HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/05/2000 I
µ
Cityof Kent
w, CityCouncil Meeting
Agenda
KENT
WASH I NGTON
Mayor Jim White
Counci/members
Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly
Tom Brotherton Judy Woods
Tim Clark Rico Yingling
July 5, 2000
Office of the City Clerk
LI4
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
K EN T July 5, z000
WASHINGTON 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
B. Recreation and Parks Month
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes - Approval
B. Bills - Approval
C. Camping Ordinance
D. Public Works Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection
Fees - Ordinance
E. Riverbend Golf Complex Amended Budget - Adopt
F. Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant - Accept and
Establish Budget
G. Riverbend Golf Equipment Surplus and Sale -
Authorization
H. Public Works Traffic Section Maintenance Shop Lease
Agreement - Authorization
7 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Urban Separators
B. Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center General
Obligation Voter Approved Bonds - Ordinance
8 . BIDS
A. 2000 Downtown Sidewalk Replacement & Gateway
Improvements
B. Fire Prevention Tenant Improvement
(continued next page)
SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED
9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION
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 .
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
B) RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH
�q
CONSENT CALENDAR
6 . City Council Action:
Councilmember a/W moves, Councilmember � Gb�
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through H be approved.
Discussion
Action y
6A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
June 20, 2000 .
6B. Approval of Bills .
Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 1 and paid on
June 20 , 2000 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/20/00 Checks 244468-244818 $ 291, 501 . 53
6/20/00 Advices 96520-97134 938 , 127 . 92
$1, 229, 629 .45
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent, Washington
June 20 , 2000
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called cc order
at 7 : 05 p .m. by Mayor Pro Tem Orr . Present : Councilmembers Amodt ,
Brotherton, Clark and Yingling, Government Affairs Manager
Laurent , Deputy City Attorney Brubaker, City Engineer Gill , -Parks
Planning & Development Superintendent Flemm, and Assistant Finance
Director Hillman. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting .
CHANGES TO Councilmember Amodt removed Item E from the
THE AGENDA Consent Calendar for discussion.
The following items were added to the agenda under
Continued Communications :
11A. R. E . Hodgin Drainage System Failure
118 . Ardis Johnson Urban Separators
11C . Bill Young Performing Arts Center
11D . Martin P1ys Performing Arts Center
11E . Gail Shewey S . 277th Improvements
11F . Ted Kogita Parks Department
11G. Joe Rubio Land Purchases
PUBLIC Introduction of Appointee. Mayor Pro Tem Orr
COMMUNICATIONS noted that the appointment of Ken Mendoza to the
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is on the agenda
and asked for Council ' s approval .
Hire-A-Veteran Month. Mavor Pro Tem Orr read a
proclamation noting that there are more than
606 , 000 veterans in Washington, and that over
64 , 000 veterans have sought employment and
training services from the Employment Security
Department during the last program year. She
stated that Mayor White has proclaimed June 2000
as Hire-A-Veteran Month in the City and urged all
citizens to join in the special observance . The
proclamation was presented to Don Sparks, who
expressed appreciation to the Mayor and Council
for assisting the Auburn Office, who had the
highest-volume placement rate in the Puget Sound
area for last vear.
CONSENT CLARK MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR S be approved, with the exception of Item E, which
was removed by Councilmember Amodt . Brotherton
seconded and the motion carried.
1
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of June 6 , 2000 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N)
SANITATION Pacific Heights . ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for
Pacific Heights submitted by Pacific Industries ,
Inc . for continuous operation and maintenance of
471 feet of watermain improvement , 740 feet of
sanitary sewer, 1, 197 feet of storm sewer and 613
feet of street improvement and release bonds after
the expiration period, as recommended by the
Public Works Director. The project is located at
S . E . 253rd Street and 121st Place S . E .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 60)
Chancellor Parks I . ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for
Chancellor Park Division I submitted by MJF
Holdings , Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 554 . 14 feet of street improvement
and 885 feet of storm sewer and release bonds
after the expiration period, as recommended by
the Public Works Director . The project is located
at S . E . 240th & 132nd Avenue S . E .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6P)
Chancellor Parks II . ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for
Chancellor Park Division II submitted by MJF
Holdings , Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 494 . 08 feet of street improvement
and 694 feet of storm sewer and release bonds
after the expiration period, as recommended by
the Public Works Director. The project is located
at S . E . 240th & 132nd Avenue S . E .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6Q)
Anderson Site Warehouse. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale
for Anderson Site Warehouse submitted by Benarova
Companv for continuous operation and maintenance
of 24 feet of watermain, 655 feet of street
improvement 32 feet of storm sewer and release
bonds after the expiration period, as recommended
by the Public Works Director. The project is
located at West Valley Highway and S . 238th
Street .
2 f._
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6R)
SANITATION Yellowstone Industrial Park. ACCEPT the Bill of
Sale for Yellowstone Industrial Park submitted by
Sound Ventures, Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 29 feet of watermain improvements ,
215 feet of sanitary sewer and 661 feet of street
improvement and release bonds after the expiration
period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is located at 18404 72nd
Avenue South.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J)
Tacoma Second Supply Project . AUTHORIZATION for
the Mayor to sign the Tacoma Second Supply Project
Agreement upon concurrence with the language by
the Public Works Director and the City Attorney,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee .
SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
Sewer Latecomer Aareement. AUTHORIZATION for the
- Public Works Director to execute a sewer late-
comer agreement for the Benson Short Plat , as
recommended by the Public Works Committee . The
developer for the Benson Short Plat has extended
the sanitary sewer in 104th Avenue S . E . This
provides service to nine lots .
DRAINAGE (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A)
(ADDED)
Drainage System Failure. R. E . Hodain, 7927 S .
222nd, voiced concerns about the effects of run-
ning water on property owners adjacent to the
Willow Way project . It was determined that the
issue would be referred z:o the Public Works
Committee and that City Engineer Gill will pro-
vide a report to the Committee .
STREETS (BIDS - ITEM 8C)
SE 256th Street Widening Improvements (116th
Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE. The bid opening
for this project was held on June 13th. The City
Engineer Gary Gill explained the project and noted
that six bids were received. He said the low bid
was from Scarsella Bros . in the amount of
3
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
STREETS $4 , 686 , 366 . 29 , and the Engineer ' s estimate was
$5 , 026 , 033 . 465 . He recommended award of the bid
to Scarsella Bros . , subject to Transportation
Improvement Board approval .
CLARK MOVED that the SE 256th Street Widening
Improvements contract be awarded to Scarsella
Bros . , in the amount of $4 , 686 , 366 . 29 , subject to
Transportation Improvement Board approval .
Brotherton seconded and the motion carried.
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11E)
(ADDED)
S . 277th Street Improvements . Gail Shewev, 11217
S . E . 274th Street , brought the following concerns
to the Council : 1) Relocation of a speed sign at
116th and Kent-Kangley, 2 ) Safety Hazard on 114th
Avenue S . E . , and 3 ) Street Sign on S . 274th.
City Engineer Gill agreed to look at the issues
and make a reper_ to the Public Works Committee
and Mr . Shewey. ~'
URBAN (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 113)
SEPARATORS (ADDED)
Rezone/Urban Separator. Ardis Johnson_, 24039
146th Place S . E . , stated that the fair sale of ^er
home and property has been prevented by the denial-
of a zoning change to allow homes to be built to
conform to the housing development south and
west of her property. Orr informed Johnson that
this issue will be discussed at the meeting of
July 5th. Johnson provided pictures of her
property and it was determined that the pictures
will be returned to her at the Council meeting of
July 5th.
INTERNET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
SALES TAX (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER AMODT)
OOpoosition to Extension of Internet Sales Tax
Moratorium. The Operations Committee has recom-
mended endorsement of the National League of
Cities ' position opposing the extension of a sales
tax moratorium on Internet sales and service, as
Congress is currently considering . The House has
adopted a five year extension through 2006 , and
a
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
INTERNET the Senate will soon consider the issue . The
SALES TAX National League of Cities has requested that the
City take a position on this issue .
Amodt said she is in favor of the five year
moratorium to allow time to study the impacts cf
the sales tax. Brotherton spoke in favor of
extending the moratorium in order to determine
how to develop a fair tax system.
Clark explained the background of this issue and
said that it is an issue of fairness . He said he
is in favor of the motion to endorse the National
League of Cities ' position. Yingling stated that
putting simplified taxes on the internet will no:
slow the internet . He said a model of how to cav
taxes on the internet is catalog sales , and that
the way the legislation was brought forward was
unfair. After a lengthy discussion, CLARK MOVED
to endorse the National League of Cities ' position
opposing the extension of a sales tax moratorium
on internet sales and service, as recommended by
the Operations Committee . Yingling seconded. The
motion failed with Clark and Yingling in favor,
and Amodt , Brotherton and Orr opposed.
TECHNOLOGY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
Purchase Of Personal Computers . ACCEPTANCE of
the quote of $55 , 068 . 89 for the purchase of 3d
Hewlett-Packard Pentium III computers from
Unisoft , Inc . , and authorization for the Mayor to
sign a purchase agreement .
As part of the Technology Plan, the City made a
commitment to the creation of an ongcina replace-
ment program for the City' s personal computers . A
request for quotes was published in local and
regional papers and distributed to a number of
companies . Three quotes were received from three
different companies . The lowest quote came from
Unisoft , Inc . for $55 , 068 . 89
_ COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M)
Council Absences (Epperly And Woods) . APPROVAL of
excused absences from tonight ' s meeting for
5
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
COUNCIL Councilmembers Epperly and Woods , who are unable
to attend.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G)
RECREATION Interim Comprehensive Park And Recreation Plan.
ADOPTION of the Interim Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan to maintain eligibility with -the
IAC for grant funding, as recommended by the Parks
Committee .
The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan was
last updated in 1994 . In order to be eligible for
state grant funds from the IAC, the City needs to
have a current plan every six _years . Also, the
entire City' s Comprehensive Plan is currently
being updated and in order to plan concurrently
with the rest of the City, an interim plan must be
adopted to meet the IAC deadline of June 23 and to
be eligible for year 2000 grants .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
Soroptimist Donation To East Hill Youth Sports
Complex. ACCEPT the Soroptimist donation of
$3 , 750 . 00 and amend the East Hill Youth Sports
Complex project budget , as recommended by the
Parks Committee .
In May 2000 , the Soroptimist Club of Kent donated
$3 , 750 . 00 to the East Hill Youth Sports Complex
project Field #1 , (commonly known as Service Club
Ballfields) . This donation will assist in funding
ballfield renovation.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 61)
IAC Grant For Chestnut Ridge Park Acquisition.
ACCEPT the IAC grant for Chestnut Ridge Park
property acquisition and amend the Land
Acquisition budget , as recommended by the Parks
Committee .
The Park Planning and Development Division applied
for an IAC neighborhood grant to reimburse 50% of
the Estes property acquisition at Chestnut Ridge
Park. The State legislature approved the
$137 , 464 . 00 grant on May 19 , 2000 . Funds will
6
Kent City Council MinuLeS June 20 , 200C
PARKS & be used for future develop_ menc of the Chestnut
RECREATION Ridge Park.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K)
Sutlief Donation To Specialized Recreation.
ACCEPT the $5 , 000 donation from Mr . and
Mrs . Sutlief , and amend the Specialized Recreation
Computer Program budget , as recommended by the
Parks Committee .
In honor of their son Mike, who was a long-time
participant in the Specialized Recreation programs
and graduate of Highline ' s Computer Information
Systems Program, Mr . and Mrs . Sutlief donated
$5 , 000 to the Specialized Recreation Computer
Program.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L)
Western States Arts Federation Grant . ACCEPT the
Washington States Art Federation Grant (WESTAF) ,
and amend the Cultural Services budget , as recom-
mended by the Parks Committee .
WESTAF awarded the Kent Parks and Recreation_
Cultural Division a grant in the amount of $2 , 500
in the 2000-2001 TourWest Program funding cycle .
Funds will offset the artistic fee of Tibetan
Monks of the Drepung Loseling Monastery for their
Mystical Arts of Tibet residency and performance
in Kent , October 6 - 8 , 2000 .
(BIDS - ITEM SA)
Garrison Creek Court Surfacing And Striping. The
bid opening was held on June 9 , and two bids were
received. Mid-Pac Construction was the low bidder
at $31 , 900 . 00 , plus Washington State Sales Tax.
BROTHERTON MOVED that the Garrison Creek Court
Surfacing and Striping Project be awarded to Mid-
Pac Construction in the amount of $31 , 900 , plus
Washington State Sales Tax. Yingling seconded and
the motion carried.
7
rent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
PARKS & (BIDS - ITEM 8B)
RECREATION Chestnut Ridge Neighborhood Park Development. The
bid opening was held on June 9 , with nine bids
received. Father and Son Construction Inc . •.was
the low bidder at $396 , 400 . 00 (base bid) , plus
Washington State Sales Tax. Parks Planning and
Development Superintendent Lori Flemm said that
construction wiLl begin soon.
BROTHERTON MOVED that the Chestnut Ridge
Neighborhood Park project be awarded to Father
and Son Construction, Inc . in the amount of
$396 , 400 , plus Washington State Sales Tax. Amodt
seconded and the motion carried.
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11C)
(ADDED)
Performing Arts Center. Bill Young, 1005 E .
Guiberson Street , voiced concern about an increase
in the cost of the Performing Arts Center as
stated in a newspaper article . Brotherton pointed
out that the City has not approved any performing
arts center, and Yingling encouraged Young to talk
to the Performing Arts Center Board for details .
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11D)
(ADDED)
Performing Arts Center. Martin Plvs , 3004 S .
256th, said this issue is in the budget, that
$185 , 000 has already been spent on studies
regarding the Performing Arts Center, that money
is being spent on a consultant and on monthly
publications, that there is a salary for a
Performing Arts Center director, and that it wil'
cost the City $200 , 000 a year to operate the
facility. He said the Council wants this issue
on the primary election ballot because more people
will vote at that time .
Brotherton disagreed that $15 , 000 , 000 has been
spent on the Center, and emphasized that it has
not been approved. Orr added that the funds from
the water fund are being repaid, and funds are not
being misused. Yingling noted that many truths,
half-truths and untruths have come out and
8
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
PARKS & suggested that P1ys and others who are interested
RECREATION ask for a sit down meeting with staff , Council ,
and the Performing Arts Committee, to go over the
issue in detail . He added that costs inevitably
change and that nothing underhanded is going on .
It was noted that such a meeting would result in
getting questions answered and getting correct
information . Amodt said she and tonight ' s
speakers have already asked for such a meeting .
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11F)
(ADDED)
Parks Department. Ted Kcaita questioned whether
part-time employees are included in the count of
City employees . It was determined that Employee
Services could get that information to him.
Kogita also asked why Parks Director Hodgson is on
the Performing Arts Center Board, and Yingling
said it is most likely for City representation
since the City is a proposed sponsor of the opera-
tions of the facility. When Kogita inquired about
other members of the Board, Orr explained that it
is made up of volunteers .
(CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11G)
(ADDED)
Land Purchases/Performing Arts Center. Joe Rubio,
S . 248th, expressed concern about the cost of land
purchases for the Performing Arts Center, a
$241 , 000 land value donation, the appraisal on the
land, contamination on the land, who will pay for
the cost to clean up the contamination, a $50 , 000
escrow account , and what the final cost of the
Performing Arts Center will be . Upon Orr ' s
suggestion, Rubio agreed to provide his questions
to Parks Director Hodgson in written form.
HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - T_TEM 6F)
Voluntary Retirement Incentive Procrram. APPROVAL
of the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program
which provides eligible employees a window of
opportunity to retire from the City. The program
recognizes and rewards the dedication, loyalty and
distinguished service of long-term employees while
providing savings to the City.
9
Kent Citv Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6S)
LodctinQ Tax Advisory Committee ADnointment .
CONFIRM Council President Orr ' s appointment of
Kent Mendoza to serve as a member of the Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee . Mr. Mendoza is currently
the General Manager of the Hawthorn Suites in
Kent .
Mr . Mendoza is a member of the speakers Bureau of
Make-A-Wish foundation and is a Wish Granter for
that organization. He is a former board member of
the Hospitality & Tourism Programs at uighline
Community College and Lake Washington Technical
College .
He will replace Peter Wvnia, who has moved from
the area, and his term will continue until_
1/1/2002 .
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM o'B)
Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through May 31 and paid on May 31
after auditing by the Operations Committee on
June 6 , 2000 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/31/00 235383 -235644 $1 , 108 , 298 . 80
5/31/00 235645-236131 2 , 376 , 989 . 51
$3 , 485 , 288 . 31
Approval of checks issued for oavroll for Mav 20
and June 5 and paid on Mav 20 and June 5 , 2000 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/20/00 Checks 243769-244093 $ 277 , 322 . 66
5/20/00 Advices 95251-95865 937 , 401 . 80
1 , 214 , 724 . 46
6/5/00 Checks 244094-244467 $ 278 , 435 . 64
O'/5/00 Advices 95860-95oi9 895 . 895 . 85
$1 , 174 , 331 . 49 �"•
10
Kent City Council Minutes June 20 , 2000
REPORTS Council President . Orr announced that , due to the
holiday on July ?th, the next Council meeting will
be held on Wednesday, July 5th at 7 : 00 O .M. She
urged citizens to respect the fireworks laws and
to enjoy the City' s celebration.
Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the
Committee will meet on Julv 3rd at 5 : 00 o .m.
Planning Committee. Brotherton noted that the
Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p .m. on July 3-rd.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 15 p .m.
Brenda Jacober, CMC
Citv Clerk
11
?W
. �
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: CAMPING ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.
prohibiting unauthorized camping. Camping would be permitted
in parks and public places only by permit . It would prohibit
camping and the storage of personal property, including camp
facilities and camp paraphernalia, in any park or other public
place in the City of Kent . To camp means to pitch or occupy
camp facilities or to use camp paraphernalia. Camp facilities
include vehicles, tents, huts, or temporary shelters .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety 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. 6C
i
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, enacting a new chapter, Chapter 8.09,
entitled "Camping," prohibiting camping in certain public
areas.
WHEREAS, the City is experiencing an increasing number of individuals
camping, without authorization, in parks and on public places in the City of Kent; and
I
(j WHEREAS, such activity creates a health, sanitation, and public safety
issue for the citizens of the City of Kent; and
'I
I
I I
WHEREAS, it is in the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens
in the City of Kent to prohibit unauthorized camping in parks and on other public places
within the City of Kent; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new chapter, Chapter 8.09, entitled "Camping," shall be
added to Title 8 of the Kent City Code as follows:
it
l
1 Camping
j CHAPTER 8.09 CAMPING
Sec. 8.09.010. Unlawful camping in public places. Except as permitted by permit
i
pursuant to KCC 8.09.040 below or as otherwise provided by ordinance, it shall be
unlawful for any person to camp in any park or other public place.
Sec. 8.09.020. Unlawful storage of personal property in public places. Except
as permitted by permit pursuant to KCC 8.09.040 below or as otherwise provided by
ordinance, it shall be unlawful for any person to store personal property, including camp
facilities and camp paraphernalia, in any park or other public place.
Sec. 8.09.030. Definitions. The following definitions are applicable in this chapter
unless the context otherwise requires:
!, A. Camp means to pitch or occupy camp facilities, to use camp paraphernalia.
B. Camp facilities include, but are not limited to, motor vehicles, trailers, tents, huts,
or temporary shelters.
C. Camp paraphernalia includes, but is not limited to, tarpaulins, cots, beds, sleeping
�i
bags, hammocks, or non-city designated cooking facilities and similar equipment.
it
D. Director means any director of a City of Kent department having authority over
I public areas or any other person authorized by the Mayor to exercise such authority or his
or her designee.
E. Park means and includes all city parks, public squares, park drives, parkways,
boulevards, golf courses, park museums, zoos, bathing beaches, and play and recreation
grounds under the jurisdiction of the City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department.
F. Public place means and includes streets, ways, boulevards, sidewalks, planting
i
(parking) strips, squares, triangles, rights-of-way, publicly owned parking lot or publicly
owned area, improved or unimproved, and other public places appropriated to the public
for public use, including buildings, structures and appurtenances situated thereon.
2 Camping
G. Recreational vehicle means a travel trailer, motor home, truck camper, or camping
trailer that is primarily designed and used as temporary living quarters, is either self-
propelled or mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, is transient, is not occupied as a
primary residence, and is not immobilized or permanently affixed to a mobile home lot.
H. Store means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping,
to place or leave in a location.
I. Street means an highway, avenue lane road street, drive, lace boulevard, alley,
I Y Y> place, Y,
I
i right-of-way, and every way or place in the City of Kent open as a matter of right to public
vehicular travel.
See. 8.09.040. Parked recreational vehicles exempt. The provisions of this
chapter shall not prohibit recreational vehicles from being parked within or on any park or
other public place, subject to the parking provisions of chapter 9.38 and other applicable
provisions of the Kent City Code, if said recreational vehicle is not at that time being used
as temporary living quarters or otherwise inhabited. A recreational vehicle may only be
inhabited within or on any park or other public place pursuant to Section 8.09.040 above.
Sec. 8.09.050. Permit.
A. The director is authorized, by permit, to allow persons to camp, occupy camp
facilities, use camp paraphernalia, or store personal property within or any park or other
public place that may be designated by the City for such use in the City of Kent.
B. The director shall approve a permit as provided under this section when, from a
consideration of the application and from such other information as may otherwise be
obtained, the director finds that:
1. Adequate sanitary facilities are provided and accessible at or near the
campsite;
I
2. Adequate trash receptacles and trash collection is to be provided;
3. The camping activity will not unreasonably disturb or interfere with the
peace, comfort, and repose of private property owners; and
I�
I
3 Camping
j 4. The camping activity is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or
property, to provoke disorderly conduct, or create a disturbance.
C. The director is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the
implementation and enforcement of this chapter.
D. No permit shall be issued for a period of time in excess of seven(7) calendar days.
E. Any person denied a permit may appeal the denial to the hearing examiner pursuant
i
to Ch. 2.32. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final unless appealed
to the superior court pursuant to said chapter.
Sec. 8.09,060. Penalty for violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this
chapter is a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as follows:
A. First offense. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.
B. Second offense. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter a
second time within a five-year period shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not to exceed
ninety(90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. One hundred dollars ($100) of
the fine and one (1) day of imprisonment shall not be suspended or deferred.
C. Third or subsequent offense. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter a third or more times within a five-year period shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment
it
not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Five hundred
dollars ($500) of the fine and five (5) days imprisonment shall not be suspended or
deferred.
�I
I
I
SECTION 2. — Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
4 Camping
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain
j in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST: -
I
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2000.
APPROVED: day of 2000.
i
PUBLISHED: day of 12000.
i'
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
i
i
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P`.Civil%0rdinwcekCartgmg.doc
5 Camping
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND
INSPECTION FEES - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.
relating to public works improvement plan approval and
inspection fees for certain governmental agency projects . This
ordinance amends the section of the Kent City Code that estab-
lishes a plan review and inspection fee for those portions of
developments in the City that include improvements to public
facilities (such as water or sewer construction or street
widening that might occur as a condition of subdivision
development) . This ordinance was amended in December of 1999,
but unfortunately, the language inserted at that time did not
reflect the Public Works Department ' s actual intent . As
revised in this ordinance, the Public Works Department now has
the opportunity to reduce the established fee when another
public agency constructs a public improvement within City
limits . Beside the fact that these improvements typically
provide a regional benefit, the established fee, in certain
instances, can become disproportionately high, since the entire
job (not just a portion of it, like in the subdivision example
above) is a public improvement, making all project costs
incurred by the other agency subject to the six percent fee.
3 . EXHIBITS : Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6D
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 6.03.010
of the Kent City relating to public works improvement
plan approval and inspection fees as they apply to
certain public improvements constructed by public
agencies.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
I
j DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I I
SECTION 1. Section 6.03.010 of the Kent City Code is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 6.03.010. Fees designated.
A. The public works department shall be responsible for the plan review, plan
approval, inspection and acceptance of all construction within any public easement or
right-of-wad all public works improvements, such as streets, sidewalks and
walkways, street lighting systems, storm drainage systems (public and private) and
utilities, and shall make a charge therefore to the developer. As used in this ---
the terffi, "develeper,,, shall et apply ., pub-lie .k is eafistFReted bly
;
another—aggeney of the state, ineluding, eaunties, athe et-tes, of speeial
d-istr-iets. The charge shall be six (6) percent of the estimated construction cost of said
improvements; however, in consideration of the mutual benefits received when
another agency of the state (including, without limitation, counties, other cities or
1 Improvement Plan Approval
and Inspection Fees-2000
special purpose districts) seeks to construct public improvements not intended for
convevance to the Citv but that will provide a regional benefit, the public works
department may, by written agreement reduce the charge to an amount less than six
(6) percent. In all cases, the minimum fee shall be no less than five hundred dollars
($500). The developer will be required to submit separate cost estimates for each item
of improvement. These will be checked by the public works department for accuracy.
Alternatively, the developer may, at its option, hire an outside consultant to conduct
plan review for the city, subject to the city's prior written approval of the selected
consultant. If the developer hires an outside consultant for plan review, the fee
established herein will be reduced from six (6) percent to four (4) percent. Monies
derived from the above charges shall be deposited to the general fund of the city. A
nonrefundable deposit of fifty (50) percent of the total fee is due and payable prior to
starting the review with balance due and payable prior to the approval of the
construction plans.
B. Two (2) re-reviews of the construction plans are included in the above-noted
fee. Any additional re-reviews which are attributed to the developer's action or
inaction shall be charged at a rate of fifty dollars ($50) per hour.
SECTION 2. Kent City Code Section 6.03.010, which is amended by
this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
I,i shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same
i
shall remain in full force and effect.
III
I
2 Improvement Plan Approval
and Inspection Fees-2000
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
i
I
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
i
ATTEST:
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I
PASSED: day of 12000.
APPROVED: day of , 2000.
PUBLISHED: day of 12000.
I I
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
j Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
I I
i
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
it
I
P\Civil\Ordinance\IaprovePlan-inspwF=s.2000.dw
3 Improvement Plan Approval
and Inspection Fees-2000
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX AMENDED BUDGET - ADOPT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee on
June 13 , 2000, adopt the amended Riverbend Golf Complex Year
2000 Budget .
This amendment includes approval to transfer $100, 000 from the
Golf Equipment Rental Reserve, $50, 000 from the Facilities
Capital Budget to the Riverbend Capital Fund for facility
improvements, and approval to enter into a lease agreement for
the golf carts .
Considering all the changes that have taken place since the
City took over operation in January, 2000 , the current 2000
Budget, adopted in December, 1999, needs updating.
3 . EXHIBITS : Memo outlining changes to the operation at the
Riverbend Golf Complex; Amended 2000 Budget
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff, 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
KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks Committee
FROM: Pete Petersen, Supt.of Riverbend Golf Complex
SUBJECT: Riverbend Golf Complex Budget Amendments
DATE: June 6, 2000
Since January 2000, staff and administration have initiated a number of changes
at the Riverbend Golf Complex, as directed by Kent City Council. To enhance the
food and beverage services and operations at the Par 3 and Driving Range,
Council authorized a contract with Public Golf Management. Demolition has
begun at the 1 B-Hole Course for the new restaurant and lounge, with completion
tentatively scheduled for mid to late July. Improvements to the beverage service
will begin in early June, and will be complete in late July. The Par 3 food and
beverage improvements will begin when the 18-Hole and Driving Range/Mimi
Putt improvements are complete. As the contract states, the City will contribute
$150,000 for these improvements. As noted in previous discussions, these funds
will come from the Facilities Division and the Golf Equipment Reserve Fund.
A contract with Nevada Bob's for the lease of merchandise space is complete.
The space for Nevada Bob's will be reconfigured to allow for their merchandise
sales. A new office, club storage, and club repair will be built with the food and
beverage area.
One of the provisions of the termination of the SSMD contract was that they
leave the City twenty golf carts. Staff chose to turn in those twenty and lease a
new fleet in order to have forty-four carts necessary for participant needs.
Leasing all of the carts in at the same time will ensure the consistency of turning
them over every three to four years, which is industry standard.
�3
er<rrNrm Year 1995 Isa- 2GU.. 1ncr"I-
- Actuals-Prelin. Approved Budget (Decrease) Projection
Green Fees-18 $ 1,198,743 $ 1,625,000 5 (325,000) S 13300,000
Green Fee3-9 272,976 375,500 (75,500) 300,000
Driving Range Fees 225,297 380,000 (80,000) 300,000
Mini-putt Fees 59,629 100,000 0 100,000
Golf lessons 96,627 95,000 25,000 120,000
Merchandise sales 594,742 550,000 (550,000)
PGM 15,000 15,000 (1) ..,�
Nevada Bob'3-1999 contract 170,000 170,000
Food c beverage sales 275,153 325,000 (250,000) 75,000 (1)
Cart and Club Rentals 171,497 150,000 40,000 190,000
Other non-operating revenue
Space rental-merchandising 0 23,050 23,050 (2)
Food space rental-57 of rev 0 40,000 40,000 (3)
Miscellaneous 26,639 800 6,108 6,908
TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,921,303 $ 3,601,300 S (961,342) 2,639,958
EXPENSE
Salaries $ 398,461 $ 398,961 $ 167,913 S 566,874
Benefits 101,153 103,202 83,236 186,438
. Supplies 122,830 124,350 35,000 159,350
Services and Charges
City admininstrative allocations 101,199 111,360 0 111,360
Debt and financial services 34,722 5,289 6,711 12,000
Contractor services 0 10,000 0 10,000
Other professional services 40,949 2,056 (56) 2,000
Telephone 3,180 (2,865) 16,065 13,200
Dues/memberships 685 650 0 650
Travel, subsistence, training 1,492 2,700 0 2,700
Advertising (11,101) 10,000 0 10,000
Equipment rental-carts 5,803 0 38,000 38,000
Equipment rental-outside '' 25,284 25,284
Equip rental-operating and reserve 105,897 80,201 (55,201) 25,000
Facilities interfund rental 48,638 50,097 0 50,097
Ins-liability, property, other 16,936 19,590 0 19,590
Electricity 14,612 13,393 772 14,165
Water 101 0 2,184 2,194
Sever 372 0 4,750 4,750
Drainage 6,206 .6,944 0 6,944
Maintenance expense-Outside vendor 1,491 8,200 (1,000) 7,200
Laundry services - 8,058 4,000 3,500 7,500
Taxes 12,038 11,416 1,614
13,030
Misc.-printing, photocop
y, lees 591 1,150 750 11900
Sub-total 1,014,313 960,694 329,522 1,290,216
Golf Management Contracts)
Fixed fee 472,500 472,500 (472,500)
PGM 172,193 172,193 (4)
Variable fee 931,170 933,122 (933,122)
PGM 164,250 164,250 (4)
Nevada Bob's (1999 contract) - 170,000 170,000 (4)
Total Golf Management contract(s) 1,403,670 1,405,622 (899,179) 506,443
TOTAL EXPENSE S 2,417,983 $ 2,366,316 $ (569,657) S 1,796,659
Revenues over operating expense 503,320 1,234,984 (391,685) 843,299
NON OP REV AND EXP-BOND INTEREST (302,250) (285,398) 0 (285,398)
NET INCO14F 201,070 949,586 (391.685) 557,901
OTHER FINANCIAL SO RCEZ (UQEQ)
Transfer from Facilities Fund S 5 _ S 50,000 $ 50,000
Transfer from Fleet Management-Reserve 100,000 100,000
Principal 95 GO Bond (315,000) (335,000) 0 (335,000)
Transfer for 92 Refunding (140,000) 140,000 0
Leasehold improvements (150,000) (150,000)
Acquisition of Capital Assets (40,000) (40,000)
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES (USES) S (315,0001 S (475,000) $ 100,000 $ (375,000)
INCREASE (DECREASE) iN CASs $ (113,930) $ 474,586 S (291,685) 5 182,901
(1) Estimated revenues for Golf Management, Inc. at Par 3 and Driving Range/Minl-Putt.
(2) Estimated amount for Nevada Bob's rental. 5 months at $1,250 and 7 months at $2,400. .
(3) Estimated amount of Golf Management, Inc. restaurant rental at Riverbend-St x $800,000.
(4) Fixed fee/variable calculation per contract:
Poll Year 2000 Fixed Fee Eat Variable Effective Date
Par 3 Green Fees 45,000 37,500 30,000 01-Mar-00
Range Fees 45,000 35,202 30,000 20-Mar-00 _..�
Mini-putt Fees 25,000 19,556 15,000 20-Mar-00 11
Lesson Fees 75,000 64,935 15,000 20-Mar-00
Merchandise sales-Public Golf Mgt. 14,250 01-Mar-00
Nevada Bobs (Jan thru May 31, 2000) 170,000 01-Jan-00
Food Sales 15,000 15,000 60.000 01-Mar-00
Total 205,000 172,193 334,250 f
1�
WIF
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT - ACCEPT AND
ESTABLISH-BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of WTSC OJJDP (Federal Office
of Juvenile Justice) discretionary grant funding.
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force has been notified of grant
funding through the WTSC. The OJJDP Discretionary grant is the
amount of $77, 600 over two years. Existing program funding
will be used for the required match.
Request Council acceptance for grant funding and establish
budget documents, as required.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 6/6/00
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
CITY OF
5
�NVICTA ' Jim White, NIavor
MEMORANDUM
To: Public Safety Committee
Connie Epperly, Chair
Sandy Amodt
Tom B.rotherton
cC: Judy Woods, Task Force Chair
Chief Ed Crawford
Captain Dave Everett
Lt Glenn Woods
From: Nancy Mathews, Coordinator
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force
Subject: Approval of Grant
Date: June 6, 2000
The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force has been notified of grant funding through the
Washington Traffic Safety Commission. The OJJDP (Federal Office of Juvenile Justice)
discretionary grant is in the amount of S77.600 over two years. Existing program
funding will be used for the required match.
These dollars are to address underage alcohol use. For ease of accounting, a portion
of the grant funding will go directly to the WLC8 and to the WTSC.
Elements will include:
■ WA Liquor Control Board (WLCB) retail "stings" using local youth $ 8,532
• Washington Traffic Safety Commission program evaluation 5,000
• Youth Conference & board activities and increased police enforcement 64,068
at yet to be identified "hot spots
The Drinking Driver Task Force requests authorization, subject to legal department
approval, to accept the grant funds and establish a budget.
2201ch AVE. SO.. 1 KENT. WASHINGTON a801_-SS95 ,TELEPHONE i 253'; 556-5200
Section_ 2
Description 0f Activity
PROJECT TITLE: Kent Police DeQartment Community Traffic Safety —
Underage Drinking Prevention Project '!
_. Existing Problem
The Kent Police Departmenc' s 1996 survey reflected that 70% or
_esmandenzs under 18 :oelieve alcoh_-1 is "easily ayallaDle to
"'oum :. 9 7 .j95 of students partic:patina in topes groun •1_.te_r-%_ews
reoorted that alcohol is very easy" or "sort of easv" for them
mo gem.
The Washington_ State Licuor 3card reccrds reflect the following
adm_-._stratire action aca__^_St __cuc_ __censees _:side _r_e c_
__mits of Kenc: r
Sr.i See _/ta=ne 3ee-/.,�_,e Ta<re- s ctc,--s
_997 — ---- 0 - 0
998 - 0 3 _
:.:_creased -Ohs --- -"_ iere c--ed _,et .�__ncuz
.:cr scar stiff_.a arc no c..._t______ _omn�_a_^_�_
Sm-nCS) _
epart:ne _-, __c-rds r=_fiect that ;cu-:.s 'mere
:_.med _ OSS�SS_.... o. -:Scam- __ ___Se "rCl.t_S were 3rre5taC
____ki >._... ...._. _ -_.... ter.. _Cieran ce. tie_^__ pC__.__
..ft_.._rs _ssu'ed c__at_.,ts t__ 7=r In pcssessi..__ Cr
_ 1
.__n5umpticP_ zfn_......__._ .
Ke_^_m Sc-col ..iSmr__t _S _.,.____nee aDCut _....._ea5_ ___.._de^_s
_= ai__r_c_ on pampa . _._ _99- : :per_
1. 99, _ _.___ '.der_ _.._at_onS . a-v eraCe aCe
__sz___m _nte_ :entiCt s-ec_a__sm CCG. "_':� Se^= .�cnCCi
._ DiS tri_t
____er,, n__c.^. - ecia__st assessed ---',7 szudents from -four
=,_ -cis and seven ._ior Sc_cc_S _n mhe _995/97 Schoc_ ;tar.
._'s _ pccrmed tlmcsm _='s
f m._am cup merei_ _r'^ical_v ..=pendent . Yout_-
_teive su-sta,^_ce iDu'se as a =.,___ate- _____ ..t passage" mC
adult ccd.
__. Project Goals
The Kett police Departmetm .,_ihkitc Driver Task ?crce (DDT ?
=opuses on programs that Increase awareness ofL traffic Safety_
'issues. These efforts also we rk with youth to develop
constructive thought processes leading them toward healthy
choices . Multiple systems participate :. these activities .
These Systems include voutn, families, schools, Workplace,
community orcanizacions and :ned'_a. The target audiences for the
program addressing underage alcc:^_oi use are youth at risk and
their parents.
S2CL�Oi. 2
DeSC==aC:�:n JL CL_v1tV
:his project proposal :ail_ be managed by:
Dr. Debbie Ranniger - Public Education Stecia145t
Youth 3card facilitator and conference coordinator, oversees all
aspects of youth board coordination, recruitment, facilitation,
conference planning, implementation and evaluaticn, facilitates
29 member ,/cut- board, provides contact to ccmmur_ity.
�s==ma=-- z e c f t.,t_- =-me . 3
Nancy_ Mathews - DDT= ?rogram Coordinator
DDT_ st____ -_ committee staff, Super._ses conference coordinator.
in char=e of -o-ference reds=ration. Coordinates activities
ace--.__es and .._=.a___at=..ns .
estimated time - 1096 of total .,ime, .75 FTE
7-e goals thls -_trp_'-_= are:
-he communit_r will estab_ish and articulate nc=s t., promote
ter.. _..l er.:nce ...f the al ;:a__=�_-___ -=nd Ise
and other d_ucs .
jtrateales '.Ji__ ___:e: systems and --rovide acc.._n-_
_ sK=__o :r-aining and a_terna=i*ie
med .:......_n_..�S --.Ccr...__ _ 'se, - cssess=�:: -,
___case .._ .-.C.J_ = _ae
and ccr_se��e.^_ces .
Project objectives, %cti-sities and `:'asks
T'_ objective: _ --stet and _--__-ac=_.,n .,-_ :cur: _..
--- 7.a.:e ---=-_ ---"_._es
_cute _ --__ once - Came __ -___. :._=ztudes and Choices
'7he .rout` ccn=erence a==endees _-- __ _ = Scuth
_ ou sonco_ __ ts . ,eams cf rout` =_cm
,u.n=or and Se-lc_ -- sohccls tactic cat= _-.
.Jcr:csnccs des= _- ovi =rem, wit.. tools t., make
age____es and
:an_cacions =n _ne 'lout: cnr___nce.
_.-hese Include t _ Scut- King Cou:ter Youth Violence
=_e-rent_.... =tee, -<e._= Schcc: '_strict , _ty _-f
Ker.= Parks Debar=ment, Civ,, of Kent Corrections
Fac111ty, Washlrg= State lic'uor Control 30ard,
Recional justice Center and Develccmental Researc*-
and ?rcgrams . press meet-ng is scheduled one week
for -to the '_I uth`_..__fere^.ce ea--- year.
a. Establish advisory/planning :board (Fall, 2000)
b. Regionalize participation ,volunteers & teams)
UAD Budget
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Youth Conference
Two Year Budget
t�evfsed 6C1'1QQj
City of Kent Police Department
SALARIES Request Match Total
Youth Conference
Program Manager S 76,960 S 76,960
35 hrs week/ .875 FTE
Coordinator (10%) 5,720 5,720
30 hrs week/ .75 FTE
Program Assistant/Office Tech II
250/0 1.0 FTE 13,300 13,300
Public Ed Specialist (10%) _
30 hrs week/ .75 FTE 4,324 4,324
Traininc
Stings 3 Officers x 21hrs OT x 2 yrs
xS36 432 432
DUI: -1 Cfficers OT x -= hr x S36 576 5 r 6 1.152
U,aD/MIP -' Cfficers CT x 4 hrs x S36 576 576 1.152
Stincs 14 rer year,,
3 Teams (1cfv'1ycuth'1'11NLC3)
stincs x 6 hrs x 3 cfficars =
hrs CT @ S36 hr 5.484
=monas s Patrcls 'identin/ 'C hot spots))
C E? x 4 hrs x 2 officers =
30 hrs OT @ S36 hr 2.880 2.98C
Data Coilemicn & Reoortino
KPD Research & Develecment
Specialist 2% of 1 FTE 912 912
Court Costs
3 ofc x 3 hrs OT @ S36 hr 864 364
Total Salaries $10,512 5102,868 $113,380
* Youth will be WLCB-provided minor operatives.
UAD Budget
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Youth Conference
Page -2-
City of Kent Police Department
BENEFITS Request Match Total
Youth Conference
Prcgram Manager 25,200 25,200
Supervisor 1,350 1,350
Program Assistant 4,140 4,140
Pub Ed Specialist 1,150 1,150
Training
Strings 3 officer x 2 hrs OT x $5.40 x 2 yrs 65 65
DUI: 4 officers OT x 4 hrs x $5.40 hr 86 86 172
UADIMIP: 4 officers OT x 4 hrs x 5.40 hr 36 86 172
Stings
6 hrs x 8 stings x 3 officers
= 144 hr OT @ 5.4C hr 778 778
m0rasis
10EPx4 hrs x2cfc =
30 hrs @ 5.40 hr 432 432
I.l-ur Costs
3 ofc x 3 hrs OT 35.40 hr 130 130
r.-�ata Collec5en Reocrinc
KPD Research & Deveieoment
Specialist .02910 of
Total Benefits S 1,577 S32,543 $34,120
TRAVEL Request Match Total
-' Conferences (appiicant policies apply)
1 Program Manager
per diem S 36 per day x 4 days 576 576
airfare 450 rt 1,8C0 1,800
lodging 300 (3 days) 1,200 1,200
registration 202 202
travel 50 150 150
mist 50 150 150
1 Conference
2 Youth per diem 288 288
airfare 900 900
lodging 330 330
registration 404 404
Total Conference Travel $ 6,000 $6,000
Staff & Youth Board Travel 200 250 450
Total Travel $6,200 250 6,450
UAD Budget
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Youth Conference
Page -3-
EQUIPMENT Request Match Total
Pentium 111 3,036 3,036
Sound Equipment 3,000 3,000
Scanner 250 250
PST (2) 800 800
Total Equipment $7,086 $7,086
i
CONTRACTED SERVICES Request Match Total
Youth Conference (two years)
Breakfast ($5) & Lunch ($7) x 350 4,020 4,380 8,400
Professicnai Presenters _
(per diem /3 days 5,041 8,000 13,041
Teacher Siicer,ds
(30 teachers ' 5100 ea x 2 yrs) 6,C00 6,000
Follow-Uo Camous Activities
(35 schecis x S250) 17,500 3.000 20,500
Sc^cci -rafnc Safety Awareness Pareiists
_ C L,ients ea year x 2 ,/rs
paneiists x S25 ea per event 61-10 6C0
Total Contracted Services S 33,161 S 15.380 S 48,541
SUPPLIES Request Match Total
Cfrice Sucoiies 500 650 150
`(cuth Start
(sweatshirts & team buiidirc) 3.600 3,600
(suosistence) 7C0 7 0 C 1,400
(T-shirts) u,000 4,000
(penclsi1000) 4.10 -140 880
(keychainsi500) 9C0 900 1,300
ink Pads (135 x S7.35 ea) 992 992
cllcw-Up Materials 2,9C5 2.905
Printing 375 375
Postage 780 780
Total Supplies $ 3,532 $ 14,350 $ 17,882
OTHER Request Match Total
Youth Board UAD Prevention Event
(goods & services to be determined
by youth board for Spring 2001 Event) $ 2,000 2,000
Training: Staff 1,000 1,000
" Youth Board 750 750
Total Other $ 2,000 1,750 3,750
UAD Budget
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Youth Conference
__Page —4-
Reauest Match Total
COMMUNITY DONATIONS
Goods & Services 11,300
Presenters (gratis) 6,000
Facility 7,000
Total Community Donations $ 24,300 S 24,300
VOLUNTEER HOURS (Youth = S8 1 Adult = $15)
Conference (1,019 hrs per year x 2) 18,500
Youth Board Planning (650 hrs per year x 2) 10,400
Conference Implementation (570 hrs per year x 2) 10,750
Total Value of Volunteer Time $ 39,650 $ 39,650
FEES (two years) _
35 schools x 10 team members x So.00 $ (4,200) $ (4,200)
TOTAL KPO REQUEST (two years) $64,068 S 226,891 $ 290,959
WASHINGTON LIQUOR CONTROL 30ARIC BUDGET
'-tint Traininc
vVLCB agent x, „r 37= 372
cilnCS_,��/LC3 aCent(S)
,.cents x 6 nrs x stints
years nr 6.696 5,596
�flres My r.cr Operative 'vcuth`
IJ .Icuth @58.74 nr x 5 hrs x 3 stints 1,255 1,255
curt Minor Operative Costs
3 accearances x 3 hrs cJ S8.71 nr 209 209
Total WLC3 Contracted Costs S 8,532 S 3,532
TOTAL WLC3 REQUEST (two years) $ 8,932 S 8,532
Request Match Total
WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION BUDGET
Program Evaluation $5,000 $ 5,000
TOTAL WTSC REQUEST(two years) $5,000 $ 5,000
TOTAL UNDERAGE DRINKING
PROGRAM COSTS —TWO YEARS S 77,600 $ 226,891 $304,491
JADbuaget
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF EQUIPMENT SURPLUS AND SALE -
AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee,
declare the designated golf equipment as surplus and authorize
the trade and/or sale of said equipment .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Parks Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff , Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS : Revenue from Sale
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6G
CITY OF KENT
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kent City Council
FROM: John M. Hodgson, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: June 27, 2000
SUBJECT: Riverbend Golf Equipment Surplus and Sale/Trade
As part of the change in operation for the Riverbend Golf Complex, the consulting
company Economic Research Associates recommended the City put the golf equipment in
a municipal lease program. Staff completed the process for this and in May, City Council
authorized the agreement of a municipal lease program for our golf equipment. As part of
this program, current equipment will be traded in for the new equipment. The following
pieces of golf equipment are recommended for surplus:
6544 Toro ground master
6545 Toro reel master
6546 Toro reel master
6547 Ford tractor
6548 Ford tractor
6554 Toro ground master
A
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC SECTION MAINTENANCE SHOP LEASE
AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorize the Mayor to sign the three year lease
agreement with Totem Business Park, to facilitate the Public
Works Dept Signal Operation and Maintenance facility, upon
concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney.
3 . EXHIBITS: Lease agreement and Public Works Director
memorandum
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 moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6H
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORI(S
July 3, 2000
TO: Public Works Comun.rtee
FROM: Don Wickstrom lY
SUBJECT: Public Works Traffic Section Maintenance Shop
Lease Agreement
The existing Public Works Traffic Section Maintenance Shop building will be
demolished as part of the 196".Street Corridor project as it is in the alignment for
the extension of 72"d Avenue north from 196"' Street. While we had originally
deferred demolishing it for another year with all our road contractors working in the
limited area per construction of the corridor, it's best that we free up the site for their
_ use.- This would eliminate potential conflicts and possible change orders resulting
from same.
We are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the lease agreement (3 year
lease) with Totem Business Park upon concurrence by the City Attorney with the
language therein.
MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the 3-year lease agreement
«nth Totem Business Park, to facilitate the Public Works Dept Signal Operation and
Maintenance facility, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney
MP2035
CONaIERCIAL LEASE
THIS LEASE, dated foOONSIDERATION
ce purposes only, the 15th day of June, 2000, is made by and between Totem
Business Park, a Washi (hereinafter referred as "Lessor") and The City of Kent (hereinafter referred as
"Lessee") whose addres '" Ave South, Kent, WA 98032,
FOR AND IN of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set
forth, the parties agree as follows:
PREMISES
1. Lessor does hereby lease to Lessee, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth,
approximately 6,107 square feet as shown on exhibit A attached hereto which Leased Premises are
situated upon and described in exhibit A attached hereto, hereinafter referred to as "Premises". Street
address 1511 South Central, Suite C, Kent, WA.
TERM
2. The term of this Lease shall be for Three (3) years and 0 months commencing on the 1st day of July
and shall end on the 30th day of June 2003.
RENTS AND PAYMENTS
3. Base rent will be:
Months 1-24 $2,443.00 plus monthly adjustments*
Months 25-36 $2,565.00 plus monthly adjustment
* Monthly adjustments are currently estimated at S458.00 per month.
Rent is due on the 1" day of each month and payable to Totem Business Park. Any payment not
postmarked by the 7' of the month shall be assessed a 10% late charge and interest at a 18% annual rate.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
4. Lessee shall make a security deposit of $3,023.00. This amount will be returned to Lessee after
Lessee has vacated the Premises or applied against sums owed to Lessor by Lessee. No trust relationship
is created between Lessor and Lessee with respect to said security deposit.
COMMON AREAS
5. Common areas include parking areas and entrances and exits thereto, driveways and truck
serviceways, sidewalks, landscaped areas, and other areas and facilities for the common or joint use and
benefits of occupants of Premises; their employees, agents, customers, and invitees. Lessor reserves the
right, from time to time, to reasonably alter said common area and to exercise control and management
of the common area and to establish, modify, change and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations
as Lessor in it discretion may deem desirable for the management of the Premises.
Lessee agrees to abide by an3 conform to such rules and regulations and shall be responsible for the
compliance with same by its employees, agent, customers, and invitees. The failure of Lessor to
enforce any of such rules and regulations against Lessee or any other tenant shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of same.
So long as such closure does not interfere with lessee's use of the premises, Lessor shall have the right to
close all or any portion of the common areas at such times and for such periods as may, in the opinion of
the Lessor, be necessary to prevent a dedication thereof, or to preserve the status thereof as private
P.SR:ppl0615srCITY0FKENTLEASE- 1 -
property, or to prevent the accrual of any rights in any person; and Lessor may also close said common
areas for the purpose of maintenance and repair as may be required from time to time.
MONUILY ADJUSTMENTS
6. In addition to a base rent provided herein, Lessee promises and agrees to pay Lessor, on the first (I")
day of each and every month during the term of the Lease, as additional rent, the following items,
referred to as "monthly adjustments." Lessee's prorata share is 7.40% of the total building and
"monthly adjustments" are estimates which will be adjusted during each calendar year. Any rental
pursuant to this Section shall be deemed additional rent payable by Lessee hereunder, and in the event of
nonpayment thereof, Lessor shall have similar rights with respect to such nonpayment as it has with
respect to any other nonpayment of rent hereunder.
(a) REAL ESTATE TAXES: A prorata share of real estate taxes accruing against the building of which
the Premises are a part and the land described in exhibit "A", which become due and payable during the
term of this Lease or any extension or renewal thereof. Lessee's portion of such taxes and assessments
shall be prorated for any partial calendar year of the term of this Lease.
(b) BUILDING INSURANCE: The prorata cost of all insurance premiums for fire, extended coverage
and other insurance that Lessor deems necessary and keeps in force upon the buildings of which Premises
are a part.
(c) BUILDING COSTS: The prorata cost of operating, maintaining, repairing and replacement of any
electrical, mechanical, automatic fire sprinkler and other utilities systems of the Leased Premises which
may be common to the building of which Premises are a part. Such costs shall not include cost of
maintenance or repair of roof, exterior walls (excluding doors and windows) and the foundation which
costs are the responsibility of the Lessor.
(d) COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE: Lessee's prorata share of all costs of operating, maintaining,
repairing, and replacing the common areas, including but not limited to: gardenink and landscaping;
painting; lighting; lamp replacement; sanitary control; personal property taxes; public liability and
property damage insurance; utilities for common areas; licenses and fees for common area facilities;
sweeping; removal of snow, trash, rubbish, garbage and other refuse; maintenance on machinery and
equipment used in common area maintenance. Painting costs will be amortized over 5 years.
(e) MANAGEMENT: Lessee's prorata.share of management charges.
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
7. Lessee shall, at its own expense, and at all times, keep the Premises and the sidewalks and loading
areas immediately adjacent thereto, neat and clean and in a safe condition. Lessee shall also replace all
broken glass and keep in good repair all doors and windows, electrical systems, mechanical systems, and
utility systems within the Premises. Lessee shall vacate the building in as good condition as received.
UTILITY AND TAXES
8. Lessee covenants and agrees to pay promptly, when due, all of the following:
(A) All charges for water, sewer, garbage disposal, telephone, lights, heat, gas, power, and any other
utilities or services furnished to or consumed upon the Leased Premises, whether separately metered
or prorated by Lessor. Lessor shall not be liable for any injury or damages suffered as a result of
the interruption of any of these services by fire or other casualty, strike,,riot, vandalism, or the
making of necessary repair or improvements, or any other cause beyond Lessor's control.
PSR:pp10615srCITY0FKENTLEASE-2 -
(B) All license or permit fees, business and occupation taxes, and any other fees and taxes applicable to
property of Lessee or business conducted on the Premises, presently in effect or subsequently levied
by Federal, State, County, or Municipal Governments, or any other political subdivision thereof.
(C) Should there presently be in effect or should there be enacted during the term of this Lease any law,
statute, or ordinance levying any tax or LID assessment, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor monthly, as
additional rent, an amount equal to the monthly prorata cost attributable to this Lease determined by
using the longest repayment term available but no more than 20 years.
EXAMINATION OF PREMISES
9. Lessee shall examine Premises before taking possession hereunder and such taking of possession shall
be conclusive evidence that Lessee has accepted Premises in good order and satisfactory condition with
the exception of latent defects. Lessee to videotape Premises prior to taking possession. Videotape to
serve as benchmark for condition of Premises.
NATURE OF USE
10. Lessee shall use the Premises for repair and maintenance and any other use as Lessor may approve
in writing; shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and governmental or municipal regulations
and order; shall not occupy or use the Premises for any purposes not specifically authorized by this
Lease; shall not permit any use of the Premises which may be dangerous to life, limb, or property, or
which increases the premium cost or invalidates any policy of insurance covering or carried on the
Premises, the building or its contents. In the event any such insurance premium is increased because of
the action of the Lessee, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for that cost. In the event the building requires
any improvements as a result of Lessee's use, the Lessee is liable for all costs associated with said
improvements.
ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
11. Lessee will make no alterations or improvements without the written consent of the Lessor. Lessor-
may impose such conditions upon its consent as Lessor deems appropriate. In the performance of such
work, Lessee agrees to save Lessor harmless from:any damage, loss or expense and to comply with all
laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of any proper public authority. Upon termination of this Lease,
such alterations and improvements, except those specifically agreed to in the above written consent, shall
remain upon and be surrendered as part of the Premises except unattached movable business fixtures;
provided, however, that upon Lessor's request, Lessee shall promptly remove such alterations and
improvement and restore the Premises to its original condition at Lessee's sole cost and expense.
INDENLNIFICATION
12. Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Lessor, its subsidiaries, directors, agents and
employees from and against any and all damage, loss, liability or expense including but not limited to,
attomeys' fees and legal costs suffered by same directly or by reason of any claim, suit or judgment
brought by or in favor of any person or persons for damage, loss or expense due to, but not limited to,
bodily injury, including death resulting anytime therefrom, and property damage sustained by such
person or persons which arises out of, is occasioned by or in any way is attributable to the use or
occupancy of the Leased Premises and adjacent areas by Lessee, the acts or omissions of the Lessee, its
agents, employees or any contractors brought onto said Premises by the Lessee, except that caused by the
negligence of Lessor or its employees, agents, customers and invitees. Such loss or damage shall
include, but not be limited to, any injury or damage to Lessor's personnel (including death resulting
anytime therefrom) or Premises. Lessee agrees that the obligations assumed herein shall survive this
Lease.
RSR;pp/0615srC1TY0FKENTLEASE-3 -
D;SURANCE
13. Lessee hereby agrees to maintain in full force and effect at all times during the term of this Lease, at
its own expense, for the protection of Lessee and Lessor, as their interests may appear, self insurance
policies of insurance acceptable to Lessor which afford the following coverage's:
(A) Commercial General Liability and Product Liability in a minimum combined limit of not less than
51,000,000.
(B) Fire insurance with extended endorsement coverage upon Lessee's equipment, furniture, futures,
merchandise and any other personal property located in the Premises in the amount of the full insurable
value thereof.
(C) Worker's Compensation as required by statute.
Lessee shall deliver to Lessor Certificates of Insurance evidencing the above coverage's.
DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION
14. If the Premises are damaged by fire or other casualty to an extent which makes the Premises or a
significant part of the Business Park untenantable, then the Lessee shall give notice of such event to the
Lessor. Lessor shall then have 30 days to elect whether to repair or replace the Premises or to terminate
this Lease. If the Lease is not terminated under this paragraph, then the rent shall be abated to the extent
the Premises are untenantable during the repair or reconstruction. If more than 25% of the Premises
become untenantable, Lessee shall have the option to terminate the Lease if not repaired and in
tenantable, condition within 30 days of notice by Lessee.
EMINENT DOMAIN
15. If the Premises or a portion of the Business Park is taken by eminent domain or sold to one having
the power of eminent domain under threat of condemnation then, at Lessor's election, this Lease shall
terminate and in such event the Lessee assigns to Lessor any right which the Lessee might have against
the condemning parry for damages to the Lessee's interest as a tenant of the Premises.
TRASH AND GARBAGE
16. Lessee shall place all trash and garbage in such areas and containers in such manner as prescribed by
Lessor. Lessee shall not bum any trash or garbage in or about the buildings.
SIGNS
17. All signs must comply with City of Kent regulations and be approved by Lessor.
ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING
18. Lessee shall not let or sublet the whole or any part of the Premises nor assign this Lease or any pan
thereof without the consent of the Lessor which may not be unreasonably withheld. This Lease shall not
be assignable by operation of law.
If the Premises are sublet or an assignment of the Lease is made, the assignor, and if applicable and prior
assignor, shall remain responsible and liable directly to Lessor for the payment of rent and the fulfillment
of all other obligations hereunder for the term of the Lease and during any extension of the Lease
through the exercise of any options then outstanding at the time of the assignment. Lessor shall have the
right to assign its interest in this Lease without consent of Lessee.
RSR.ppl0615srCITY0FKENTLEASE-4
E\-MY BY LESSOR
19. Lessor reserves the right, to enter Premises at reasonable hours to make inspections, repairs,
alterations, or additions to the Premises or buildings, and to exhibit the Premises to prospective Lessees
during the last 180 days of the Lease term on the condition that lessor notify lessee of entry.
BREACH AND DEFAULT
20. Upon the happening of any of the following: (A) Lessee fails to keep or perform any of the
covenants and agreements herein contained; (B) the making by Lessee of an assignment for benefit of
its creditors; (C) the levying of a writ of execution or attachment on or against the Premises as the
property of Lessee and the same not released or discharged within 90 days thereafter, (D) institution of
proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction for the reorganization, liquidation or involuntary
dissolution of Lessee, or its adjudication of the property of Lessee, and said proceeding are not dismissed
and any receiver, trustee, or liquidator appointed therein discharged, within 90 days after the institution
of said proceedings; (E) Lessee creates a mechanic's lien or claim therefor against the Land or building
of which the Premises are a part and the same not released, or otherwise provided for in the
indemnification, within 10 days after written notice thereof first given to the Lessee; or (F) the failure of
Lessee to pay an installation of rent postmarked within 7 days of the due date; then,the same shall
constitute a breach hereof and Lessor may, at its option, without further notice or demand..
(1) Cure such breach for the account and at the expense of Lessee and such expense shall be deemed
additional rent due on the first of the following month; or
(2) Re-enter the Premises, remove all persons therefrom, take possession of the Premises and remove all
equipment, fixtures and personal property therein at Lessee's risk and expense, and (i).terminate this
Lease, or (ii) without terminating the Lease or in any way affecting the rights and remedies of
Lessor or the obligations of Lessee, re-let the whole part or any part of the Premises, as agent for
Lessee, upon such terms and conditions and for such term as Lessor may deem advisable, in which
event the rents received shall first be applied to the costs of re-letting, including necessary renovation
and alteration and any real estate commission incurred, and the balance of such rent shall be applied
towards payment of 0 sums due or to become due to Lessor hereunder, and Lessee shall pay to
Lessor monthly any deficiency; however, Lessor shall not be required to pay any excess to Lessee.
(3) The failure of the lessor to keep or perform any of the covenants and agreements herein contained
Shall constitute a breach hereof, and the lessee may by giving proper notice vacate the premises
without penalty. Vacation of the premises by lessee shall not prohibit lessee from pursuing other
remedies afforded by law or contract provided the failure by Lessor is within his ability to control.
The failure to terminate this Lease at any time for the breach of any of the terms hereof shall be deemed
only an indulgency by Lessor, and shall not be construed to be a waiver of the rights of Lessor as to any
continued or subsequent breach. If any amount due from Lessee is not postmarked by the seventh (7")
day after it is due, a late charge of 10% of said amount owed will become due and payable. All past due
amounts will be assessed interest from the due date until paid at an annual rate of interest of 18%.
The above remedies are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies now or hereafter allowed by
law or elsewhere provided for in this Lease.
RSR:pp/0615srCI7Y0FKENTLEASE-5-
REMOVAL OF PROPERTY
21. In the event of any entry in, or taking possession of the Premises, Lessor shall have the right, but not
the obligation, to remove from the Premises all personal property located therein, and to sell such
property. Notice shall be given to Lessee prior to the sale of any property pursuant to this section.
The proceeds of such sale shall be applied first to the cost of such saie; second to the payment of the
charges for storage, if any; third to the payment of any sums of money which may be due from
Lessee to Lessor under any of the terms hereof, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to Lessee.
COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
22. If by reason of any default on the part of Lessee, it becomes necessary for the Lessor to employ an
attorney or in case Lessor shall bring suit to recover any rent due hereunder, or for the breach of any
provision of this Lease or to recover possession of the Leased Premises, or if Lessee shall bring any
action for any relief against Lessor, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Lease, the prevailing
parry shall have and recover against the other parry, in addition to the cost allowed by law, its actual
attorney's fee incurred by said action. In the event the Lessee defaults in the payment of rental, the
Lessee agrees xo pay for the reasonable cost of any collection agency or attorney, employed by Lessor to
recover the payments.
HOLDING OVER
23. If Lessee shall hold over after the expiration of the term of this Lease and shall not have agreed in
writing with Lessor upon the terms and provisions of a new Lease prior to such expiration, Lessee shall
remain bound by all the terms, covenants and agreements hereof, except that the tenancy shall be month
to month and monthly rent shall be 150%.
SUBROGATION WAIVER
24. Lessor and Lessee each herewith and hereby release and relieve each other and waive their entire
right of recovery against the other for loss or damage arising out of or incident to the perils of fire,
explosion or any other perils described in the "Extended Coverage" insurance endorsement approved for
use in the State of Washington which occurs in, on, or about the Premises, whether due to the negligence
of either party, their agents, employees or otherwise.
SUBORDINATION
25. This Lease shall be subject and subordinate to the rights of any party which now has or subsequently
obtains a valid security interest in all or part of the Premises or buildings if such security interest is
obtained by a voluntary act of the Lessor.
RSR:pp/0615srCITY0FKEN'TLEASE -6-
NOTICE
26. Any notice, approval, consent or request required or permitted under this Lease shall be in writing
and shall be delivered to or mailed to the person entitled to receive the same at the address stated below
or such addresses as may be substituted by notice.
Notices to the Lessor shall be given to:
Totem Business Park
PO Box 602
Kent, WA 98035
Notices to the Lessee shall be given to:
REGULATIONS
27. Lessor for the proper maintenance of the building, the rendering of services and providing of safety
and cleanliness may make an/or alter from time to time regulations appropriate for said purposes.
Failure to comply with these regulations shall constitute a breach of the Lease.
DAMAGE TO LESSEE'S PROPERTY
28. Lessor or its agents shall not be liable for any damage to Lessee's property, except that caused by
negligence of Lessor, which is caused by the following: (a) any damage to any property entrusted to
employees of Lessor, (b) loss or damage to any property by theft or otherwise, or (c) any injury or
damage to property resulting from fire, explosion, falling plaster, steam, gas, electricity, water or rain
which may leak from any pan of the building or from the pipes, appliances or plumbing work therein or
from the roof, street, or sub-surface or from any other place or resulting from dampness. Lessor or its
agents shall not be liable for interference with light or other incorporeal heraditaments, nor shall Lessor
be liable for any latent defect in the Premises or in the building. Lessee shall give prompt notice to
Lessor in case of fire or accidents in the Premises or in the building or of defects herein or in the fixtures
or equipment.
LE"TrS OF LIABILITY
29. In consideration of the benefits accruing hereunder, Lessee and all successors covenant and agree
that, in the event of any actual or alleged failure, breach or default hereunder by Lessor:
a. The sole and exclusive remedy shall be against the Lessor's interest in the building;
b. No general or limited partner of the Lessor shall be sued or framed as a party in any suit or action
(except as may be necessary to secure jurisdiction of the partnership);
c. No service or process shall-be made against any general or limited partner of the Lessor (except as
necessary to secure jurisdiction of the partnership);
d. No general or limited partner of the Lessor shall be required to answer or otherwise please to any
service or process;
e. No judgment will be taken against any general or limited partner of the Lessor;
f. No writ of execution will ever be levied against the asset of any general or limited partner of the
Lessor;
g. These covenants and agreements are enforceable by Lessor and also any partner of Lessor.
RSR:pp/0615srC1TY0FKENTLEASE-7 -
EINMRE AGREEMENT
30. This Lease contains the entire agreement between Lessor and Lessee concerning the leasing of the
Premises. There are no oral or written agreements in addition to those made herein. This Lease may
only be altered by written consent of both Lessor and Lessee.
HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS
31. Subject to the provisions hereof pertaining to assignment and subletting, the covenants and
agreements of this Lease shall be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of
any or all of the parties hereto.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
32. Lessor agrees to hold Lessee harmless from any expenses, damages, or liabilities, including
reasonable attorney's fees, directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to the use, generation,
manufacture, production, storage, release, discharge, disposal, or presence of any hazardous or toxic
waste substance on the Premises prior to possession by Lessee. Lessee shall protect, defend and hold
harmless Lessor and its assigns from any loss, damage, cost, expense, or liability (including reasonable
attorney fees and costs) directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to the use, generation,
manufacture, production, storage, release, discharge, disposal, or presence of any hazardous or toxic
waste substance caused by the Lessee and its employees, agents, contractors and invitees. Lessee shall
give prompt notice to Lessor of any proceeding or inquiry by any government authority with respect to
any hazardous or toxic materials.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES:
a. "Hazardous Substances" means any substance, waste or material which is deemed hazardous toxic, a
pollutant or contaminate, under any federal, state, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule regulation, or
judicial or administrative order or decision, now or hereafter in effect.
b. "Hazardous Substances on the Premises" means any hazardous substance present in or on the
Premises including, without limitation, in or on the surface or beneath the Premises, the surface or
ground water, and in or on any improvement or part thereof at or beneath the surface of the Premises.
c. "Applicable Law" shall mean all federal, state, and local statutes, laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations and judicial and administrative orders, rulings, and decisions that are applicable now or in the
future to the Premises or to any portion thereof or to any activity which shall take place thereon.
d. "Premises" for purposes of this Lease include the building, other improvements, and the land on
which they are located.
Lessor and Lessee shall not generate, store, dispose of or otherwise handle any Hazardous Substance on
the Premises in any fashion contrary to applicable law.
d
RSR:pp/0615srCITY0FKENTLEASE-8 -
AUTHORITY TO SIGNIREPRESEN"TATION
33. If Lessee is a corporation, the person(s) signing this Lease on behalf of the corporation/company
hereby warrant(s) that (s)he then, has/have full authority from such corporation to sign this Lease
and to obligate the corporation/company.
The parties hereto acknowledge that R. Scott Rice of The Andover Company, Inc. and Gary
Volchok of CB Richard Ellis were the real estate broker who represented the parties herein, and
shall be paid a commission of five percent (5%) and that no other commissions are due to any
brokers whatsoever, other than the above named brokers. Apart from the foregoing, each party
represents that it has not had any dealings with any real estate broker, finder, or other person, with
respect to this Lease in any manner, and each parry agrees to hold harmless the other parry from all
costs, expenses, and/or damages, resulting from any claims that may be asserted against the other
parry by any broker, finder, or other person, with whom the other parry has or purportedly has
dealt.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the date set forth below.
By: By:
Lessee: Lessor:
Date: Date:
P,SR:pp/06I5srCITY0FKENTLEASE-9-
E-XHiBiTi A
1
I I m 1 I Tn
� •% � I o,y Q a a /�Y
c 1 �
•: r
'-
Or
e W
I � u
I o �
olo
_LL
e1
e r �
e1
Q ,
' o
1 "r
} El
I �
� q
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: URBAN SEPARATORS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On February 15, 2000 , the City Council
voted to table two annual comprehensive plan amendment
applications . These applications were the Cairnes 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 1st
meeting, the Planning Committee voted to recommend a strategy
to the full City Council . The documents in the council agenda
packet detail the recommendation of the Planning Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 6/6/00 and other staff reports dated
3/6, 4/3 , and 5/l/00
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 moves, Councilmember seconds
to direct the City Attorney t prepare a resolution authorizing
an emergency amendment to th Kent Comprehensive Plan and
directing the staff and Lan Use & Planning Board to initiate
an amendment to the Plan t incorporate the City' s policy
relating to Urban Separat rs .
_ DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agend
Item No. 7A
r
tY OF '0 �11\� ZS
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, PLAt�NTNG 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 (mCPA-99-3D). Both of these amendments are located in areas designated as "Urban
Separator" and may be affected by Counry-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 Iegal 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 uh AVE, SO.. / KENT.WASHINGTOiN 93032-3395 i TELEPHONE (253)356-5200
CITY OF K !S
I I^�
Jim White, Mayor
<<`fVIC'ft'
Planning Department (253) 856-54541FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
May 1, 2000
TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR .4%ND PLAYNTNG 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 I
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:
„n �_ :n i 'CEvT W Curti'nTOu uSn3].;905 1 TELEPNCNE r253) 456-5'_00 __.
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
Z. 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
(� f
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 3.3, 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 I" deadline.
FNS\pm IICEMc-NNUIUSERSIPLAN7VI7VGIPUBLICL4DMINVu27opuloc
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
a
1 � -
'�=1-•r=fie• u-W�`a - - �+�� ...I �r •��I.�� .�9
43
�-{' •Vrr-3 .Y,�"'(c 663'1rJ� Ir a � 3 'F !�. J-7 \.r_ I
,� . ��d�l��4�f,-a�''7'{.�1�. '�N r`L• `III ��S��lli;"rL"
Lake �I =
�` 7I oungs
7
1
.r r -l+y"Is��1 �I/.N���Q•'ej(� +� � it-�• �� !.!i•--_-� I
W=Jwwrni-=�rrt,[• �M,`� �J rl r lit
fl`:��-•..A.ih �1�t�� I
Iti17
�r ,� = �:r-::cE.�mcr ��— � I t IT-�l'•..�� -:�-.1: r I .
-i
S I
Kent
S!2$an Sr r J st:zsan Sr
Sc]Satn it l
i-• \\ lake '�,JI-' Io l_ M' ,�A .. 6re.iemt
za
fir. ° _"'I:yl([.1 L• Ir _ / � •:' �� I
Ian r� l�r�:� ,�, f� � � �•�Sy<,,
- fit- �e '= 1_S�i^_miJ \ -•� r If"Al ��.�•
Auburnof
"'�'��_ �-! j Ir• /V-- �r+tlhll '�� VI I I>_>s_.�1: � ��
KING COUNTY
C OIIM PpCH ENSI VC �n U,i- WoeatEd A",ml cm, 7A• orest�ry e1m0maN«lost
vhtoomw.ton aa nti<Ceo vres ammploeWo TtlC.oOo nuo gcnte
�n(enueur
sdmoa"ds ."
PLAIN] �s
e '
+gn=iture Uvst«n q antl a towN ho cases i
r- I= Nagnbornooa 8.wl ssCull, Mnnq Ica CwNlinq unit a° a,u
LA�I•�1^0 USE Iv1AP 301 Comm«aa(OutudsO(Cartlars �� urtwnbelWPoanSogwator emwrssratu1lUwa%a.ew4mVt0:,Ma c
l 9J V nblrtltM tKLlr iv corns w.ew(yn dPrl':rltt
aaa.cw a rm coo a ene farereuntne nrn ma era_ a:toe
Urban Plan Oeveleomm( (- King CountyO ya%rtphrlr al.MrrtWa hr.l Jlllwsftm:Wwwe
Township 22 Range S cow$PaceRec Baea con nme:rr mutm u[a caw can.nae.ee„tine
��J Urban Rr:vom Wl i IZt1u:]C' uanteenett rterneo AliT7.Ge'OIrO.OxlCrin6 UsZ
Includes Comprehensive N+ .t m=
r e9sa - ac . eaS..wsaC aFsf n66C°°Ivm.tl ar]..wraretr Na
Plan Land Use changes K �� InCo oo atWGv Rrtt.m r.nmmbavey n•ue•+r mr n:w:osva+a
Urom Atsid •teal ltlu/]C' ".J"aYe..le le+en'i
through Ordinance e13273 w uman i°wm
(0ctobert998) Ru(y C;m area au dwy
t%rtl:el tJ(e'.rn Le;l
�a^^�+� fury :uw.r otatnc:aucn°ary I
Rury Ruvd,t].J I•Sr::S.1.LC
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 Svenning, Orville
Svenning, Dr. Lawrence Dora, Ann Dora, Ted Nixon, Jack Kastien
Committee Chair Tom Brotherton called the meeting to order at 1:03 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 motien and it passed 3-0.
Urban Separators
Panning Manager Fred Satterstrom recapped that at the last Committee meeting there were
questions about Urban Separator 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 Kling 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 Separator. 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 Kin; County. Two properties asking for City of Kent Comp Plan amendments this past year
are in areas designated by Kin; County, when under the jurisdiction of King County, as Urban
Separators in Kin; 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 Counry 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 Kin; County's Comprehensive Plan Nlap. It was not part of the Countywide
Planning Policies. The origins seem to extend back to about 1990 when King Cou my 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
GreenbeltlUrban Separator. The Urban Separator designation accomplished a separation
between cities such as Kent and Auburn, and Kent and Renton, and protected parks, connecting
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 6, 2000
COtu[MITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Brubaker, Kevin O'Neill, Fred Sacterstrom, John Hodgson,
Conrue 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 Conu itte_e Member Judy Woods and carried 3-0.
Urban Separator Countywide Planning Policv
Tom Brother-ton, 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 Ciry Council for adoption as a
Keat 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
-xoressed 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
f f
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
I nfrastructure 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 regiclarions governing these areas
without icing 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. raced 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
I eyond 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
Hearin; 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 or-Urban Separator areas. Some have been
rezoned to higher-density uses (the highest use to that or-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 Q'
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
Ptanning C;omrrunee, _)ioiuu -a -_ ,
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, Stare 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 nark over towards the valley, and Panther Lake which presumably was
desipated 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 oror to the annexation of the country club and
other area in 1997. The 1994 map shows the Urban Separators to be a substantial area
orior 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 240`h 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
Ptaaning Coaunittee, 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 stair 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 pan 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 Sanerstrom said it would depend on whether or not the
Committee would want to move forward to a public arena before further information was T
gathered. He reiterated the information already requested as: any efforts other cities have
initiated and what their policies might be concerrung 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. T'ne 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 'bur 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
Plan=g 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. Ir_ 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
ialcing 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
oubiic 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 are 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, 3/6/00 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 next 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 Comment:
Joe Miles, President of Friends of Soos Creek Park, 24639 156`f' 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 throu;h 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. IN/L-. 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 oppomuuty to secure these benefits for the City of Kent with a strong Urban
Separator policy. Mr. Miles 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 low 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
oppomliuty at this time with the urbanization that's occurrin; 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,
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, 2961 5 142na 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 240`h 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 magnincent 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 tot
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
r
Planning Corrumirtee, 3/6/00 Page 8
he had the opporrurury 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 long 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 carve 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
I
IiY Of ZLt2 JT
Jim White, Mayor
iIVICT I
'tanning Department (353) 356-54541E-1X(253) 356-6454
ames P. Harris, Planning Director
STAFF REPORT
March 6. 2000
TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CH-AIR 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-99-3A) and the Pacific Industries
amendment (=CPA-99-31)). 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 Kin; 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»ch AVE.SO.. / KENT.WASHINGTON 93032-5395/TELEPHONE (253)356-5200
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 Der 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.
Analysis:
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 or 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 clarity 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.om P:admin\urbansep.doc
Enclosure
cc: lames P. Hams.Flannmg Director
rN,C L7G iSit "(V {Irorcev )
.Memorandum
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
To
Jim Harris, Planning Manager. �
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
i
CC: Tom Brubaker, Deputy City Attorney
rpm; Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney _
Justin C. Osemene, Assistant City Atto ey
Implications of Countywide Planning Pi U-27 "Urban Separators" on the City's
Be: I Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Newly Annexed Areas
Date: January 20, 2000 f
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 Countvwide 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 ("GINLA") requirement for
geenbelts 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 Saaersaom,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 GvIA. 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(l)
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
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.
Fred Sarteruront Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner
January 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 (Camel), 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 staffs 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 staffs 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 j unsdiction.
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 Sattersrrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner
January 21,2000
1
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]othincr 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 Hearin; 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 uolicv within the Countvwide Planning Policies, such as
King Countv's LU-27 on urban separators. cannot provide
substantive direction that directly affects the provisions of
implementing regulations of a city's land use power.
I
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
Fred Sanerstrom,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 GvLA.
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 govemance 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 CPVs, 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 Snoqualmie, 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).
Ma:MoRAINDutit: ( E
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 specy—Ic 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 aclatowledged 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
Fred Sattersrrom,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 GiVL4.
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: l
Fred Saaersaom,Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner
January 21, 2000
Page: 8
I
that work to preserve the rural small town character and promote pedestrian 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, Snoqualmie 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
;rant 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 GMa.,
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 I -,
See Foomote 1.
vI..I
a....._.
Fred Satterstrom,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.
II. Under the GMA, cities have an affirmative dutv to olan and accommodate
the arowth that their countv allocates. However, the cities retain
discretion as to how their erowth will be located. confimired. desizied 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, CPSGNM 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 Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neiil, Senior Planner
January 21, 2000
Page. l0
community character, scales of development and design, among others. See, Aagaard, et
al. v. City of Bothell, CPSGL'Y B Case No. 94-3-0011 (1995); City of Edmonds and City
of Lynnwood v. Snohomish County ("Edmonds"), CPSGMI-B Case No. 93-3-0005, FDO,
(1993) at 27; Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGMH¢B Case No. 973-
3-0010 (1994) at 14. LMI v. Woodway ("LMI"), CPSGMHB 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,
CPSGMHB 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, densiry/intensity, and development standards for accommodating
growth within cities is subject to broad local discretion. (citation omitted).
Specifically, in reviewing an argument that I 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
GNLA, the Board held that "suburban" is a subset of"urban" and that a pattern of l and
2.5 acre lots meets the GNIA'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 I 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 I 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 GIMA. 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 pattem, would constitute urban
sprawl and, therefore, should be prohibited. It, however, made tatown that there are —.
exceptions to this general rule, such as when l 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
Fred Sanerstrom,Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner
January 21,2000
Page: It
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 u-phold 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 Icing 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 RiQ.ht 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
agricultural 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 I
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill,Senior Planner
January 2l,2000
Page: 12
I
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 GvA, Title 35 and 35A RCW
regarding the questions presented herein, it is this ofnce'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.
P�C�.�OP.MONSCa,+o7t�MmaM-UrEanSe7ruos.Ape
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MAY 1, 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 Compatibilitv Studv — 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 Studv 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 S7 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 S85,539, 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.
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 Q
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
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 2000
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: KENT CIVIC AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER GENERAL
OBLIGATION VOTER APPROVED BONDS - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Over the last several years, the Kent
City Council considered the development of a civic and
performing arts center in the downtown core one of its target
issues . City staff has worked with the non-profit Kent Civic
and Performing Arts Center Board of Trustees and Kent citizens
to plan and design such a facility.
After many years of planning, studying, and designing, the Kent
Civic and Performing Arts Center Board of Trustees is prepared
to request the Kent City Council authorize a $14 million bond
issue for the construction of the facility on the primary
ballot in September. The Board is raising $10 million
privately for this project .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance (to be submitted during Council meeting) ,
program information from Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center
Board, and project budget
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember W b moves, Councilmember f&mot/ seconds
adoption of Ordinance No. 3�18 authorizing an election to be
scheduled September 19, 2000 , for the sale of fourteen million
dollars ($14 million) of long-term general obligation voter
approved bonds for the design, construction, and equipping of a
civic and performing arts center.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 73
CITY OF KENT
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kent City Council
FROM: John M. Hodgson, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: June 27, 2000
SUBJECT: Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center
Over the last several years, the Kent City Council has had the development of a civic and
performing arts center in the downtown core as one of its target issues. City staff has
worked with the Non-profit Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center Board of Trustees and
Kent citizens to plan and design such a facility.
After many years of planning, studying, and designing, the Kent Civic and Performing Arts
Center Board of Trustees is prepared to request the Kent City Council authorize a $14
million bond issue for the construction of the facility on the primary ballot in September.
The Board is raising $10 million privately for this project.
Attached is an information packet for the project. If you have questions, please call me at
253- 856-5100, and I can direct you to the appropriate Kent Civic and Performing Arts
Center Board Member.
Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center
Fact Sheet
Facility description:
• Two theaters--a 600 seat"mainstage"theater and a 200-250 seat flexible-form "black-box"theater.
• Each theater will be fully equipped with professional rigging, lighting, curtains, sound and audio-visual systems, and
backstage facilities to accommodate a diverse range of performing artsientertainment attractions, as well as
corporatelcivic meetings and events.
• The lobbies of both theaters will be spacious, with adequate and convenient restroom and concession facilities.
The main lobby will include an art gallery space, as well as an elegant donor recognition wall to acknowledge the
many individuals, corporations and foundations who contribute to the capital campaign.
Facility location:
• The northwest corner of 2nd Avenue and Smith Street, in downtown Kent, across the street from the King County
regional library, and adjacent to the new Sound Transit commuter rail station parking garage(680 stalls), that
Center patrons can use for performances. Building site has been purchased by the City of Kent.
Management Structure and Operations:
• The facility will be owned by the City of Kent and will be staffed and managed by the non-profit Kent Civic and
Performing Arts Center corporation as a professional, community based performing arts presenting organization.
• The Center will take an active, substantial role in programming,with strong emphasis on theatre, family programs
and popular music, to meet the community's desire for a diverse range of professional and community arts events.
• The Center will also rent its two theaters, as well as its two lobby spaces, to local arts organizations for
performances, and to local businesses, community groups and individuals for meetings and special events.
Project Development Costs:
• $24 million, based on costs of similar arts facilities recently developed in the region.
• The budget includes expenses of construction, sitework, equipment and furnishings, design fees, permits, testing
and inspections, etc., fundraising, pre-opening operating costs, contingency, and construction period financing.
• Project costs covered by revenue from an $8 million private sector capital fundraising campaign, and $16 million
public sector funding from Washington State, King County and the City of Kent.
Projected Timeline:
• Start of construction: Spring 2002
• Grand opening: Spring- Summer 2003
Operating Costs and Revenue(per August 1999 Business Plan):
• First year operating costs total $1.2 million.
• Operating cost covered by$600,000 earned revenue(ticket sales,facility rental, etc.), $410,000 contributed
revenue (from individuals, corporations, foundations and government sources)and $190,000 operating subsidy
from the City of Kent.
Community Impact:
• Based on a professional market survey, the Center projects demand for 87 arts events with 186 performances,and
121 non-arts rentals in the first year alone. This activity will bring over 45,000 people into the facility annually.
• The Center will have a significant economic impact on downtown Kent, generating at least$300,000 of evening and
weekend restaurant and retail business activity annually.
• Currently,over 400 volunteers are involved in some aspect of creating this important community asset.
1r
I,.ent Civic ,& Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center
Performing Arts
Project Budget
Center
Board of Trustees As of: June 27, 2000 — Subject to change
Don Camcoe'I Prepared by: Chris Miller, Executive Director
'atraa C-r,-a, Scope of project: approximately 57,000 square foot new building, housing two theater facilities, a
"ce
600 seat proscenium auditorium and a multi-form"black box"performance space capable of seating
Dee Ycs=^e1.
up to approximately 250. Building includes two lobbies,box office,art gallery in main lobby,
associated back stage facilities,administrative offices,etc. in general accordance with the May 1999
Bumgardner Architecture conceptual plan for the facility.
Dana Albertscr
Site: city owned/purchased property on NW comer of 2"d Avenue and Smith Street in downtown
Co:emao Kent. Budget includes allowance for site work,per the Bumgardner conceptual design.
..:we^Dupree Construction and related cost allowances in accordance with Bumgardner May 1999 estimate,and
unn noczsor recent actual construction costs for similar facilities,adjusted for inflation to construction start date
of February 2002.
ice lnKNS
=- . e ,e Campaign and operating costs based on August 1999 KCPAC Business Plan,and recommendations
Karen _ee from capital campaign and public relations consultants.
'sges Sou-tl n^erg;
Snlne,IcGregc- Bud-et:
_D'U�xa 37nK
ure,�erLer
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT("HARD COSTS"):
Snerr O.;raca
Building: $12,233,500
Sne-- OwzarSKI.C=A Sitework and street construction: S 1,493,570
&As'Q`�1 `_- Sales tax on above: S 1,180,530
_..aea=ete-se^ SUBTTL, construction: $14,907,600
Day _.Ran.^._e,^ .D.
Theatrical Equipment, inc. tax: S 1,287,582
Const. &equipt. Contingency @ 10%: S 1,619,518
3,e S^�an TOTAL, CONTT. & EQUIPMENT: $17,814,700
Peer W urovvs<
r- DESIGN, PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, ETC. ("SOFT COSTS"):
Caro!Vas
ms= Architecture, engineering, consultant fees: S 2,252,200
Aroe'venac�es Permits, inspections,bonds, insurance, etc.: S 900,880
Signage, computers, furnishings, inc. tax: S 364,540
`cra rir,re Soft cost contingency at 5%: S 175,880
TOTAL,DESIGN,ETC.: $ 3,693,500
General Counsel
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN AND KCPAC PRE-OPENING EXPENSES:
Capital Campaign Capital and public relations campaign: S 660,000
Steering Committee Pre-opening expenses, yr 1 contrib. Rev: S 760,000
3rad D.3ei,l Contingency at 5%: S 71,000
a-te Curran TOTAL, CAMPAIGN, ETC.: $ 1,491,000
_o-C7a"s
C7nstopher F Miller CONSTRUCTION PERIOD FINANCING: S 788,000
Execuove D,rector
308 is W.Meeker St.#210 GRAND TOTAL: $23,787,200
P.O.Box 1617
Kent WA 98035-1617 ** financed by$14 million City of Kent bond issue,with balance of funding from the Kent Civic
253520-2525 and Performing Arts Center capital campaign.
253-520-2424 FAX
IAAw Xcoac.org
i
i
t h
C
c
0
Q
C
On
•� C
V
J
Q C
C C
V
1 CLZl
y
h O
2 z 4
W
U) c c v' W zG�
O v O U y cnclq
wn
zQ \ � � h � " h rw
O v>LU
W C Eti
• W CS CG ` i, hrp
w
a C 4 O Z c n O O v CC
Z .W
W v]
W c O O
Z e U A e W �` 5w C Cn
Z V r V
Q L 4 W O 0. Z C •� (/i V
V y
NCn
tr y �=+ 4 Z Q O
e ti W m O Er v
Z 7 4 � •U N W C
W Q m e U p ti C Z C O W W
Qn
J
Z � 'Q RS t■
Q cs
�' 0 0 0 0 0 .
� \
� \
� ®
3 �
U /
m Z \
� ' \
2 � �
/ \ \
/ t 3 \ e
c \ \ b \ . z ■ (
z \ Li) ) \ \ 5 \
| \ § \ \ \
) §
/
W ( \ / % {
D \ ) \ \ \ \
0 2 u e § \ ■ Q
� ( \ \ ) \ \
� / § \ \ 9 b 5
* \ « a a 2
\ \ & \ \ % $ § $ 7 5 g \
\ } \ \ 2 \ \ 2 # \ \ )
p ° ®
{ \ ( \ CJ
\ \ \ ) \ rA
\ \ \
■ a g ) \ ( \ \ m
\
\ k \ / / 7 \ / \
>
Uk . 0 , 0 U , . , U , , . , 0 0 2 . . 0
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ) 2L
D. PUBLIC WORKS
E. PLANNING COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
•-TT
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES