Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/06/2000 I City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda KENT W A S H I N G T O N Mayor Jim White Counci/members Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling June 6, 2000 Office of the City Clerk u SUMMARY AGENDA \ � KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING V KEr[T June 6 , 2000 WA5MING*o» 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 A. Employee of the Month 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B . Bills - Approval C. King County Arts Commission Grant - Accept and Amend Budget D. Washington State Arts Commission Grant - Accept and Amend Budget E. De-accession of Artwork at Kent Commons - Approve F. Reorganization of City Departments and Functions - Ordinance35J2- G. Country Club North - Bill of Sale H. Paradise Car Wash - Bill of Sale I . Council Absence (n rb 4en) - Approve t,J cv&s� �J 7 . OTHER BUSINESS 4 A. Kent/King County Interlocal Amendment, Processing of Permit > Applications B. TIB Grant Agreement - Meeker Street C. LID 351, S. 277`° Corridor, Final Assessment Roll Repealer and Ordinance ------ D. Urban Separators 8 . BIDS None 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS L ket 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION 1) Property Acquisition 2) 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 Clerk's Office in advance at(253)856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. 1 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 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through I be approved. Discussion Action C 6A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 16, 2000, and approval of corrections to the minutes of April 18, 2000 as follows : April 18, 2000 Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through March 31 and paid on March 31 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/31/00 232316-232738 $ 720, 792 . 86 3/31/00 232739-233258 2 , 408 , 246 . 65 $3 , 129, 039 . 51 Should be : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/31/00 232316-232738 $ 721, 276 . 35 3/31/00 232739-233258 2 , 407, 496 .45 $3 , 128, 772 . 80 Kent , Washington May 16 , 2000 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p .m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling, Operations Director McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Fire Chief Angelo, Deputy Police Chief Miller, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Information Services Director Mulholland, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Director Miller, and Employee Services Director Viseth. Approximately 100 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO Mayor White stated that he has served on the City THE AGENDA Council for ten years and as Mayor for six years, and that during that time, and prior to that time, the Council has operated under the procedures of either Reed' s or Robert ' s Rules of Order, but also with an informality that permitted citizen involvement and input . He said Council has always been comfortable with that approach and unless directed otherwise by Council , he will continue to chair Council meetings in that manner. He noted that an objection has been made regarding his action as chair to adjourn the Council meeting of May 2nd, and asked that Council take up the matter of Councilmember Amodt ' s objection as Item 7D, if there is no objection. Mayor White stated that there has been a great deal of discussion and media coverage of a temporary anti-harassment order sought and obtained through the Aukeen District Court by Councilmember Epperly. He noted that this is a private matter and that the City of Kent is not involved in the issue . He added that the issue is before the Court and therefore no discussion by Councilmembers or the public will be entertained. Councilmember Orr added Item 7E, Golf Equipment Lease, which was discussed by the Operations Committee earlier today. Item 11A was added at the request of Kevin Ruoff . Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, asked to address McFall ' s personal attacks against a citizen. Brotherton said he doesn' t feel it is appropriate . 1 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 T CHANGES TO AMODT MOVED to add Kogita ' s item to the agenda . THE AGENDA The motion died for lack of a second. Martin Plvs, 3004 S . 256 , Kent, asked to add the issue of the Public Market, the status of the ordinance governing expenses for meals, and the S . 277th Street bridge . Councilmembers agreed to add Plys ' issues as Item 11B. PUBLIC Kent Kiwanis 70th Anniversary Week. Mayor White COMMUNICATIONS read a proclamation noting that May 16 , 2000 is the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the Kiwanis Club of Kent and of service to the community. He proclaimed this week as Kent Kiwanis 70th Anniversary Week and presented the proclamation to Kiwanis Club President John Hodgson. Hodgson thanked the Mayor and Council for this recognition and noted that the members really give to the community. Public Works Week. Mayor White read a proclama- tion noting that public works services are an integral part of citizens ' everyday lives, and that the quality and effectiveness of these facilities is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials and public works staff . He declared the week of May 21-27 , 2000 as Public Works Week and presented the pro- clamation to Public Works Director Wickstrom. The Mayor pointed out that the bridge on the new S . 277th Corridor has been named the Don E. Wickstrom Bridge in honor of his 30+ years of service. Mental Health Month. The Mayor noted that mental illness is the most prevalent health problem in America today and that Mental Health Month is observed to raise awareness of mental health, mental illnesses, and insurance discrimination against people with mental illnesses . He pro- claimed the month of May 2000 as Mental Health Month, and presented the proclamation to Marilyn LaCelle and Connie Epperson of Valley Cities Mental Health, who thanked the Mayor and Council for their support and presented them with cards and bookmarks . 2 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 PUBLIC Peace Officer Memorial Week. Mayor White read a COMMUNICATIONS proclamation noting that police officers work devotedly and selflessly on behalf of the people of Kent, giving our city internal freedom from fear of the violence of civil disorder, and noted that several officers have given their lives in service to the state, county and city. He declared the week of May 14-20 , 2000 as Peace Officer Week in the City of Kent and presented the proclamation to Sgt . Tracey Church, Officer Tim Barber and Officer Kenneth Hensen. Sgt . Church distributed blue ribbons to the Councilmembers and explained that they are to be tied to car antennas to remind citizens of fallen officers . Emergency Medical Services Week. The Mayor pro- claimed the week of May 14-20 , 2000 as Emergency Medical Services Week in the City of Kent, noting that it is a vital public service whose teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, paramedics, firefighters/emergency medical technicians, educators, administrators, and others . Fire Chief Angelo accepted the proclamation and noted that the system depends upon the citizens of the community. Lt . Pawlak then explained two instances in which citizens administered CPR until firefighters and medics arrived, saving the lives of two other citizens . Certificates in recogni- tion of life-saving efforts were then presented to Mr. Jarrett Houser and Mr. Ken McAlister. Lt . Pawlak added that Mr. Chad Fairchild, and Mr. Smith, who are not in attendance, also performed CPR on victims until firefighters and medics arrived, and noted that both of the patients are doing well , and that Fairchild and Smith will receive Certificates of Honor as well . ChemCentral Presentation. Fire Chief Angelo noted that a fire occurred last September which was visible to the public for over 18 hours . He said the incident continued for over two weeks, during which time heavy cooperation was required. He explained that ChemCentral had previously 3 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 PUBLIC worked with the Fire Department to do pre- COMMUNICATIONS planning, to exchange information, and to see that the chemicals were in the best possible storage location. He added that Mercer Island, Bellevue and Kirkland Fire Departments assisted, as well as The Boeing Company. The Fire Chief stated that claims were submitted and that ChemCentral submitted a check to the City in the amount of $131 , 000 , and asked that some of the funds be used to further protection within the Kent community. He said the Fire Department will use the funds for another aid car, for a bicycle helmet program, and for emergency training. Mr. Terry Wells of ChemCentral expressed apprecia- tion for the teamwork and camaraderie, and thanked the fire departments for their support . He noted that ChemCentral has been in business since 1926 and has been in Kent for 35 years . Angelo pointed out that ChemCentral will rebuild in Kent, and that not only will the new facility be sprinklered, but every one of their buildings nationwide will be retrofitted with sprinklers . He applauded them for their leadership in that area. Funds were then distributed to the following: Tukwila Fire Department, Renton Fire Department, Auburn Fire Department, King County Fire District #40 , Boeing Fire Department, King County Medic One, Eastside Fire & Rescue . The Fire Chief expressed appreciation to all who participated in the incident . (ADDED CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A) Commendation. Kevin Ruoff, 24517 129th Place SE, noted that Kent ' s population is over 75 , 000 and that most of those people are happy with what the Mayor and Council have done, and the direction of the city, and do not see a conspiracy behind every decision that ' s made . He thanked the Mayor, Council and staff for their work, especially on the S . 277th corridor, and expressed support for the Performing Arts Center. Ruoff commended 4 Kent City Council Minutes May 16, 2000 PUBLIC Councilmember Epperly for her endeavor to find COMMUNICATIONS work within the city, so that citizens can approach her, and said he trusts that this work will not become a conflict of interest . He urged the Mayor and Council to continue to focus on the issues and the facts, and thanked them for their time, efforts, and dedication. (ADDED CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B) Martin Plvs stated that he served this country as a soldier for twenty years, but that he would not stand during the Pledge of Allegiance because the City of Kent denies freedom of speech to its citizens . He said he served two tours in Berlin, Germany, where he witnessed people being arrested for speaking or assembling. He said he will not be silenced from questioning the Mayor and Council on matters of public interest . CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Item A through I CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried with Amodt opposed. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 2 , 2000 . WATER (BIDS - ITEM SA) Lindental Pump Station. The bid opening for this project was held on April 25th with five bids received. The low bid was submitted by Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc . , in the amount of $1 , 451, 601 . 90 . The Engineer' s estimate was $1 , 255, 416 . 00 . Public Works Director Wickstrom recommended award even though the low bid is over the estimate, noting that the entire project can still be built within budget . He pointed out that the committee concurred. CLARK MOVED that the Lindental Pump Station contract be awarded to Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc . , in the amount of $1 , 451 , 601 . 90 . Yingling seconded and the motion carried. 5 Kent City Council Minutes May 16, 2000 TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) LID 351, S . 277th Corridor, Final Assessment Roll . ADOPTION of Ordinance No . 3509 establishing the final assessment roll for LID 351, S . 277th Street Corridor, as recommended by the Public Works Committee Board of Equalization. (ADDED CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B-1) S . 277th Street Corridor Proiect. Plys asked about the final figure for cost overrun, whether the Mayor signed the check for the additional work done on the bridge, and whether a bid was sent out to complete that work. PLANNING (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) SeaTac Air Flivht Traffic Study. The proposed resolution supports the existing south flight patterns for operations at SeaTac Airport and opposes implementation of the South Flow Two Tracks alternative or the South Flow Three Tracks alternative flight patterns as set forth in the SeaTac Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study. The Part 150 Study was conducted to evaluate programs to reduce the impact of aircraft noise in neighborhoods impacted by aircraft operations at SeaTac Airport . BROTHERTON MOVED to pass Resolution No . 1571 supporting the existing south flight patterns for operations at SeaTac Airport . Orr seconded. Clark spoke in favor of the resolution, and Orr commended staff for their efforts . Brotherton pointed out that a Port Commission meeting will be held on May 18, and urged anyone interested to attend. His motion then carried. SUBDIVISION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) CODE Subdivision Code Amendment. On April 24 , 2000 , the Land Use &Planning Board recommended approval of proposed amendments to the Kent Subdivision Code . These amendments address only procedural requirements related to subdivisions, short subdivisions, and lot line adjustments; sub- division standards will be addressed in a later 6 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 SUBDIVISION phase of review. The proposed procedural amend- CODE ments are aimed at modernizing the code and integrating recent changes in state subdivision law. Deputy City Attorney Brubaker distributed a sheet showing three insertions to the code providing for minor alterations after the recording process . Clark requested that sprinkling be addressed by the Land Use and Planning Board. BROTHERTON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3511 updating the Subdivision Code and related Kent City Code provisions, as amended. woods seconded and the motion carried. COMMUNITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) DEVELOPMENT Year 2001 Community Development Block Grant BLOCK GRANT Funding Levels . APPROVAL of the 2001 Community Development Block Grant Funding, as recommended by the Planning Committee, as follows : 1) Accept the year 2001 Pass Through funds; 2) Allocate the City' s maximum available year 2001 CDBG funds for Public (Human) Services ($85, 539) ; 3) Allocate the City' s maximum available year 2001 funds for Planning and Administration ($78 , 986) ; and 4) authorize the Mayor to sign the County form indicating the City' s desire for distribution of year 2001 funds . ECONOMIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) DEVELOPMENT Pacific Coast Feather Company Non-Recourse Revenue Bonds. On April 27, 2000 , the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority approved a resolu- tion relating to the issuance of non-recourse revenue bonds wherein the proceeds would be loaned to Pacific Coast Feather Company for the purchase and installation of pillow manufacturing equipment in the City of Kent . It is a policy of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority to obtain approval of the city within whose planning jurisdiction the proposed industrial development facility lies prior to approval of the 7 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 ECONOMIC issuance of the revenue bonds . The proposed DEVELOPMENT resolution, if passed, would provide the required approval . City Attorney Lubovich explained that approxi- mately $2 . 85 million is being invested in the project and recommended approval of the resolution. YINGLING MOVED to pass Resolution No . 1572 approving the issuance of tax exempt non-recourse economic development revenue bonds by the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority for the purpose of financing the purchase and installation of pillow manufacturing equipment by Pacific Coast Feather Company. Orr seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC MARKET (ADDED CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B-3) Kent Public Market. Plys said that the City gave KDP $32 , 000 , and questioned how City workers can be dispatched to work at the Kent Market if the City has no ties except "an interest to the Kent Market" . He also asked whether City maintenance workers removed asbestos tiles from the facility in the last six months . Plys voiced concern about the KDP losing money, and said it is his opinion that Epperly is working at the Market illegally. PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) VallevCom PDA. ADOPTION of Ordinance No . 3510 creating a Public Development Authority. ( "PDA" ) , which will be the financing and repayment instrument for the construction of the new Valley Communications Center facility in Kent and which can also act to finance other significant Valley Com capital improvement investment programs as they arise in the future . The City of Kent will be the enacting City for this PDA, but all Valley Communications Member Cities have adopted ordi- nances agreeing to own equally and share equally in the PDA' s bond repayment responsibility. 8 Kent City Council Minutes May 16, 2000 PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) DEPARTMENT Security System Agreement With Honeywell . APPROVAL to enter into an agreement with Honeywell , a single source provider, for $46 , 825, plus Washington State Sales Tax, to supply and install a security card system at City Hall and the Centennial Center, as recommended by the Parks Director. This agreement includes equipment , labor, and training. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Art Project At Clark Lake By Ruth Tomlinson. APPROVAL of the proposed art project by Ruth Tomlinson at Clark Lake Park, as recommended by the Parks Director. The art project at Clark Lake proposed by Ruth Tomlinson, consists of area pavers with etched topography lines, a wall with etched nature designs, seating, and stairs of rock etched with a trail of ants . Total project cost is $32 , 250 . 00 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Green River Nursery/Greenhouse/Hoophouse. ACCEPT the Green River Nursery/Greenhouse/Hoophouse contract as complete and release retainage to R.L.Bates Construction, Inc. upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $119 , 460 . 00 . The final construction cost was $133 , 671 . 48 . Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover this overage. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7E) Golf Equipment Lease. Parks Director Hodgson explained that a consultant provided a number of options dealing with issues at the Riverbend Golf Course, one of which was to take the equipment currently in the Equipment Rental program and transfer it into a municipal lease program. He noted that this would save $32 , 000 , and that this issue was considered by the Operations Committee today. He noted there is the potential that 9 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 PARKS interest rates on the lease could go up, and urged DEPARTMENT approval . YINGLING spoke in support and MOVED to authorize the Mayor to enter into a lease agreement with Bank of the west/Interlease Equipment Lease for golf maintenance equipment , subject to final review of the City Attorney. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Hodgson noted that membership is up, that three new food services are taking place, and that things are going well . (BIDS - ITEM 8B) Nursery Fencing. The bid opening for this project was held on May 9, 2000 . Parks Director Hodgson distributed a bid tab, explained the project and recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder, F&H Fence in the amount of $36 , 974 . 21 plus Washington State Sales Tax. WOODS SO MOVED. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 8C) Chestnut Ridge Structure (s) Demolition. The bid opening was held on April 24 , 2000 , with thirteen bidders . The low bid for each structure was : J. Harper Contractor, Inc . for the house at $7 , 030 . 00 ; Duchess Construction for the cabin at $2 , 642 . 98 ; and Virginia Ashmore for the barn at $2 , 100 . 00 . Hodgson noted for Yingling that separating the items resulted in a better bid. WOODS MOVED to award the bids and approve entering into agreements with three separate bidders to demolish and remove the three surplused structures on the City-owned property at 20403 100th Avenue SE (Chestnut Ridge) , as presented. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) DEPARTMENT ChemCentral, Recovery of Funds. AUTHORIZATION to distribute funds recovered from the ChemCentral emergency, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 10 Kent City Council Minutes May 16 , 2000 FIRE ChemCentral and their insurance company have DEPARTMENT been extremely supportive of processing the City' s claim for costs related to the large incident last September. Fire Administration and ChemCentral have asked that the City consider using the funds for uses that would further benefit the overall community. Fire Administration recommends the following: 1 . $30, 000 to assist in the purchase of an aid car that will be partially purchased by a developer. 2 . $5 , 000 one time funding of bike helmets to be distributed by Fire & Police . 3 . $11, 000 for additional costs related to IEMC Disaster training at FEMA 4 . $20 , 000 to establish a project account for a statewide consortium of cities dealing with the Olympic Pipe Line franchise agreements . This account would be established under City Administration under the Control of Mr. McFall . 5 . $25, 749 . 74 would go back to the General Fund. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through April 28 and paid on April 28 , 2000 , after auditing by the operations Committee on May 2 , 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 4/28/00 233888-234137 $ 288 , 341 . 00 4/28/00 234137-234647 2 , 853 , 194 . 10 $3 , 141, 535 . 10 Approval of checks issued for payroll of April 15 and paid on April 20 , 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 4/20/00 243147-243444 $ 267, 495 .41 4/20/00 93974-94587 927 , 478 . 76 $1, 194 , 974 . 17 11 Kent City Council Minutes May 16, 2000 FINANCE (ADDED CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B-2) Kent Reporter. Plys suggested withholding funds to the Kent Reporter if they are printing false information. Meal Expenses . Plys said the Councilmembers are eating at the expense of the City, and requested the ordinance regarding these expenses . Mayor white suggested to Plys that if he believes the administration of the City or the Council is acting improperly, that he go to the State Attorney General or the State Auditor' s Office . CONDUCT OF (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7D) MEETINGS Amodt Objection, Conduct of Meetings. Councilmember Amodt explained that she was unaware that this would be on tonight ' s agenda and asked that the issue be tabled until the next Council meeting. BROTHERTON MOVED to table . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. REPORTS Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the time of the meeting on June 5th has been changed to 5 : 00 p.m. , and that the Planning Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. that day. Parks Committee. Woods noted that there will be a special meeting on Tuesday, May 23 , at 4 : 00 p.m. , for a public hearing on the Interim Parks Comprehensive Plan. Administrative Reports . McFall reminded Council of a brief executive session regarding negotiation on property acquisition. EXECUTIVE At 8 : 05 p .m. , the meeting recessed into Executive SESSION Session for approximately fifteen minutes . The meeting reconvened at 8 : 13 p.m. Property Acquisition. WOODS MOVED to approve the purchase of the Herman Property, authorize the - Mayor to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, 12 Kent City Council Minutes May 16, 2000 EXECUTIVE and amend the budget to provide $85, 000 from the SESSION IAC grant reimbursement toward acquisition and associated engineering. Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. Property Acquisition. WOODS MOVED to authorize the Mayor to negotiate and execute an agreement with Llewellyn Real Estate to acquire certain properties for municipal purposes . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT At 8 : 15 p .m. , EPPERLY MOVED to adjourn. Orr seconded and the motion carried. Br-enda Jaco er, CMC City Clerk 13 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through April 28 and paid on April 28 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 2, 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 4/28/00 233888-234137 $ 288 , 341 . 00 4/28/00 234138-234647 2 , 853 , 194 . 10 $3 , 141, 535 . 10 Approval of payment of the bills received through May 16 and paid on May 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 16, 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/15/00 234648-234939 $ 695, 017 . 11 5/15/00 234940-235382 1 , 736 , 224 . 39 $2 , 431, 241 . 50 Approval of checks issued for payroll of April 15 and paid on April 20, 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 4/20/00 Checks 243147-243444 $ 267, 495 .41 4/20/00 Advices 93974-94587 927 , 478 . 76 $1, 194, 974 . 17 Approval of checks issued for payroll of May 5 and paid on May 5, 2000 Date Check Numbers Amount 5/5/00 Checks 243445-243768 $ 265, 159 . 11 5/5/00 Advices 94588-95250 888 , 088 . 60 $1, 153 , 247 . 71 Council Agenda Item No. 6 B ZA, Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KING COUNTY ARTS COMMISION GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee and the Parks Director, accept the $12 , 000 . 00 grant from the King County Arts Commission and amend the Arts Commission budget . The funds will provide artistic services and opportunities for a variety of Kent Arts Commission programs including Summer Concert Series, Spotlight Series, and Kent Kids ' Arts Day. 3 . EXHIBITS: King County Award letter 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $12 , 000 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : King County Arts Commission 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds - DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C RECEIVED ECEIVED _ King County Executive RON SIMS APR 2 4 2000 City Vi.heht Office of the Mayor April 21, 2000 The Honorable Jim White Mayor, City of Kent 220—4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mayor White: I am pleased to inform you that the Kent Arts Commission has been awarded $12,000 through the King County Arts Commission's 2000 Sustained Support Program. King County values the contribution your local arts agent\ makes to our region's quality of life. Investment in the creative capital of your community is an investment in the future. The arts play a vital role in enabling citizens to understand different cultures_ in the economic development of our region, and in creating a unique sense of place. King County is fortunate to have a nationally recognized arts community, but it is essential that the arts are not isolated in a few urban areas. The Kent Arts Commission brings quality arts events to residents of your community. We are happy to join with you in providing all King County citizens the opportunity to participate in the Count's cultural life. Arts Commission staff will contact your agency staff regarcing your award and contract for services. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Charlie Rathbun, at (206) 296-8675. Thank you for your contribution and commitment to the rich cultural life of our region. cerely' s on Sims King County Executive cc: Rhonda Simmons, Local Arts Agency Coordinator ICING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 THIRD AVENUE, ROOM 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-3271 (206) 296-4040 296-0194 FAX 296-0200 TDD E-mail: mn.sims@metroke.gov ?14( Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director and the Parks Committee, accept the $3, 931 . 00 Washington State Arts Commission grant and amend the Canterbury Faire budget . The funds will provide artistic services and support for various aspects of Canterbury Faire . 3 . EXHIBITS: Award contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 , 961 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Washington State Arts Commission 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION Awards Program Fiscal Year 2000 Contract No. 2000134 CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION, hereciafter referred to as the COMMISSION, and City of Bent Arts Commission here:nafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR. If applicable, CONTRACTOR'S Federal Employer Iden_ification Number is 91-6001254; CONTRACTOR'S Washington State UBI Number is 1 i3-000-002. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The National Endowment for the Arts has made available Federal funds and the Washington State Legislature has made available State funds to the COMMISSION to support arts activities and services under certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has submitted an application for: The Organizational Support Program "Ilia: application is approved and herein incorporated by reference and on file in the Commission's offices. WHEREAS,The COMMISSION finds that the submitted application is eligible for funding; NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT: l Funds in the amount of S 0 in Federal funds and $3,931.00 in State funds, for the fiscal year of 2000 (July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000) are hereby awarded by the CONE IISSION to the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR agrees to provide matching funds equal to or greater than those funds provided by the COMMISSION. The activity or service funded will begin on October 15, 1999 and end on June 30, 2000. Payments will be made in accordance with the payment schedule set forth in Attachment"B" and incorporated herein by reference. If applicable: Federal Catalog of Domestic Assistance Number, na; Federal Grant Number, na. 2 The CONTRACTOR agrees that funds shall be expended solely for the activities and services described above, in the approved application, and according to Attachment"A" Scope of Work attached herein incorporated by reference unless a specific request in writing for a modification has been received from the CONTRACTOR and approval has been granted in writing by the COMMISSION. All funds must be expended by the ending date of this contract unless an extension is requested in writing by the CONTRACTOR and approved in writing by the COMMISSION. The CONTRACTOR agrees to notify the COMMISSION immediately if any portion of the funds will not be expended with the understanding that unexpended funds will be returned to the COMMISSION by the end of the fiscal year. 3 The CONTRACTOR agrees that a final report will be completed and provided to the COMMISSION within 45 days following the contract ending date.The CONTRACTOR agrees that it will provide the COMMISSION with color slides, glossy black-and-a-bite photographs,clippings, catalogs,programs,reviews, or other printed materials relating to the projects.If no final report is required, it will be noted on Attachment"A" Scope of Work. 1 4 All rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the Special Terms and Conditions contained in the text of this contract instrument; Scope of Work hereto set forth in Attachment "A" and incorporated by-reference herein; Payment Schedule hereto set forth in Attachment"B" and incorporated by reference herein; General Terms and Conditions hereto set forth in Attachment "C" and incorporated by reference herein; and the General Terms and Conditions for Organizational Grant Recipients from the National Endowment for the Arts (if this Contract includes Federal funds)hereto set forth in Attachment"D" and incorporated by reference herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement. CONTRACTOR: C2jZf , � rss 1 � i rn S �rrC( {�AlYlS Organization/Individual Name(please print) 9 3a qq Auth ing Wicial (signature) Da e Auth rued to ommit organizatio dividual in financial matters Authorizing Official Title WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COI Il2MSSION: Kris Tucker, Executive Director, Official Designated Agent for Date Monitoring of Contract APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marjorie witch, Assistant Attorney eneral, State of Washington D ate [Original Signature on File] RECEWE D OCT - 71999 Washington State Arts Commission Awards Program .r 4���36 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DE-ACCESSION OF ARTWORK AT KENT COMMONS - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director and the Kent Arts Commission, approval to remove the Artwork at Kent Commons, Number 1983 . 02 "Definition: Infinity" by Drex Atkinson. The sculpture has structural problems . The rust and water element doesn' t work and due to unavailable metals, repair has been inadequate. The sculpture can be salvaged by the artist, or dismantled by the City, but not re-used by either. 3 . EXHIBITS: Evaluation of the sculpture by Fabrication Specialties 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks 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 April 12, 2000 Brenda Abney City of Kent Visual Arts Coordinator Babnev@ci.kent.wa.us EVALUATION OF SCULPTURE Description: "Definition Infinity" Location: Kent Commons Kent, Washington Material: -Exterior is light gauge (18-20 gauge) -304 SS Sheets -Interior is light gauge galvanized steel stud framework Construction: Sheet metal fastened (SS 318 screws) with silicon and polyurethane caulking/adhesive. Evaluation: The general appearance of"Infinity" is fair to poor, as various panel sections have dents,warps and bent edges. In areas of heavy viewer access, the adhesive/caulking has failed and the sheet metal skin is separated from the internal framework. In short, the sculpture shows the effects of (1) weather, (2) viewer abuse, and (3) very questionable method of construction (1) Weather: Few of the problems are directly attributed to mother nature. The major effect would be adhesive/caulking and sealer breakdown. The other issue would be basic grit and grime from atmospheric deposits. There are also some changes in the surface integrity (warping), due to expansion and contraction,but these remain nominal in this kind of application. Note: The potential for real electrolytic problems is ever present because of the contact between dissimilar metals (stainless steel and galvanized steel) exposed to moisture. (2) Abuse: Most of the dents, scratches and bent panels are a direct result of viewers' actions. Basically, the sculptures' surface is a vulnerable polish, and the sheet metal is much too light to withstand any level of abuse. 1-�.d:� "JF�T > fp "�' .i+�,�S; a.ar c-v-amp•-r•Ban ,..r,r � (3) Construction:Using galvanized framing studs in combination with a light gauge sheet metal skin is a very unprofessional method of construction for an outdoor sculpture. The original results were only marginal, and the long term survival and aesthetics are compromised. In any case, the construction was not suited for a volumetric hard edged, polished, exterior sculpture. Recommendation: Detailing each of the many possible repair options seems pointless and too involved at this juncture. Sufice to say, that this sculpture may be repaired by panel removal and/or replacement, fastener replacement and additions, and resealing/recaulking. It should be noted that repairs would not fair any better than previous efforts, and couldn't be guaranteed for any length of time. A curatorial cleaning of the sculpture, (with a non-ionic cleaner and water) should be completed prior to any extensive restoration or repairs. Care should be taken to minimize scratches and mars to the polished surface. Estimated costs for general curatorial and repair work: $5,600.00 to $8,800.00 The real question remains for the City of Kent, as to the future of the Artwork. The clear options are repair or de-accession. Please call if you need any additional information, or would like a more extensive explanation of the issues surrounding this work. Thank you, Larry Tate Gerald McGinness Fabrication Specialties, Ltd. Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: REORGANIZATION OF CITY DEPARTMENTS AND FUNCTIONS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. amending certain chapters of Title 2 of the Kent City Code relating to administration and personnel by setting forth the departments of the City of Kent and, further, by setting forth the various offices reporting to administration. The proposed ordinance reorganizes the reporting structure of certain departments and offices within the City to adequately reflect the current structure of the City and to incorporate proposed changes as set forth in the ordinance. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO 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, amending certain chapters of Title 2 of the Kent City Code relating to administration and personnel by setting forth the departments of the City of Kent and further by setting forth the various offices reporting to administration and making other related amendments. WHEREAS, Title 2 of the Kent City Code relating to administration and personnel is outdated and does not adequately reflect the current structure of city government; and WHEREAS, The city council desires to update the code and make certain changes relating to administration and personnel as it relates to the organizational structure of the city; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new chapter, chapter 2.06, entitled"Chief Administrative Officer," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: 1 City Department Designations CHAPTER 2.06. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Sec. 2.06.010. Chief administrative officer—Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position of chief administrative officer who shall act as assistant to the mayor. The chief administrative officer shall be appointed by, report to and serve at the pleasure of the mayor. All references in the Kent City Code to operations director shall mean the chief administrative officer. Sec. 2.06.020. Qualifications. The chief administrative officer must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least five(5)years experience in financial administration, accounting and/or personnel management or similar fields as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.06.030. Duties and powers. The chief administrative officer shall manage the offices of administration as established in this title and shall have general oversight of the city departments as delegated by the mayor. The chief administrative officer shall be responsible for the city's public relations and governmental affairs. The chief administrative officer shall perform other duties as prescribed by the council and/or directed by the mayor. Sec. 2.06.040. Salary. The salary of the chief administrative officer shall be set by the mayor within the limits of the annual city budget established by city council. i 2 City Department Designations SECTION 2. A new chapter, chapter 2.09, entitled "Departments," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.09. DEPARTMENTS Sec. 2.09.010. There is hereby established departments of the City of Kent as set forth in chapters 2.10 through 2.28 as follows: Ch. 2.10. Employee Services Department; Ch. 2.12. Finance Department; Ch. 2.14. Information Technology Department; Ch. 2.20. Legal Department; Ch. 2.22. Police Department; Ch. 2.24. Fire Department; Ch. 2.26. Parks and Community Services Department; and Ch. 2.28. Public Works Department. These departments shall report to the mayor, or his or her designee, with the exception of the public works department which shall report to the chief administrative officer or his or her designee. SECTION 3. Anew chapter, chapter 2.10, entitled "Employee Services Department," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.10. EMPLOYEE SERVICES DEPARTMENT See. 2.10.010. Department created. There is hereby created the employee services department for the purpose of performing all human resource functions of the city. The department shall be supervised by the employee services director who shall serve as its director, who shall have complete charge of all of the work of the department, and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. 3 City Department Designations Sec. 2.10.020. Employee services director—Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as employee services director. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The employee services director shall be appointed by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the department. Sec. 2.10.030. Qualifications. The employee services director must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least five (5) years experience in personnel management or similar fields as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.10.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the employee services director to: 1. Develop, implement and administer personnel policies and procedures for all departments of the city. 2. Act as equal employment opportunity officer and administer the equal employment opportunity program for the city. 3. Perform all personnel functions, risk management and insurance administration functions as established in the city policies and procedures manual and as may be directed from time to time by the mayor. 4. Direct and assist in the professional development of personnel. The employee services director shall perform such other duties as the city council, mayor or city administrator may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.10.050. Salary. The salary of the employee services director shall be that as established in the annual city budget. 1 4 City Department Designations SECTION 4. A new chapter, chapter 2.12, entitled"Finance Department," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.12. FINANCE DEPARTMENT Sec. 2.12.010. Department created. There is hereby created the finance department for the purpose of performing all finance accounting and auditing functions of the city. The department shall be supervised by the finance director who shall serve as its director, who shall have complete charge of all of the work of the department, and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. Sec. 2.12.020. Finance director—Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as finance director. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The finance director shall be appointed by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the department. Sec. 2.12.030. Qualifications. The finance director must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least five (5) years experience in financial administration, accounting or similar fields as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.12.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the finance director to: 1. Be responsible for the management of the city's investment and debt portfolios. 2. Assist city administration in budget preparation and monitoring. 3. Maintain the accounting system in accordance with recognized practices and standards. 5 City Department Designations 4. Maintain the payroll system. 5. Exercise control of accounts payable. 6. Maintain an inventory of capital assets. 7. Collect all city funds, including the provision of billing and customer service for city utilities, special assessments and traffic violations. 8. Provide meter reading and related functions. 9. Monitor the operations of services provided to other city departments as directed by the mayor including purchasing, printing, building and facility maintenance operations and other support service functions. The finance director shall perform such other duties as the city council, mayor or city administrator may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.12.050. Salary. The salary of the finance director shall be that as established in the annual city budget. SECTION 5. A new chapter, chapter 2.14, entitled "Information Technology Department," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.14. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT Sec. 2.14.010. Department created. There is hereby created the information technology department for the purpose of performing all information technology planning, implementation and support functions of the city. The department shall be supervised by the information technology director who shall serve as its director, who shall have complete charge of all of the work of the department, and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. Sec. 2.14.020. Information technology director — Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as information technology director. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and 6 City Department Designations Procedures Manual. The information technology director shall be appointed by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the department. See. 2.14.030. Qualifications. The information technology director must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least five (5) years experience in information technology or similar fields as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.14.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the information technology director to: I. Direct the activities of the information technology department with the responsibility to provide technological leadership in systems planning, implementation and support programs. 2. Direct the development and maintenance of long range information processing plans and budgets. 3. Act as a contact person with user departments responding to and analyzing their inquiries. The information technology director shall perform such other duties as the city council, mayor or chief administrative officer may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.14.050. Salary. The salary of the information technology director shall be that as established in the annual city budget. 7 City Department Designations SECTION 6. Chapter 2.17 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Operations Department," is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 7. Chapter 2.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled"City Attorney," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 2:042.20. rrTv "TTQ-R-N '"LEGAL DEPARTMENT see. 7.^. ^" . Created. Tl.,e..e is hereby a eated the position k ewa a e45 „tteme., The ., ..:tie.. is eeteA in aeeerdanee with the (`a., of Kent Del:e:ee and n_eee,�„tee.. TAe«..el gee 1 04MA 0410 Appointment. The e:t y ette ffiey shall bee ntea by the e:t) knowledge er eeeepted eetiees relating to the duties e fthe erree Sec. 2.20.010. Department created. There is hereby created the legal department for the purpose of performing all the legal functions of the city. The department shall consist of the civil division, which will be responsible for representing the city in all civil matters including litigation, and the prosecution division, which will be responsible for prosecuting all misdemeanor cases in the city. The department shall be supervised by the city attorney who shall serve as its director, who shall have complete charge of all of the work of the department, and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. Sec. 2.20.020. City attorney - Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as city attornev. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The city attorney shall be appointed 8 City Department Designations by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating, to the duties of the department. Sec. 2.04.0302.20.030. Qualifications. The city attorney must be a graduate of an accredited law school and a member in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association. Sec. 2 04 0402.20.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the city attorney to advise all city officials elected or appointed, city employees and city boards or commissions in all legal matters pertaining to the business of the city and to approve all ordinances and resolutions as to form. The city attorney shall supervise the representation of the city in all actions brought by or against the city or against city officials in their official capacity. The city attorney shall perform such other duties as the city council, mayor or^i'��'te chief administrative officer may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. The city attorney shall have complete charge of all of the work of the legal department. See. 2.04.0502.20.050. Assistant city attorneys. The city attorney may appoint necessary assistants who shall have the power to perform any act which the city attorney is authorized to perform. Sec. 2.04.602.20.060. Interlocal agreements. The city attorney is authorized to consult with and provide legal services to governmental agencies, municipal and public corporations or other public offices. The city attorney is authorized to enter into interlocal agreements or contracts to provide such consultation or legal services. The city attorney and assistant city attorneys are authorized to serve in a private capacity as judge pro tem, court magistrate, arbitrator or in any other capacity for a court agency so long as such service does not conflict or interfere with representation of the city. 9 City Department Designations See. 2.04 0702.20.070. Salary. The salary of the city attorney shall be that as established in the annual city budget. The salary of assistant city attorneys shall be set and modified by city attorney subject to the annual city budget. SECTION 8. Chapter 2.26 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Parks and Recreation Department," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.26. PARKS AND REGRE,ARION COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Sec. 2.26.010. Creation. Department created. . There is hereby created the parks and community services department for the purpose of performing parks, recreation, human service and facility maintenance functions of the city. The department shall be supervised by the parks director who shall serve as its director, who shall have complete charge of all of the work of the department, and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. Sec. 2.26.020. Parks director — Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as parks director. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The parks director shall be appointed by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the department. Sea 2.26.030. A ppeintmeSt and duties of diFeeter- and other- employees. The diyeater of the parks and r eation department shall he n nted by the m aeeardan,ee v;ith the City of Vend Delieies and DreeeA..res Man unl The Arrester shall have 10 City Department Designations Sec. 2.12.030. Qualifications. The parks director must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least five(5)years experience in parks and recreation administration or similar fields as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.12.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the parks director to provide for the proper maintenance and operation of nublic parks, playgrounds, recreational and golf course facilities, and all other facilities belonging to the city: and to provide recreational and human service programs on behalf of the city. The parks director shall perform such other duties as the city council,mayor or city administrator may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.26.050. Salary. The salary of the parks and community services director shall be that as established in the annual city budget. Sec. 2.26.060. Human services office — Created. There is hereby created the human services office. The human services office shall operate as a division of the parks and community services department. See. 2.26.070. General duties and responsibilities. The human services office shall plan, organize, and administer the activities and functions concerning human service issues, including the development and assessment of human service needs, determination of priorities for human services, evaluation and recommendation of funding requests, and the monitoring of performance of services provided by human service organizations and agencies. The human services office shall coordinate activities with other human service planning agencies and organizations. Additionally, the human services office shall coordinate human service activities between city administration and the city human 11 City Department Designations services commission, and shall implement policy recommendations established by the human services commission and provide necessary support to the human services commission in the performance of its duties. See. 2.26.080. Human services manager-Position created and appointment. The human services manager shall manage the human services office under the direct supervision of the parks and community services director. The housing and human services manager shall be appointed by the parks, reereatien. and human and community services director. Sec. 2.26.090. Human services staff. The human services manager shall, in accordance with appropriate city policy, recruit and hire employees as may be budgeted from time to time by the city council to the office of housing and human services. Staff employees shall report directly to the human services manager. See. 2.26.100. Salary of staff. The salary of the human services manager and staff employees shall be that as established in the city annual budget. SECTION 7. Chapter 2.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Department of Public Works," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.28. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sec. 2.28.010 Afganiza#es Department created. There is hereby created the public works department for the pumose of performing all public works functions of the city. The department shall be supervised by the director of public works who shall serve as its director and who shall have complete charge of all of the work and who shall be responsible for hiring and supervising employees of the department. The department, through the director, shall report to the chief administrative officer or his or her designee. I 12 City Department Designations The divisions of the depaFtnent of public works department which report to the director of public works are as follows: 1. Engineering; 2. Street maintenance and operations; 3. Fleet services; 4. Water; 5. Sewer, storm water and drainage utility; 6. Solid waste. Sec. 2.28.020 Director of public works— Position created. There is created a position known as the director of public works. Sec. 2.28.030 Appointment. The director of public works shall be appointed by the mayor in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of his professional qualifications with special emphasis on professional experience and education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of his office. The director of public works shall report to the chief administrative officer. Sec. 2.28.040. Qualifications. The director of public works shall have, or be capable of obtaining, within a reasonable period of time after appointment, a certificate of registration with the state board of registration for professional engineers and land surveyors. The director shall have a minimum of five (5) years' experience in a supervisory engineering capacity. It is preferable, although not a requirement of the position, that the director be a graduate of a duly accredited four (4) year college or university in civil engineering. Sec. 2.28.050. Responsibilities — Duties. The director of public works shall organize and supervise each division that reports to him pursuant to KCC 2.28.010 in the most efficient manner possible so that the interests of the citizens of the city shall be best 13 City Department Designations served. The director of public works shall coordinate engineering done for the city by consultants and have ultimate responsibilities for all such projects. The director of public works shall create an effective working relationship between the department of public works and all other city departments. The director of public works shall supervise each of the divisions reporting to him and make periodic reports to the chief administrative officer. See. 2.28.060. Powers and duties. The general powers and duties of the director of public works shall be to: 1. Supervise and assist in the engineering, surveying and drafting work involved in public works and improvements of the city or its utilities such as preparation of estimates, plans, specifications, reports and recommendations and public improvements. 2. Supervise the keeping of plans, plats, maps, drawings, dedications, final estimates and specifications relating to city affairs. 3. Be responsible to the mayor for the construction and repair of public streets and city owned utilities, and provide technical and advisory engineering assistance to other departments of the city. Sec. 2.28.070. Salary. The salary of the director of public works shall be that as established in the city's annual budget. SECTION 9. A new chapter, chapter 2.29, entitled "Offices," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.29. OFFICES See. 2.29.010. There is hereby established certain offices of city administration as set forth in chapters 2.30 through 2.42 as follows: Ch. 2.30 Planning Office; Ch. 2.32 Office of Hearing Examiner; 14 City Department Designations Ch. 2.34 Municipal Court; Ch. 2.36 Office of the City Clerk Ch. 2.40 Building and Development Services Office; Ch. 2.42 Permit Center These offices will report to the Chief Administrative Officer or his or her designee. SECTION 10. Chapter 2.30 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Planning Agency," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.30. PLANNING OFFICE 4 GENC-AZ PART 1. GENERALLY Sec. 2.30.010. Planning authority. The city council hereby declares its intention to perform all planning functions under Chapter 35A.63 RCW regarding planning and zoning in code cities. e 30 020 Designation. The planning of the eity is hereby a .l eate a a eJe �+ fmetiem rwu e ., and ether vvv.ev established by the eityeouneil r -planning on behalf C ther7 ofVent The.eT shall .. Advise7� fy e t the fid the —T PART 2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sec. 2.30.020 Office created. There is created the lily planning degartmeetoffrce, which shall serve as the city planning agency in conjunction with the land use and planning board. The pl rmi ng depai4ment shall ___ _:_t of the fbilewing divisiens� planning de ele entsef-viees, and eff.,. of Musing and human sei-=iccr.- The planning depai4fneat office shall perform planning and zoning functions, conduct plan reviews and issue building and development permits, enforce building codes, and perform other 15 City Department Designations duties as established by the city council. The office shall be supervised by the planning manager. Sec. 2.30.070. Duties and responsibilities-Office. The planning depai4fneeE office shall have the following duties and responsibilities. A. The planning degaAmenFoffice, dffeugh the plafmiing direeter, shall administer the of the shall be responsible for all planning matters, including, but not limited to, comprehensive plan formulation and amendments, annexation zoning, zoning code, subdivision code and other assigned codes. It shall be the duty of the planning office direeteF to be the ofCeial ..pokespe_sen f-theagene5, to set the agenda for the land use and planning board hearings, workshops, and meetings, to prepare all materials, such as agendas, staff reports and special reports for the land use and planning board, to collect, and to analyze and use technical data to determine logical matters of urban development within the city. The planning depai4ment office shall be responsible for preparing and updating the comprehensive plan and preparing amendments to the zoning code, the subdivision code and any other related codes or ordinances. t4aiagh the development sen,iees divisien, shall issue building peffflits and enferve th-e btiildinb eedes as r Cedes. B. The agency-planning office, shall advise the mayor and city council on planning matters. The planning defeat office may carry out special projects at the request of the city council which requests shall be forwarded to the planning degai4fnent office through the office of the mayor. C. aiding in the eeer-dinatien of eity planning aetivities within the overall adfainisfFmive- bo eeasidef:atien to the land use and plaming beafd. 13C. The agency shall be responsible for all planning matters, including, but not limited to, comprehensive plan formulation and amendments, annexation zoning, zoning code, subdivision code and other assigned codes. It shall be the responsibility of the planning 16 City Department Designations department office to prepare the plans and codes for these planning matters and the responsibility of the land use and planning board to hold public hearings on these plans and codes when advised to do so by the planning department office. The planning office shall forward items for consideration to the land use and planning board. The land use and planning board, after holding one (1) or more public hearings, shall forward its recommendation on the planning deparWxeatoffce's proposals to the city council for final action. The council may hold public hearings and perform other related functions on specific planning matters in addition to or in lieu of delegating this function to the land use and planning board. Sec. 2.30.080. Planning direeto manager —Position created and appointment Creation. There is hereby created the position of city planning difeetef manager who shall be appointed by the mayef chief administrative officer or his or her designee, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the office. All references in the Kent City Code to the planning director with respect to the functions of the planning office as set forth in this chapter, shall mean the planning manager. Sec. 2.30.090. Qualifications. The planning manager must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least three (3) years experience as a municipal planner or similar field as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.30.090100. Some Duties and responsibilities-Manager. A. The planning difeeteF manager shall be in charge of the planning depart ientoffice. The planning direeter manager shall prepare an annual planning program and an annual budget to implement this program. The agexey office shall represent the ageney offce before government agencies and the public as deemed necessary. The _ planning difeetef manager or a designated planning staff member shall be present at all city 17 City Department Designations council and land use and planning board meetings and public hearings. The planning manager shall perform such other duties as the chief administrative officer may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. B. of the a depai4fnen . The planning manager, or his or her designee, shall act as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible official as set forth in Chanter 11.03 KCC. See. 2.30.110. Salary. The salary of the planning manager shall be that as established in the annual city budget. YOI:s:38xsnn OfflBE-6f-housing-and avmve„rSCfV�8E5 Created. EFB-i5 hereby ere.lted in the e:ty the e£Aee of housing and h11.,.en sef,4ee., The effiee e£he11..:.... See. 2.3l1z-1r n 9-Am-P —G2$Cf9rl d tixeS-R$v- responsibilities. Tlie o £oc-o£ he....:.,g and human se".:ees shell ple.,e or-ga izee and edfainister the _aetiyities and htffnan se dt ...... £ .. hi needs, eeinatio e . es for htffnan aee1 e .1.e111tien and reeewmiendatien e£ funding vets, Effid the nitering of per fe1-.: anee of senieesse,.,.:ees shell enefd:.,ete veti,Atie.. with athe.. 111.,...., ...,f..:,.,. .,le.,n:.... ,,..e.,e:e.. an or-ganizatiens. Additionally, e e {:ee of housing ..d human s shall a e,-d:nate the £ e hum;lnsop,ir,@stiyit:e.. het,..eea e:t., administratieft and the eity human the perfefmanee ef its duties. 18 City Department Designations -9,-P. 230.1-20. Same Manager. The housing and human setwiees faanager shal tee as delegated pursuant to D`Ql Title 45A.Thehe hoes;..,. a..d hum—an n_�nnino _a.r�..,. ..., .._.�b..._.. r..a.,.,.,.a. ley, r .:t and hire ..le..ees a .,be budgeted 'l to the ePAee eC t,eusing and human n s Staff ...... .a.aa.. .0 time u� u.., vaa� aver e emple..ees shall �e..e.w d:�eetl.,to the housing and 1...«...�. ne....:ava n.nnnger .ai�iv��a..r.riiu[ , See... 2.30.140.- Same Sala", of sta€€. The sa.lafy e€the heasings and human and staff empleyees shall be that as established in the eity afmual budget. PART 3. LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD See. 2.30.150. Creation There:s he..el..,e..eated the land .. and planning l.ea_d See. 2.30.160. Member—ship, terms, residenee requirements, ate eompensatiom .. T-hemuse and prsii¢ssb-o oi`c shall eensist of wvea (7)xacxbc. o,caoh otT. a on shall be appointed by the mayer and eenfiffned by the eity eetmeil. AppeLntmefAs shall be deemed ne..C..-.f.ed if net anted en within tl.:.t../40 days C lle..dng the fna.,eF's submittal of his or-l.er nafninat:en to the a e:l president. th fee (3) . s When n n the land . and plan...:ng bea,.dappointment ,u..v�..�j�urr. .�aaa.ir-�. e , last year e f the te.-m Ne more than th fee (3) te.f..s Fa ven year. E. liiifial appaintments shall be pr ne . S. 19 City Department Designations 2 T1..e (2) seats f r a t11.e (2) year tens._ -+ 3. Three (3) seats far a there (3) year texas ANa atm en.ts therea Aer shall he {:.r three (3) year terms D. Members of the land . and n.lan...;n1a heard may he dismissed by the m r fe a (12) n..en.th period ..,:the..t s..eh ahsen.ee he;n.a e1.e11sed by the heard r neee.1e1. r C ifA ; e C r eableet of duty., .«e n.C ., n.r a finding h the land . d n. .a lan ;nna heard of a mher s . elatio f an), eade of eend..et established by the heard Ew F� misC an.e ase a «1a1F asa..ee ; v a 4 L' A s authorize pursuanto RGAI 35.21.200, all a ...tee.. to the la.1d Find L. d t e la.aa:n.a heard shall her s;den.ts of the e:t1.of Ve.1t When fnaL:n..the „ ..ei ,t merAs, the F. The apposated nn.embers of the land use and ..la fins 1a heard shall serve withe::t en.t that r n. ber-semen1t for aether;aed tra..el a.1d s1lhs;stenee may be made te the extent sueh may be budgeted fer-by the eity eeuneil. ReimbufsefnepA for-sue hall e e ffann1 the e;t1, budget eateab .. n. .1.1er designated la ;.1a eaffi-missien, travel an' See. 2.30.170 OFganizationtm rules.eetings and frem a g its .a. n1..hers wh:eh terms shall expire Peeember 11 eaeh year. The s star.. C the land use n.d alan.n.:_g heard shall he the planning d;reeter. The s retan._shall set he land as and l a:n.n aaagbearda,. d C 1 agenda r eshops and n.1lhlie hearings.. rb fnin..tes 1.,h:eh .,he taken ffenn aleetran.:a re n.ard; g of n.11hl;e hearings and keep sue .natter ofn111h1:e . era T] The land . and n.lanlr.;nag heard shall eend.at at least e e !1\re.nllar»neat;..g eaeh a - gefieral business, heafings, and ether related business, exeeptwhen there is not an agenda :tem to he a s:dared or heard in ..,h:eh ease th'e lsn.d a.1d la_n1;ag heard s ratan,shall aet:A,the heard members, the leeal .. essand .nest a nlat:ee 20 City Department Designations at the nlaee the land use and planning beefd gula..ly ffleets stating that Elbe to a laek of business ffleetina is eaneelled. The land ase and nlannifig bead shall establish and apefate . ndef a net of bylaws, whieh bylaws shall n ribe the 'ales of preeedefe f^- ..1.1:e hearings and . eAEshena and a vede of eenduet for its m_ ffibe fs The ti.vee and ..lave hearings w.0 ..v..aw .,ry ...... .. _...._ ... _........�. .... .... . .� .. ... _. 1. C_epin_ and n :al «.eel:«....f ne. ludifig ..b.enl.ennf t shall be established by the bylaws. byaw yclv7� Sea 2 30 180 Duties and responsibilities. A. The land use and plaBAng beard shall operate as paFt of the plafming ageney an shall, exeept in these inntaneen when the e:t., ae..n :l has deeffnineo a n hider the t d t hold bl• hearingseemprehensive plan feffnula♦:en and end.n ig, oetting eede and subd:.,in:en ee,le end other assigned ,. d afflendments . hiek have been n fed and a..l.f..itted to the beard by the plapain depaAment. The land use and planning beafd after- holding e e (1) e fnere poblie heafings on the atter-a shall refer the plafffling de 4fne yt ela and its Y"' i.ra.:....w w... .. feseffiffien d ' to h 't. ann .e:1 fire tl.v eia Anal aetien .._ eennP B. T 1' f a the lte fnati..e to t1.e land d 1 beard a vide an n. cnc�xscrxnrcrrz�o cxzcZzxaaccxvciazaPxaixixiizSvv ax c.....,. ... :b .a... 1, ld' g heaFi gs and perfi3fm other-related f:.netie en matters et fefth i rubseet:en (A) 1 1. h '1 1 t to C these fimet: eh atte_e d:.. etly awrc-aacZzrrcv[invn-nxiFrExoCrzvp�roacTazvaoixo on �'v'c nz ... ..........J without taking 1 use and plaming beafd. Cee. 2 30 lnn Defe..enees to planning eemmission. All r-eter-enees in the Y fi4 Git y Cede to the planninb.. eemfflission shall ...a n the land use and planning beard SECTION 11. A new chapter, chapter 2.36, entitled "Office of the City Clerk," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as read as follows: CHAPTER 2.36. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Sec. 2.36.010. Office created. There is hereby created the office known as the office of the city clerk. The office shall be supervised by the city clerk. 21 City Department Designations Sec. 2.36.020. City clerk — Appointment — Removal. The city clerk shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the city council. The mayor may remove the city clerk at his or her pleasure. Such appointment or removal must be in writing, signed by the mayor and filed with the city clerk. Sec. 2.36.030. Qualifications. The city clerk must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least three (3) years experience working in a city clerk's office or similar field as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.10.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the city clerk to: The city clerk shall perform such other duties as the chief administrative officer may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.10.050. Salary. The salary of the city clerk shall be that as established in the annual city budget. SECTION 12. A new chapter, chapter 2.40, entitled "Building and Development Services Office," is hereby added to the Kent City Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.40. BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE Sec. 2.40.010. Office created. There is hereby created the office known as the building and development services office for the purpose of performing all building and development service functions of the city, including building plans examinations,building inspections and code enforcement. The office shall be supervised by the building and development services manager. i 22 City Department Designations See. 2.40.020. Building and development services manager—Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as building and development services manager. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The building and development services manager shall be appointed by the chief administrative officer in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the office. Sec. 2.40.030. Qualifications. The building and development services manager must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least three (3) years experience in the field of building and land development and be familiar with the uniform building codes or a similar field as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.40.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the building and development services manager to examine building plans, perform building inspections and perform code enforcement functions as prescribed by the Kent City Code. The building and development services manager shall perform such other duties as the chief administrative officer, or his or her designee, may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. Sec. 2.40.050. Salary. The salary of the building and development services manager shall be that as established in the annual city budget. 23 City Department Designations SECTION 13. A new chapter, chapter 2.46, entitled "Permit Center," is hereby added to the Kent City Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.42. PERMIT CENTER Sec. 2.42.010. Office created. There is hereby created the permit center for the purpose of performing all permitting functions of the city, including all intake and processing of building and development permits. The office shall be supervised by the permit center manager. Sec. 2.42.020. Permit center manager — Position created and appointment. There is hereby created the position known as permit center manager. The position is created in accordance with the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual. The permit center manager shall be appointed by the chief administrative officer in accordance with the provisions of the City of Kent Policies and Procedures Manual solely on the basis of professional experience, education and demonstrated knowledge of accepted practices relating to the duties of the office. Sec. 2.42.030. Qualifications. The permit center manager must have the following or equivalent qualifications: he or she must be a graduate of a recognized college or university and have at least three (3) years experience in the field of building and land development and be familiar with the uniform building codes or a similar field as deemed appropriate to the position by the appointing authority. Sec. 2.42.040. Duties and powers. It shall be the duty of the permit center manager to issue building and development permits and perform related functions in the processing of building and development permits as prescribed by the Kent City Code. The permit center manager shall perform such other duties as the chief administrative officer or his or her designee may direct or as may be required by the laws of the state. 24 City Department Designations See. 2.42.050. Salary. The salary of the permit center manager shall be that as established in the annual city budget. SECTION 14. A new chapter, chapter 2.57, entitled "Land Use and Planning Board," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 2.57. LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD Sec. 2.57.010. Creation. There is hereby created the land use and planning board. Sec. 2.57.020. Membership, terms, residence requirements, and compensation. A. The land use and planning board shall consist of seven (7)members, each of whom shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Appointments shall be deemed confirmed if not acted on within thirty(30) days following the mayor's submittal of his or her nomination to the council president. B. The terms of office of the members of the land use and planning board shall be three (3) years. When a vacancy occurs on the land use and planning board, appointment for that position shall be for three (3) years, or for the remainder of the unexpired term, whichever is the shorter period of time. All new terms shall expire on December 31 of the last year of the term. No more than three (3) terms may expire in any given year. C. Initial appointments shall be as follows: 1. Two (2) seats for a one (1) year term. 2. Two (2) seats for a two (2) year term. 3. Three (3) seats for a three (3) year term. All appointments thereafter shall be for three (3) year terms. D. Members of the land use and planning board may be dismissed by the mayor for missing twenty-five (25)percent or more of the regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve _ (12) month period without such absence being excused by the board, for inefficiency, for 25 City Department Designations neglect of duty, for a finding by the land use and planning board of a member's violation of any code of conduct established by the board, or for misfeasance or malfeasance in office. E. As authorized pursuant to RCW 35.21.200, all appointees to the land use and planning board shall be residents of the city of Kent. When making the appointments, the mayor shall consider appointments from residents residing at different locations of the city. F. The appointed members of the land use and planning board shall serve without compensation except that reimbursement for authorized travel and subsistence may be made to the extent such may be budgeted for by the city council. Reimbursement for such shall come from the city budget category designated planiling eenifnissienland use and planning board, travel and mileage and subsistence. Sec. 2.57.030. Organization, meetings and rules. A. The land use and planning board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from among its members which terms shall expire December 31 each year. The secretary of the land use and planning board shall be the planning manager.The secretary shall set the land use and planning board agenda for workshops and public hearings, prepare minutes which may be taken from electronic recording of public hearings, and keep such records as are necessary for the property operation of the board, all of which shall be a matter of public record. B. The land use and planning board shall conduct at least one(1)regular meeting each month for conducting general business, hearings, and other related business, except when there is not an agenda item to be conside=ior heard, in which case the land use and planning board secretary shall notify the board members, the local press and post a notice at the place the land use and planning board regularly meets, stating that due to a lack of business a meeting is cancelled. The land use and planning board shall establish and operate under a set of bylaws, which bylaws shall prescribe the rules of procedure for public hearings and workshops and a code of conduct for its members. The time and place of regular and special meetings, including workshops, shall be established by the bylaws. 26 City Department Designations Sec. 2.57.040. Duties and responsibilities. A. The land use and planning board shall operate as part of the planning office and shall, except in those instances when the city council has determined to consider the matter, hold public hearings on comprehensive plan formulation and amendments, annexation zoning, zoning code and subdivision code and other assigned code formulation and amendments which have been prepared and submitted to the board by the planning office. The land use and planning board, after holding one (1) or more public hearings on these matters, shall refer the planning oflice's proposals and its recommendation to the city council for the council's final action. B. In lieu of or in the alternative to the land use and planning board considering and holding hearings and perform other related functions on matters set forth in subsection(A) above, the city council may elect to perform these functions on such matters directly without taking input from the land use and planning board. Sec. 2.57.050. References to planning commission. All references in the Kent City Code to the planning commission shall mean the land use and planning board. SECTION 15. —Savings. The existing chapters of the Kent City Code, that are repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 16. —Severability. If any one or more section, 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. 27 City Department Designations SECTION 1 Z —Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2000. APPROVED: day of 2000. PUBLISHED: day of 2000. 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\Civif\Ordi�nu\Ci\yDepanmrn\-2Draft.doc 28 City Department Designations ;XVr Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: COUNTRY CLUB NORTH - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Country Club North submitted by William Goodwin for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 640 feet of storm sewers and 1, 200 feet of street improvements and release bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 140th Avenue S .E. & S .E. 240th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PARADISE CAR WASH - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Paradise Car Wash submitted by Schneider Homes, Inc . for continuous operation and maintenance of 287 feet of watermain, 293 feet of sanitary sewers, and 502 feet of street improvements and release bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 23803 West Valley Highway South. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H �W Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCE FROM COUNCIL MEETING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of Councilmember Tom Brotherton' s request for an excused absence from the June 6, 2000, City Council meeting, as he will be unable to attend. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY• (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: TOM BROTHERTON, COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: June 6, 2000 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the June 6, 2000 City Council meeting. I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. TB.jb ?R Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category. Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: KENT/KING COUNTY INTERLOCAL AMENDMENT, PROCESSING OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On or about March 20, 1996, the City of Kent and King County entered into an Interlocal Agreement for processing permit applications pending at King County at the time the City annexes unincorporated areas in King County. This agreement was entered into as a result of the Meridian Annexation and applies to all subsequent annexations in the City of Kent . The proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement would allow the processing of pending King County applications by Schneider Homes at the time of the Chestnut Ridge Annexation. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to Interlocal Agreement . 3 . EXHIBITS: Amendment to interlocal 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember &w moves, Councilmember r seconds to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Kent relating to processing of building and land use permit applications, subject to final approval of the language by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Council Agenda Item No. 7A AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF KENT RELATING TO PROCESSING OF BUILDING AND LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day by and between King County, a home rule charter County in the State of Washington (hereinafter "County") and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter "City"), amends in part the Interlocal Agreement Between King County and The City of Kent Relating To Processing of Building Permits And Land Use Applications And To Home Repair Services Through The Community Development Black Grant Program fully executed on March 20, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "1996 Interlocal Agreement."), which agreement is incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. The 1996 Interlocal Agreement is amended to include the following new paragraph 2.6: 2.6 Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Agreement, on behalf of the City of Kent, the County will prepare a staff report/recommended decision and staff the public hearing on King County application numbers S91P0004 and S91U0001, which were pending land use applications for a proposed development in an area annexed into the City prior to the effective date of the 1996 Interlocal Agreement. Based upon direction from the City, County review of these applications shall be based upon County codes in effect at the time such applications were initially submitted to King County prior to annexation. King County further agrees to conduct a hearing before the King County Hearing Examiner for these applications. The City of Kent shall provide any required notices associated with the hearing and shall provide a facility within the City of Kent at which the hearing will take place. Following the hearing, the King County AMENDMENT TO KENT 1996 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT- 1 P CiriIFILES'ApvFilab135-1 WGAmmdlMClonLMcitliaMpnn M.Eoc Examiner shall render a report and recommendation to the City for consideration by the City's final decisionmaker on these applications. The final decision shall be rendered by the City. The 1996 Interlocal Agreement is further amended to include the following new paragraph 8.4: 8.4 The City shall reimburse King County for its staff and Hearing Examiner time and expenses incurred conducting review on behalf of the City pursuant to paragraph 2.6 of this Agreement. Reimbursement shall occur as follows: (1) King County DDES staff time shall be reimbursed at the hourly rate specified in K.C.C. 27.02.190, currently $132.00 per hour; (2) King County Hearing Examiner and Hearing Examiner staff time shall be reimbursed the current Hourly Billing Plan rate specified in attachment A, or at such future year Hourly Billing Plan rates for such services. The City shall reimburse King County within sixty days following receipt of King County's invoice. Paragraph 12 of the 1996 Interlocal Agreement is amended as follows: 12. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective upon signature of both parties and will terminate on December 31, 2006 unless otherwise terminated as provided in Section 10. The 1996 Interlocal Agreement is further amended to include the following new paragraph 15.4: 15.4 Paragraphs 15.1 through 15.3 shall apply to claims that arise out of County processing of applications identified in paragraph 2.6 of this Agreement where such claims are based upon County actions or inactions following the effective date of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the City shall hold the County harmless for any claims, actions, suits, liability, losses, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of pre-Amendment County actions or inactions on those applications identified in paragraph 2.6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require King County to appear in or otherwise AMENDMENT TO KENT 1996 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT-2 P`CiWMUS`(1=FiIMWI25-2WG MaWfflrcil MaiNaoAuoa 03 Jtt defend any judicial challenge to decisions rendered by the City on those applications referenced in paragraph 2.6 of this Agreement. The 1996 Interlocal Agreement is further amended to include the following new paragraph19: 19. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended solely to provide assistance to the County and City and is not intended to benefit any third party. In all other respects, except as expressly modified herein, the terms set forth in the 1996 Agreement shall remain in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed. KING COUNTY: King County Executive Dated Approved as to Form: NORM MALENG King County Prosecuting Attorney By: Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated CITY OF KENT: Jim White, Mayor Dated Approved as to Form: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Dated AMENDMENT TO KENT 1996 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT-3 P`Liti1FILESgpmFile W I353 W PNmmdo W IaalMcidiaoAma.Oi.drc �a �11 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: TIB GRANT AGREEMENT - MEEKER STREET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Department of Public Works has received a grant agreement in the amount of $221, 666 for the Meeker Street Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South project . 3 . EXHIBITS: Grant agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember_L_ev� moves, Councilmember-seconds to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement for the Meeker Street (Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South) project and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for $221, 666 . DISCUSSION: W_ ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B i Urban Arterial Trust Account (DATA) f� Project Agreement for Design Proposal Lead Agency City of Kent Project Number Authority Number 6-1-106(026)-1 00228681 Project Title and Description Meeker St Washington Ave to 64th Ave S Total Amount Authorized Authorization to Proceed Effective From $221,666 May 10, 2000 IN CONSIDERATION of the allocation by the Transportation Improvement Board of Urban Arterial Trust Account (DATA)funds to the project and in the amount set out above,the agency hereby agrees that as condition precedent to payment of any UATA funds allocated at any time to the above referenced project; it accepts and will comply with the terms of this agreement, including the terms and conditions set forth in RCW 47.26; the applicable rules and regulations of the Transportation Improvement Board, and all representations made to the Transportation Improvement Board upon which the fund allocation was based; all of which are familiar to and within the knowledge of the agency and incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement, although not attached. The officer of the agency(ies), by the signature(s) below, hereby certifies on behalf of the agency that local matching funds and other funds represented to be committed to the project will be available as necessary to implement the projected development of the project as set forth in the DESIGN proposal prospectus, acknowledges that funds hereby authorized are for the development of the construction proposal as defined by Chapter 126, Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess., and is subject to immediate cancellation by the Transportation Improvement Board if the project's development is delayed in relation to the schedule presented to, and accepted by, the Board at the time of project authorization. Projects in clean air non-attainment areas are subject to air quality conformity requirements as specified in RCW 70.94.The lead agency certifies that the project meets all applicable Clean Air Act requirements. IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and performance of the stated conditions by the agency, the Transportation Improvement Board hereby agrees to pay the agency from UATA funds allocated, and not otherwise, for its eligible costs during the ensuing quarter year not to exceed the amount specified. Such obligation to pay DATA funds extends only to project cost incurred after the date of the Board's allocation funds and authorization to proceed with the project except as provided by the Board rules on projects that require a value engineering study prior to approval of the design proposal prospectus. LEAD AGE CY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD cl;. g -,Joo a Sqe IMeyw/C OeR Executive Dverfw Dam TiB R isedd OM7 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 2000 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: LID 351, S. 277T" CORRIDOR, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL REPEALER AND ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee and the LID 351 Board of Equalization have recommended adoption of an ordinance which repeals Ordinance No. 3509 and establishes and confirms the Final Assessment Roll for LID 351, S. 277th Street Corridor. The previous ordinance contained a six cent ($ . 06) error in the total amount of the assessment roll . Additionally, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations issued by the LID 351 Board of Equalization transposed references to Protests 23 and 24 , thereby inadvertently amending the wrong assessment . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee and the LID 351 Board of Equalization (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 co seconds to adopt Ordinance No. 3 5)3 , adopting the revised Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the LID 351 Board of Equalization and enacting and confirming the LID 351 Final Assessment Roll . DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Council Agenda Item No. 7C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Ordinance No. 3509 and approving and confirming the assessments and assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 351 for the construction of a new five-lane arterial extending from Auburn Way North (East Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley Road at 116`h Avenue, as provided by Ordinance No. 3496, and levying and assessing a part of the cost and expense thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property as shown on the assessment roll WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special assessments against the property located in Local Improvement District No. 351 in the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"),has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council delegated under RCW 35.44.070 to a special committee of the Council to act as the LID 351 Board of Equalization (composed of the members of the Public Works Committee) (the`Board')the conduct of the hearing on the assessment roll; and WHEREAS,notice of the time and place of hearing on the assessment roll and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for the time and in the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of hearing thereon before the Board for the 12th day of April, 2000, at the hour of 1:00 p.m., local time, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and further notice thereof was mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and 1 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notice the hearing was held, all written protests received were considered and all persons appearing at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the Board, sitting and acting as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits to be received by each lot, parcel and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason of the improvement, considered all such protests; and WHEREAS,the Board recessed its deliberations to May 1,2000, at which time it met and considered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law("Findings"); and WHEREAS, the Board entered its Findings and has forwarded them to the Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, since enactment of Ordinance No. 3509, the Board of Equalization has determined that it transposed references to Protests 23 and 24 in its Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations, requiring further revision; and WHEREAS, on June _, 2000, the Board revised its Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations to correct the errors referencing Protests 23 and 24; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3509 contained a six cent ($.06) error in the total amount of the assessment roll; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to repeal Ordinance No. 3509 and enact and confirm by new ordinance the LID 351 Final Assessment Roll and to incorporate the revised LID 351 Board of Revised Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations; and 2 LID 351 Final AssessmentRog WHEREAS, the Council has brought before it for consideration the Findings, and the exhibits and protests considered by the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: -Repealer. Ordinance No. 3509 is hereby repealed. SECTION l: -Roll Confirmation. The assessments and assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 351, which has been created and established for the purpose of constructing a new five lane arterial extending from Auburn Way North(East Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley Road at 116"'Avenue, as provided by Ordinance No. 3496, as the same now stand, shall be and the same arc approved and confirmed in all things and respects in the total amount of$6,911,946.49. SECTION 3. -Special Benefit. Each of the lots, tracts,parcels of land and other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially benefited by this improvement in at least the amount charged against the same, and the assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract or parcel of land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the same thereon. SECTION 4. - Findings. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of LID 351 Board of Equalization (May 1, 2000, as revised June_, 2000), attached hereto at Exhibit"I", are hereby adopted by the Council and incorporated herein by this reference. 3 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll SECTION 5. - Notice of Roll. The assessment roll as approved and confirmed shall be filed with the Finance Division Director of the City for collection and the Finance Division Director is authorized and directed to publish notice as required by law stating that the roll is in her hands for collection and that payment of any assessment thereon or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within 30 days from the date of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in 15 equal annual installments. The estimated interest rate is stated to be 8.5% per annum, with the exact interest rate to be fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the local improvement bonds for Local Improvement District No. 351. The first installment of assessments on the assessment roll shall become due and payable during the 30-day period succeeding the date one year after the date of first publication by the Finance Division Director of notice that the assessment roll is in her hands for collection and annually thereafter each succeeding installment shall become due and payable in like manner. If the whole or any portion of the assessment remains unpaid after the first 30-day period, interest upon the whole unpaid sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year thereafter one of the installments, together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall be collected. Any installment not paid prior to expiration of the 30-day period during which such installment is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent. Each delinquent installment shall be subject, at the time of delinquency, to a charge of 9% penalty levied on both principal and interest due upon that installment, and all delinquent installments also shall be charged interest at the rate as determined above. The collection of such delinquent installments shall be enforced in the manner provided by law. SECTION 6. - Severabilitv. 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. 4 LID 351 Final Assessment RoU SECTION 7: -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. STEPHEN DIJULIO, OF COUNSEL PASSED: day of 2000. APPROVED: day of 2000. PUBLISHED: day of 2000. 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:\Civil\Ordinance\LIDJ5 I Rc%is<dFi Lal sRoll.doe - 5 LID 351 Final Assessment RoU FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION REGARDING LID 351 (REVISED JUNE_, 2000) I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. GENERAL LID FINDINGS 1. For over a decade, the City, King County and other regional and state agencies have determined the need for a cross-valley arterial roadway to serve the business and citizens who use the Kent Valley. 2. The 277t' Street Corridor Project ("Project") will provide another east/west corridor across the Valley, connecting the East Valley Highway up the hill to the Kent-Kangley Road at 116`h Avenue. 3. In December 1999, the Kent City Council passed an ordinance which formed LID 351 for the purpose of partially funding the Project. 4. Project improvements are as follows: 1. A five lane roadway with bicycle lanes (including a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge and pathway across the Green River and uphill to approximately 108`h Avenue SE), approximately sixty-six feet curb to curb, with two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane in all areas except the bridge and hill climb and that section of the Corridor running west from the intersection with"I" Street in the City of Auburn. 2. Bridge over the Green River. 3. Curb and gutter. 4. Cement concrete sidewalk on both sides. 5. Storm drainage improvements. 6. Street Lighting improvements. 7. Landscaping. 8. Utility modification as required. 9. Lane channelization and signing. {W DT433760.DOC;1/00085.150002/) 1 10. 1081h Street Bridge over the Corridor, with westbound onramp to the Corridor from 1081h and eastbound offramp to 1081h from the Corridor. 11. Signalization at 1161h Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. 5. On April 12, 2000, having given notice in accordance with applicable law, the Board of Equalization, which consisted of the members of the Public Works Committee of the Council, (hereafter, "Board") met for the purpose of hearing any protest to the final assessment roll for LID 351 and forwarding recommendations to the full City Council for final action. At that time the Board received a total of 27 protests from various property owners in the LID which had been filed in accordance with the notice and state law. Each protest was assigned a number beginning with P1. 6. The Board heard testimony from the City and all property owners who had submitted timely protests and wished to be heard. 18 exhibits were offered during the course of the hearing and were given sequential numbers, beginning with one. 7. Based on the testimony, exhibits and final arguments, the Board makes the following additional general findings, which will be followed by specific findings related to each parcel. B. GENERAL FINDINGS AS TO ALL PARCELS 1. Prior to work commencing on the Project, all of the property owners had signed an Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) which required the owners to pay an established dollar amount not later than 10 years from the date of the EMA if no LID were formed. Creation of the LID and payment of the amount assessed under the LID satisfies the requirements of the EMA. None of the properties would have been allowed to develop without either undertaking full traffic mitigation or signing the EMA. 2. After construction of the improvements, traffic access and circulation throughout the LID boundaries will be improved by the following: • Providing another cast/west arterial corridor from Kent's "East Hill" residential neighborhoods, across the Green River and across the Valley. • Providing direct access to SR 167 and the 1-5 corridor to the west across the Green River, diverting substantial traffic congestion on Kent-Kangley/Canyon Drive. 3. In developing the final assessment roll, the City initially considered using the zone and termini method set forth in RCW 35.44.030. However, the City testified that because of the variety of property types, sizes, development potential and zoning, the zone and termini method was not used. In its place the special benefit analysis was used. City witnesses testified that this method would more fairly reflect the special benefits to the various properties within the LID boundaries. No other witnesses provided testimony to dispute this assertion. f WDT43 3760.DOCJ/00085.150002/) 2 4. The City hired the firm of Macaulay & Associates, Inc. to perform the special benefit analysis. Robert Macaulay performed the analysis and provided testimony. 5. A Summary Special Benefits Study, dated March 1, 2000, was prepared by Macaulay and submitted as the basis for the final assessment roll. (Exhibit 4) 6. Any finding, general or specific deemed to be a conclusion, shall be considered as such. C. FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC PROTESTS 1. P1, Scott and Debbie Kim. No testimony was provided.' 2. P2, Mark Patton. No testimony was provided. 3. P3, Michael Gillespie. No testimony was provided. 4. P4, Kristic Kim. No testimony was provided. 5. P5, Mannella/Hinson. Pursuant to stipulation, the assessment is to be reduced to $88,697.40. 6. P6 , Michael and Kimberly Lemos. No testimony was provided. 7. P7, Lance and Jill Rolfe. No testimony was provided. 8. P8, Dennis and Zana Heffeman.. Mrs. Heffernan provided testimony regarding the effect of the Project on the property. 9. P9, Dr. Joseph Holly. No testimony was provided. 10. P 10, Harumi Inari. No testimony was provided. 11. P11, Tai and Sue Yum. No testimony was provided. 12. P12, Dereck and Laura Cook. No testimony was provided. 13. P13, Camilio De Guzman. No testimony was provided. 14. P14, South King County Multi-Service Center. No testimony was provided. 15. P15, J. R. Behyner— Euro Tek (Heinz and Teresa Zoller). No testimony was provided. 16. P 16, Sally Roberts, agent Wade Roberts. No testimony was provided. Information contained in the protest materials was considered by the Board. No witnesses provided additional testimony. (W DT433760,DOQ1/00085.150002/) 3 17. P17, King County Housing Authority. No testimony was provided. 18. P18, Brad and Gladys Epperly. No testimony was provided. 19. P19, KPP Properties, LLC. No testimony was provided. 20. P20, James Samuel for Samuel & Company. No testimony was provided. 21. P21, James Lindley. The property owner testified. Later the City and property owner stipulated that the assessment should be reduced to $8,547.50. 22. P22, D. Joe Jenkins. The property owner testified as to his particular situation. 23. P23 and P24, Senior Housing Assistance Group. Arthur Martin, a management agent testified. 24. P25, John and Roxie Wilburn. No testimony was provided. 25. P26, Tom Reichert. The agent for the property owner testified. However, it was later determined that this property was not within the LID did not have an assessment and thus the Board has no jurisdiction. 26. P27, Maria Mong-Diep. The property owner testified that her family does not utilize the streets as frequently as others due to their particular situation. II. CONCLUSIONS A. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 1. Any conclusion deemed to be a finding shall be so considered. 2. Special benefits are measurable increases in the value of real property in excess of any enhancement to the general area. It is measured as the difference between the market value of the property without the LID project and the market value with the LID project assumed completed. 3. Initially, the City is favored with certain presumptions: that the improvements are a benefit to the property within the LID, the assessment is no greater than the benefit, the assessment is equal or ratable to the assessments upon other properties similarly situated, and the assessment is fair. In Re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840 (1983). The property owners must present expert appraisal testimony to overcome these presumptions. 4. The special benefit analysis performed by the City more fairly reflects the special benefits to the properties within the LID than the zone and termini method. {WDT43 3760.DOC;1/00085.150002/) 4 B. CONCLUSIONS AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES 1. Protests P1 through P4, P6 through P21, P22, P24, P25 and P27 should each be denied on the basis that the property owners have not overcome the City's presumptions. 2. With respect to P23, the assessment should be reduced to $59,263.04. The manager submitted traffic studies which purported to show a reduced trip generation from senior housing. The Board found that the Webster Court Apartments (P24) had a lower per unit assessment than Meeker Court (P23) and that since the apartments were similar in use and location, the assessments should be equalized on a per unit basis. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Board recommends to the City Council as follows: A. Pursuant to stipulation, the Board recommends P5 assessment be reduced to $88,697.40 and that P21 assessment be reduced to $8,547.50. B. The Board recommends that the assessment on P23 be reduced to $59,263.04. C. The Board recommends the following protests be DENIED: P1, P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, 17, P18, P19, P20, P22, P24, P25 and P27. D. As noted, P26 is not within LID and thus has no assessment. E. The Board recommends that, except as specifically provided above, the final assessment roll be confirmed without modification. DATED THIS day of May, 2000. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR LID 351 Tim Clark, Chair Connie Epperly Rico Yingling PACivi I\FILMOpenFiles\0321\Board.Fqual.Finding.052600.doc (WDT433760.DOC;1/00085.150002/) 5 EAF Kent City Council Meeting Date: June 6, 2000 Category: Other Bus SUBJECT: Urban Separators SUMMARY STATE NT: On February 15, 2000, the City Council voted to table two annual comprehensive plan amendment applications. These applications were the Caimes amendment and the Pacific Industries amendment. Both of these amendments involved property designated as "urban separator" by county-wide planning policy. The matter was referred to the City Council Planning Committee, which held meetings on this issue on March 6, April 3, and May 1, 2000. At their May Ist meeting, the Planning Committee voted to recommend a strategy to the full City Council. The attached documents detail the recommendation of the Planning Committee. EXHIBITS: memo dated June 6, 2000; and other staff reports dated March 6, April 3, and May 1, 2000 and minutes of March 6 and April 3. RECOMMENDATION OF: Planning Committee (Planning Committee, Staff, H. E., Commission etc.) EXPENDITUREREQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds To direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution declaring an emergency and directing the staff and Land Use & Planning Board to initiate an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan incorporating the City's policy relating to Urban Separators. Discussion: Action: Council Agenda Item 7D CITY OF )(�\,L� 1S JNVICTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director June 6, 2000 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: URBAN SEPARATORS POLICY DIRECTION On February 15, 2000, the City Council voted to table two annual plan amendment applications. These two applications were the Caimes amendment (#CPA-99-3A) and the Pacific Industries amendment(#CPA-99-3D). Both of these amendments are located in areas designated as "Urban Separator" and may be affected by County-wide planning policies related to such designation. The City Council tabled action on these amendments in order to allow time for the Council's Planning Committee to review the urban separator issue and the impact of such a designation on the City's ability to make land use planning decisions on such lands. The Planning Committee has conducted an extensive review of the urban separator issue. Three meetings - March 6, April 3, and May 1, 2000 - were committed almost exclusively to a discussion of the origins on urban separators, the intent of county-wide planning policy, and the geographic distribution and nature of the urban separator designation in the Kent area and King County in general. In addition, the City's Law department has concluded a legal analysis of the policy, which was presented to the Committee as well. (The staff reports and legal opinion are attached with this memo.) The Committee considered all of this information in addition to public testimony when it made the following recommendation to the full Council at its May 1, 2000 meeting. Recommendation: The Planning Committee recommends that a comprehensive plan amendment be initiated by the Planning staff and Land Use & Planning Board to establish a local policy on Urban Separators and that the City Attorney prepare a resolution declaring an emergency and directing the staff and LU&PB to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to effectuate a local urban separator policy..This policy shall recognize the Urban Separators framework county-wide planning policy but reserve discretion on a local basis to regulate land use and density on such lands. This matter shall be referred to the Land Use & Planning Board for a specific recommendation on a map overlay designation and criteria to be used in the local review and evaluation process. FNS/mjp:p:urbanseparators cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner Roger Lubovich, City Attorney 220 a[h AVE. SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 CITY OF ),OF?\,L942 BIT rXVSCTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)856-54541FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director May 1, 2000 TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MAINAGER RE: URBAN SEPARATORS — OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council Planning Committee has discussed the issue of urban separators for the past two months. At its last meeting on April 3, 2000, the Committee requested staff to come back with options for Council action, having discussed the origins of the urban separator policy, its purposes, geographic application, legal aspects, and potential land use planning implications. (Staff has attached each of these previous staff reports so as not to repeat that information here.) Options: Planning Department staff have met with the City's legal staff in order to outline a number of alternative policy directions to resolve the City's position on the county-wide planning policy (LU-27) pertaining to urban separators. For the Council's convenience, LU-27 reads as follows: Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas, which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (within the 20-year planning cycle) to other uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. This policy, as has been discussed, is both a "framework" policy and, in effect, a development regulation. That is, while LU-27 defines urban separators and suggests they are of regional importance, it goes much further in prescribing density controls and limiting local planning authority. According to the City's legal analysis, the intent of the policy as a framework for local planning is legitimate but, the regulatory aspect of it is not. There are several options the City Council may consider to resolve this issue. These options include the following: 2201th AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032.5895 1 TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 l Urban Separators-Options for City Council Action Planning Committee, May 1, 2000 Page 2 1. No Local Discretion/Literal Interpretation and Implementation Under this alternative, the City would superimpose the County's urban separator designation over its comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and disallow any changes in density until 2012 unless reviewed and approved by King County first. The mapped designation would be applied pursuant to the County's parcel map and density would be restricted to no more than one unit per acre. Pros: • Consistent with policy and regulatory aspects of LU-27 • Predictability; little change in land use permitted Cons: • Lack of local land use planning authority within substantial area • Allow little flexibility for lands where growth factors may change over time 2. Complete Local Control/Ignore Regional Policy Under this option, the City would evaluate plan amendments on a case-by-case basis, but whether the property in question were designated within an urban separator would not be considered. There would be no need to track nor map urban separators since this designation would not have an impact on the decision-making process. Decisions regarding density and development potential would be based on other factors, such as compatibility with surrounding land use, concurrency, and so forth. Pros: • Ease of administration; no confusion caused by designation • Local control Cons: • Not consistent with intent of framework policy LU-27 • Not consistent with City's ratification of county-wide planning policies 3. General Implementation of Urban Separator with Limited Local Discretion Under this alternative, the City would recognize and attempt to implement the framework policy on urban separators but reserve discretion on a local basis to regulate land use and density on such lands. At least two different sub-policy directions were identified by staff which may accomplish this objective, distinguished primarily by how urban separators are identified: A. Utilize the County's map(s). Under this option, the City would simply use the designation developed by King County and superimpose this over its own plan and zoning maps. For the most part, this map follows property lines and streets and, therefore, is a very precise, zoning-type map. While the City would utilize the County's map designation without issue, density decisions and land development regulations would be decided by the City. Low density development would be the goal, but the City would retain the prerogative of varying this Urban Separators-Options for City Council Action Planning Committee, May 1, 2000 Page 3 density according to circumstances of each affected property. Nevertheless, the density of affected parcels would not be expected to exceed four (4) units per acre. B. Develop a Generalized Map. Under this alternative, the City would develop a more generalized urban separator designation which, while not following the rigid, zoning-like designation mapped by the County, would echo the basic pattern of urban separators in a more generalized (conceptual) fashion. This revised and more generalized designation would trigger a special, local review process when properties within this area are proposed for higher densities. Review criteria would be developed to ensure the integrity and longevity of designated urban separator areas, but local discretion would be reserved to allow higher density where properties only marginally contributed to urban separation objectives. Pros: • Implements the spirit of LU-27 ■ Allows for local flexibility in implementation of LU-27 Cons: _ • May ultimately mean less area is designated urban separator • Confusion continues as to the effects of LU-27 on adjacent lands STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council endorse Option 3.B. This alternative would recognize the urban separator framework policy but allow for local flexibility in identifying specific lands which would fulfill the objectives of county-wide planning policy LU-27. Should the City Council concur with the intent of Option 3.B, then the matter should be referred to the Land Use & Planning Board for a specific recommendation on a map overlay designation and criteria to be used in the local review and evaluation process. Since this entails an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, the City Council should simultaneously declare an emergency in order to begin the plan amendment process prior to the September Vt deadline. FNS\pm IICENTENNIAiUSERSIPLINN/NGIPUBL/CLIDMIMiu27opt.Aoc cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Roger Lubovich, City Attorney r _ yam-'.�:--•7--' aaL+.i��--^;.' _ i ~_" li ke ottngs amMr� —•{—�� Ir I �'�� I �^i is n k7 u�wacr `l _ f? I IN F " nano _iIt r — sf Kent �= sE zsem sr SEzsensr Iq�'r}.f-., I f«r SE 336n Ss I � S jJ.. � 'new _ _..._..._. .. .. . . .. _.. .._. ..- .. I r^Y 1 1 Auburn �71 I , YI ^��� K[NG COUNTY Oanidns nnwna nnmaP Gv nnrh auJn COMPREHENSIVE Un,nwrpvamdp Vp NGM'[r 7 Pd<svy tlrn NOs[hCmyvvpn nn D [OnpOISnOr aamvanal arni .-r banu eabla Inrougn tl PLAN � Communiry0uvness Cenrer 0 Agriculture dussxing an NlOwxa saa. Idu+ tlwbinq un¢ac+ aa<I LAND USE MAP O "`''nb"b°nd Bus" C�" en'd Mw,ng R.nytw eR qCw ryCm�xen T m n VrV ' i Cammxcal Ouccies al Cantxs �30 GlabOIWrban Sa aasar �.•�++'•�+eu+rsv:arva.n smmmv:wxrc I( LAN nbmsca wp Fv avma aamuw dat carts OtpCW YrMmtl NOn+1CTy.1Y1fV MN°1p�LL 01OC Urban Plan Onvrl[Pmdrl opg spnC/Glvnnd a,yvmrsu w,an bona rr.+tsxsen nwrvuunn ns Township22 Ranges OprnSpacafleveadon nxnndanawav xs Pn9aasuan ' Urban Peidmdali l2duae' L�srm Aransoematnanns 11 F.6!lP.faflM0ee1[u1nuY I� Omd Pasksh'M6dness wmrw-rvs"ss ereubrtenxm.n sr].r»re.r>na Includes Comprehensive urban Peidd dYa 12du1ac' TmaS.•m rt.56 n6 c �—,J In[an)OrataJ Ciry Rn xapC nna,ab°mry:raam>rym ur:eyrm:un Plan Land Use changes Urban Rasidmdal l dulac arc:• v uu ns vn•v'a i / Ubav Grmvm through Ordinance #13273 J Ruml Clry Naa Buuntlary (October 1998) Urbm+Gro.vo A+na Agr�cul Kral Praduccbn aural:uwn 0'v¢:Buunuu y DIMSF 5 _I aw]INngnbynbpp I `J __ iuJl HudJm a.d l.hi:5.10x PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 3, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Joe Miles, Paul Morford, Mary Saucier, Ardis Johnson Svennin„ Orville Svenning, Dr. Lawrence Dora, Ann Dora, Ted Nixon, Jack Kastien Committee Chair Tom Brotherton called the meeting to order at 4:03 P.M. Approval of Minutes of March 6, 2000 Committee Member Judy Woods moved approval of the minutes of March 6, 2000. Committee Member Tim Clark seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Urban Separators Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom recapped that at the last Committee meeting there were questions about Urban Separators which have since been researched and a response prepared and included in the agenda packet. Some of the main issues that came up during the previous discussion were: the purposes of Urban Separators, the history behind their origin, where they are mapped in King County, and what other cities have done to recognize the presence of urban separators in their jurisdiction. The Countywide Planning Policy statement LU-27 deals with Urban Separators. Urban Separators are areas of open space, natural areas, wildlife areas, areas of open space and separations between urban areas, and are basically areas of low density development. The Countywide Planning Policy says that these lands shall remain low density for a period of 20 years and shall not be changed by jurisdictions even if annexed without the review and approval of King County. Two properties asking for City of Kent Comp Plan amendments this past year are in areas designated by King County, when under the jurisdiction of King County, as Urban Separators in King County's Comprehensive Plan. Council has tabled action on those two amendments until the end of the discussion on Urban Separators. Mr. Satterstrom had discussions with the King County Executive's office and members of their Strategic Planning Department, and talked with planners and planning directors from some of the cities that have Urban Separators within their jurisdictions. The designation of Urban Separator appears only on King County's Comprehensive Plan Map. It was not part of the Countywide Planning Policies. The origins seem to extend back to about 1990 when King County was doing community plans. That was before the County adopted their 1994 Growth Management Act Plan. Three plans were being worked at the time "Urban Separator" became a popular term: the North Shore, north of Lake Washington; the Sammamish east of Lake Sammamish; and the Soos Creek community. When the County adopted the community plans there was a designation called Urban Greenbelt/Urban Separator. The Urban Separator designation accomplished a separation between cities such as Kent and Auburn, and Kent and Renton, and protected parks, connecting i Planning Committee,4/3/00 ( Page 2 them with areas of recreation. An Urban Separator path aught go along a park and then sweep _. over and join another park, providing a corridor between the two parks. There were also environmental benefits, and Urban Separators were commonly laid over areas that had steep slopes or wetlands. In the early 1990's, the County's community plans found their way into the King County Comprehensive Plan and were part of it at the time the County adopted the plan in 1994, That's when the language regarding LU-27, the Urban Separator Policy, became part of the Countywide Planning Policies. The Countywide Planning Policy document does not contain a map of the Urban Separators. City of Kent staff generated an Urban Separator Within Kent City Limits map from information obtained that shows the distribution of Urban Separators as understood and interpreted by staff from the County's maps prior to any annexations. Much of the area is included in Kent's potential annexation area. A smaller amount is included in the actual city limits. Staff quantified the area in terms of showing how much Urban Separator area exists and found there was about 1250 acres. The City has annexed nearly two square miles within the mapped area accounting for approximately 230 parcels amounting to about 510 acres. King County staff admitted they did not have a single map that showed Urban Separators in King County and would actually have had to put together a number of maps predating annexations and incorporations. When areas are annexed and/or incorporated, King County doesn't keep track of them anymore because they don't show proposed land use in incorporated areas, but only within Unincorporated King County. When an area is annexed, the Urban Separators are no longer shown on the County maps. They still exist, but have to be found on a map that is historical and no longer show on the County's Comprehensive Plan Map. Tim Clark commented that the Panther Lake area is already occupied with houses all around. Fred Satterstrom said there was actually a large subdivision there, but wasn't sure whether or not the subdivision was built after the Urban Separator designation was created or before. Judy Woods asked to what extent King County had implemented their policy after it was established, and how that had changed or altered the land use in the area prior to annexation into the city. Mr. Satterstrom said he had not researched how diligently the County had implemented its own land use policy, but would assume they had implemented it since the Urban Separator areas were zoned one unit per acre. Tom Brotherton commented that some of the area around Panther Lake was wetlands. Mr. Satterstrom said Urban Separators are relatively minor in their geographic extent, and in some cases are protected by covenants that run with the land. There is an urban separator located between Kirkland and Bellevue that neither city wants to annex, but Urban Separators do not seem to be an issue in other cities as it is with the City of Kent. The Kent area is disproportionately affected and Kent would be acting on its own if it were to raise the issue with the Growth Management Planning Council. Tom Brotherton said it appears as though the initial work on Urban Separators predated the Growth Management Act and also predated some of the sensitive area ordinances that Kent now has. He asked, based on the interview with the County, if maintaining Urban Separators was an Planing Committee,4/3/00 ( Page 3 r important part of the County plan, or if they had been superceded by the fact that half the County has been designated as rural and half as urban, and no other city has Urban Separators. Fred Satterstrom replied that the impression was that the County was still very much in favor of the Urban Separator concept, and they also understood that sensitive area ordinances had been passed. They were unequivocal in delivering the message that Urban Separators are in addition to the sensitive area protection. City Attorney Roger Lubovich said that the legal issue involved is that the Countywide Planning Policies cannot restrict a city's zoning authority or rights over property. He questioned, however, what a court or the Planning Board would do with the policy itself if it was challenged or brought before them. They could throw it out, make the City adhere to the concept, or recognize the urban designator concept but allow the City to define low density. To the point that the policy restricts the City's ability to zone, it is invalidated. The City ratified the policy in 1994, and the ratification and non-objection to the policy at that time could have created a situation where the City may at some point have to recognize Urban Separators. The policy cannot tell the City what to zone•property, i.e. one unit per acre, as it is strictly up to the City to determine what densities should be in those areas, but there is no clear designation from any current county maps as to what an Urban Separator is for the City of Kent, so it's not known to what extent they could be altered. Chair Tom Brotherton opened the meeting for public input, clarifying that that day's meeting would not take any action or consider any specific properties. He said after a policy has been -- decided, then specific property issues would be addressed. Judy Woods added that once the Council had passed a policy, it would be given to the Land Use and Planning Board to consider the two properties that have been in abeyance. Citizen Comments: Joe Miles, 24639 1561h Avenue SE, Kent, Friends of Soos Creek Park, asked if there would be a series of public hearings with prior notification. Fred Satterstrom said it was his impression after the last meeting that the Council Committee would decide on the public process after receiving answers to their questions. There would have to be a notification process for a public hearing. Mr. Miles thought a number of people would like to testify, not just those people who live in the designated Urban Separator areas, because it is a regional issue. The people who use the park are also affected by the Urban Separator policy and park users should be notified too. Mr. Miles said the County's implementation of the Urban Separator was tied to zoning maps so there shouldn't be any inconsistency in its application with the zoning. Many of the smaller lots shown probably predate the Urban Separator designation. If the Urban Separator stays in place, it will not down-zone property or take away development opportunity that doesn't already exist. Mr. Miles requested that the one unit per acre zoning stay the same. He said the proposed amendments are proposals to up-zone property, and the Urban Separator maintains the existing zoning. The delineation within the City of the Urban Separator areas are clearly shown on the maps which were in effect when the properties were annexed and the property lines have been clearly traced. Planning Committee, 4/3/00 Page 4 Tom Brotherton asked what benefit Mr. Miles saw for the citizens of Kent by maintaining Urban Separators as currently designated. Mr. Miles said there was tremendous benefits and the Urban Separator policy was a wonderful policy that prevented communities from just growing together so that one could go from Kent to Covington, or Kent to Auburn, and not have wall to wall subdivisions. Urban Separators separate urban areas so that when people drive through them there is a clear distinction of neighborhoods. That is the primary benefit to the citizens of Kent as they come and go from their communities everyday. There are regional issues that also benefit the City, such as the use of park and wildlife corridor buffers, fishery corridors, and sensitive areas. The biggest benefit is a quality of life issue for the citizens of Kent to not have cheek-to-jowl six unit multifamily developments, but to have some areas that are broken up. The GMA talks about providing open space corridors even in the urban areas and the Urban Separator is the answer to the GNIA's requirement of providing those open space corridors. Paul Morford, PO Box 6345, Kent, said he had lived on Soos Creek acreage for 30 years and been on advisory committees with the County, particularly for the Soos Creek Trail. He said it seems like the urban line has moved over the years. The growth is being squeezed into the urban areas as much as possible, and unless people quit having babies, they will have to go someplace so the line can move. It has seemed like a lot of things the City of Kent and the County have done is with zoning. He was curious as to what the City might or might not do to his property because it is in the next land annexation area. Mary Saucier, 29615 142nd Avenue SE, wanted to know how much land in the Urban Separator is government owned, and how many parcels were larger than the average size in Kent of 2.2 acres. A lot of the property in the Urban Separator area has property adjacent to it that was zoned one per acre, but has been up-zoned and built upon. Ms. Saucier said she felt that the property designated as Urban Separator has been discriminated against. Judy Woods stated that the Soos Creek area belonged to the County. Mary Saucier asked how much of the 510 acres was public property and how much was government property. Tom Brotherton asked Fred Satterstrom if could find an answer to some of the questions for the next meeting. Ardis Johnson, PO Box 5757, Kent, said that in trying to sell the last 8.6 acres of her family farm, she has felt handicapped from being under the jurisdiction of individuals that are passing judgement on how it should be done. She stated that 8.6 acres is a lot of Urban Separator, especially since any building would have to be set back 75 feet from the property line. Also, on her property there is a drop down and three 2 acre parcels that are Urban Separator. To the east of that is a tree area that no one would be allowed to cut, then 148`h, and then the creek, which is enough Urban Separator that the land should be able to substantiate itself with homes that are affordable for the community. She said the area is a wonderful place to live and the tax base would be attractive to Kent. Ms. Johnson asked for an open mind on what an Urban Separator is and how much land should be set back from her property line. At the present time the density is one unit per acre, but one unit per acre is prohibitive for keeping a market price when bringing in utilities. Tom Brotherton asked Ms. Johnson if she felt the Urban Separator policy was too broad and encompassed too much area the way it was now written, and was inconsistent in its application. Ms. Johnson replied that she is surrounded by homes at 4.5 units per acre density zoning, but she Planning Committee,4/3/00 Page 5 can't develop at that density because she waited a few extra years to do anything with her land. If she had developed 10 years ago, there would be houses on the lots. Jack Kastien, 20609 941h Avenue South, Kent, said the Committee needed to hear a philosophical side of the issue for their deliberations. About 22 years ago, basically the same thing had happened between San Mateo and San Jose. The county council took a tremendous amount of heat in protecting some land, and there was a huge controversy. Today the freeway there is considered the most lovely freeway in the United States, but the countryside is void. Mr. Kastien posed the question of whether that was "a taking of land", and asked that the Committee consider that it was not — any more than someone who invested 10 years ago in Microsoft could want someone to indemnify them for a legal decision that may have gone against them. People can own stock that goes down in value and nobody cares, even if it's done illegally, but some people think if they own land they can do anything with it. Mr. Kastien asked that the Committee use his thoughts in their deliberations to consider for the little land that's left, whether it would be a taking to not allow someone who's owned land for a very long time to develop at a higher density than one unit per acre. He said he looked at it as an investment that didn't pay off. Tom Brotherton said stewardship and deciding how to be fair was one of the most important things to the Committee. A great problem with the way the Urban Separators have been done is that they are very inconsistent. In some areas they are a mile wide and in other areas less than 40 feet. That has to be reconciled with Kent's overall policy in trying to establish a reasonable zone. Tim Clark said he wanted to know what additional buildings had been built inside the Urban Separator designation areas while they were under the County's jurisdiction and what building permits were issued for densities of more than one unit per acre since the Growth Management Act was passed in 1994. Fred Satterstrom said the GMA was passed in 1990, but the County didn't do its own Comp Plan until 1994. King County doesn't have a map of designated Urban Separators, but does have an automated permit process. A request can be filed for information, but that might be difficult to get. Judy Woods asked that the next time the Committee meets there would be alternatives or options to consider in order to make a recommendation that could be sent to the Council. Tim Clark commented that the City is already required to have setbacks from streams under the current law, but that policy doesn't show on the maps. All of the land that has tributaries running into streams are affected and that creates a distortion and is misleading. Tom Brotherton suggested taking the map from the County that shows the Urban Separators and overlaying it on a map that shows the sensitive area limitations. Fred Satterstrom said he could provide that kind of information. The City has policies in its own Comprehensive Plan in the Parks and Open Space category that recognize corridors of open space and linkages between parks. To some extent, the City of Kent supports the concept of Urban Separators and would probably state that the purpose is a valid one. The issue is whether the City of Kent has some flexibility in interpreting where Urban Separators are located, what the boundaries are, and what the density should be. Tim Clark commented that the County's Urban Separator policy was a theory that ignored previous development and then drew Urban Separator zones. Fred Satterstrom said the County's Planning Committee, 4/3/00 Page 6 community planning section used aerial photographs to took at areas which had little or no development and very low density. There could have been vested plats, but as Mr. Miles said, the zoning could have been tied to planned designation and would have had to be conformed prior to the application of the zoning. Tom Brotherton asked whether there should be a public hearing at the next meeting. Fred Satterstrom said a public notice could be sent to everybody designated on the map with an explanation of what Urban Separators are, as some people probably wouldn't know about them or whether their property was designated as Urban Separator. Tim Clark stated there was no reason to involve or notify people owning agricultural land as that land is irrelevant. Tom Brotherton clarified that notification should be for those areas that can reasonably expect to develop in the near future. Mr. Satterstrom suggested that the alternative or option adopted by the Committee might determine whether or not a large public hearing would need to be held and recommended that staff options be discussed first and then a decision made on the public hearing. Tom Brother-ton asked that a recommendation be ready for the next meeting on options available and their implications. Judy Woods clarified that the Committee was only concerned about the policy. The Land Use and Planning Board would then take the policy of the Council to approve or disapprove the different amendments when dealing with the two pieces of property in question. The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CITY OF J rKVICTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-54541FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director STAFF REPORT April 3, 2000 TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: URBAN SEPARATORS The issue of"urban separators" was discussed at the Planning Committee of March 6, 2000. At that meeting, Committee members had questions and concerns about several aspects of the county-wide planning policy related to urban separators. These issues were: • What are the purposes of urban separators and what is the history behind their origins; • Where are these urban separators and what is the policy of other cities regarding their designation; and • Have other cities initiated discussions regarding urban separators with King County? Since the Committee's March 6`h meeting, staff has had discussions with King County officials regarding the urban separator policy, talked with other city planning departments where urban separators are designated, and researched the geographic distribution of urban separators in more detail. The following is a result of that research. Backaround: As a matter of introduction, all comprehensive plans of cities in King County are required to be consistent with the Countywide planning policies adopted by King County and ratified by the cities. By resolution (Resolution 9,1413), the City of Kent ratified the countywide planning policies in 1994. These policies were to provide a "county-wide framework from which local comprehensive plans were to be developed." One of the county wide planning policies called for both the County and the cities to implement a land use policy which would protect "urban separators." Although urban separators were not designated on any maps adopted with or referenced in the county wide planning policies, by inference this designation referred to areas denoted on the King County Comprehensive Plan Map as "urban separator." 2201ch AVE.SO.. /\ENT. %VASFIINGTON,No1_1.j S0/TLLLPIIONE i]iii S56-5200 ( t Planning Committee April 3, 2000 Urban Separators Page 2 The specific policy in the county wide planning policies that dealt with urban separators is LU- 27. This policy reads: Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas, which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (within the 20 year planning cycle) to other uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. The Kent City Attorney's office conducted a legal analysis of the urban separator policy in a l2- page memorandum presented to the Planning Committee at its March 6`h meeting. The attorney's report concludes that a specific county-wide planning policy on urban separators cannot "provide substantive direction or restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted comprehensive plan and with the overall framework of the adopted county-wide planning policies." In other words, the urban separator policy, LU-27, goes beyond being a framework policy and becomes, in effect, a development regulation. 1. What are the purposes of urban separators and what is the history behind their origins? The origins of the urban separator designation are rooted in the Community Plans, which Kin.- County used to prepare for subareas of the county prior to the Growth Management Act, according to King County planning staff. In the early 1990's, King County was involved with updating three community plans — Northshore, Sammamish, and Soos Creek — where the urban separator designation was utilized. At that time, urban separators were defined as "greenbelts or low density areas which provide a visual break from continuous development and separate one community from another." Two separators were established in the Soos Creek Community Plan: one separating Kent and Renton, the other separating Kent and Auburn. When the concept of urban separators was incorporated into the countywide planning policies, the purpose of the designation was expanded. The policy itself(i.e., LU-27) speaks to several purposes including protection of resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, creation of open space corridors within and between urban areas, and provision of visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. 2. Where are the urban separators and what is the policy of other cities regarding _ their designation? It is difficult to produce a map of all urban separators in King County due to the amount of annexation and incorporation over the past 5-7 years. Even staff at King County admitted there was no such map; it would be cumbersome to produce since there was no single source. Also, i Planning Committee April 3, 2000 Urban Separators Page 3 since much of the area in the Northshore and Sammamish areas has been incorporated by new cities, the County no longer shows these areas on their comprehensive plan map. While it is difficult to map urban separators in other parts of King County, Kent planning staff has assembled a map of urban separators in the Kent area. It is attached to this report and is titled "Urban Separators within Kent City Limits and PAA." As one can see from the map, the urban separator designation is extensive in the Kent area. Within the potential annexation area (PAA), over 1200 acres - nearly 2 square miles — are designated as urban separator. Within the city limits of Kent, approximately 510 acres are designated, affecting about 230 parcels. The separators anticipated in the early Soos Creek Community Plan which serve to separate Kent from Renton and Kent from Auburn are clearly visible from the map. In addition, the separator has also been applied along the Soos Creek itself. Staff was able to contact other planning staff from certain cities affected by the urban separator designation. Of those contacted — i.e., Kirkland, Bellevue, and Auburn — all indicated that their city's land use policies restricted development to low density residential use. Also, according to King County staff, recent interlocal agreements with Issaquah, Renton, and Aubum required the urban separator designation to be implemented in local plans. 3. Have other cities initiated discussions regarding urban separators with King County? At the time of writing this report, staff is not aware of any other jurisdiction which has initiated discussions with King County to change the urban separator county-wide planning policy. JPHIFWpm P.UDMlMurbansep.doc Eric: Map of Urban Separators King County Comp Plan Land Use Map 1998 cc: lames P. Hams,Planning Director Fred N.Satterstrom, Planning Manager aim"N"Fill Mil _ .,9:V5VERB I�i■ ':Jillk?jilrr Iw .V=13=nne/-11/\ �._.S[_..•. x::-_ ® • • . . . .....,nlr..:;;: i ii:::.:�i['1—:�.�i.�u 11.- �`i" ::::�ia`.r: s - • _� � i�_;-. I��i��!ate■. ��1►�n � �1�r f��� . � � I. • .Igl 'N , � . r �� r �1�1111 _ Nj mom gum ��Lrr.IJlel�■i�ll��� �`�_�� r tl ' �-� r �� � r _ ;!� I "` ��� �. - 1 IF hr� 1m.27 moll l , 1` :II�t�IJrl�t� �� J..,.•.. _ `1 \� _�\r 11" il �/ ■ = 1 11 � .y■7■� ITj. } ME A� �. �- —� to ■ . /1e! JrI ►1IN1. for :�1 'F , I. r�ii c.��. was nil IN all Luna.. Iow ••\�'' ML ��� 1� a n �\ 3 IF a _ u 1. - NS[ 1. 7. 6 E . Caws Q ' —pa e ..ID a u �•iY" U Kent -� SE natl•5e, I -.'sE lSamst ,. i - © f -•� r ; .`.!te a�i r.? ♦ .» le: tA-""'Ts_ 1 1 _ >6 r 'n� .. � e-x5 Y"+ .-. b t 34 -R - Auburn . _ - • � � -�`..___ � - � _ r 61'ql- KING COUNTY - k COMPREHENSIVE 0ndd•. hawnndiamep dance[ dud. Un�ncorporaW Acaviry Cana TrorasaY dndryloa[eom enviranmanul conadanor x6dnd dndrywoo bo eala Trgph Commurtiry Buainw Cennr Q Agrialdra dus[adng and Wowed anus••. PLAN 1W. dwding unle aC- mtel LAND USE MAP Ndgnb xhddd Busnw Ce t« MN nq la•mpt r RYNCamryCmmdwewfat atl hianiol 1998 � Cammmnial0utsida of Cm ws GraanbNWrban seoaratar ot.Idua,Nmnurtaroatrwnlatwar amomab nbmatm a,.m farmwmamubn tadtm.na Uro.Ran Omelopmnt King C. WOwned a�°a""�'^maawr Wlyans.eflmmma.sanm Township 22 Range 5 n• aam"+w.alrammm�m wwnar a• Open speCmAwNdon rb•ennaWtel n•Cmxrrea nmamis.aasr Uraat ReidMdA>12du/x' tiro-ndrmnnrremtaam.FaaaAFlaeakWd. Q Qdlx RmksMgdemess amn.Nwpwat e•uot n•pemnma NO•w•pnmlM Includes Comprehensive Um.Residendd t-12duhe' Fnrawma s.w dHaWat Plan Land Use changes U OaRes am arlm/x Incorporated C'ry ma ma uarldtmdmas amarmb+aumtyrmr through Ordinance#13273 /V undo c.ewm i� Rural City A,.Boundmy (October1998) Urox crownMsa — /.,V OgirulB ndwy Rurd Town Oislrict oundxY ® MEWS RUrd Ndghbothpod f. Rurd Residmdal ldulZS40x F151 p 0.3 0.♦ as 0.8 1 Indufaid ..Les PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES March 6, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Tom Brubaker, Kevin O'Neill, Fred Satterstrom, John Hodgson, Connie Epperly, Roger Lubovich, Rico Yingling, Sandy Amodt, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Rita Bailee, Joe Miles, Greg Cox, Mary Saucei, Don Dvorak, Bob Nelson The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 5:03 PM. Approval of Minutes of February 7, 2000. Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of February 7, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and carried 3-0. Urban Separator Countywide Planning Policy Tom Brotherton, in introducing the Urban Separator Countywide Planning Policy item, said that two pieces of property had come forward in the Comprehensive Plan Review Process asking for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Those two properties were located in an area that the County had designated as an Urban Separator area with the requirement that they be kept at the low density of one dwelling unit per acre. The City of Kent does not have a policy on Urban Separators at this time and it was decided that the Planning Committee would work on formulating a policy and then go back and reevaluate those two pieces of property. The legal staff advised that the City is not bound by the County policy and could form its own policy. There are three options: adopt the County's policy as is; create a new policy; or do nothing. Mr. Brotherton said a second meeting would be held to take input from the community on what the policy should be in the Kent area. Following that meeting, staff would take the input and create a recommendation which would be brought back to another meeting of the Planning Committee. It would then be passed on to the City Council for adoption as a Kent policy. When the policy is adopted, the two pieces of property that raised the question would go back to the Land Use and Planning Board to be considered in light of the new policy. Judy Woods pointed out that the urban separator issue connects Kent with neighboring jurisdictions, particularly Covington, and there have been concerns expressed from folks in the City of Covington about what Kent's respective policies might be. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom said the Urban Separator Policy already exists as a countywide planning policy. When staff and the Committee talk about establishing an Urban Separator Policy, that is really looking at what the City of Kent's position would be on land use planning, knowing that the policy exists. The City may have some appeal grounds, but would not be developing a policy as the policy has existed since the countywide planning policies were ratified in 1994 by the City of Kent. The Urban Separator policy didn't concern the City in 1994 because annexation of the area was Planning Committee, 3/6/00 Page 2 years off and the City was looking at the land uses on its direct border, getting its own ^ infrastructure and capital facilities consistent with the Land Use Plan. At the time Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1995, the Urban Separator designation on the County's Comprehensive Plan applied to certain properties in unincorporated King County. The Land Use Policy in the Countywide Planning Policies defines Urban Separators as low density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth area;permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas, which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future within the 20 year planning cycle to other uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Even though these areas are within the Kent City limits because of annexation, the Countywide Planning Policy says there can be no modification to them without King County's review and approval. The legal opinion from the Law Department was not available for the Land Use and Planning Board hearings. Faced with the literal interpretation of the policy, the Board did not want to act and sent the requests for amendments to the City Council. Later the legal interpretation was given which says that this countywide framework policy goes well beyond being a policy and becomes in essence a substantive regulation to being a development regulation and therefore should not be looked at as a framework policy because it is too specific. It actually gives a regulatory effect to a framework policy. The legal analysis depends upon a number of things including some Growth Management Hearing Board decisions that have already been rendered dealing with a similar issue and a three-prong test. In essence the conclusion of the legal analysis is: That a specific Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Separators cannot provide substantive direction or restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and with the overall framework of the adopted Countywide Planning Policies. The City has annexed substantial area in conjunction with the Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexation areas, and as a consequence, has annexed in many acres of Urban Separator areas. Some have been rezoned to higher-density uses (the highest use to that of SR 4.5). In the County's Comprehensive Plan map, the Urban Separator designation indicates one unit per acre is the highest density allowed. That was exceeded on some properties in 1996 when rezoning was done in the area, as the policy and its impact on Urban Separator lands has only come to staff s direct attention within the last year. There are a number of responses or actions that the City Council could take in light of knowing about the Urban Separator Countywide Planning Policy. The policy could be accepted at face value and implemented literally, which would probably mean going back r � Planning Committee, 3/6/00 Page 3 and rezoning properties that have been zoned to higher uses. That would mean denial of any future requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments in those areas that would be requesting any change in use or change in density. The policy could be ignored, and Kent could make land use decisions case by case based on whether or not they are consistent with Kent's Comprehensive Plan. A third option, one that staff recommends, is to seek to change or clarify the Countywide Planning Policy and to pursue a discussion on a regional basis. There may be something in the policy that gives cities some discretion. The RCW, State Growth Management Law says that Countywide Planning Policies are not supposed to abridge a city's own local land use planning authority. If, after a regional discussion, it's found there is no local authority, then the City Council could pursue an amendment on a countywide basis that would establish some local land use planning authority, even though an area may be designated as an Urban Separator. Tom Brotherton asked if other cities had been in similar situations within the County. Mr. Satterstrom said there are Urban Separators in other communities. The City of Kirkland has one, but there seems to be a disproportionate application of the concept in the Kent area. Staff does not have a complete map showing all the Urban Separator areas in the County. They exist in the East Hill plateau between Kent and Auburn, along the Soos Creek Trail on the west side in association with Soos Creek Park, a part that goes west from the park over towards the valley, and Panther Lake which presumably was designated as Urban Separator to separate and provide a visual barrier between Renton on the north and Kent on the south. Mr. Satterstrom said the map reflects the area after annexation of the Lake Meridian area but prior to the annexation of the country club and other area in 1997. The 1994 map shows the Urban Separators to be a substantial area prior to annexation of Lake Meridian. Tom Brotherton commented that the lines shown on the map were erratic and obviously didn't draw just a zone, but looked as if they went down individual properties lines. He asked why there would be an urban separator designation between the urban and rural areas. Fred Satterstrom supposed one purpose was to separate urban areas or cities like Kent and Auburn, and another purpose was to provide open space that would protect adjacent resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas. He said there are probably different objectives that the Urban Separators are trying to achieve. Along the park it may be to provide additional protection for the stream, the environmentally sensitive area. The Urban Separators definitely follow property lines and are supposed to refer to areas which have little development and are low density. Most of the properties have little development associated with them or did when they were designated in 1994-1995. The Pacific Industries property designation along 2401h came up to the plat, followed the line where the undeveloped or lower density properties were and did not take in the subdivision, although certain characteristics of the property were very similar. Some of the Urban Separator areas are constrained lands and might have steep slopes or wetlands. But a substantial number are flat and gently rolling, and do not appear to have any environmental constraints. They may be no more than just areas of little development. Some are near utilities, but others are relatively remote from utilities and are less likely to develop in the near future. Nowhere else in the County is there the Planning Conunittee, 3/6/00 Page 4 same pattern that prevails for Urban Separators as in the Kent area. The policy is very inconsistently applied to jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area and Kent is probably the jurisdiction that is constrained the most in terms of land use planning in the corporate limits as well as futuristically in the potential annexation areas. Judy Woods asked that staff bring a map to the next meeting that would show where the other Urban Separators were located. She wondered if there would be a way to determine what the County's thinking process was in establishing that particular policy in order to know if there was a particular reason why Kent seemed to have been identified as the area where most of the Urban Separators exist. Ms. Woods also requested information on the extent to which the issue is regional and the extent to which Kent's discussions with the County should be part of a regional package. She asked how time sensitive the issue might be because of the difficulty in getting other jurisdictions involved in the discussions. Tom Brotherton said he would like to set a schedule for the Kent residents who own property in the areas to come in to talk to the Committee, and after that staff could talk to neighboring jurisdictions as needed to set the policies. Ms. Woods reminded Mr. Brotherton that part of the recommendation of the Planning Department was to begin those conversations with the County and there would be two processes going on simultaneously, the conversation with the County and conversations with the people in the community. She inquired of Mr. Satterstrom whether there should be simultaneous processes. Fred Satterstrom said it would depend on whether or not the Committee would want to move forward to a public arena before further information was gathered. He reiterated the information already requested as: any efforts other cities have initiated and what their policies might be concerning Urban Separators; a map of the Urban Separators in other jurisdictions; and the purpose and history of the Urban Separator itself. Tim Clark said one of the properties affected by the policy was inherited from the County and is surrounded on four sides by development. The County created the policy and either grandfathered it or was trying to put in place something in a general fashion that was inconsistent with the way the area was already developed. It's possible that something fell through the cracks. Mr. Satterstrom said one of the problems is that the policy is written like a development regulation and there's no authority given to a city and its local decision makers to interpret whether or not a piece of ground would be a good Urban Separator or not. The decision has been made already, and whether or not the property is surrounded by development on four sides, the policy says nothing can be done with it. Yet, when the properties are looked at under the Comprehensive Plan amendment, given the changes that occur to cities and areas over a 20 year period, they may have become ripe for development at some time with less reason to keep them in the one unit per acre designation permanently. Still, there's no authority given to make that decision and it is the County that determines whether or not the City can change the designation or not. It's a unique situation where the previous land use authority of King County still has some control over what the density is on a piece of ground inside the City of Kent. If the policy is implemented literally, then Urban Separators would need to Planning Committee, 3/6/00 Page 5 be designated on the Comprehensive Plan, and the City should not entertain applications for plan amendments because they could not be approved by the policy. Tom Brotherton said one of the issues brought up in the legal analysis is property rights. The RCW provides that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. A separate RCW directs each jurisdiction in planning its GMA to define open space corridors and purchase the land for them or at least the development price. He asked if any effort had been made to purchase the greenbelt Urban Separator areas by the County when it identified them as such. Mr. Satterstrom said he had no knowledge of that being done. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether the City would be accepting liability to later purchase the land if the policy was followed and development of a piece of property not allowed because of that reason. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker said his immediate reaction was that that kind of regulation would not constitute a taking or inverse condemnation which would put the City in a position to compensate property owners, however the issue would need to be researched. Typically, regulations on land, unless extremely expansive, do not put the City in a position to compensate the property owners. Tom Brotherton said he would like to get the public input out of the way as soon as possible. People already know whether they want open space or if they want to develop their property and they can explain what their concerns are. The issues with the other jurisdictions may take longer but the Committee would be deliberative and staff would give a thorough well researched recommendation on what to do. Tim Clark suggested taking the public input after discussing the issue with the other jurisdictions as there may then be a different set of rules to play by. The purpose of input is to affect the decision made. If Kent jointly pursues the issue as a policy with the Suburban Cities Association or other entity, and the group moves forward in a definite direction that the County agrees with, then it could come down to a decision of what Kent would personally do and the public input would then affect the final design of the Comp Plan. Tom Brubaker suggested that the Law Department and Planning Department have an opportunity to do more research and look into the issues of rights and liabilities in order to come back with a baseline picture that would be beneficial to the Committee and to the public who might want to comment. He said eminent domain and adverse condemnation issues would need to be looked at. Fred Satterstrom said he would take it upon himself to initiate discussions with the County's Regional Planning Policy Department to research the purposes and history for Urban Separators and to gather information on how they have been implemented in other cities. He would also talk with the Planning Directors in other cities that axe affected by the policy, and have that information ready for the next Committee meeting. Tom Brotherton said he would like to set a date for the public input at the next meeting and suggested that people might want to submit their input electronically. Tim Clark clarified that no action would be taken at the next meeting. Mr. Brotherton suggested that the sensitive area ordinance would be another area to consider when doing research and talking to other jurisdictions. One of the reasons stated for the greenbelt Urban Separators was to protect sensitive areas. Since the policy was Planning Committee, 3/6100 Page 6 written, the City's sensatory ordinances have changed and may now supercede that policy. Tim Clark moved to direct staff to bring back to Committee a report concerning the legal standing and the contacts with the County so there would be a basis for reviewing the City's own Comp Plan for discussion at the nest regular meeting. No action would be taken at that point, but the agenda would be set for further action to be taken on the issue. Judy Woods seconded the motion and it carried 3-0. Citizen Cornment: Joe Miles, President of Friends of Soos Creek Park, 24639 1561h Avenue SE, Kent, said he would like to look at the purpose of the Urban Separator policy to see the real benefits. He said it was a quality of life issue for the citizens of Kent. Urban Separators separate the urban areas so there is not an urban sprawl of continuation from one city to another like other parts of the country. That is a true benefit. They are also a direct benefit for the local wildlife populations in the area and provide wildlife and fisheries habitat corridors. Soos Creek is used by Chinook salmon, and wildlife such as deer use the area. In the Soos Creek area the actual park ownership is very thin and may only be a few hundred feet across. It's the surrounding lands that give the feeling of walking through a rural area and a real park environment, so the zoning on those surrounding lands are what really benefit the park user and people using the trail. The Urban Separator is shaped like it is because there is a natural topographic break in the area, and property lines are followed so as not to split the zoning on the properties. Tom Brotherton asked what the benefit of an Urban Separator would be in addition to the park in an area where the urban area abuts the rural area and the rural area is intended to remain very low density for a long period of time. Mr. Miles responded that there is a topographic break in the area that is a buffer for the park and the stream, and makes an additional benefit of separating from the urban feel. The citizens and elected leaders have the opportunity to secure these benefits for the City of Kent with a strong Urban Separator policy. Mr. Mites suggested two components go into the policy: that it remain a permanent low density corridor along the area and the incremental year by year eroding of the area not be allowed; also for it to remain at a tow density character of one unit per acre. He urged the Committee to not fight the Urban Separator designation, but to think regionally and act locally in the Kent area. He said this is a wonderful planning opportunity at this time with the urbanization that's occurring in those areas to lock in a permanent low density corridor. That would not take away development rights, but keep them as they are now, and the policy would go on for generations to preserve the corridor there. Rita Bailee, Wetland Chair for Rainier Audubon, 20607 101"Avenue SE, Kent, said she liked the idea of better not bigger. Soos Creek Park is a gem and is so intensively used, it would be a shame to start giving that quality away. An Urban Separator is a positive not a negative, and as a Kent resident, that is what she wants. It would also be great to have consistency in the Growth Management Act in planning - all the way down from state, ( f Planning Committee, 3/6/00 Page 7 county, and city so that people could understand it and it wouldn't be a separate thing for each city. The City needs to think about wildlife corridors because more and more of everything on earth is taken up for the human species. Part of living is sharing the earth with other creatures. Ms. Bailee agreed with the comments made by Mr. Miles. Tim Clark commented that it's idealistic to want to preserve wildlife in areas where they currently are. The purpose of the Growth Management was to stop the urban sprawl by drawing an urban/rural line separator and accepting greater density on the urban side in order to protect the wildlife and the lower densities in the outlying areas. Ms. Bailee said that a stream with salmon, even if it is in a high density area is an amenity for the people and is something much too special to let it be trashed because the Growth Management Act says that everywhere has to be dense within the urban growth area. She said one of the things she is pushing for is greater density in the strip malls to make them three or four floors. Mr. Clark said the Council works very hard to create that type of zone but hasn't had a great deal of interest from developers. However, future affordable housing pressures may change that. Tom Brotherton said part of his concern was the unevenness of the policy the way it is now. The Soos Creek Trail is a wonderful resource and definitely needs to be protected. But the area between Kent and Auburn identified as the Urban Separator seems to have been decided from an aerial photo that there wasn't any development there so keep it that way. It wasn't identified around any particular resource. Mary Saucei, 29615 142Id Ave. SE, said she is the real estate agent for Ardis Johnson who owns the property represented by Pacific Industries. Ms. Saucei said that particular property has no wildlife on it and is fenced. Wildlife would have to cross 2401h to get to Ms. Johnson's property. She said in her opinion the Growth Management Act says that that property should be developed. The infrastructure is already there with sewers and water. There would be a buffer between the road and the housing. Soos Creek is not on Ms. Johnson's property and with the steep slopes on the property, there would be plenty of room between the creek and the property where the houses would be. The property is Ms. Johnson's retirement property and she is looking to get the highest and best use of her land. Tom Brotherton pointed out that the Committee is talking about the policy, not a specific piece of property, but added that Ms. Saucei raised some good points which should be brought up at the meeting where the Committee takes input. The fact that a piece of property has the infrastructure is significant, especially if it is topographically separate from the sensitive area. Don Dvorak, 24128 145`h Ave. SE said he lives in one of the adjacent properties and uses the park area. The trail area is magnificent and as a taxpayer in an area recently annexed by the City of Kent, it's hard to understand the time and effort being put towards this policy when there's already a clear cut plan in place. He said there is obviously a lot of financial pressure on the City to change the policy for some reason. Bob Nelson, Covington Planning Commission, said he was not speaking for the Covington Planning Commission, but strictly for himself. As a Planning Commissioner ( t Planning Committee, 3/6/00 Page 8 he had the opportunity to look at the policy from the Covington side and one of the things he concluded was that the Urban Separator has to have the quality of permanence so that from a tong range perspective it won't be chipped away and changed by a rule somewhere else. The City of Covington looked at an Urban Separator on its eastern borders and decided against it as it didn't meet the unique standards that the Soos Creek Urban Separator does. In the deliberations, what came first to mind was the fact that the Urban Separator is there by policy. It's a good policy and a standard to work back from because of the permanence of the Urban Separator. If two acres are chipped away here and an acre there, it no longer becomes a bedrock on which to make policy decisions. Besides the permanency, there should be a consistency in the policy between the cities. It would not be good on one side to have the chipping away and on the other side the bedrock as that would create a lopsided situation. The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CITY OF U �L!2 rNVtCTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris. Planning Director STAFF REPORT March 6. 2000 TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: "URBAN SEPARATOR" COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY On February 15, 2000, the City Council voted to table two annual plan amendment applications. These two applications were the Caimes amendment (#CPA-99-')A) and the Pacific Industries amendment (4CPA-99-3D). Both of these amendments are located in areas designated as "urban separator" and may be affected by County-wide planning policies related to such designation. Due in large part to their designation as urban separator, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended denial of both proposed plan amendments. The City Council tabled action on these amendments in order to allow time for the Council's Planning Committee to review the urban separator issue and the impact of such a designation on the City's ability to make land use planning decisions on such lands. Background: All comprehensive plans of cities in King County are required to be consistent with the County- wide planning policies adopted by King County and ratified by the cities. By resolution (#1413), the City of Kent ratified the county-wide planning policies in 1994. These policies were to provide "county-wide framework from which local comprehensive plans were to be developed." One of the county-wide planning policies called for both the County and the cities to implement a land use policy, which would protect "urban separators." Although urban separators were not designated on any maps adopted with or referenced in the county-wide planning policies, by inference this designation referred to areas denoted on the King County Comprehensive Plan Map an "urban separator". The specific policy in the county-wide planning policies that dealt with urban separators is LU- 27. This policy states: Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas, which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (within the 20-year planning cycle) to other uses _ or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. 220 4ch AVE,SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 93032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 Urban Separator Counry-Wide Planning Policy March 6, 2000 Page 2 The King County Comprehensive Plan also contains policy pertaining to the urban separator designation. This policy helps to clarify the definition and purpose of such a designation while encouraging the continuation of low-density development. No specific density limit is mentioned in the County's plan, but King County zoning limits development to one per acre. It should be noted that King County is presently in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and a specific one-unit-per-acre density limit is being suggested for urban separators. Analvsis: Attached to this memorandum is a legal analysis prepared by the Kent City Attorney's office on the implications of county-wide planning policy LU-27 on the City's comprehensive planning process. This report was completed after the deliberations of the Land Use & Planning Board and, therefore, was not available to them at the time of public hearings on proposed plan amendments. The conclusion of the legal analysis is that the urban separator policy (LU-27) goes beyond being a framework policy statement by establishing a substantive direction and/or implementing regulation. Therefore, it impinges upon the City's authority to make its own local land use decisions. Alternative Actions: Given the opinion of the City Attorney's office, there are a number of options open to the Council, including: 1. Despite the implications of LU-27 for local land use decision-making, accept it as a valid framework policy statement. 2. Ignore the policy and, based on the City's legal analysis, make future decisions on plan amendment applications in these areas on a case-by-case basis. 3. Seek to change the county-wide policy to allow local discretion on the actual designation and character of urban separators. With two comprehensive plan amendments currently in abeyance pending the resolution of the urban separator issue, it may be difficult for the City Council to consider this issue without considering the merits of the applications. But, this issue is broader than these two applications. Urban separators envelope the eastern part of the City, from the area between Auburn and Kent on the south, north along Soos Creek, and then west between Renton and Kent's potential annexation areas. (Staff will provide a map at the Committee's 3-6-00 meeting). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Committee direct the Planning Department to initiate discussions with King County in order to clarify the policy intent and implications of the policy on local land use decision-making. At the same time, the Committee may also initiate a public process to solicit input on the policy. While this fact-finding process is occurring, the two plan amendment applications will be held in abeyance. Following conclusion of the public process and discussions with King County, the Planning Committee will make a recommendation to the full City Council on a specific course of action. FNS:pm P:admin\urbansep.doc Enclosure cc: lames P. Hams,Planning Director Justin Osemene,Asst.City Attomey l - Memorandum PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL To: Jim Harris, Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner CC: Tom Brubaker, Deputy City Attorney Fpm: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney _ Justin C. Osemene, Assistant City Atto ey Re: Implications of Countywide Planning Polic U-27 "Urban Separators" on the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Newly Annexed Areas uete: January 20, 2000 This memorandum is in response to your request for an advisory legal opinion regarding the City's land use powers and its ability to implement comprehensive plan amendments in newly annexed, and prospective annexation, areas with an "urban separator" land use designation under King County's LU-27 Countywide Planning Policy. BACKGROUND The presumed factual basis for this request is that in 1994 King County adopted and ratified the Countywide Planning Policies ("CPPs") which, among other things, called for both the county and the cities to implement a land use policy denoted as LU- 27: "Urban Separators." Urban separators are designated "low density" areas within the Urban Growth Areas ("UGAs") that are intended to create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identities of communities. These areas are expected to provide recreational benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the state Growth Management Act's ("GMA") requirement for greenbelts and open space in the UGAs. Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 specifically provides that: Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstronn,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 2 Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (within the 20 year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. (Emphasis added). The county comprehensive plan also contains several policies pertaining to the urban separator areas. However, the county has not yet clearly defined pertinent aspects of the LU-27 policy, such as what constitutes low density in an urban separator area. It is, however, known that the county has developed a work program to clarify the definition of urban separators and to provide a clearer direction on the designation of these urban separators. The status of this work program is uncertain at this time. CPPs are required under the GMA. RCW 36.70A.210, which outlines the purpose and process for CPPs, states in pertinent part that: [A] `county-wide planning policy' is a written policy —. statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities. RCW 36.70A.210(1) In 1994, when the City adopted its GMA mandated comprehensive plan, there were no urban separator areas within its designated UGA. There were, however, CPP designated "urban separator" areas with the City's identified Potential Annexation Areas ("PAA"). With the absence of designated urban separator areas in its UGA, the City did not develop, nor was it required to develop, any specific policies for such urban separator areas. Subsequently, in 1996, the City annexed and effected comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments of the first areas in its PAA with designated urban separator areas (the Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexation). When the City annexed the areas, some of these urban separator areas were given higher single-family zoning densities. At the time of the Meridian annexation, City staff was not aware that one of the CPPs precluded higher densities for these areas in perpetuity. Notice of the annexation was, however, served on King County, as required by state law, and the county did not oppose, nor object, to the proposed higher densities for the parts of the annexed areas in the urban separators. MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner fanuary 21,2000 Page: 3 The catalyst for this legal analysis is that as part of the City's 1999 annual comprehensive plan amendment process, Planning staff recommended comprehensive plan and zoning amendments of two lots in a newly annexed area within the designated urban separators which, under the King County comprehensive plan, call for one dwelling unit per acre. The first of the two proposed plan amendments was for a 1.18 acre lot proposed to be subdivided for 2 single family dwelling units (Carnes), and the second was for an 8.6 acre lot with a proposal for 4.5 single family dwelling units (Pacific Industries). Each of these lots abuts areas designated as urban separator areas under the CPP-LU-27. Planning staff's recommendation on these two applications was subsequently rejected by the Land Use and Planning Board ("LUPB") due to some citizens testimony that the proposed higher single-family zoning densities are incompatible with the one dwelling unit per acre designation under the county's comprehensive plan. The LUPB's rejection of Planning staff s recommendation, may have been in part, due to the obvious confusion regarding whether the City has the land use powers to change the permissible density standard on lots with a designated "urban separator" area which, under the county's low-density designation, only allows for one dwelling unit per acre. While the members of the LUPB may have been influenced by the sheer number of the public testimonies received against the two comprehensive plan amendment applications, it appears there was confusion on what constitutes a "low density" standard and whether the City is obligated to adhere to the county's one dwelling unit per acre density standard for the urban separator areas even when these areas have been annexed into the City's jurisdiction. The purpose of this legal analysis, therefore, is to examine the effect and implication of LU-27 requirement on the City's ability to assert its land use powers in implementing comprehensive plan amendments in newly annexed, and prospective annexation, areas with urban separator designation. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a specific policy within the CPPs, such as the restrictive language of LU-27, can directly affect and inhibit the regulatory and implementation powers, or other exercises of land use powers of the City, when the City decides to amend the permissible development density standards in its newly annexed areas from the county; and 2. Whether the CPPs on urban separators, which require a low density designation of one dwelling unit per acre and prohibits "future redesignations to other urban uses or higher densities," infringes upon the City's affirmative duty, under the GMA, to plan for and accommodate its allocated share of the regional growth while retaining its land use powers MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrorq Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 -- Page: 4 to locate, configure, design and service such anticipated regional growth and development. BRIEF ANSWERS 1. No, a specific policy within the CPPs cannot provide substantive direction that directly affects the provisions of implementing regulations of a city's land use power. RCW 36.70A.210 provides that the CPP is "a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted . . ." and that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities. " (Emphasis added). Under an established three-prong test, a specific policy within the CPP must directly address the comprehensive plan rather than development regulations or other exercises of local land use power. 2. Yes, the countywide planning policy on urban separators, which prohibits the future re-designation to other urban uses or higher densities, infringes upon the city's land use powers because fundamental to a city complying with a major tenet of the GMA in reducing sprawl is that city's land use element, including its future land use map, permits appropriate urban densities throughout its jurisdiction. Furthermore, specific design standards and scales of development within a city are not legitimate regional issues that fall within the ambit of countywide planning policies. ANALYSIS In the absence of any pointed judicial opinions on the two questions presented, deference would be given to the precedent rulings of the quasi-judicial Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board (the `Board") which, under the GMA, is charged to review and adjudicate issues raised by these questions. This is a two-part analysis based upon the questions presented and the Board's reviews, commentaries, and precedent rulings on related issues to these questions. Part I will examine the substantive effects of the CPPs on the City's comprehensive plan amendment, while part II will examine the land use powers of the City to redesignate the development densities for the areas within the City's UGA jurisdiction. I. A specific policy within the Countywide Planning Policies, such as King Countv's LU-27 on urban separators, cannot provide substantive direction that directiv affects the provisions of implementing regulations of a citv's land use power. Perhaps the most instructive opinion on the intricate, and sometimes confusing, relationship between King County adopted CPPs and a city's ability to exercise its land MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 5 use powers in implementing its comprehensive plan policy is the Board's ruling in City of Snoqualmie v. King County, CPSGMHB Case No. 92-3-0004(c), Final Decision and Order (FDO) (1993). In 1992, the cities of Snoqualmie and Issaquah ("Snoqualmie") filed a Petition for Review with the Board which challenged the CPPs for failing to comply with the GMA. Though tangentially pertinent to the question presented herein but still instructive, was a legal issue raised in this petition. The petition was on whether the county's adopted CPP, specifically King County's LU-26 and LU-271, lawfully required a city's local comprehensive plan to address its policies to specific community characteristics, including design standards and types of businesses or scale of development within the city. The Board, in resolving this and other legal issues raised in the Snoqualmie case, sought to clarify the purpose, nature, and effect of CPPs. Germane to the question presented herein is the third part of the Board's clarification; however, a cursory review of the first two will provide some guidance on the questions presented herein. In regards to the purpose of CPPs, as defined in RCW 36.70A.210(1), the Board states that there is both an immediate and a long-term purpose for CPPs. CPP's immediate purpose was to assure consistency among the comprehensive — plans that the GMA required. The long term purpose of the CPPs was to facilitate the transformation of local governance in the UGA so that urban governmental services are provided by cities and so that rural and regional services are provided by counties. Id. at 6 - 7. In regards to the nature of CPPs, the Board notes that while opinions vary on the exact nature of CPPs, some people have claimed CPPs to be policies; meta-policy plans; comprehensive plans; regional plans; or simple guidelines, while others have argued that CPPs are procedural or have substantive effects. The Board, however, held: (a) that CPPs are policy documents, as opposed to land use regulations; (b) that CPPs are not comprehensive plans, rather they are a "framework" for the comprehensive plan; and (c) that the CPPs may be general or detailed, but should always be clear and cogent. See, Snoqualmie, at 9-10. Lastly, in regards to the effects of CPPs on the comprehensive plans, the Board notes that while CPPs certainly have a procedural effect in achieving the consistency requirement of the GMA, they also provide a substantive and directive relationship between the policies in the CPPs and the policies in the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Board further held that "the CPPs create no new land use powers, nor do they alter land use powers that presently exist; neither do they provide substantive direction directly to local land use regulations, but rather, that the CPPs are a part of a hierarchy of substantive and directive policy. The Board explains that direction flows first from the t Note the distinction between the LU-27 referred to in Snoquatmie, which refers to refers to King County Comprehensive Plan Policy on rural communities, and the subject LU-27 on Urban Separators which refers to Countywide Planning Policy(CPP). MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 6 CPPs to the comprehensive plans of cities and counties, which in turn gives substantive direction to the content of land use regulations, and that it is the latter that governs the exercise of local land use powers, including zoning, permitting and enforcement." Id. at 13. While noting that even with the hierarchy of policy described above, the GMA, generally, and the CPPs, specifically, are premised on local government control, the Board held that it is the local governments (cities and counties) that are vested with the authority and responsibility to act jointly to prepare, adopt, and implement the CPPs, and to act singly to prepare, adopt and implement comprehensive plans and development regulations. Id. The import of this holding on the question presented is that CPPs have directive, procedural, and substantive effects only as they relate to comprehensive plan policies, and not on the land use powers of cities to develop regulatory and implementation standards and guidelines for these policies. Perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the Board's holding in Snoqualmie is its review of the limits on the substantive effects of the CPPs on a city's comprehensive plan amendments. While noting that great deference must still be given to local prerogatives and choices under the GMA, and that policies within the CPPs that needlessly or — excessively intrude upon local prerogatives can have no substantive effect, the Board states that, in order for a specific policy within a CPP to provide substantive direction to city and county comprehensive plans, such intrusion must meet all of the following enunciated three-prong test. The test states: (1) A specific policy within the CPPs must meet a legitimate regional objective. In noting that RCW 36.70A.100 requires coordination and consistency between the comprehensive plans of cities and counties if those cities and counties have "common borders or related regional issues" (emphasis added), the Board acknowledged that while "related regional issues" is not defined, RCW 36.70A.210(3) does, however, explicitly direct that CPPs must address, inter alia, urban growth areas, provisions of urban services, and affordable housing, and that these are directly related regional issues. The Board also went on to note that RCW 36.70A.100 identifies the "common borders" of cities and counties as circumstances that could give rise to a need for coordination and consistency between comprehensive plans. In conclusion, the Board held that a specific policy within a CPP that addresses common border issues would meet legitimate regional objectives. Under this first prong of the test, in order for the City to negate the effect of LU- 27 on its land use powers and ability to propose changes to the density standards of its annexed areas with the urban separators, the City would have to assert that the restrictive language in the LU-27 policy conflicts with the City's GMA imposed duties to plan and development standards that would maximize the efficient use of urban services, to plan MEMORANDUM: Fred Sattersnom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 7 for future growth, and to encourage a more intensive development and diverse community in the City, since these enumerated duties are intended to promote and meet desired legitimate regional objectives. , (2) A specific policy within the CPPs can provide substantive directives only to the provisions of a comprehensive plans and cannot directly affect the provision of an implemented regulation or other exercise of land use powers. For this second prong of the test, the Board notes that RCW 36.70A.210 defines CPPs as "a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county- wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted . . .... and that "[t]his framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required by RCW 36.20A.100. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land use powers of cities." See, Snoqualmie, at 14. The Board translated this definition to mean that CPPs may not intrude upon local prerogatives as to specifically how a legitimate regional objective, which must be addressed in a local comprehensive plan, is to be manifested in a local development regulation or other exercise of land use power (emphasis added). Id. The relevance of this prong is that while CPPs may suggest details for such standards, they may not dictate them since the recommended comprehensive plan amendment and density standard clearly reflects the city's local circumstances and priorities. (3) A specific policy within the CPPs must be consistent with other relevant provisions of the GALA. Under this third prong of the test, the Board held that CPPs must be consistent not only with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.210, but also with all other relevant provisions of the GMA. The implication of this prong is the obvious conflict between the restrictive policy language of LU-27 and RCW 36.70A. 110(2). While the latter imposes an affirmative duty upon cities, including Kent, to designate lands within their urban growth areas that would permit for appropriate urban densities within its city limits, the former seeks to restrict and infringe upon the city's land use powers to plan and effect its desired development density which would implement its GMA adopted land use elements and comprehensive plan policies. Perhaps more telling of the Board's position on the question presented herein, is when the Board applied this three-prong test to one of the more pertinent legal issues - raised in Snoqualmie. That issue was whether a county's adopted CPPs, specifically King County's LU-27, which required cities in rural areas to include, among other characteristics, shopping; employment; residential developments; and design standards MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 _. Page: 8 that work to preserve the rural small town character and promote edestrian mobility, was valid. In response to one of Snoqualmie's argument that LU-27 infringes upon a city's authority because "some aspects of a comprehensive plan are . . . fundamentally local in nature . . .... such as design standards and scale of development, the Board, in acceding to Snoqualmie's arguments, held that adopted CPPs cannot dictate or select specific characteristics for a city to adopt in its comprehensive plan because specific design standards and scale of development within a city are not legitimate regional issues that should be addressed by the CPPs. See, Snoqualrnie at 23. Based on the preceding, it would be correct to state that the implication of the three-prong test enunciated by the Board in Snoqualmie, on the question of whether CPP LU-27 directly affects and inhibits the regulatory, implementation, and land use powers of the City, could be analyzed from two or more perspectives. First, Planning staff could assert and demonstrate that the proposed comprehensive plan, land use and development density amendments of lots in the newly annexed areas with urban separators is strictly in furtherance of the City's adopted comprehensive plan policy, which aims for a more diversified single and multi-family residential developments in the City. Second, the Planning staff may assert that based upon the enumerated three-prong test, LU-27, as a specific policy within the CPPs, is inconsistent with the legitimate regional objectives of the GMA and the CPPs objectives for the City which, inter alia, impose an affirmative duty on the City to plan for its allocated share of the anticipated regional growth, as well as to encourage development standards that would maximize the efficient use of urban services and a much higher development density and a more diverse community within the city. A further point to assert is that the CPPs' proscribed low density requirement is inconsistent with the city's policies and development standards for the annexed area because what constitutes low density in the urban separator areas has not been clarified under the CPP and does not conform with city's definition of low density under the its comprehensive plan policies and development standards. Finally, a compelling argument could be made that the City properly exercised its statutory prerogatives on annexations and zoning authorities under Title 35 and 35A RCW if and when City Council decides to grant approval to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments with urban separators. It should, however, be prudent to anticipate counter arguments by the county to the preceding arguments. For instance, the county may argue that the City endorsed the adoption of the CPPs and that as directive, procedural, and substantive tools of the GNIA, the City is obligated to adhere to and implement these CPPs including the restrictive requirements of LU-27 on urban separators. While such argument may be facially valid, it would, however, be deemed flawed when critically examined under the Board's precedent rulings on such issue. It appears that the law would support the City's authority to assert its land use powers in proposing and adopting higher densities See Foomote 1. MEMORANDUM: Fred Sarterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 9 standards in areas with urban separators as long as steps are taken to ensure the overriding regional policy objectives of the CPP. 11. Under the GMA, cities have an affirmative duty to plan and accommodate the growth that their county allocates. However, the cities retain discretion as to how their growth will be located, configured, designed and served. The second question presented is whether LU-27's proscribed low density designation and its prohibition of future redesignation to other urban uses or higher densities of urban separator areas annexed into the City infringes upon the City's land use powers. While this question is answered in the affirmative, it is also important to note that this answer is based upon some affirmative statutory provisions of the GMA, such as RCW 36.70A.110(2) which reads, in pertinent part: [T]he urban growth areas (UGA) of the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. RCW 36.70A.030(17) defines "urban growth" as: [G]rowth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. RCW 36.70A.10(2) requires that UGAs "shall permit a range of urban densities and uses." Thus, based on the statutory provisions of the GMA, it is evident that the GMA creates an affirmative duty for cities to plan for and accommodate the growth that is allocated to them by the county's CPP. This duty also means that a city's comprehensive plan must include future land use maps that designate sufficient land use densities and intensifies to accommodate its allocated population and employment base. See, e.g., Hensley v. City of Woodinville, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0031, FDO, (1997) at 9. The Board has, through several rulings and opinions, affirmed the notion that a city enjoys broad discretion in its comprehensive plan to make many specific choices about how growth is to be accommodated within its jurisdiction. These choices are said to include the specific location of particular land uses and development intensities, MEMORANDUM: Fred Sattersrrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 10 community character, scales of development and design, among others. See, Aagaard, et al. v. City of Bothell, CPSGNM Case No. 94-3-0011 (1995); City of Edmonds and City of Lynnwood v. Snohomish County ("Edmonds"), CPSGMIIB Case No. 93-3-0005, FDO, (1993) at 27; Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGNM Case No. 93- 3-0010 (1994) at 14. LMI v. Woodway ("LMI"), CPSGivffHB Case No. 98-3-0012, FDO, (1999). Perhaps one of the most instructive rulings on the subject of what constitutes a permissible urban density is the Board's opinion in Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap, CPSGNM Case No. 95-3-0039, FDO, (1995) at 37-38. In a 1995 consolidated case filed by the City of Bremerton and others challenging several aspects of Kitsap County's CPP provisions, one of which was to appropriate development densities within designated UGAs, the Board, in affirming its previous opinion in Aagaard, reiterated that the specific location, density/intensity, and development standards for accommodating growth within cities is subject to broad local discretion. (citation omitted). Specifically, in reviewing an argument that 1 acre and 2.5 acre lots are neither urban or rural, but instead are "suburban" and as such are permitted in a UGA by the GMA, the Board held that "suburban" is a subset of"urban" and that a pattern of 1 and 2.5 acre lots meets the GMA's definition of urban growth, which is to say that it precludes "the primary use of land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources." RCW 36.70A.030(17). However, the Board also noted that a pattern of 1 or 2.5 acre lots is not an appropriate urban density either, and that absent a persuasive and well documented justification of a unique area- wide circumstance (e.g. a major equestrian facility surrounded by "horse-acre lots" or large areas with very steep slopes or wetlands), that an urban land use pattern of 1 or 2.5 acre lots would constitute sprawl. See, Bremerton, at 37-38. Noting that while at the low end of the range of permissible urban densities, it is difficult to draw a universally appropriate maximum urban lot size. The Board acknowledged that several sources in the literature and the experience of growth management in other states strongly suggest that anything less than seven (7) dwelling units per acre is not supportive of transit objectives and anything less than four (4) per acre is sprawl. Given these variations, the Board resorted to adopt as a general rule a "bright line" that any residential density pattern of four (4) net dwelling units per acre or higher is clearly compact urban development and would satisfy the low end of the range required by the GMA. Id. at 38. The Board, thus, held that any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense and is not a compact urban development pattern, would constitute urban sprawl and, therefore, should be prohibited. It, however, made known that there are exceptions to this general rule, such as when I or 2.5 acre lots are configured to avoid excessive development pressures on or near environmentally sensitive areas. In a later ruling, the Board amplified on this exception to the general rule by stating that when a MEMORANDUM: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: I t petitioner challenges an urban density of less than four (4) dwelling units per acre, the Board would look to the plan and records to see if adequate justification, such as the presence of highly ranked environmentally sensitive factors, have been presented. See, Benaroya v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0072(c) (1997) at 33. When such a "bright line" general standard of review is applied to the LUPB's rejection of the Planning staffs recommended approval of the Carnes' 2 dwelling units on a 1.18 acre lot and the Pacific Industries' 4.5 dwelling units on an 8.6 acre lot solely because of presence of LU-27 urban separators and no discernible high ranked environmentally sensitive factors, then its obvious that such rejection may not be consistent with the above-enunciated "bright line" and may be subject to a legal challenge should City Council uphold the LUPB's recommendation to reject these comprehensive plan amendments. It is important to note that just because an area is designated as an urban separator area does not mean that all land use developments are precluded in the area. Note, even under King County Code, such as KCC 21A.24, the county retains some discretion in approving developments designated highly ranked environmentally sensitive areas either through some conditional use permits or by requiring that some mitigation measures be applied and adhered to, such as requiring maximum development buffer areas and special review of the scale and design of the developments, to ensure compatibility with and transition into the unique characteristics of the surrounding areas. Property Right Concerns A salient, but perhaps equally important, issue not fully explored and addressed by the LUPB before rejecting staffs recommendation of the two comprehensive plan amendments with urban separators is the issue of property rights. While RCW 36.70A.020(6) provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made, RCW 36.70A.160 specifically directs each jurisdiction planning under the GMA to identify open space corridors within and between urban areas, and to authorize their purchase. The corridors "shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connections of critical areas" as defined in RCW 36.70A.030. It should also be noted that this section provides that a county or a city shall not restrict the use or management of lands within the corridor for agicultural or forest purposes, the section went on to note that: Restrictions on the use or management of such lands for agricultural or forest purposes after identification solely to maintain or enhance the value of such lands as a corridor may occur only if the county or city acquires sufficient interest to prevent development of land . . . . Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to alter the authority of the MEMORANDUM: t Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner January 21,2000 Page: 12 state or county or city, to regulate land use activities. (emphasis added). While the cited statutory provisions relate to forest, open space and agricultural lands, an inference could be drawn that, to the extent that LU-27's restrictive language is adhered in prohibiting the use of private properties within designated urban separator areas that has not yet been acquired either by the city, county or state, such outright restriction of development of a private property without formal condemnation or acquisition could constitute an unconstitutional taking. It is unlikely, however, that such an argument would prevail in the present circumstances of the LUPB's denial of approval on the Carnes' and Pacific Industries' applications since these properties have not been designated forestry or agricultural lands. CONCLUSION In light of the favorable statutory provisions; precedent Board rulings; and the City's land use, zoning and annexation powers under the GIMA, Title 35 and 35A RCW regarding the questions presented herein, it is this office's opinion that a specific Countywide Planning Policy on urban separators cannot provide substantive direction or -- restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted comprehensive plan and with the overall framework of the adopted Countywide Planning Policies. However, in spite of this analysis and conclusion, the Planning Department could decide to leave the current development densities on the Carnes' and Pacific Industries' property below the preferred low urban development density of 4 dwelling units per acre if the Planning Department finds that these properties contain a high level of environmental sensitive factors that would preclude any higher development densities on them. We hope this analysis provides some guidance on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions or if you would like to meet and further discuss this issue. PiCivAOPL'AONSCortg?LvW.snd.UrbuSepar .doc PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 19 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, Fred Satterstrom, Carolyn Sundvall, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Ron Harmon, Joe Miles, Scott Otey, Mary Satterthwaite, Rita Bailie The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 5:02 PM. Approval of Minutes of April 3, 2000 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study—Resolution Director of Operations, Brent McFall recalled that representatives of the Port of Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport had presented at an earlier Council Workshop the Part 150 Noise Abatement Study regarding alternatives to airplane flight paths for arrival and departure at Sea-Tac Airport and the effect of noise on the surrounding areas. The current southbound takeoff path goes directly south off the end of the runway to about 3201h Street in Federal Way. It then makes either a right or left turn, depending upon destination. The noise study looked at alternatives which call for the planes to take a sharper turn off the end of the runway rather than proceeding 8-10 miles south before making the turn. Changing the flight patterns would bring an added expense to the Port because the Noise Insulation Program area would expand and carry associated costs with that expansion. One of the alternative routes would have a great deal more plane traffic coming over the Kent Valley, and the general conclusion at the previous workshop was that the City of Kent would be better served by continuation of the existing flight patterns. The resolution states that Kent prefers the existing south flow tracks for operations at Sea-Tac be continued and that neither of the options being explored be implemented. If the Committee recommends the resolution to the full Council for adoption and the Council then adopts the resolution, it would be forwarded to the Port of Seattle to be included in their public comments as they consider their options. Tom Brotherton asked if any other cities were taking a similar measure. Mr. McFall said that Mercer Island is affected similarly by proposed changes off the north departure routes and are taking similar action. Bellevue has also looked at the issue, as changing the northbound route would have an impact on Bellevue as well. In the past, the City of Federal Way supported a change because there would be less traffic off of the routes over Federal Way. The City of Des Moines, immediately north of Federal Way and immediately south of the end of the runway, would be impacted no matter what happens. Planning Committee, 511100 Page 2 Judy Woods moved to recommend to Council the approval of the resolution dealing with the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study as it relates to south flow traffic patterns from Sea-Tac International Airport. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Year 2001 Community Development Block Grant Funding Levels Housing and Human Services Planner Carolyn Sundvall said the Community Development Block Grants are HUD dollars passed through King County and down to Kent. There are restrictions on the program in that anything funded with the HUD dollars has to show a benefit to low and moderate income people. The overall estimate for 2001 for all of King County is $7 million dollars which is shared by a consortium of about 16 cities. Kent's share is estimated to be approximately $550,114, but that amount will probably be adjusted several times by the time the national budget is passed. The funds are divided into and must be spent on three categories: planning and administration, public services, and capital dollars. By the end of the month, the City needs to notify King County whether it will accept the funds and the responsibility that goes with the funds. Acceptance would approve the maximum for public services, about $85,539, and the maximum for planning administration which is approximately $78,986. Tim Clark asked for clarification on eliminating competition with other King County and small city projects. Ms. Sundvall said that if the City didn't accept the Pass through, it would have to compete with all the other cities on a project by project level and there _ wouldn't be the same control over the funds as if they were accepted into the city and then allocated. Tim Clark recommended approval to accept the year 2001 Pass through funds; to allocate the City's maximum available of the year 2001 CDBG as Community Development Block Grant funds for Public (Human) Services estimated at $85,539; to allocate the City's maximum available of the year 2001 funds for Planning and Administration estimated at $78,986, and forward the recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at its May 16, 2000 meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign the county form indicating the City's desire for distribution of the year 2001 funds. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separators Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom defined Urban Separators as a King County designation which is encouraged to be applied after an area is annexed to a city, when said area was previously designated as an Urban Separator while under the jurisdiction of King County. Urban separators were commonly designated in the Soos Creek planning area on areas of generally open space or of little development that were either along streamways or in a position to separate urban areas. When the Meridian area was annexed, it included substantial areas designated as Urban Separator on the King County Comprehensive Plan. The intent of Urban Separators was to keep those areas in an open space or low density development for approximately 20 years which was the planning _ horizon of the first set of GMA Comprehensive Plans. This past year two sites were proposed for upzoning for higher density residential development in conjunction with the Planning Committee, 5/l/00 Page 3 City's annual plan amendments. Those two sites have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the discussion on Urban Separators. The Planning Department has come up with three alternatives for the Planning Committee to consider. The first would be to follow the literal intent of the policy of Urban Separators and accept from the County the areas that have been mapped as Urban Separators. No proposals would be entertained to increase the density in those areas to greater than one unit to the acre. Staff calls this alternative "the no local discretion literal interpretation" and no value judgements are meant to be implied. Under a literal interpretation of the policy, no upzoning would be allowed in any of the designated areas. The second alternative would be to ignore King County's countywide planning policy, and case by case decisions made on plan amendments whether or not they were previously designated as Urban Separator. Decisions would be made completely on the merits of the proposal, given whatever factors seem to apply. The third alternative is split into two sections. There would be a general implementation of the Urban Separator policy and the City would accept that the Countywide Planning Policy was meant to be a broad framework type policy that would offer some local discretion. Under 3-A the City would acknowledge the Urban Separator policy and would utilize the County's map to identify the properties, but would develop its own local discretion or criteria to review proposals of areas whenever changes were considered in land use or density. Under 3-B, the City would develop its own generalized map rather than using the County's map, which would effectively update the County's map of Urban Separators. Mr. Satterstrom stated that little purpose is served to designate areas as Urban Separator when those areas are already developed at 4-6 units to the acre. Plus, some areas are quite a distance away from an environmentally sensitive area that may have been the reason for the designation in the first place. The County's previous designation was very specific and strictly followed property lines. This proposal would develop more of a conceptual or generalized overlay showing where the basic intent might be to put the Urban Separator, but each case would be evaluated by a set of criteria to determine whether or not that property really fulfilled the objective of an Urban Separator. The basic difference between alternatives 3-A and 3-B would be that under 3-A the City would strictly use the County's map and develop its own criteria for looking at proposals on a case by case basis; under 3-B, a map would be developed based somewhat on the County's, but more general. Staff recommends alternative 3-B and would work with the Land Use and Planning Board to develop a more generalized map and to also come up with the review criteria that the City would utilize to review plan amendments in the Urban Separator area. The criteria would determine how critical a piece of property was to maintaining the Urban Separator and whether it really fulfilled the Urban Separator purposes. Endorsing 3-B would legitimately require an amendment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Committee, 511100 Page 4 Tim Clark commented that as some of the areas are already developed, King County _ clearly did not follow their own practices regardless of whether a property was labeled Urban Separator. Mr. Satterstrom said that in his discussions with County staff members, it was confirmed that when the Urban Separator designation was created in the Soos Creek area 10 years prior to the annexation of that area by the City of Kent, King County staff looked at properties that met a set of their own criteria. If part of the property fell within a certain distance from Soos Creek, the whole parcel was included even though only the one part might have fit and actually served the purpose for an Urban Separator. By developing a more generalized map, the City of Kent would be able to analyze each piece of property in the basic pattern of Urban Separator and determine whether not developing that property would really be accomplishing the purposes of the Urban Separator, and/or whether parts of the property might be developable while other parts would not. Tim Clark commented that the City had established environmental and sensitive area regulations and had designated an area along the Soos Creek as such. Fred Satterstrom said there definitely is a steep sloped sensitive hillside area that the Soos Creek follows and the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance protects to a large extent those sensitive areas from undue development. However, the City of Kent didn't have a sensitive areas ordinance when the County designated the Urban Separator area along the Soos Creek 10 years ago. That ordinance was established in 1993, one or two years after the concept was adopted in the Soos Creek Plan, and not long before the City annexed the area. Judy Woods asked if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had been updated. Mr. Satterstrom said it had and some additional zoning restrictions had been added to protect the Soos Creek. Tom Brotherton questioned whether an area coming down 228`h off the hill might also qualify in the context of a greenbelt. Fred Satterstrom said some land along the Green River to the west is steep but the great preponderance is rolling. Those lands were mostly undeveloped 10 years ago when they were designated Urban Separator, and at the time they provided a convenient division between Kent and Auburn. The Urban Separator has many different purposes. Along the Soos Creek area, it appears to have a much different objective than it does where it divides Kent and Auburn on lands which are very developable from an environmentally sensitive standpoint. To some extent, the boundary as it moves from east to west, or north to south, takes on a different purpose. It would be hard to look at pieces of property parcel by parcel and analyze all the different pieces. The best approach would be the broad brush approach with the criteria being the specific part. Mr. Satterstrom surmised that the issue would probably be a fairly major thing with property owners, as some parties may think the City doesn't go far enough and others might think it goes too far in telling them what they can or can't do with their land. Judy Woods stated that Council has a commitment to the greenbelt concept, and analysis and evaluation is necessary because things have happened to change the lay of the land since the issue was first on the books. A policy is needed that is fair, but the process is painful because the original policy was not followed by the people who put it on the _ books. Tom Brotherton agreed that implementation had been erratic and said he liked the concept of having standards to judge the benefits to be achieved. Tim Clark concluded Planning Committee, 511100 Page 5 that had the County installed the policy and then drawn hard lines, the City would be defending it. Instead the City has inherited disproportionate or inappropriate classifications in some cases. He said the concept of the greenbelt is something that, over time, would bring rewards as the density of the respective jurisdictions around Kent grows. Judy Woods considered that a policy with criteria in place is needed so it would quickly develop legs of its own and wouldn't have to be defended every year. The opportunity is too good to waste and green space is a priceless asset to have as part of the City's boundary. She stated that Kent is ahead of the game in the Soos Creek Basin and the next challenge is to move north and south to see if neighboring jurisdictions would be willing to partner with Kent in those areas. Ms. Woods questioned whether people would have the opportunity to speak again to the issue in another public forum. Fred Satterstrom said it was his impression that the item would go to the full Council for endorsement, but that it could be referred to the Land Use and Planning Board instead. City Attorney Roger Lubovich said since it came from the City Council to Committee because of the two pending applications, it should go back to the full Council before going to the Land Use Board. Tim Clark stated there was no reason for public input at this time since the issue would recycle. Tim Clark requested to move the item to the City Council with a recommendation to endorse Alternative Option 3B to recognize the Urban Separator framework policy but allow for local flexibility in identifying lands which would fulfill the objectives of countywide planning policy LU-27. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved that the item be put under Other Business at the next Council meeting. Tim Clark accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS Gn,f i rc r �k T1/YIP E. PLANNING COMMITTEE 1 F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 1* OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 29 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Judy Woods, Leona Orr(sitting in for Tim Clark) STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Tom Brubaker, Brent McFall, May Miller, Mayor White, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 5:04 PM. There were two changes to the agenda. Item #5, The March Financial Report was removed from the agenda, and one item was added: Chem Central Settlement. Approval of Minutes of April i8. 2000 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of April 18, 2000. The motion was seconded by substitute Committee Member Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Approval of Vouchers dated April 30, 2000 Judy Woods recommended approval of the vouchers dated April 30, 2000. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Vallev Corn PDA Enacting Ordinance Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker said the Valley Communication Center is the local South County 911 Center. The organizing cities for Valley Com are the cities of Renton, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, and now Federal Way. Those cities are working together to help fund construction of a new Valley Communications facility and they decided the best way to do that would be to form a Public Development Agency which would provide an opportunity for the five cities to create a new entity that would become a clearing house for borrowing money to create the new facility and then to pay it off. The PDA also gives Valley Corn the opportunity to fund and pay off the debt for other major capital improvement projects in the future if they choose to do so. Because the new Valley Communications facility will be located in the City of Kent, Kent has offered to be the city that organizes or creates the Public Development Authority. The other member cities have passed resolutions or ordinances authorizing that. Leona Orr moved to recommend to council approval for the formation of the PDA to provide financing for the construction of a new facility for the Valley Communications Center and other Valley Com capital improvement projects, as required. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods. Rico Yingling asked for an explanation on how the PDA works. Mr. Brubaker said the PDA can have a number of powers and authorities, and since it will be created by Kent, the City can define what those powers and authorities are to be. In this instance, the powers will be very, very limited and the PDA will exist strictly to issue the debt, to borrow the money, and to help pay off the project. Valley Corn will purchase the building, pay the contractor, and manage the construction contract, and will purchase all the supplies, goods, and technology that goes into the facility. The PDA's role in the Operations Committee, 5/2/00 Page 2 construction of the facility and implementation of the technology will simply be to act as a conduit to borrow the money and pass it through to Valley Com to spend as Valley Com deems necessary. Director of Operations Brent McFall said the PDA has no responsibility whatsoever for management of the Valley Communications Emergency Dispatch service. That will continue to be managed by the Board of Directors of Valley Com which is made up of the Mayors of the five owner cities. Finance Director May Miller added that each of the five cities will have a 115 responsibility toward the debt repayment and a 115 ownership in the new facility. Tom Brubaker said that the PDA is like a corporation with an attached charter and bylaws for operation. A board is composed of the same members who run the administration board of Valley Com, the Mayors of the five cities. Rico Yingling asked for clarification of Section 3-C of the ordinance, Contributions of the Cities: "Cities shall pay an allocable portion of the budgeted expenses of Valley Communications Center not paid from other sources, which allocable portion shall be based on the percentage of dispatched calls. " Brent McFall responded that the capital expense will be equally divided among the five owner cities who will all be equal partners in the capital part of the facility. Some funds also come from the agencies that have contracts with Valley Com and will help bear part of the capital expense as well. The operation of Valley Com is based upon the estimated annual number of calls per service for each of the agencies. Each year in the budgeting process, Valley Com, in _ consultation with the operations board which are the police and fire chiefs of the five owner cities, goes through the process of establishing its estimated calls for service for the next year. Valley Com always operates a year behind the actuals, but are pretty accurate in establishing budget amounts and doing adjustments for the next year. Tom Brubaker added that the PDA's essential function is to borrow money and get approval from the bond council for the $12 million dollars needed to build the new facility. It gets a lot of scrutiny, so staff has had the bond council helping with the agreements. The purpose is to be very, very clear on how the money is generated for the review of the bond company agencies. The motion was voted on and passed 3-0. Taxation on Internet Sales Brent McFall said there is a Federal moratorium in place on the imposition of sales taxes on any Internet sale, and a current proposal is being considered at the Federal level to extend that moratorium. The National League of Cities and some other public interest associations and agencies have taken a position in opposition to the extension of the moratorium believing that failure to tax sales over the Internet has two potentially negative implications for cities, counties, and states. The first is that as sales are siphoned off from main street to the Internet, the cities, counties, and states that rely upon local sales tax collections to support their budgets could experience a very negative impact on the revenue that is necessary to maintain their local government services. The second area of concern has to do with leveling the playing field between the main street Operations Committee, 5/2/00 Page 3 merchant and the Internet merchant where the retailer that chooses to open a store has to charge state and local sales taxes when his or her competitor over the Internet does not have to charge those taxes. The organizations that have banded together to request that the moratorium not be extended are the Council of State Governments, the International City/County Management Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governor's Association, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Almost all of those entities rely to one degree or another on sales tax. Mr. McFall said there are those who believe that by not permitting sales tax collections on Internet sales, the economy will be stimulated resulting in economic growth. There is an argument as well that the variety of tax rates from state to state and within states creates a virtually impossible mechanism for collecting the proper sales tax amount and remitting it appropriately. Counter arguments are that states should be given an opportunity to simplify the sales tax for the purpose of Internet sales and also that the technology exists to identify the appropriate sales tax to be collected based upon the location of the purchaser. From a budgetary standpoint, there is a great deal of concern with what the implications are for the future of local government, particularly in a very heavily sales tax dependent state such as Washington State. Staff is encouraging a position in opposition to the extension of the moratorium as requested by the National League of Cities. Judy Woods moved that the Operations Committee does not support extension of the moratorium on state and local sales taxes on Internet transactions. The motion was seconded for discussion by Leona Orr. I Judy Woods moved to make a letter from absent Committee Member Tim Clark regarding the Internet Sales Tax issue as part of the public record. Leona Orr seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. In summarizing the letter, Ms. Woods said that Mr. Clark had worked with the National League of Cities on the issue and was very concerned about the moratorium extension, particularly that the minority report in support of not extending the moratorium was not forwarded as part of the overall report. Mr. Clark was also concerned about the impact on Kent's local sales tax collection. Brent McFall stated that gross estimates of sales tax loss are being made on national and state levels, but there is no way to collect that data at this time as there is no reporting requirement for companies doing business over the Internet. Leona Orr reminded the Committee that Kent's sales tax in the last two months had come back up, and Mr. McFall agreed that it had begun to turn around, although the most recent month had leveled off again. May Miller said Kent's sales tax had not recovered to the extent that it had been the last few years. Operations Committee, 5/2/00 Page 4 Rico Yingling questioned how long of a moratorium was being asked for, and suggested it might be a good idea if it was for six months to give time for legislation to take place. Ms. Miller said she thought it was quite a long moratorium. Leona Orr questioned how long it would take the state to act to make changes and if the issue was something they were working on or would consider in session. Judy Woods commented that changes would have to come first at the federal level. Rico Yingling asked whether out-of-state catalog sales were taxed. Brent McFall replied that Washington State sales tax wouldbe charged only if the company had a retail facility in the state. Leona Orr said she was concerned that some states collect no sales tax as that could drive business to those states if a similar proposal was recommended for Internet sales as that of catalog sales. Cities derive benefits from Internet companies because of jobs, etc. Brent McFall speculated that the end result of legislation would be that the tax would be collected based upon where the purchaser lives. If an Oregon based company, where there is no state or local sales tax, sold to a Washington based purchaser, the transaction would have a sales tax applied based upon the State of Washington's sales tax rate. Judy Woods commented that people who have computers in their homes were the ones more likely to be able to access the Internet. The poor are less likely to have that accessibility and would not have the opportunity to buy without benefit of sales tax, but would have to continue to go to the local store where they would pay that extra amount. Rico Yingling stated that the Kent Chamber of Commerce does not have a policy on the issue. Leona Orr said it was interesting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the umbrella organization of chambers of commerce, is apparently in favor of extending the moratorium. Ms. Orr said without having more knowledge on how long the moratorium would be and how the issue might be resolved at the federal and state levels, she would have trouble supporting the issue one way or the other as there were too many questions without answers. Brent McFall said the issue could come back to the next Operations Committee, and in the meantime he would try to get answers to the questions. Judy Woods withdrew the motion and Chair Rico Yingling tabled Taxation on Internet Sales and asked that it be on the agenda for the next Operations Committee. Chem Central Settlement Fire Chief Norm Angelo recalled that last September there was a rather significant fire on the north end of town. It is the policy of the City of Kent that the City does not charge taxpayers for a response to a fire. However, when there are extraordinary expenses, particularly relating to hazardous materials, staff tries to recover as much of the cost as possible. Approximately eight different fire agencies were at that fire, including Boeing's fire unit and helicopters. It was an extraordinary fire and a lot of credit goes to the management of Chem Central who were cooperative and supportive and afterwards said the City should by all means document costs to see what would be an appropriate reimbursement. Staff submitted documentation last October in the amount of about $130,000. Operations Committee, 5/2/00 Page 5 That amount was approved for payment by Chem Central's insurance company, and will be distributed to members of the other fire departments based on the costs that were directly attributed to participation in that event. That particular incident ran for more than two weeks with the initial use of outside agencies for the first 24 hours. A check has been written to the City of Kent which will be distributed back to those other agencies with approximately $91,000 going to the Kent Fire Department for its costs. That cost relates to overtime, equipment that had to be decontaminated and disposed of, and a variety of support operational costs. Chem Central's management has asked that, to whatever extent practical, the funds be used to benefit the overall safety of the community. Based upon that request, Fire Administration has proposed that $30,000 be placed towards the purchase of an aid car in conjunction with a developer who is contributing some funds for that purchase. Another request is that $5,000 be set towards the bicycle helmet program. The helmets would be placed in police, fire, and public education vehicles so they could be distributed in various situations where children are encountered. In the month of June, staff will be going to Mt. Weathers, Virginia for a FEMA drill to prepare the Kent community to better handle disasters. The overwhelming majority of the costs are being born by FEMA, but there are some additional costs associated with subsistence, and$11,000 has been allocated to support that overall exercise. A portion of the funds would be placed under Brent McFall and City Administration to be used for the purposes of getting the AWC to look at the Olympic Pipeline issue to insure that such incidents would be prevented in the future. Approximately $25,700 is proposed to go back into the General Fund. Brent McFall said Fire Chief Angelo was to be commended for wanting to reimburse the City's partners for their costs. The City and the other agencies do automatic aid all the time without any expectation of receiving cash back. Judy Woods moved to authorize that funds recovered from the Chem Central emergency be distributed to the appropriate accounts for the above recommended distribution. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 11, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Connie Epperly, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: John Hodgson, Lori Flemm, Brenda Abney, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Ella Mae Pruitt The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 4:00 PM. One item was added to the agenda: Surplusing/Demolishing Three Structures at Chestnut Ridge Park. Approval of the February 8, 2000 Minutes Committee Member Connie Epperly moved to approve the minutes of February 8, 2000. Committee Member Tom Brotherton seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Comprehensive Plan Update Parks Planning and Development Superintendent Lori Flemm said the Parks Draft Five Year Comprehensive Plan should be done by May 1, 2000. It would then be printed and made available for public review. A notice would be put in the paper that the plan is available and the means by which people could obtain or look at copies. On May 9a', the draft would come to the Parks Committee Meeting for discussion, and following that, a public hearing would be held before the draft would be sent to the City Council for adoption. June 23, 2000 is the deadline set by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation to submit the Comprehensive Plans for eligibility of grant applications. The public hearing would be done at a Special Parks Committee Meeting. Tom Brotherton suggested putting the draft or a summary on the City's web page so people could comment in that way, and to also set up an email address for comment purposes. Parks Director John Hodgson said staff would talk to the City's web master about doing that. Ms. Flemm said a variety of techniques had been used to receive public input. Letters were sent to the school PTA's as suggested in the prior Committee meeting by Committee Member Connie Epperly. Raw data has been received back from the telephone survey, but the final executive summary has not been done yet. Two other surveys were undertaken in the past— a Citywide survey in 1999 and a parks survey in 1998. All the data from the three surveys will be compared to see how needs have changed or what people look at differently. In 1998, the top three needs were more baseball fields, play equipment, and more parks in general, and the suggestions also included improvements to existing parks such as more parking and picnic tables. In 1999, more parks was the top request, and survey information also included improvements to existing parks and more parking. The survey found that the top recreational activities in town are walking, bicycling and either camping or golfing. More trails have been mentioned often and also the need for another swimming pool. 68% of the people said they'd like to build a new pool and 50% would be willing to pay more to build a new pool. Parks Director John Hodgson added that swimming pools have life spans and that is an issue that will be addressed in the Comp Plan and a request made to add to the budget funds to do a feasible study to see how to deal with that particular issue. The City doesn't manage the current pool now, but it is located in the City and the majority of the people that use it are City residents. Parks Committee,4/11/00 Page 2 Ms. Flemm said that in 1993 the City adopted a Level of Service for neighborhood and community parks. The standards at that time for population of 41,000 people were 2.53 acres for neighborhood parks per each 1,000 people, and for community parks, the standard was 18.19 acres per 1,000 people. The standard for neighborhood parks in 1996 dropped to 1.58 acres and in 1998 to 1.56 acres, including parks that were being acquired. The population increased from 41,000 in 1993 to 45,000 in 1996 and with annexations, to 70,000 in 1998, and currently is at 73,000 people. That is an increase to the population base of 33,000 people, and despite the fact that park land has been acquired to serve the needs of the annexed areas and other neighborhoods, the City is still not keeping up with its level of service. The LOS standard for community parks went from 18 acres in 1993 to 14 by 1998, and currently is at 13.72 acres. If population growth and additional house construction in Kent is projected to the year of 2005, there should be 78,000 people which adds another 5,400 people to the population. In the telephone survey, people were asked if there were enough parks now to keep up with the growth and over 40% said they thought more parkland should be acquired just to accommodate growth. With the existing level of service at 1.45 acres for neighborhood parks, almost another 8 acres of neighborhood parklands would have to be acquired to maintain the existing level of service. For community parks, 74 acres would have to be acquired. John Hodgson added that the real challenge ahead would be to find the funding and the land to maintain the LOS. Judy Woods said Council had made a high level of service commitment a long time ago, but the dilemma is in retrofitting every time there is an annexation. The County had provided so few opportunities for citizens because the areas were very rural and the need wasn't as pronounced. Connie Epperly added that in the areas left to annex there are no parks. Lori Flemm said the survey incorporated all the telephone numbers in the City of Kent. Areas were then identified where a minimum percentage of response should come from and then random dialing was done. Tom Brotherton asked if the survey included any of the potential annexation areas. Ms. Flemm said it encompassed the Kent School District boundaries and the potential annexation areas since the City's service area is bigger than the City limits. However, only land that the City either maintains or owns is considered as part of the land that meets the LOS needs. There are several lease lands that are operated as parks, but school grounds and County parks aren't included. The City is concurrently working on the Citywide Comprehensive Plan at the same time as Parks is working on the Parks Comprehensive Plan. One of the issues that's come up are citizen requests that new residential developments provide tot lots or play equipment as a condition of development to help satisfy the recreational needs in the community. Those are not considered public parks and would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, but they would help solve some recreational needs and address the need for parks closer to home that people could walk to. They would also take some pressure off of the neighborhood parks. Judy Woods said that in respect to the pool issue, a regional approach would be better than for the City to take that project on alone. By being proactive, the City might entice Suburban Cities or the County to become partners in achieving that end. She asked for some examples of where the regional approach had worked and been successful and self sustaining. John Hodgson responded that a 20 year perspective is needed, and suggested imagining what the parks aquatic system should look like in 20 years and then work backwards to today. The current pools were built 30 years ago and they have a life span. He suggested encouraging Suburban Cities to anticipate a vision for what aquatic facilities should look like W Parks Committee,4/11/00 Page 3 in 20 years and then address the objectives to accomplish that vision. A feasibility study could look at what makes a pool profitable, using examples in the Northwest and Canada of facilities that pay for themselves. Those facilities may not have paid for their initial construction, but they are paying for operating costs. All the fun things such as wave pools, zero depth pools, warm water pools, slides, and waves, on a very small scale, are the things that attract enough people to make a pool pay for itself and make it a family aquatic center. Judy Woods suggested considering a bond issue to fund a new pool. John Hodgson remarked that the countywide open space, parks, and recreation bond initiative that came before voters two years ago had failed, but that was more than just aquatic issues. The subject should be readdressed and a decision made whether to take it back to the voters or to concentrate on one specific issue and see how the communities would want to deal with that particular concern. Part of the feasibility study could be to find out how the issue should be approached, whether from a regional point or not. But the challenge with the pool is to know what is wanted or needed 15-20 years in the future before the issue of today can really be addressed. The other issue is looking at the level of service and how to accomplish it. That could be through a local bond issue or by setting aside "x" amount of money to acquire land. The citizens need to be asked how they want the City to get to a determined level of service, whether through aquatics, parks, or open space, and how fast they want it to happen. Tom Brotherton asked if the Urban Separator open space issue had been addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Lori Flemm said the 1994 Plan didn't address Urban Separators, but did address open space, wildlife, wetlands, natural areas, and linear trails. She said Urban Separators would be addressed in the update. Mr. Brotherton asked if the Level of Service included indoor facilities such as the current pool, Kent Commons, the ice rink, etc., and if they were factored into the acreage requirements as they are alternative options to outdoor usage. Ms. Flemm answered that the National Recreation and Park Association has had standards for years for park acreage plus every facility such as tennis courts, basketball courts, softball fields, etc. Their standard for pools is one per 50,000 people or one per community along with a certain range requirement. Mr. Brotherton asked if there were tradeoffs between adding more acreage for parks or adding an indoor facility. Ms. Flemm responded that the NRP standard is not definite. They may have 25 acres of parkland per thousand people in the community, but community drives how that 25 acres is used. 2000 IAC Grant Applications —Approve Submittal of Resolutions Lori Flemm said to submit an application to the IAC, a resolution from the City Council authorizing the grant applications has to also be submitted. Five applications will be submitted to the IAC: the Green River Greenbelt Gateway area which is involved with the Boeing land donation and the area just south of 196 h Street. The Boeing donation would be used as the match for the grant; Phase I development of the Canterbury Neighborhood Park with last year's land acquisition to be used as the match; the Clark Lake Park acquisition and minimal development of new lands at Clark Lake Park; the East Hill Youth Sports Complex #1, which is the land purchased at the corner of 144`h and 288`h, more commonly known as the Service Club Ballfields; and the Lake Fenwick Park Boat Launch area project which includes paving the parking area and expanding it and a concrete pad for the sani-can. The match for that grant Parks Committee,4/11/00 Page 4 would be the donation of the Gunther property, which is the land adjacent to the boat launch that was received last year. Judy Woods asked how many of the same projects were on the request list last year. Ms. Flemm said only Clark Lake was a resubmittal, and it was only two projects away from receiving funding last year. Connie Epperly moved to approve the submittal of five grant applications to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, per the attached resolutions. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. King County Public Art Program Grant to Accent and Amend the Neely Soame Home Budget Lori Flemm said earlier this year Parks applied for a grant from King County for the Neely House Renovation Project. The Neely House is currently under renovation and last year when the project was put out to bid, there were several additional alternate bid items that was included with the bid. When the bids came in, there were not enough funds available to award the alternate bids, so the grants were applied for in order to complete the project and get the alternate bids funded. The grant was received for $38,227. With the grant money, the wood floors will be refinished, the exterior and interior of the house painted, cabinets put in the kitchen and workshop area (which is the old garage area), and some finishing done on the second floor. Tom Brotherton moved to accept the $38,000 grant from King County Landmarks and Heritage Commission and amend the Neely House Project budget. The motion was seconded by Connie _ Epperly and the motion passed 3-0. Kent Memorial Park Reclamation Art De-Assess John Hodgson said the Kent Memorial Park picnic shelter was built by the Lions Club 30 years ago and recently some of the masonry walls have started to come apart. When crews went in to fix the walls, it was found that the structure wasn't built 30 years ago to today's seismic standards. It is cost prohibitive to rebuild the shelter and make it seismically safe, so it needs to be tom down and a new structure built. The City of Kent will pay for all the materials and the Lions Club will help build the shelter. Several years ago an art reclamation project was done on the site, and since it will now have to be tom down, there will have to be a formal process of de-assessing the artwork. There is a plan to make some preservation of the artwork and the intention is to recognize the efforts of the folks and artists involved in the art process. Cultural Programs Coordinator Brenda Abney showed the Committee some pictures of the 1995 reclamation art project, which includes three figures created to promote racial unity. Kids had painted the mural and then vandals came in just before it was completed and smeared black paint all over it. The kids' families came down and assisted them in refurbishing the art in order that the shelter could be opened, and the project received some good press in the Seattle Times. The question now is not whether the art can be saved(because the shelter can't be saved), but how to commemorate the efforts of those involved in the reclamation process, and whether to do a different art project on the site. A photographer will document the mural with photographs, and some ideas from the artist has been to perhaps make the photographs into tiles by enameling them onto metal and placing them on the site, or making signage that shows some of the process of the creation of the art with a little bit of information Parks Committee,4/11/00 Page 5 _ about it. Another option is having another Lighthouse group come in and do a different project on the site once the new shelter is up. At this point, staff needs for the Council to say it's okay to go ahead and destroy the artwork,_realizing that it's not because the artwork isn't valuable, but because of the unfortunate condition of the shelter, and then giving recommendations of what can be done for the future. Staff has tried to get in touch with all of the young people involved with the original artwork, but hasn't been able to contact them. One is in the Army in Kosovo, and another is away at school. There were three principal youths involved in the project and several others who helped. Staff wants to get together with the three principal artists to get their ideas about what can be done and to explain why the demolition has to happen, and also to have some publicity to let the community know what's happening. In the future, a survey will be done prior to putting artwork on a building to prevent this from happening again. Connie Epperly suggested getting the original artists back to supervise artwork to be done by some new kids for a second generation art project. Picture tiles of the original artwork could complement the new artwork Tom Brotherton questioned why the major piece of artwork actually needed to be destroyed. If the piece was supported and became non structural, it could be retained. Ms. Abney said that was true, however the question was whether only part of the artwork should be retained, as to take away part is to take away the integrity of the whole, and therefore the whole thing should go. The feeling of the artists at this point (prior to consulting the kids) is that the artwork as a whole is what is important and the effort that went into it. Mr. Brotherton suggested taking the question to the Arts Commission. Brenda Abney said that when de-assessing occurs, the general obligation is to notify the artists to give them the opportunity to recover all or part of the artwork, either by purchasing it if it's feasible, or by salvaging it to do with as they wish. If the kids wanted to take the wall away, that could be one option. John Hodgson added that one of the columns has collapsed and a decision needs to be expedited. The shelter should be fixed or replaced before school is out. The intention is to get approval to move as quickly as possible and at the same time to do whatever is possible to preserve all or part of the artwork, or in some way the memory of the efforts of the kids that put the project together. Tom Brotherton moved for approval to de-assess the current piece of art but to direct staff to find a way to reclaim it in some form or another. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly. Mr. Brotherton said he wanted to make sure that consideration of the option of preserving the artwork was included, because the existing structure looks like it could be preserved as long as it became non structural and was supported by whatever additional structure was added. It shouldn't be destroyed until that option is thoroughly assessed. The motion was voted on and carried 3-0. Surplusing/DemolishinQ Three Structures at Chestnut Ridge Park -Lori Flemm said property was purchased in 1998 for construction of a neighborhood park in the Chestnut Ridge area just south of Springbrook Elementary School. Staff has worked with the community for over a year developing the Master Plan. Construction of the park should go out to bid in June and start this summer. There is a brick house on the site and several options were looked at including moving the house off site or demolishing and salvaging as much material as possible. It was found that structurally the house could not be moved, so the option is to salvage as much of the materials Parks Committee,4/11/00 Page 6 for reuse as possible and then demolish the house. The bid will state that as much materials as possible must be recycled. Tom Brotherton moved to surplus, demolish, and remove three structures located on City property at 20403 1001h Avenue SE in preparation for construction of a new neighborhood park. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Chair Judy Woods reminded people that on Monday, April 24`h at 4:00 PM, the ground-breaking, or"ice breaking" for the ice arena would take place near the maintenance shed on James/240`h near Russell Road. Also, that the Seattle Symphony would return on Saturday, July 8`h for an afternoon concert at Lake Meridian Park. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 PM. PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 19 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton,Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, Fred Satterstrom, Carolyn Sundvall, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Ron Harmon, Joe Miles, Scott Otey, Mary Satterthwaite,Rita Bailie The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 5:02 PM. Approval of Minutes of April 3. 2000 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study—Resolution Director of Operations, Brent McFall recalled that representatives of the Port of Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport had presented at an earlier Council Workshop the Part 150 Noise Abatement Study regarding alternatives to airplane flight paths for arrival and departure at Sea-Tac Airport and the effect of noise on the surrounding areas. The current southbound takeoff path goes directly south off the end of the runway to about 320a' Street in Federal Way. It then makes either a right or left turn, depending upon destination. The noise study looked at alternatives which call for the planes to take a sharper turn off the end of the runway rather than proceeding 8-10 miles south before making the turn. Changing the flight patterns would bring an added expense to the Port because the Noise Insulation Program area would expand and carry associated costs with that expansion. One of the alternative routes would have a great deal more plane traffic coming over the Kent Valley, and the general conclusion at the previous workshop was that the City of Kent would be better served by continuation of the existing flight patterns. The resolution states that Kent prefers the existing south flow tracks for operations at Sea-Tac be continued and that neither of the options being explored be implemented. If the Committee recommends the resolution to the full Council for adoption and the Council then adopts the resolution, it would be forwarded to the Port of Seattle to be included in their public comments as they consider their options. Tom Brotherton asked if any other cities were taking a similar measure. Mr. McFall said that Mercer Island is affected similarly by proposed changes off the north departure routes and are taking similar action. Bellevue has also looked at the issue, as changing the northbound route would have an impact on Bellevue as well. In the past, the City of Federal Way supported a change because there would be less traffic off of the routes over Federal Way. The City of Des Moines, immediately north of Federal Way and immediately south of the end of the runway, would be impacted no matter what happens. Planning Committee, 5/l/00 Page 2 Judy Woods moved to recommend to Council the approval of the resolution dealing with the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study as it relates to south flow traffic patterns from Sea-Tac International Airport. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Year 2001 Community Development Block Grant Funding Levels Housing and Human Services Planner Carolyn Sundvall said the Community Development Block Grants are HUD dollars passed through King County and down to Kent. There are restrictions on the program in that anything funded with the HUD dollars has to show a benefit to low and moderate income people. The overall estimate for 2001 for all of King County is $7 million dollars which is shared by a consortium of about 16 cities. Kent's share is estimated to be approximately $550,114, but that amount will probably be adjusted several times by the time the national budget is passed. The funds are divided into and must be spent on three categories: planning and administration, public services, and capital dollars. By the end of the month, the City needs to notify King County whether it will accept the funds and the responsibility that goes with the funds. Acceptance would approve the maximum for public services, about $85,539, and the maximum for planning administration which is approximately$78,986. Tim Clark asked for clarification on eliminating competition with other King County and small city projects. Ms. Sundvall said that if the City didn't accept the Pass through, it would have to compete with all the other cities on a project by project level and there ^ wouldn't be the same control over the funds as if they were accepted into the city and then allocated. Tim Clark recommended approval to accept the year 2001 Pass through funds; to allocate the City's maximum available of the year 2001 CDBG as Community Development Block Grant funds for Public (Human) Services estimated at $85,539; to allocate the City's maximum available of the year 2001 funds for Planning and Administration estimated at $78,986, and forward the recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at its May 16, 2000 meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign the county form indicating the City's desire for distribution of the year 2001 funds. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separators Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom defined Urban Separators as a King County designation which is encouraged to be applied after an area is annexed to a city, when said area was previously designated as an Urban Separator while under the jurisdiction of King County. Urban separators were commonly designated in the Soos Creek planning area on areas of generally open space or of little development that were either along streamways or in a position to separate urban areas. When the Meridian area was annexed, it included substantial areas designated as Urban Separator on the King County Comprehensive Plan. The intent of Urban Separators was to keep those areas in an open space or low density development for approximately 20 years which was the planning horizon of the first set of GMA Comprehensive Plans. This past year two sites were proposed for upzoning for higher density residential development in conjunction with the Planning Committee, 511100 Page 3 City's annual plan amendments. Those two sites have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the discussion on Urban Separators. The Planning Department has come up with three alternatives for the Planning Committee to consider. The first would be to follow the literal intent of the policy of Urban Separators and accept from the County the areas that have been mapped as Urban Separators. No proposals would be entertained to increase the density in those areas to greater than one unit to the acre. Staff calls this alternative "the no local discretion literal interpretation" and no value judgements are meant to be implied. Under a literal interpretation of the policy, no upzoning would be allowed in any of the designated areas. The second alternative would be to ignore King County's countywide planning policy, and case by case decisions made on plan amendments whether or not they were previously designated as Urban Separator. Decisions would be made completely on the merits of the proposal, given whatever factors seem to apply. The third alternative is split into two sections. There would be a general implementation of the Urban Separator policy and the City would accept that the Countywide Planning Policy was meant to be a broad framework type policy that would offer some local discretion. Under 3-A the City would acknowledge the Urban Separator policy and would utilize the County's map to identify the properties, but would develop its own local discretion or criteria to review proposals of areas whenever changes were considered in land use or density. Under 3-B, the City would develop its own generalized map rather than using the County's map, which would effectively update the County's map of Urban Separators. Mr. Satterstrom stated that little purpose is served to designate areas as Urban Separator when those areas are already developed at 4-6 units to the acre. Plus, some areas are quite a distance away from an environmentally sensitive area that may have been the reason for the designation in the first place. The County's previous designation was very specific and strictly followed property lines. This proposal would develop more of a conceptual or generalized overlay showing where the basic intent might be to put the Urban Separator, but each case would be evaluated by a set of criteria to determine whether or not that property really fulfilled the objective of an Urban Separator. The basic difference between alternatives 3-A and 3-B would be that under 3-A the City would strictly use the County's map and develop its own criteria for looking at proposals on a case by case basis; under 3-B, a map would be developed based somewhat on the County's, but more general. Staff recommends alternative 3-B and would work with the Land Use and Planning Board to develop a more generalized map and to also come up with the review criteria that the City would utilize to review plan amendments in the Urban Separator area. The criteria would determine how critical a piece of property was to maintaining the Urban Separator and whether it really fulfilled the Urban Separator purposes. Endorsing 3-B would legitimately require an amendment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. y Planning Conumttee, 511100 Page 4 Tim Clark commented that as some of the areas are already developed, King County clearly did not follow their own practices regardless of whether a property was labeled Urban Separator. Mr. Satterstrom said that in his discussions with County staff members, it was confirmed that when the Urban Separator designation was created in the Soos Creek area 10 years prior to the annexation of that area by the City of Kent, King County staff looked at properties that met a set of their own criteria. If part of the property fell within a certain distance from Soos Creek, the whole parcel was included even though only the one part might have fit and actually served the purpose for an Urban Separator. By developing a more generalized map, the City of Kent would be able to analyze each piece of property in the basic pattern of Urban Separator and determine whether not developing that property would really be accomplishing the purposes of the Urban Separator, and/or whether parts of the property might be developable while other parts would not. Tim Clark commented that the City had established environmental and sensitive area regulations and had designated an area along the Soos Creek as such. Fred Satterstrom said there definitely is a steep sloped sensitive hillside area that the Soos Creek follows and the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance protects to a large extent those sensitive areas from undue development. However, the City of Kent didn't have a sensitive areas ordinance when the County designated the Urban Separator area along the Soos Creek 10 years ago. That ordinance was established in 1993, one or two years after the concept was adopted in the Soos Creek Plan, and not long before the City annexed the area. Judy Woods asked if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had been updated. Mr. Satterstrom said it had and some additional zoning restrictions had been added to protect the Soos Creek. Tom Brotherton questioned whether an area coming down 228`h off the hill might also qualify in the context of a greenbelt. Fred Satterstrom said some land along the Green River to the west is steep but the great preponderance is rolling. Those lands were mostly undeveloped 10 years ago when they were designated Urban Separator, and at the time they provided a convenient division between Kent and Auburn. The Urban Separator has many different purposes. Along the Soos Creek area, it appears to have a much different objective than it does where it divides Kent and Auburn on lands which are very developable from an environmentally sensitive standpoint. To some extent, the boundary as it moves from east to west, or north to south, takes on a different purpose. It would be hard to look at pieces of property parcel by parcel and analyze all the different pieces. The best approach would be the broad brush approach with the criteria being the specific part. Mr. Satterstrom surmised that the issue would probably be a fairly major thing with property owners, as some parties may think the City doesn't go far enough and others might think it goes too far in telling them what they can or can't do with their land. Judy Woods stated that Council has a commitment to the greenbelt concept, and analysis and evaluation is necessary because things have happened to change the lay of the land since the issue was first on the books. A policy is needed that is fair,but the process is painful because the original policy was not followed by the people who put it on the books. Tom Brotherton agreed that implementation had been erratic and said he liked the concept of having standards to judge the benefits to be achieved. Tim Clark concluded X Planning Committee, 5/1/00 Page 5 that had the County installed the policy and then drawn hard lines, the City would be defending it. Instead the City has inherited disproportionate or inappropriate classifications in some cases. He said the concept of the greenbelt is something that, over time, would bring rewards as the density of the respective jurisdictions around Kent grows. Judy Woods considered that a policy with criteria in place is needed so it would quickly develop legs of its own and wouldn't have to be defended every year. The opportunity is too good to waste and green space is a priceless asset to have as part of the City's boundary. She stated that Kent is ahead of the game in the Soos Creek Basin and the next challenge is to move north and south to see if neighboring jurisdictions would be willing to partner with Kent in those areas. Ms. Woods questioned whether people would have the opportunity to speak again to the issue in another public forum. Fred Satterstrom said it was his impression that the item would go to the full Council for endorsement, but that it could be referred to the Land Use and Planning Board instead. City Attorney Roger Lubovich said since it came from the City Council to Committee because of the two pending applications, it should go back to the full Council before going to the Land Use Board. Tim Clark stated there was no reason for public input at this time since the issue would recycle. Tim Clark requested to move the item to the City Council with a recommendation to endorse Alternative Option 3B to recognize the Urban Separator framework policy but allow for local flexibility in identifying lands which would fulfill the objectives of countywide planning policy LU-27. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved that the item be put under Other Business at the next Council meeting. Tim Clark accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 11, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford, Tom Brubaker, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Ella Mae Pruitt The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5:04 PM. Two items were added to the agenda: Keep Kids Alive Drive 25, and Valley Corn PDA Enactment Ordinance Approval of Minutes of March 14, 2000. Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and passed 3-0. Grant to Purchase Brass Oxvgen Regulators Fire Chief Norm Angelo said the Department was recently made aware of some problems experienced back East with oxygen regulators that had fittings other than brass. The Department applied for and received a grant for$1200 from the State Trauma Council that would allow replacement of the oxygen gauges with brass type fittings, thus eliminating any probability of incurring the same problems. To date there have not been any of those particular difficulties, but it is worthwhile to change the fittings before there is an incident. The request is to accept the grant and authorize the expenditure of the funds to purchase the brass valves. Tom Brotherton moved that the item be placed on the Consent Calendar for the April 18`h, 2000 Council meeting recommending that the grant funds in the amount of$1200 received from the State of Washington be accepted and that the Fire Department be authorized to apply said funds toward the purchase of brass oxygen regulators. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and passed 3-0. Training Services Agreement with King County Fire Chief Norm Angelo said King County Fire District 40 has asked if Kent would be interested in providing training for them related to practical and manipulative skills and to share other functional relationships. The Kent Fire Department has had a very positive relationship with Fire District 40. When Kent fire engines are tied up somewhere else, it is not uncommon for the first engine to an incident to be a neighbor from District 40, Tukwila, or another department. Interactive relationships between departments allow for the enhancement of service to the public, and training and sharing standards relates to firefighter safety and the ability to get complex jobs done. The more the different departments interface and interact, the better the service is and the safer it is for the firefighter. Public Safety Committee,4/11/00 Page 2 A draft agreement between the Kent Fire Department and Fire District 40 has been examined by the Kent City Attorney's Office and Fire District 40's attorney. Internal staff have talked about the implications and what would be needed in the relationship. The net result is to ask for the authorization of an additional position in the Fire Department that would be totally dependent on funding from Fire District 40. The Department is asking for authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract to add the lieutenant's position based on the assumption that it will be fully funded by revenue brought in from Fire District 40. A two year escape clause has been built in and Fire District 40 would have to give Kent two years' notice if they wanted out of the agreement. That would allow the Kent Department to do what it could to save the existing lieutenant's position. Capital equipment would need to be purchased by Fire District 40 such as a vehicle and a work station, but since the position would be starting in mid'year, that would be figured into the annual payment. Most of the training would take place at the Training Center and the impact would just be additional people in the classes. Because more units would be coming to training, the timing of the training could be split and more positions left to respond to incidences in the most timely fashion. That eases the increasing demand on the units. Kent would gain an additional training officer and Fire District 40 would gain a much higher level of training, with a broader consistency in training brought between the two departments which is critical because of mutual response. It is a win-win situation. Tom Brotherton asked about the extra cost of wear and tear on equipment. Chief Angelo said the center would not be open any more than normal. Currently when the Department brings in other agencies, it jointly trains with them and there is no charge to the other agencies for the program that Kent is using. Joint training is a benefit. In this particular scenario, because Fire District 40 won't have other options, they are paying some of the maintenance costs, which will provide an offset. The Emergency Medical Services training will continue to be done by paramedics. Kent will be tracking Fire District 40's records to make sure they are in place and personnel is up to speed. District 40 will have the same computer system as Kent and will pay for all their tie-in lines. A central area will liaison back to their department, with Kent setting the requirements and standards for behavior at the center. Actual development of Fire District 40 personnel or any correction of actions rests totally with District 40. Any kind of specialized training that they would request would have to be funded by them. If Kent brings in specialized training and District 40 wants people in the class, they could pay for a portion of the attendance slots or have first right of refusal. Sandy Amodt moved that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement for Training Services and Joint Operation of Facilities with King County Fire Protection District #40, and to add a lieutenant's position to be funded by District 940. Tom Brotherton seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Public Safety Committee,4/11/00 Page 3 Keep Kids Alive Drive 25 Sandy Amodt said she had received an e-mail about"Keep Kids Alive, Drive 25 Miles Per Hour"which is designed to encourage motorists to observe residential speed limits. In most towns and cities across the US the residential limit is 25 miles an hour. After one year, the Keep Kids Alive Drive has grown into a campaign with contacts working on developing local initiatives in over 170 cities and towns representing 39 states. People are working towards growing the Keep Kids Alive Drive into a nationally recognized campaign that calls for all drivers to slow down in their neighborhoods for kids' sakes. Connie Epperly asked if there was a local representative. Ms. Amodt said she would do some investigating and bring information back to a future meeting. Vallev Com Ordinance Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker provided an ordinance to create a Public Development Authority (PDA) to finance the new Valley Com Center. The City of Kent as the parent organization would be the one actually creating the PDA for the five member-cities. Those cities are Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Renton, and now Federal Way. The Resolution approving the new Interlocal Agreement to include Federal Way as a Valley Com member has been signed by the member cities. The financial obligation and liability would be equally spread among the five cities, plus there would be further protection with the autonomy of the PDA. The City has agreed to pay off 20% of the debt that the PDA would incur. Tom Brotherton asked if the agreement was the standard form or if there were any unique features necessitated by the facility that would add anything to the agreement that the Council should be aware of. Mr. Brubaker said the agreement itself is not dissimilar from the same agreement created when the Kent Downtown Market Public Development Authority was created. It creates a separate autonomous, independent entity that protects the City of Kent from liability if there are problems. The PDA is formed strictly to incur the debt and to finance the project. It will not own the facility, but will be a pass-through for money to Valley Com, who will then spend the money on the facility, purchase materials and supplies, and will own the building. Valley Com was created from an Interlocal Agreement. It is a jointly operated entity operated by the five member cities. The development authority is a separate municipal corporation which will provide a single clearing house for the five cities to jointly fund the project. Kent is the only city doing the PDA, however each city is signatory to the Interlocal Agreement that establishes the five member cities. In the ordinance, charter, and by laws each city is responsible for payment of 20% of the debt incurred by the PDA, but the PDA is a stand-alone entity. Tom Brotherton asked if the ordinance could be amended to include other cities that might want to become a member. Tom Brubaker said a city would first need to become a subscribing city, working with Valley Com to get phone systems linked up. Then if they wanted to become a member city it would be up to the existing five member cities to agree to include another city. A number of cities that use Valley Com and 911 aren't Public Safety Committee,4/11/00 Page 4 members, but pay about $18 on a per call basis only when a car is actually sent out. Fire Chief Norm Angelo said subscriber cities pay a higher rate than owner cities. If a subscriber city wants to become a member city, it would have to buy into the capital workload. Most cities can get quality service while balancing and holding down their costs without having to make the capital investment that comes with being a member city. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 1, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Gary Gill, Cyndi Wilbur, Don Wickstrom, Tom Brubaker, Tom Vetsch, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Frank Swan, Steve DiJulio, Wayne Tanaka The LID 351 Equalization Board was convened by Chair Tim Clark at 4:05 PM. Board Member Connie Epperly moved to adopt the findings as sent forward on the LID 351 Final Assessment Roll Ordinance, including all adjustments recommended by the LID 351 Board of Equalization. The motion was seconded by Board"Member Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker asked the Board to sign the ordinance which would conclude business pursuant with the agreement of Wayne Tanaka. Mr. Tanaka agreed. Mr. Brubaker clarified for the record that Wayne Tanaka was the separate counsel representative for the LID 351 Board of Equalization. Tim Clark adjourned the LID 351 Equalization Board. The Public Works Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 4:08 PM. Approval of Minutes of April 17, 2000 Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of April 17, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. LID 351 Final Assessment Roll Ordinance Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker confirmed that the LID 351 Board of Equalization had just adopted the findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to go to the full City Council on the Final Assessment Roll for LID 351. The ordinance would then adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the LID 351 Board of Equalization. Once the ordinance had passed and become effective, the final assessment roll would be established for the LID and the City would move forward and start the process to obtain the bonds to fund a portion of the 277 h Street Corridor project. Tim Clark clarified that the LID would pay for the City's portion of the funding of the 277nd Street Corridor and that the purpose of the Board of Equalization was to hear citizen testimony in terms of challenging the actual assessment process. The Board of Equalization met for findings on 26 cases of property owners that wrote or testified. Tom Brubaker added that the Board of Equalization adjusted one case by its own motion and two or three others by agreement between the City and those people protesting. Public Works Coni nittee, 511100 Page 2 The total cost of the 277a' Street Corridor project is $30 million dollars with the LID funding approximately $7 million, some of which has been prepaid by property owners that chose not to be assessed. Tim Clark stated that part of the complexity of the issue was the Environmental Mitigation Agreements which dealt with properties not actually adjoining the road, but that were assessed under the mechanism available at that period of time. Tom Brubaker explained that in the past, when entities, people, individuals, and businesses had developed property in the City of Kent, there was an environmental review to determine whether there would be an impact to the City's transportation system because of the development. A number of properties were given the option to sign an Environmental Mitigation Agreement rather than to conduct a thorough study of impacts to the transportation system. In this case, the agreement committed them to fund a portion of the 277a` Street Corridor Project, either through the LID or at the expiration of a 10 year period from the date of signing the agreement. Those properties that entered into the agreements were then allowed to develop even though they didn't complete all the improvements to the City's transportation system. The City allowed the development to go forward because of the commitments to help on the 277`h Street project. Under LID 351, those properties that were subject to the agreements were included on the assessment roll, and the agreements played a role in determining the assessments against each property. Tim Clark added that there had been controversy about property owners discovering the assessment long after they'd actually bought their home and a Council Task Force was created to deal with that issue. Tom Brubaker said when the agreements were created, the City endeavored to provide notice to property owners because the agreements were covenants to the property and not the individuals that signed the agreements. Therefore, as ownership changed, the agreement stayed bound or applied to the property as opposed to transferring from owner to owner. The agreements were recorded with the King County Auditor's Office in an effort to provide a record and notice to all subsequent purchasers with the intent that it would show up on the title reports and owners would be aware of the potential future obligation. However, there were some people, primarily residential property purchasers, who didn't recognize the encumbrance in the title report nor did the title companies strongly reflect the monetary obligation to pay in the title report. Some property owners were surprised to find out they had the obligation. A Task Force was formed to review the process and after looking at a number of alternative ways to fund major transportation projects in the City, determined the Environmental Mitigation Agreement process was as good or better than any others, and recommended that the City continue to use them. They recommended changing some procedures to try to provide better notification. The recommendations were discussed with the City Council and the Council endorsed the recommendations of the Task Force. Tim Clark said a request was proposed to send to the State Legislature to force the listing of encumbrances on titles in a language and clarity that would make them impossible to miss. Tom Brubaker said no action was taken on that proposal, but a local representative did address the issue with plans to take it to the state legislature. Tim Clark commented that in one of the findings on page 4 it says "...the city is favored with certain presumptions" that "the assessment is equal or ratable to the assessments upon other properties similarly situated, and the assessment is fair" and makes a reference to a court case. The assumption was that if the public was going to protest the assessment, they had to do so with ' Public Works Committee, 511100 Page 3 expert testimony, because the Board of Equalization would act as a court. Tom Brubaker explained that the Board of Equalization that acted for the 2770h Street corridor LID were the three members of the Public Works Committee, acting as a separate entity with separate action from that Committee. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Equalization Board state the legal presumptions regarding the burden of proof necessary to overcome the decision of the Board. Wayne Tanaka clarified that the time for presenting arguments and expert testimony has passed. The matter would go to the City Council, but people should not expect to come to the Council meeting to object to the assessments because it would be too late. It was proper for citizens and businesses to make their presentation to the Board of Equalization. Several individuals did come forward and did made statements about their particular usage or non-usage of the road. The Committee was aware that the test was not whether a particular individual would or would not use a road, but the benefit that the road would have on the property. Individual property ownership can change, but the benefit to the property remains whether or not the owner uses the road. Another benefit to the property is the fact that the property was allowed to develop in the first place because the owner signed an environmental mitigation agreement which recognized the fact that the new development would have impacts on the City street system which by law requires a mitigation. One of the questions was the number of trips that a given piece of property would generate. Testimony from a senior housing project about the fact that their property owners did not have as many trips as normal was a distinguishing fact for the Committee, as that particular property was subject to a covenant for an extensive period of time that stipulated the property was restricted to that use. A benefit also to property is in the traffic circulation which makes it more convenient to get to the property and which affects property value, as was testified to by the City's expert appraiser in his report to the Committee. Tom Brubaker asked for permission for the Law Department to review the ordinance for consistency and to make minor adjustments if necessary. Connie Epperly moved to recommend passage of the LID 351 Final Assessment Roll Ordinance, including all adjustments recommended by the LID 351 Board of Equalization. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Tim Clark clarified that the motion would include Mr. Brubaker's request for review. Tom Brubaker mentioned that May 101h is the date set for the ribbon cutting ceremony for the 2771h Street Corridor and the road should be open to the public for general use after that date. The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary P O CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. / �I;o: EXECUTIVE SESSION