer necessary
due to streamlining the process for permit notification and the integration of environmental review
as part of the permit process.
Mr. Harris reiterated that the recommendation before the board is just one component involved with
implementation of ESHB 1724.
Conversation dnsued between Mr. Dowell and Ms. Evezich regarding public bodies, ex pane
communication and conflicts of interest as it applies to the Board.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
May 26, 1998
Page 12
Ms. Evezich responded to Ms. Zimmerman Is questions regarding a portion of KCC 12.04.250.
Discussion ensued regarding the period for appeal changing from thirty to twenty-one calendar days.
Chair Bell invited Laurie Evezich to present the Board with the provisions of "open record public
hearings" and specifically "ex parte communications" at a future workshop. Ms. Evezich concurred.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve staffs recommendation
for 9ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1 1724 Ordinance (sic) Land Use Procedures along with the
recommendations of the Assistant City Attorney in her memorandum dated May 18, 1998. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chair Bell thanked the Planning staff for ajob well done and Laurie Evezich for her attendance at
the meeting. He recognized the value of Mr. McConnell's input. Chair Belt noted his appreciation
to Jon Johnson for attending the meeting while he was ill in order to meet the quorum
Mr. Harris thanked the Board for their careful attention to the agenda items in clearing up issues that
needed clarification. Mr. Harris stated that the City Council appreciates the Board's
recommendations.
Jon Johnson MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jam P. Harris
S etarv,
U AUSERDATA\LUMMIN UTES\98526MfN.DOC
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: CHERRYWOOD LANE - BILL OF SALE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for
Cherrywood Lane submitted by W. E . Ruth Corporation for
continuous operation and maintenance of 903 feet of watermain,
1 , 191 feet of sanitary sewer, 683 feet of street improvements
and 1 , 060 feet of storm sewers and; release of bonds after
expiration period. The project is located at 114th Avenue
Southeast & Southeast 264th Street .
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6G
244 CT
24S PL
246 PL ; 246
247 PL �I
I 7
SE 248TH ST
PL
h
4PL
N 44 SE 251ST N ST PLPL
FE. 252NO PLI
�t .ti i r 253 C1
J N\ N
2S9 PL ¢ n a, �
54TH ST 2\ 9 Lt a
¢> ¢I al 254TH
N.TS.
2 PL l j � SS
SE 256TH ST _ t
256
PL / `
i Pa ST
�/ 57 .T 9'�\ SE 258TH ST W SE
sR s PROJECT LOCATION N
c I 259TH a 1 T \ ;`�.lPL `•
SE 250TH ST
s PL 1 SE\260TH PL (\
LS `
/` C a ♦ p9 �C Lt �\ �
292 PL 51 '�..•t-__..\ j w N�
••\� ,';\ > �¢ ice„ r T T ..\�`Na
\T SE 2647H ST 1` z �^264TH ST \ x4e ^ SE 264TH ST i
'•� 264TH PL �+.-x� „•� '
t !
� a � 265 PL p` Z65tH
2 W
•\ % o W SE 26 TH ST 266
1 _ ST
OTH ST r l J .• __
W T— m
SEe,26^7 CT
' Q n SE 2687M ST � I •-\ 2
?6874 �o 'S. r SESTco
^88� I > I 9l
1 � � -_- -•.J i raves •\\
269 ST `ea o �.
� ^1 ..
�.• 27p 270TH ST \�
f \ ST
3E 271 ST - � pa
� w m N
a r o W ST
SE 272ND 6T -` W ^a ¢ SE _ 272ND ST N P
'+ = SE 272ND PL
W �q 21
> 273RD PL2704 ST
W 27 3 l
SE 27�ITH / 5T a = m 275 ST :SEjw74TH STp!5P
!N 5E 1276TH F 2 SE
z E-
76TH ¢ 276TH PL
a •_- r �i
aWi t•� � ` 4� � a i
W \�\ 277TM PL c 277 PL 2T6r ^' CT
277TN PL
)lN -
x
�O
� SE 279TH
CHERRYWOOD LANE
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: PACIFIC HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT FSU-96-22 -
SET MEETING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set December 8 , 1998 , as the date for a
public meeting to consider the final plat application submitted
by Pacific Industries, for the Pacific Heights Final Plat . The
City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on
February 17, 1998 .
3 . EXHIBITS : None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6H
. .....................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: S . 277TH CORRIDOR PROJECT (LID 351) - REPORT ON
PUBLIC MEETING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: A property owner' s meeting was held on
November 5th regarding the LID assessments associated with the
S . 277th Street Corridor. The Director of Public Works will
provide Council with a detailed report relating to said
meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 7A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
November 12, 1998
TO: Mayor Jim White and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom 4
RE: 277' Street Corridor — LID 351
As you are aware the 277`' Street Corridor is under construction in stages with the last
major construction stage scheduled for 1999.
Financing for this Corridor project primarily included three sources. City funds
constitute approximately 50% of the project cost, which includes Councilmanic bonds,
utility funds, etc., State Transportation Improvement Board funding constitutes
approximately 21%, and Developer Mitigation Agreements constitute approximately
29%.
Over the past decade developments have been authorized to proceed in the south
portion of the City (south of James Street) with the environmental mitigation condition
that the developments help pay for off site impacts to the arterial system. To mitigate
for their impact, these developments were required to sign an Environmental Mitigation
Agreement (EMA). Developments included residential, multi-family, and commercial
establishments.
Some of the developers opted to pay up front at the time of their development. Other
developments were required to pay up front because they were outside of the then
easterly City limits and were required to pay by virtue of a water/sewer availability
agreement. Other developers opted not to pay up front, and instead agreed to form a
Local Improvement District or to pay at the time the Local Improvement District was
formed.
In all cases the Environmental Mitigation Agreement/LID covenant was recorded against
the developer's property. Some of these properties have remained in the hands of the
original owner. Other properties have been sold or transferred, and still other properties
have been developed and sold to individual residents. Currently there are approximately
472 property parcels that have unpaid EMA's. Approximately 295 of these are
estimated to be homeowners, and 177 are businesses or business related. The total value
or total income to be generated by the unpaid EMA's is approximately $8 million.
Consistent with the Environmental Mitigation Agreement signed by the developer,
(which was based on the number of peak hour traffic trips to be generated by the
business or residence), the property owners were given a 180 day notice of the City's
intent to form the LID consistent with the EMA agreement. In the agreement the
owners have 120 days to conduct a traffic study should they choose to dispute the
estimated number of trips contained in the EMA agreement (which was based on
estimated traffic trips at the time of the development permit).
The 180 day notice was mailed on October 16`''. The traffic study deadline (120 days)
is February 14'. The letter mailed to the property owners who have not paid contains
a fairly detailed review of the mitigation agreement signed by the property
developer/owner. Please see a typical copy of this letter attached.
In the case of a single family residence that is assumed to generate one peak hour trip,
the amount due the City would be approximately $1,500 in 1998.
Should a business or single family resident desire to dispute the peak hour trip estimate
in the original EMA agreement, the agreement provided that they could obtain the
services of a qualified traffic engineer to prepare a traffic study. A copy of the guidelines
for traffic mitigation studies is attached to this memo. This information has also been
made available to interested property owners.
As noted in our October 16`' letter, a public meeting was held on November 5, 1998 to
provide a time for City staff members to answer questions that property owners might
have with respect to their EMA and the proposed LID process. The meeting was held
in an open house type forum with sufficient staff in attendance to assure the questions
would be answered on a one to one basis. Approximately 50 people attended the
meeting, not including the City staff and our consultants. The bulk of the attendees
were single family resident owners and there were a few business owners present as well.
At least two State Legislators were in attendance (Karen Kaiser 33'a District, other —
didn't get their name) who felt the meeting format should have been along the lines of
a formal presentation, followed by a question and answer period. We felt that the
format used incited less controversy and provided a one to one relationship with the
property owner to answer their questions. Councilperson Amodt was in attendance but
came toward the end of the meeting. At least one property owner circulated a sign-up
sheet for possible (my guess) action directed towards the City at a future date. I believe
a few property owners were there gathering information for a subsequent meeting with
their neighbors. In one particular case I offered to send staff to their meeting to answer
any questions if they felt it appropriate. One person wanted to know how to get on the
next Council agenda.
While most of the questions were unique to the individuals property parcel, the common
theme thereof seemed to center around the fact that they did not feel they were well
informed by their realtor or their title company when they acquired their residence. A
number felt the City didn't do enough to inform them of this obligation. Also raised was
that the City should have made the Developer pay it up front and lastly, a number felt
they should not have to pay.
Review of the recorded documentation by our Law Department has verified that the
agreements constitute a legal binding contract which was properly recorded. It appears
that in some cases that property owners were just not aware of information contained
in their title reports. A few individuals brought copies of their title reports, and their
title disclosure ranged from a very brief description of the recorded agreement to a fairly
complete description of the recorded agreement.
Based on the questions and comments received at this meeting and the phone inquiries
received by our consultant on this matter, it appears that a vast majority of the property
owners prefer to finance their assessment for this mitigation payment via the Local
Improvement District passage.
Prior to proceeding with that however, we will probably have another informal meeting
in January and then again in February/March when we know based on the traffic studies
submitted who will be included in the LID and the amount thereof. The tentative
schedule for the LID hearing notices is that they are to be mailed to property owners on
April 2, 1999, with a public hearing scheduled for April 20, 1999. Final hearing notices
would be mailed May 31, 1999. A final assessment roll hearing in front of Council and
ordinance passing is scheduled for June 15`''.
Essentially the LID provides the property owners with the ability to finance Lhe
mitigation payment over a ten-year period with the favorable LID bond rates. For the
residential properties, the first payment would not be due until July of 2000, and based
on today's interest rate that payment would amount to $200 to $250.
Should the LID be delayed or stopped, the EMA agreements would have to be called due
directly or the 277' Corridor construction would stop and it would remain unfinished.
We would not be able to continue toward its scheduled opening in 1999 or meet GMA
concurrency requirements.
The total amount of unpaid EMA agreement obligations totals approximately $8 million.
Finally, in discussing the outcome of the meeting with Councilperson Amodt the
following day, she felt that an apology letter from the City was appropriate. While I
indicated I would have no problem with this, it should be from staff and directed only
toward the residential property owner. Its tone should be of the form that while we
recognize that they may have been caught off-guard with respect to traffic mitigation
obligations, we apologize for that. However we did the best we could within limits of
the legal tools, manpower, and etc. available.
Subsequently, on November 12, 1998 in a conversation with a South County Journal
reporter, it appears there will be a group of residents in attendance at this Council
meeting wanting to speak on this issue.
CC: Brent McFall
NYDW076
CITY or,L4�!d9liV
Jim White, Mavor
10/2198
RE: Environmental Mitigation Agreement
180 Day Traffic Impact Study Notice
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to an existing agreement affecting your property. the City is providing you this 180 day
notice for reasons that are more fully explained below:
SOLI n 2-7TH S i REET CORRIDOR PROJECT
As you are most likely aware, the City has for many years been developing and constructing a
significant roadway project known as the South 2771'h Street Corridor. When completed, this
road will provide much needed congestion relief to the Kent-Kangley (SR5 1b) and Meeker
Street corridors. We are under construction for the bridge that will cross the Green River and are
preparing the roadway subsurface for paving the remainder of this five-lane arterial roadway.
We expect to finalize this project next year.
YOUR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OBLIGATION
When your property was developed to its current use, the developer entered into a S. 277" St.
Corridor "Environmental Mitigation Agreement" (EMA) with the City of Kent. This contract
was created as a "covenant" against real property, which means that the agreement binds the
current owner of the property, even though the original owner who signed the contract may no
longer own the property. The title report to your property. if you have access to it. should reflect
the existence of this agreement as an encumbrance on your title to your property. As the current
property owner, then, this contract now binds you and your property:
Your property's developer entered into this contract to mitigate. in par[_ environmental impacts
to the Citv's transportation system. Because the develorment of vour orooern, adverse!
impacted the City's transportation system, the City required the owner of your property to either
construct enough transportation improvements (e.g.. adding lanes. turn pockets, signals. street
lighting, etc.) to mitigate those adverse impacts or, in the alternative, to enter into this mitigation
contract. The City accepted the contract as satisfactory alternative mitigation. because it
committed the property to participate in the funding of the City's S. 2771° Street Corridor project,
which will relieve many local traffic congestion areas. ,
Briefly stated, your contractual commitment is (a) to not protest the formation of the 277" St.
Corridor Local Improvement District (LID), or (b) if no LID is formed, to pay an established
dollar amount ten years from the date of the contract. Finally. if the LID is formed. but vour
property is not included in the LID. vour obligation to pav the agreed upon EMA amount in full
matures thirty days from the finalization of the LID.
Vdolar amount obligation was based on daily traffic trips generated from your property
during the afternoon "peak" traffic times. (For example, most single family residential property
was determined to generate one peak hour trip per residence.) In nearly all instances, the agreed
dollar amount per trip was $1,068.00; however, this amount was based in 1986 dollars and the
EMA includes adjustments for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Attached to
this letter you will find the City's current estimate of your property's mitigation dollar amount,
as adjusted for inflation. Of course, this amount may change depending on the time that your
obligation actually matures. This attachment should also show the date the EMA affecting your
property was created if this information is available.
ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC STUDY OPTION
Under the EMA, the City must give you notice at least 180 days prior to the public hearing on
the formation of this LID so that, at your option, you can conduct your own traffic study to
confirm or deny the actual number of trips generated from the development of vour propem.
This study must be certified as to its validity and accuracy by a Washington State licensed civil
engineer who is generally recognized as having expertise in transportation engine=. g. If the
City concurs with the findings of your traffic study, then the number of trips shown in that study
(whether more or less than that agreed to in the ENMA) will be used to revise the number of trips.
and hence the total dollar amount, under the EMA. If you decide not to conduct a separate traffic
study, the number of trips and corresponding monetary obligation established in the EMA will
remain the same, and you will be deemed to have waived your right to modify your obligation.
Again, your decision to conduct a traffic smdv is optional.
SUNOAARY
To summarize, the City is preparing to form the S. 277 h St. Corridor LID. Under an EMA
involving your property, as the current property owner, you have an obligation to not protest the
formation of the LID. If no LID is formed, the EMA still obligates you to pay the EMA amount
in full ten years from the original date of your EMA. If the LID is formed, but your property is
not included, you have an obligation to pay the full EMA amount thirty days after the LID
assessment amounts are finalized. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with 180- day
notice, pursuant to the EMA, so that your-can exercise your option to conduct a separate traffic
study under terms and conditions referenced above and more thoroughly detailed in the E.M.A.
LID AS ALTERNATIVE TO PAYMENT OBLIGATION
Finally, if the LID is formed and your property is included in the LID, then the LID will control.
An LID is a funding mechanism for public improvements authorized by state law that allows
properties specially benefited by those improvements to pay for the improvements over time
through the issuance of municipal bonds. Rather than paying your EMA amount in full as
discussed above, your property would be subject to an assessment established in the LID, and
that assessment amount would then be spread in annual installments over a ten year period at a
low rate of interest because municipal bonds are tax exempt (This current municipal interest rate
for these bonds is approximately 5.5%). Your LID assessment amount will not exceed your
EMA trip generation amount as adjusted by the CPI.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
We apologize for the length and complexity of this notice, however we believe it is important to
explain this matter somewhat fully so that you can decide your course of action. The Citv will
hold an informational meeting at the Kent City Hall Council Chambers, located at 220 Fourth
Avenue South in Kent on November 5`h, 1998, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. so that City staff may more
completely respond to your questions. If you would like an opportunity to review the EMA
against your property, you may want to check your current title report or, if that is unavailable or
inconvenient, please contact Tom Bradley at 253-859-3288.
Sincerely,
Don . Wickstrom
Public Works Director
C o rn Cl)
z O
o m p C
CD Z _3
2 N
a t--4
3
Z
N
n ft4
y
o —I
z =
G) Cl)
z
rn
rn
3 m
i
cc D
0( � m
ccm n0
o —
a O
0
m Z
3
D
o �
ry D
C
°D m
v0Ci'
cn
OcnD >
L,, ,, m O m
co L a a
D 3
O
0 O Z
— z �
CITY OF KENT
2771H STREET CORRIDOR
PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Single Family Residence Traffic Study—Alternative Method
The 2771h St. Corridor Environmental Mitigation Agreements designate that
most single family residences generate one "p.m. peak hour trip." (A "p.m.
peak hour trip" constitutes any vehicle movement to or from your residence
between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.) If you want to show that your
residence generates less than one p.m. peak hour trip per day, you may have a
licensed civil engineer conduct a transportation study to demonstrate proof of
your position.
As an alternative to the transportation study, owners of single family
residences and individual condominium units may provide the City with the
information indicated below. If the City determines that you have adequately
demonstrated that your residence generates less than one p.m. peak hour trip
per day, then your proposed assessment will be eliminated. If it is shown that
the evidence you provide is false, the full assessment amount, as adjusted by
the Consumer Price Index, will become immediately due and payable.
Alternative Study Requirements:
• Provide the City with a notarized.affidavit that shows (1) the total number
of occupants in the residence, (2) the occupations of each resident (3) the
total number of licensed drivers, and (4) the total number of licensed
vehicles kept at the residence, as well as the type of vehicle (i.e., passenger
car, van, light truck, mobile home, etc.).
• If any occupant regularly works outside the home, provide a signed and
notarized letter from your employer that confirms both your work
schedule and your tenure at that job.
• If any occupants are students, provide the level of school currently being
attended, the means of transportation to that school, and the school hours.
• If any occupant is retired, provide an affidavit declaring your age together
with a statement regarding the hours of any part-time employment.
CITY OF KENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGA TION A GREEMENT
SOUTH 2771H STREET CORRIDOR PROJECT
AFFIDAVIT
I, being first duly sworn on oath, state as follows:
1. I am over the age of eighteen, am competent to testify, and base this affidavit on my own
personal knowledge.
2. I currently own property in the City of Kent, Washington, located at
Kent, Washington,
9803
3. This property is subject to the terms and conditions of an Environmental Mitigation
Agreement with the City of Kent (King County Recording# ).
4. I provide the following information in support of my assertion that my residence
generates less than one p.m. peak hour (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) trip per day:
A. My property is used primarily as a single family residence.
B. The number of occupants living at this residence is
C. The occupations of each occupant is as follows (if a child attending school, list as
"student"):
D. The total number of licensed drivers living at this residence is
E. The total number of licensed vehicles regularly kept at this residence is
The type(s) of vehicles (i.e., passenger car, light truck, mobile
home, etc.) is/are
F. Attached to this affidavit is a signed and notarized statement from my employer
that confirms my employment, work schedule. and length of time employed with
this employer.
G. There are students who reside at this address. Each student attends the
school(s) listed below during the hours indicted and obtains transportation to and
from that school by the means indicated (i.e., car, bus, etc.).
H. I am (_) am not O retired.
I. [If retired] I do not currently work (_�. [OR] I currently work part-time during
the hours and on the days listed below:
5. If it is shown that any of the evidence I have provided in this affidavit is false, I agree that
the full assessment amount, as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, and as shown in
my Environmental Mitigation Agreement shall immediately become due and payable by
me.
6. I hereby state under penalty of perjury and the laws of the state of Washington that the
statements made herein are true and correct.
Dated this day of 11998.
Sign Name
Print Name:
Date:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF K I N G )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is
the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this
instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and
acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL this day of 1998.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My commission expires
S:\PUBLIC\ENGINEER\Administrative Support\MARILYN\SFR.TransStudyAff.doc
..............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: S . 277TH CORRIDOR CONDEMNATION - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City previously adopted Ordinance
No. 3422 authorizing condemnation by eminent domain proceedings
for property necessary for construction of the 277th Corridor .
Staff has subsequently determined that one additional property
should have been included in that ordinance . This separate
condemnation ordinance adds this 277th St . Corridor parcel to
the list of remaining properties that may be subject to
condemnation, if the City cannot negotiate a settlement first .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Public Works Committee minutes (12/3/97)
and Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember (ykilt _moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. 3�U3 authorizing condemnation by
eminent domain proceedings for property necessary to construct
the 277th St . Corridor.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: rY G
Council Agenda
Item No. 7B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
providing for the acquisition of a certain property and/or
property rights in order to construct, extend, widen,
improve, alter,maintain and reconstruct the City's Southeast
277th Street Corridor between the Corridor's eastern
terminus (at the intersection of 116th Avenue Southeast and
the Kent Kangley Road (SR 516)) and the Green River;
providing for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and
damaging of such property rights as are necessary for that
purpose; providing for the payment thereof out of the 272nd
Corridor Project Fund (Fund R-87); and directing the City
Attorney to prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings,
together with the authority to enter into settlements,
stipulations or other agreements; all of said property located
within King County, Washington.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. After hearing the report of City staff, and after reviewing the
planned improvements for the Southeast 277th Street Corridor Project(the "Project"),the
City Council finds and declares that the public convenience, use, health, safety an
necessity demand that the City of Kent condemn, appropriate, take and damage all o
portions of certain real property located in King County, Washington, in order to acquire
the necessary property and/or property rights for the construction of the Project, including
all necessary appurtenances. This property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached an
incorporated by this reference (the "Property"). The purposes for which this condemnation
1
is authorized shall include, without limitation, all acts necessary to complete the
construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration,maintenance and reconstruction
of the Project, including improvements for drainage, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, bicycle
paths, landscaping, illumination, signal improvements, electrical facilities, utilities, utility
adjustments and relocations, and any other street or municipal purposes that may become
necessary from time to time on the Property.
SECTION2. The City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all
or a part of the Property for the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration,
maintenance and reconstruction of the Project, including acquisition of property and/o
property rights, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work to make
complete improvement according to City standards.
SECTION 3. The City shall condemn the Property only after just
compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner
prescribed by law.
SECTION 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by
condemnation provided for in this ordinance through the City's "272nd Street Corridor
Project" fund(Fund R-87) or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be
provided by law.
SECTION S. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to
commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Property.
In commencing this condemnation procedure, the City Council authorizes the City
Attorney to enter into settlements, stipulations, or agreements in order to minimize
damages, which settlements, stipulations, or agreements may include, but not be limited
to, the amount of just compensation to be paid, the size and dimensions of the property
2
condemned, and the acquisition of temporary construction easements and other property
_. interests.
SECTION 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed.
SECTION 7. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separat
and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section o
portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person o
circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity
of its application to other persons or circumstances.
SECTION 8. This ordinance, being the exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
and be in force five (5) days after publication as approved by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
i
3
PASSED the day of , 1998.
APPROVED the _day of 1998.
PUBLISHED the _day of 1998.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayo
of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P-V.AW\Ordin�wndan07.277.doc
4
282242 — L,5
The east 30 feet of the north 140 feet of the south 419 feet of the
east 150 feet of the southeast cuarter of the northeast quarter of
Section 29 , Township 22 North, Range 5 East , W. M. , in {i.^.g Ccu:ty,
Washington;
EXCEPT east 25 feet thereof as conveved to King Countv by Deed
recorded December 23 , 1991 under King ^^un`y Recording
Number 9112231852 .
r —
5
/K1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Bids
1 . SUBJECT: LAKE FENWICK NORTH PARKING LOT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Ten (10) bids were received on
November loth for the Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot Project .
Staff recommends entering into an agreement with the low
bidder, Shear Transport , Inc . , in the amount of $32 , 950 . The
Engineer ' s estimate was $38 , 000 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember UVf� `�r moves, Councilmember seconds
to enter into an agreement with Shear Transport , Inc . for the
Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot Project in the amount of
$32 , 950 .
DISCUSSION:
l
ACTION:
y� L
Council Agenda
Item No. 8A
BID TABULATION FORM
KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
'-'PROJECT: PR 98-11 LOCATION: Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot
DATE: November 10, 1998 TIME: 10:00 a.m.
BldtCer: Bass Bid: Addendum:
„ (irr dollars) 1
1. Shear Transport $ 32,950.00 X
2. Lombardi Construction $ 37,440.00 X
3. Fardig Development, Inc. $ 38,630.00 X
4. RJC, Inc. $ 40,000.00 X
5. Continental Dirt Contractors, Inc. $ 45,916.00 X
6. Seitsinger Construction $ 45,975.00 X
7. Golf Landscaping, Inc. $ 57,045.30 X
Buckley Nursery Company, Inc. $ 57,576.06 X
9. Harborside Inc. $ 54,900.00 X
10. Tydico, Inc. $ 91,320.00 X
11. $
12. $
13. $
14. $
15. $
16. $
17. $
'8. $
19. Is
.,... . :. . :, .. . !low'
'A . . . . . +
Y
f
..............�.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1998
Category Bids
1 . SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER NURSERY GREENHOUSE, HOOPHOUSE AND
STORAGE SHED CONSTRUCTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this project was held on
November 12th with three bids received. The apparent low bid
was submitted by R. L. Bates Construction, Inc . in the amount
of $119, 460 . 00 . The Engineer ' s estimate was $123 , 184 . 98 .
The Public Works Director recommends that this contract be
awarded to R L Bates Construction, Inc .
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $119, 460 . 00
SOURCE OF FUNDS : Valley Detention (D36)
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:"
Councilmember - moves, Councilmember seconds
the Green River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse and Storage Shed
Construction contract be awarded to R. L. Bates Construction,
Inc . for the bid amount of $119 , 460 . 00 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 8B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 17, 1998
TO: Mayor/Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Green River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse & Storage Shed
Construction
Bid opening for this project was held on November 12' with three bids received. The
apparent low bid was submitted by R. L. Bates in the amount of $119,460.00. The
Engineer's estimate was $123,184.98.
The Public Works Director recommends that the Green River Nursery Greenhouse,
Hoophouse & Storage Shed Construction contract be awarded to R. L. Bates.
BID SUMMARY
R L Bates Construction 119,460.00
Red Mountain 124,890.00
Able Wright &Co 127,496.40
Engineer's Estimate 123,184.98
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds, that the Green
River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse &Storage Shed Construction contract be
awarded to R L Bates Construction for the bid amount of $119,460.00.
............ .
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEESS/ n
AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE t,( 61�
L A-j
j)
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE CiC-ac /oZ
E. PARKS COMMITTE`E/� G(/kw�'jt
If
F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS1
Q.l-
Operations Committee Meeting Minutes
October 20, 1998
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Tim Clark, Sandy .Amodt
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Brotherton, Kelli Rogers, Chuck Miller, Beckv Fowler, Joe Lorentz, Tom
Brubaker, Roger Lubovich, Charlie Lindsey, Michael Sigsbee, Lori Flemm, Barbara Ekstrom, Brent
McFall, Dena Laurent, Marty Mulholland, Jackie Bicknell, May Miller
PUBLIC PRESENT: Hugh Simpson, Chris Rose, Phil Sprite, Michael Songbird, Wayne
Thueringer, Chris Coughman, J.R. Simmons
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Judy Woods, at 3:32PM.
Approval of Minutes of October 6, 1998
Committee Member, Tim Clark, moved to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1998 Operations
Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0.
Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 10/15/98
May Miller, Director of Finance, recommended the approval of the vouchers dated October 15, 1998
in the amount of$3,475,549.45. Tim Clark made the motion to approve the vouchers which was
seconded and passed 3-0.
Telephone Systems Purchase
Marty Mulholland, Information Services Director, said the phone systems purchase was one of the
most significant single purchases in the technology plan with an overall budget in excess of
$1,000,000. Ms. Mulholland said a Phone System Selection Committee participated throughout the
process and unanimously recommended the Williams Communications proposal based on usability,
features, and technology. Two samples of the Williams telephone products were shown to the
Committee and their features described.
Ms. Mulholland introduced J. R. Simmons who had helped to prepare the budgetary portion of the
technology plan for telecommunications. Mr. Simmons described the bidding process and said there
were a lot of inquiries and a number of vendors at the bid conference who later chose not to bid.
Altogether, eight vendor bids were received within the time frames specified for response. A
technical analysis was performed to determine which vendors were appropriate for the City, and the
number was narrowed down to four finalists who appeared to have a better fit as well as the
technical foresight to have an appropriate strategic type purchase for the City of Kent. The
telephone committee went to product demonstrations of each of the four vendors and after still more
technical analysis, Williams Communications clearly emerged as a better fit than the others and also
had the lowest cost.
Tim Clark asked about the internal tracking of calls between extensions. Mr. Simmons said that
some departments such as Information Services are there to serve all the other departments. There is
the need to track some internal calls to have information on the level of service at the help desk and
whether it's appropriately staffed or if alternatives should be set up to the way calls are routed.
Mr. Clark asked about voice announcement of calls. Mr. Simmons said that if a call comes in at the
receptionist's desk, the person taking the call can intercom the person called to see if they can take
the call. Ms. Mulholland said this feature was a key differentiator among the four finalists and
eliminated one of the four players. Another key feature is the 911 identification so when someone
dials, it will report exactly which building they're calling from.
Committee Member, Sandy Amodt, asked how many people could be placed on hold at one time.
Mr. Simmons said, theoretically, as many as there are lines available on the phone. The majority of
the buttons are to see at a quick glance which other people in the department are on the phones. He
said each button is programmable with 50-60 features. Ms. Amodt asked about head set capability
to which Mr. Simmons replied that the phones had wireless capability and those who need the
headsets would have the opportunity to try them.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to authorize the
Mayor to sign a contract with Williams Communications for the purchase of Telecommunications
Systems and Services, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. The motion was
seconded and carried 3-0.
Contract on 1998 EMS FundinS
Brent McFall, Operations Director, informed the Committee that the City had contracted with King
County for Emergency Medical Services for a number of years and was part of the integrated EMS
system in King County where the County paid for advance life support systems funded by a
countywide levy. A portion of the cost of the basic life support system is provided by local fire -
departments. Mr. McFall reminded the Committee that when the six-year levy went before the
voters, it was defeated, and that left King County and the cities and fire districts providing the EMS
service.
An agreement was reached between the County and the cities and fire districts that the county would
pay for advanced life support services in 1998 and the cities and fire districts would cover their share
of the cost for basic life support services. The levy would be resubmitted to the voters as a 3-year
levy. The 3-year levy passed overwhelmingly and the provisions of the 3-year levy called for fully
funding ALS and BLS services in 1999, 2000, and 2001 and for the issuance of tax anticipation
notes to pay for one-half of 1998. This contract with King County EMS is for one-half of 1998 with
the City receiving $330,912 (which is one-half of the amount that would normally have been
received had the levy passed the first time around). Mr. McFall said a separate contract would have
to be brought to the Committee in the future to cover the years 1999-2001.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council authorization for the
Mayor to sign the contract with King County EMS following the review and approval as to form by
the City Attorney. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
Resolution 1030- Surplus Property Repealer
Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, told the Committee that the City is regularly in the process
of selling surplus property owned by the City that may have some use in the open market but no
longer is of any use to the City. He said it is difficult to know how to value surplus property until
after bids are sought in the market. Under state law an advertised bid process is required to surplus
certain water system utility equipment and certain tire equipment and is the only requirement by
state law regarding surplus property.
Mr. Brubaker said he had recently realized there was a Resolution 1030 passed in 1934 which
requires the City to obtain the fair market value of surplus property and go through an advertising
process. This Resolution accepts a limit of$1,000 in market value which is a hard to determine
process and then requires the advertising process. This process is not required under state law. Mr.
Brubaker asked the Committee to consider repealing Resolution 1030 so the City has more
flexibility in the way it administers the sale of surplus property. He said this would not affect Water
Utility Systems property, Fire Systems property, or interest and real property.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council the repeal of Resolution
1030 relating to procedures for the disposal of surplus property. The motion was seconded and
passed 3-0.
Tentative 1999 Capital Projects Budget
May Miller, Finance Director, presented the first publicized draft of the Capital Improvement Plan
for the years 1999-2004, a six-year period. Ms. Miller said that when the Growth Management Act
came into effect, it required a six-year capital plan and for the City to have a comprehensive plan
that included a capital facilities portion. She said departments can still do individual plans.
Ms. Miller said the Capital Projects Budget is a$211,000,000 plan. The Capital Projects are
Utilities, Transportation, Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, and General Government. The money
is broken down into broad categories of where it is going. Transportation was divided into Corridor
Projects, Arterial Projects, Intersection Improvements, and Other Improvements which are ongoing
funding projects. New projects include Street Striping, Pavement Rating Study, Freight Mobility
Study, and the Parking Garage.
The Police Projects cover such projects as the reverse 911, pursuit intervention equipment, and
computer equipment for the Police vehicles. Fire Department Projects include the Fire Equipment
Replacement Fund, breathing apparatus equipment, radio equipment, replacement of the apparatus
from the annexation of Fire District 37 that was transferred to the City, and Valley Com. Ms. Miller
said that the Fire Station#75 purchase will probably be a councilmanic bond issue.
Parks Projects include Parks Land Acquisition, Capacity Projects, and Non-Capacity Projects which
are maintenance, ongoing upkeep, and renovation. General Government Facilities covers all the
facilities, not only general government, but also maintenance, food, and the Park facilities. The
General Government primarily includes improvements to the downtown and projects in the
Downtown Plan, and the Gateways. There's also money to start a performance measure program, to
do a citizen survey, industrial land study, citywide organizational study, and a study to determine
whether a convention center is needed.
The Sanitary Sewer Project shows one bond issue for a larger project, the East Hill Interceptor.
Stormwater Management includes flood and erosion control, miscellaneous storm drainage
improvements, and road improvements. The Water Supply and Distribution Plan includes Clark
Springs Improvement, and miscellaneous watermain replacements.
Brent McFall pointed out that there were two voter approved bond issues. In the year 2000 there is a
proposed voter approved bond issue for a Performing Arts Center, and in the year 2001 a voter
approved bond issue for public safety items in both the Police and Fire Departments. He said those
are outside the City's existing sources of revenue to fund capital improvement.
Ms. Miller continued with a description of the Plan. She said forecasts show specifically what kind
of money can be used on what kind of projects. Projects are looked at and department priorities are
viewed to make sure the priority projects fit in. Normally the requests exceed the revenue.
Debt Management shows how to tell what capacity there is for councilmanic debt. The formula is to
take the assessed valuation of 1`/2 % and see what can be outstanding. Then it shows what % has
been used and how much is still available. Planned councilmanic bond issues are automation,
tentative improvements, irrigation and land for the East Hill; next year, Fire Station#75, the Parking
Garage, Downtown Gateways, Police Headquarters Land Acquisition, Police/Corrections
Renovation, SE 256`h St. Improvements, and additional money for street improvements. Brent
McFall told the Committee that the difference between councilmanic issues and voter approved
issues is that councilmanic uses existing revenues to meet the debt service obligation, and in voter
approved issues there is an excise property tax.
Castlereagh. Northern Ireland—Proposed Sister City
Dena Laurent, Government Affairs Manager, told the Committee about the group of citizens from
Castlereagh,Northern Ireland who has been researching the Kent community and had asked for
approval from the Kent Sister City Association. Ms. Laurent said Castlereagh had received approval
and that she was bringing the Sister City Association approval to the Committee.
Ms. Laurent said that Castlereagh is similar to Kent in that it is a suburb of a major metropolitan area
(Belfast). It has many of the same residential and commercial growth issues that Kent has as well as
the concept of the need to protect the environment. She said it has great cultural traditions, great
economic potential, and a great interest in forming a Sister City with Kent. The Castlereagh
Committee has developed a Year One Plan draft which involves researching the potential for
exchange and for common issues. The plan looks at adopting an agreement between the two
communities by next Spring, and then sending delegations later in the year to a formal planning
ceremony.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council acceptance of
Castlereagh, Northern Ireland, as a Sister City for the City of Kent. The motion was seconded and
carried 3-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:28PM.
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
.............
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A) Pending Litigation