HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/18/2000 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) PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
Pour
CONSENT CALENDAR
6 . City Council Action:
Councilmember EW moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through,fa be approved.
n
r
Discussion
Action G
6A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
July 5, 2000 .
6B. Approval of Bills .
Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 16 through
June 30 and paid on July 5, 2000 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/5/00 Checks 244819-245216 $ 320, 805 . 55
7/5/00 Advices 97135-97798 901 , 616 . 54
$1, 222 , 422 . 09
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent , Washington
July 5, 2000
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order
at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt ,
Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling, Chief
Administrative Officer McFall, Deputy City Attorney Brubaker,
Finance Director Miller, Parks Director Hodgson, City Engineer
Gill, Planning Manager Satterstrom, and Information Technology
Director Mulholland. Approximately 90 people were at the meeting.
CHANGES TO McFall requested the addition of an Executive
THE AGENDA Session item dealing with negotiations on property
acquisition.
PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced
COMMUNICATIONS that Diane Harrison of the Information Technology
Department has been selected as July Employee of
the Month. He noted that Ms . Harrison has
mastered the LAN operations and use of the
computer room equipment to ensure that the City' s
PC software is running smoothly, and was instru-
mental in reorganizing the computer room in 1993 .
IT Director Mulholland added that Harrison is
reliable, is a real team player, and deserves this
honor. Mayor White then presented her with the
Employee of the Month plaque .
Recreation and Parks Month. The Mayor read a
proclamation noting that parks, playgrounds,
nature trails, open spaces, community and cultural
centers and historic sites make communities
attractive and desirable places to live, work,
play and visit, and contribute to the ongoing
economy. He proclaimed the month of July 2000 as
Recreation and Parks Month in the City of Kent,
and presented the proclamation to Parks Director
Hodgson. Hodgson noted that the summer season has
begun and invited everyone to participate in all
of the summer activities . He noted that employees
and volunteers from many City departments parti-
cipated in the 4th of July event at Lake Meridian,
and commended them on their teamwork.
CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through H
CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
1
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of June 20 , 2000 .
URBAN (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A)
SEPARATORS Urban Separators. 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 countywide planning policy. The matter was
referred to the 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
as shown in a memo dated June 6, 2000 to the full
Council .
Brotherton explained that a policy statement
giving guidance as to the proper size of urban
separators, and how to determine whether a
particular parcel should be included or excluded
is required. He noted that the Cairnes and
Pacific Industries parcels will not be recon-
sidered until the Kent urban separator policy is
adopted. He explained the work of the Committee,
and said the difficulty is in balancing the
conflicting interests of those who wish for no
further development and property owners who wish
to get full value for their land, as well as
balancing the long term needs of Kent citizens
with the current needs of those directly involved.
BROTHERTON THEN MOVED that the following princi-
ples and guidelines be forwarded to the Land Use
and Planning Board for consideration and inclusion
in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as
appropriate :
A. PRINCIPLES : That the following principles
relating to the Urban Separators be adopted:
1 . Urban Separators provide benefits to the
citizens of Kent and should be recognized
2
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
URBAN and adopted with the current densities
SEPARATORS established for such by the County.
2 . New construction should not degrade-
existing nearby levels of isolation,
tranquillity and environmental protection
within existing urban areas .
3 . The ability of property owners to develop
their property within existing standards
should not be less than their neighbors as
long as it does not degrade existing
nearby levels of Urban Separator isolation
and protection.
B . GUIDELINES : That the Land Use and Planning
Board consider and make recommendations as
follows :
1 . Establish Urban Separator goals which
could include :
- Promoting animal habitat and conducti-
vity,
- Protecting salmonid waterways, sensitive
areas, and wetlands,
- Protecting the peace and tranquillity of
recreational areas,
- Protecting geologically unstable areas,
such as steep slopes, and
- Promoting water table recharge,
2 . Review the areas of concern the Planning
Committee identified in the existing Urban
Separator in the county plan,
3 . Develop a recommendation as to the appro-
priate Urban Separator boundary, using the
Kent Urban Separator principles,
4 . Consider whether clustering should be
required and adjust the proper zoning
designation accordingly, if property
should be moved out of an Urban Separator,
and
3
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
URBAN 5 . Provide a recommendation for the proper
SEPARATORS zoning and any other conditions that would
meet city Urban Separator goals and mini-
mize restrictions on the property, if any
property should be added to an Urban
Separator.
Orr seconded. It was clarified that the intent of
the motion is to refer this to the Land Use and
Planning Board to adopt the principles and to put
them in the Comprehensive Plan during the update
process, and then to look at the identified pro-
perties and determine what should be done with
them.
Brotherton and Orr agreed to Yingling ' s friendly
amendment to change the words "should be required"
to "could be optional" in Item 3 . 4 . They also
agreed to Clark' s friendly amendment to change the _
word "conductivity" to "connectivity" in Item B. 1,
and to replace the words "identified listed en-
dangered species habitat" for the words "salmonid
waterways" in the first two goals in Item 3 . 1 .
Joe Miles, President of Friends of Soos Creek
Park, 24639 156th Avenue SE, Kent, said it is
difficult to see the urban separator disappear
little by little. He voiced concern about
Section A. 3 and offered alternative language
putting a cap of one unit per acre, and about
Section 3 . 4 and offered alternative language
allowing clustering for every parcel in the urban
separator with a cap of one unit per acre . ORR
MOVED to accept Miles ' letter for the record.
Brotherton seconded and the motion carried.
Elizabeth Miles, 24639 156th Avenue SE, Kent ,
stated that an increase in density would impact
education, as the park is used as an outdoor
classroom, and said that the City Council is
responsible for the health of the Soos Creek Park
and that exceptions should not be given. Carol
Stoner, 19708 121st Avenue SE, Renton, explained
that the members of the Soos Creek Planning
Committee were told to plan to accept their fair
4
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
URBAN share of projected growth, and that they also
SEPARATORS tried to mitigate the effects of that growth by
putting the urban separator policy in place . She
urged the Council to continue the County' s program
of having a good, firm urban separator policy.
Bob Nelson, 24048 156th Avenue SE, Kent, Chair of
Rural Neighbors, said the countywide planning
policy is valid and urged the Council to recon-
sider anything that would threaten the policy.
Barb Holt , 24920 177th Avenue SE, Kent, voiced
opposition to any zoning changes within the urban
separator. Dallas Snyder, President of Soos Creek
Area Response, stated that as the density of land
upstream is increased, problems are caused down-
stream for the Chinook salmon population.
Ardis Johnson said her property on 146th Place
SE received a low density designation when the
Meridian Annexation was zoned. She said her
property is at least 500 ' above Soos Creek and is
located on four plateau levels above Soos Creek.
She requested zoning of her 8 . 62 acres to 4 . 5
homes per acre . Johnson noted that her land is
used as a park by children from the housing
development , that horses are pastured on her
property, that she has consented to cutting trees
to provide her neighbors with a better view, and
that she has given a 10-foot easement to
facilitate better drainage for Ridgefield Estates .
She requested the same zoning as her neighbors .
Orville Svening, husband of Ardis Johnson, 24039
146th Place SE, Kent, voiced concern about runoff .
He noted that the average urban barrier is 2 . 5
acres and that Johnson' s property is 8 . 6 acres .
Denise Frumbauah, 25902 146th Avenue SE, said she
uses her property which adjoins the creek as a
classroom and that the property should not be
changed. Dr. Mark Imlay, 24625 148th Avenue SE,
Kent, said the buffer protects not only park and
_ public lands, but residential areas as well . He
said his property and others have been damaged by
the Ridgefield development . Barbara Wilbur, 1914
36th Street, Auburn, said the trail is priceless
5
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
URBAN and that houses should be limited to one . Len
SEPARATORS Elliott, 2006 Riverview Drive NE, Auburn, voiced
opposition to any revisions, and referred to the
agreement with the County. Karen Johnson, spoke
in support of Ardis Johnson' s request for the
urban separator change .
Lowell Hesch, 14425 SE 240th, Kent , urged the
Council to reconsider the urban separator. Jay
Johnson, 31028 W. Lake Morton Drive, Kent,
applauded efforts to develop a fair proposal to
protect Soos Creek, and said that rights to
develop land shouldn' t be excluded. Larry
Osborne, 4122 S . 240th Street, recommended buying
the property at its assessed value . John Slauss,
24122 145th Avenue SE, Kent, requested amending
the motion to come in line with the already
accepted policy which was in place at the time of
annexation.
Bruce Harphem, Conservation Chair for the Rainier
Audubon Society, said the City has done an
outstanding job of looking toward the future for
their citizens, an example of which is the Green
River natural area. He said the Soos Creek trail
is an important bird area, and brings in many
visitors, resulting in an economic value . He
noted that zoning is purchased along with pro-
perty, and suggested that when a profit is made
due to rezoning it should go to the city. He
urged the Council to remember the long-term
effects . Pam Yeager said she values her property
as a heritage for future generations and as a gift
from her grandparents . She said a precedent was
set when a promise of 20 years was made, and said
there is no need for economic growth in the area.
Bob Bartlett, 24433 156th Avenue SE, Kent , said
there are many properties which could be developed
at the current zoning, and that after that is
complete, there is no justification for consider-
ing up-zoning.
Amodt noted that the Miles, the Imlays and the
Johnsons met yesterday and that tonight ' s
testimony does not reflect what is happening. She
.z=, 6
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
URBAN explained that common ground was found and that
SEPARATORS the group has agreed to look into park funding.
She said both parties agreed clustering is good
and that the citizens are working hard to resolve
this issue with a win-win situation. Clark noted
that Soos Creek is a critical habitat, and that
language regarding development along the edges of
the property of the Soos Creek Trail is included
in Brotherton' s motion.
Woods pointed out that the Council sets policy and
guidelines, and does not deal with particular
pieces of property. She thanked all who spoke
and said she endorses most of what Brotherton is
proposing, with the exception of up-zoning.
Brotherton stressed that the purpose of the
discussion is to protect the existing urban
separator, not to degrade what we already have,
and not to take away people ' s rights to develop
their property if that development won' t hurt the
existing environment . Orr pointed out that the
first sentence of Brotherton' s motion clearly
states "with the current densities" . Clark stated
that King County did not support their own plan,
and that the City will inherit some of the area
and must live with the results . Brotherton
explained for Yingling that the City' s compre-
hensive plan would be modified and the County plan
would not be affected.
Brotherton' s motion to refer this issue to the
Land Use and Planning Board then carried. Mayor
White noted that there will be opportunities for
citizens to testify at the Land Use and Planning
Board hearings.
PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
Camping Ordinance ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3516,
prohibiting unauthorized camping. Camping would
be permitted in parks and public places only by
permit . It would also 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 .
i
7
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F)
Kent Drinkinci Driver Task Force Grant. ACCEPTANCE
of WTSC OJJDP (Federal Office of Juvenile Justice)
discretionary grant funding, and establishment of
a budget .
The 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.
PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
Public Works Improvement Plan Approval And
Inspection Fees . ADOPTION of Ordinance No . 3517 ,
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 establishes a _
plan review and inspection fee for those portions
of developments in the City that include improve-
ments 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 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 con-
structs a public improvement within City limits .
In addition to the fact that these improvements
typically provide a regional benefit , the esta-
blished 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.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
Public Works Traffic Section Maintenance Shop —
Lease Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to
sign the three year lease agreement with Totem
Business Park, to facilitate the Public Works Dept
8
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
PUBLIC WORKS Signal Operation and Maintenance facility, upon
concurrence of the language by the City Attorney,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee .
(BIDS - ITEM 8A)
2000 Downtown Sidewalk Replacement & Gateway
Improvements . The bid opening for this project
was held on June 22nd with four bids received.
The low bid was submitted by Gary Merlino
Construction Co . , Inc . in the amount of
$1, 135, 836 . 50 . The engineer' s estimate was
$1, 220 , 807 . 63 . The Public Works Director recom-
mends award of this contract to Gary Merlino
Construction Co . , Inc .
CLARK MOVED that the 2000 Downtown Sidewalk
Replacement and Gateway Improvements contract be
awarded to Gary Merlino Construction Co. , Inc . in
the amount of $1, 135, 836 . 50 . Epperly seconded and
the motion carried.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
COMMUNITY Riverbend Golf Complex Amended Budget. ADOPTION
SERVICES of the amended Riverbend Golf Complex Year 2000
Budget , as recommended by the Parks Committee on
June 13 , 2000 .
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 .
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B)
Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center General
Obligation Voter Approved Bonds . 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.
9
k
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
PARKS & After many years of planning, studying and
COMMUNITY designing, the Kent Civic and Performing Arts
SERVICES Center Board of Trustees is prepared to request
that the City Council authorize a $14 , 000 , 000 bond
issue for the construction of the facility on the
primary ballot in September. The Board is raising
$10 , 000 , 000 privately for this project .
Parks Director Hodgson noted that the Kent Civic
and Performing Arts Center group has been com-
mitted -to this project for many years, and are
passionate, enthusiastic, committed to excellence
and thorough. He said that it is unique that the
group is willing to raise funds to help build the
facility and to help pay operational costs each
year. Hodgson explained that if 60% of the voters
approve this, the Council would still have an
option as to whether or not to sell the bonds . He
noted that the cost to the average home owner
would be $2 . 65 per month.
Don Campbell , President of the Kent Civic and
Performing Arts Center Board, explained the types
of events which could be held at the Center,
including speakers, concerts, film festivals,
sports banquets, meetings, art shows, dances,
comedy nights, lectures, business meetings, trade
shows, wedding receptions, plays, musicals, sports
presentations on a big screen, and holiday
celebrations . He said that every Kent citizen
would find something of special value there, and
asked the Council to put the issue before the
voters .
Pete Curran, Co-Chair of Capital Campaign, noted
that in 1966 the building of the current City Hall
was placed on the ballot as a G.O . bond issue and
was adopted by the City, and that G. O. bonds were
used for the senior housing at Fourth and Smith.
He noted that the park system, the street system,
the synchronized traffic lights, the library, the
Commons, the Senior Center, the new jail , and the
golf course, were approved by the Council in an
effort to ensure that the city stays current with
the demands of intense growth. He reiterated that
10
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
PARKS & nearly half of the funding for the civic and
COMMUNITY performing arts center with be from private
SERVICES sources, and asked the Council to give the people
of the city the opportunity to indicate how•
strongly they feel about having this facility.
WOODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3515 authoriz-
ing an election to be scheduled September 19,
2000 , for the sale of $14 , 000 , 000 of long-term
general obligation voter approved bonds for the
design,_ construction, and equipping of a civic and
performing arts center. Brotherton seconded.
Woods stated that years ago the library, the
senior center and a performing arts center were
put on the ballot at the same time, and that that
proposal failed. She noted that the library and
the senior center have been built . She commended
those who have been willing to consider this issue
from different points of view and who have worked
on this proposal for many years .
Martin Plvs, 3004 S . 256 , voiced concern about tax
increases and accurate figures, and noted that
Seattle and Tacoma have adequate arts centers . He
said that only $1 . 1 million of the $10 million has
been raised, and that $193 , 000 will be lost in the
first year. He also stated that this is a program
for the wealthy and that the average person won' t
be able to afford to attend the events held at the
center. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, Kent, noted
that Parks Director Hodgson and the Mayor' s wife
are on the Board and that he would like to have in
writing that the Board is strictly volunteer and
that members will get no gratuities before this is
passed. Mayor White explained that his wife has
a right to serve on the Board and that she
volunteers countless hours in the community.
Woods commented that this building will be a City
building and that Mr. Hodgson represents the City
on the Committee . She also expressed ongoing
admiration for Edna White, noting that she chooses
to serve her community selflessly. Kogita
questioned how the money which was taken from the
water budget will be repaid. He said that the
11
i
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
PARKS & $10 , 000 , 000 from private industry will be raised
COMMUNITY over a number of years, so it is not available
SERVICES right away, and that interest will have to be
paid. He also said there is no guarantee that the
$10, 000 , 000 will be raised, or that there will be
no more requests for funding from taxpayers .
Robert O' Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, said place-
ment of this issue on the ballot is premature . He
noted that money has already been spent on the
project., that there are problems regarding
chemicals on the property and that a good explana-
tion of the funding is needed before it goes on
the ballot .
Diana Albertson, representing the Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors, stated that they
unanimously approved the Civic and Performing Arts
Center because it makes Kent a better place to _
live, it will attract businesses to the city, it
will help in redevelopment of the downtown core,
and it will provide a place for businesses to hold
meetings . She encouraged the Council to vote yes
to placing the issue on the September ballot .
Patricia Peacore spoke in favor the center, and
said she feels low income people do attend
cultural activities, and that they won' t have the
distance to travel that they now do. She said
that culture enriches our lives . Larry Osborne,
4122 S . 240th Street , said there is no assurance
that there will be assistance in paying for the
cost of operating the facility. Sally Goodgion,
405 E . Titus, said it is not premature to put this
issue on the ballot, that a lot of thought has
gone into it, and urged the Council to vote yes .
Gail Shewev, 11217 No Name Street, Kent, asked the
Council to postpone the bond issue until
consideration of traffic, parking, wetlands,
chemicals and setbacks has taken place .
Debbie Ranniger, 14606 SE 244th Street , Kent,
thanked everyone for their support on the civic
and performing arts center. She said the center
will be a focal point for citizens to come
12
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
PARKS & together, some of whom do not have the ability to
COMMUNITY travel outside the city to enjoy civic and
SERVICES cultural activities . David Reynolds, 33207 205th
Avenue, spoke in favor of the facility, both as an
entertainer and as a parent . He explained that it
takes time and money to take his child out of town
to events .
Orr explained that the City borrowed money which
is not needed at this time from an existing fund,
and it is being repaid with interest by a dif-
ferent tax which is paid for by visitors to the
community, so it is not costing taxpayers anything
for the land. She said that traffic is being
addressed and pointed out that most events at the
facility will be at night when rush hour is over.
She noted that the Sound Transit parking garage
will also be used by the Performing Arts Center,
so no additional space downtown will be paved
over. Orr said she is very impressed with the
performing arts center group and their plan, and
expressed her thanks .
Clark emphasized that the question is whether the
citizens wish to become a partner with this
group, and that that will be left in the hands
of the voters . Brotherton pointed out that the
$14 , 000 , 000 will not be spent immediately and that
there will be assurance that money will be coming
in from the committee . Amodt said she is pleased
that this will go on the September ballot . Upon
her question, Deputy City Attorney Brubaker
explained that the ordinance guarantees that the
bonds will not exceed $14 , 000 , 000 and provides for
a subsequent ordinance authorizing issuance of the
bonds . He also explained that the ordinance does
not state that the $14 , 000 , 000 is contingent on
the raising of $10, 000 , 000 .
Yingling said he has spoken with Boardmembers
regarding the facility and that he has full
confidence that a very good job of uncovering the
costs involved was done . Epperly commended the
Civic and Performing Arts Center Committee for an
l
13
Kent City Council Minutes July 5 , 2000
PARKS & outstanding job, and noted that they will have to
COMMUNITY raise the promised funds .
SERVICES
Brotherton' s motion to put the issue on the- ballot
then carried unanimously.
AMODT MOVED that issuance of the General
Obligation bonds of $14 , 000 , 000 is contingent
upon the Civic and Performing Arts Center Board ' s
successful acquisition of the entire amount of
necessary private funding of $10 , 000 . The motion
died for lack of a second.
(BIDS - ITEM 8B)
Fire Prevention Tenant Improvements. The bid
opening for this project was held on June 23rd
with one bid received.
The Parks Director recommends awarding the Fire
Prevention Tenant Improvements project to DP Inc .
for $151, 857 plus Washington State Sales Tax.
EPPERLY MOVED to award the Fire Prevention Tenant
Improvements project to DP, Inc . in the amount of
$151, 857 plus Washington State Sales Tax, and for
authorization to proceed with intent to bond to
reimburse expenses . Orr seconded and the motion
carried. (NOTE : The agenda page erroneously
referred to this contractor as AB, Inc . )
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 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
REPORTS Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the
next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p .m. on July 25 .
Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the next
meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p .m. on July 17 .
14
Kent City Council Minutes July 5, 2000
REPORTS Administrative Reports . McFall reminded Council-
members that an Executive Session of approximately
ten minutes regarding negotiation for land
acquisition has been added to the agenda .
EXECUTIVE The meeting recessed to Executive Session at
SESSION 9 : 20 p .m. , and reconvened at 9 : 36 p .m.
ADJOURNMENT ORR MOVED to adjourn at 9 : 36 p.m. Woods seconded
and the motion carried.
4a-C.o-�jc�i
Brenda Jacob r, CMC
City Clerk
15
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 18 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY AMENDMENTS - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No .
relating to amendments to the King County County-Wide Planning
Policy. The Planning Committee recommends ratification of
recent amendments to the County-Wide Planning Policies . The
resolution incorporates these amendments and ratifies them on
behalf of the City of Kent .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(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. 6C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, ratifying the King County Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council
and pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.210) requires the
adoption of Countywide Planning Policies by the legislative authority of King County, and
that said policies are to provide a countywide framework from which local comprehensive
plans are to be developed; and
WHEREAS, King County, the City of Seattle, and the incorporated suburban
cities and towns in King County established a process for the development, adoption. and
ratification of Countywide Planning Policies by an interlocal agreement, which was approved
by the City of Kent, and that said interlocal agreement established the Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC), a group consisting of elected officials from King Count}.
suburban cities, and the City of Seattle, who were authorized to develop a set of
recommended countywide planning policies for consideration by the King County Council;
and
WHEREAS, the GMPC recommended a set of Countywide Planning Polices
to the King County Council that were adopted pursuant to its Ordinance No. 10450 on July
6, 1992, as required by RCW 36.70A.210: and which furthermore were ratified by the Kent
City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 1326 on September 15, 1992; and
1 Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments-Ratify
WHEREAS, King County has adopted and the City of Kent has ratified Phase
I and Phase E of the Countywide Planning Policies, including amendments ratified pursuant
to Citv of Kent Resolution Nos. 1413, 1459, and 1484; and
WHEREAS, the GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to pass additionai
amendments to Phase 11 Countywide Planning Policies to accomplish the following:
1. To revise the housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
incorporations from April, 1994 to January, 1998.
2. To reassign new housing targets for potential annexation areas and
adoption of an Interim Potential Annexation Areas map which will
remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are included in
city Potential Annexation Areas without gaps or overlaps.
3. To remove the six (6) year development capacity work item and to
incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program
as required by the State Growth Management Act under kox
36.70A.21 5); and
WHEREAS, the King County Council approved and ratified these
amendments on behalf of King County on May 22, 2000, pursuant to its Ordinance No.
13858; and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee reviewed the amendments to the
Countvwide Planning Policies at its meeting on Julv 3, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee recommended that the City
Council ratify the County's amendments to the Phase II Countywide Planning Polices; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement
among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the
Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments-Ratify
proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Polices as adopted by the Metropolitan
King County Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 13858, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be
filed with the City Clerk and in the Planning Office and made available for public inspection.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of 2000.
Concurred in by -the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
, 2000.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BREND A JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
Countvwide Planning
Policy Amendments-Ratify
it
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
, 2 000.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P':Ci,r,R.I.i.on,Comrywid PW nmgPolicy-Rmi y G c
4 Countrwide Planning
Policy Amendments-Ratify
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthous;
516 Third Avenue
Seattle,WA 9310.
Signature Report
May 31, 2000
Ordinance 13858
Proposed No. 2000-0212.2 Sponsors Sullivan
1 AN ORDNANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies under RCW 36.70A.210;
3 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
-' unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
r..
10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
6 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
20.10.040.
s
9
10
I I BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the GMPC
to recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July, 1992,
15 under Ordinance 10450.
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
13 11446.
EXHIBIT_„ .
I
Ordinance 13858
9 C. The GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to pass amendments to the King
_0 County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies [5/25/94], to accomplish the following:
'; 1. Amend Appendix 2A to revise the housing growth targets to reflect
12 annexations and incorporations from April 1994 to January 1998;
_3 2. Adopt Appendix 2B and the Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map to
21 include the estimated housing targets for the potential annexation areas as shown on the
25 Interim Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map. The Interim PAA Map describes the
26 areas receiving target allocations in Table CPP Appendix 213;
27 3. Amend Framework Policy FW-I (Step 5a) to reflect the completion of the
2S work charged to the land capacity task force;
29 4. Amend Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 5b) to establish a review and
30 evaluation program in compliance with RCW.36.70A.215; and
31 5. Delete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
32 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
33 each hereby amended to read as follows:
34 Phase H. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide
35 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
36 B. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
38 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment.1 to Ordinance 12421.
10 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 20I2 - Countywide Planning
;l Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
2
I
� I
I
i
July 16, 1999
cc/Is
MOTIO -NO. 99-
2 A MOTION amending the Coutitnvide Planning Policies to remove the 6
3 year development capacity work item and to incorporate the review and
4 evaluation program as required by the Scare's Growth Management Act
under IRC-1w 30-.70A.216.
6
1 WHEREAS, In 1994, the Growth :Management Planning Council (GvIPC) established the Land
3 Capacity Task Force (LCTF) and charged them to produce an Improved, updated set of land
9 Caoactty estimates, to establish a baseline From which regular, ongoing monitonng could proceed;
to
1 1 WHTEREAS, The I = has reviewed and recommended a standardized methodology ror
12 jurisdictions to measure the zoned land caoacicv for residential, and non-residential development
13 for the 20 year planning period;
15 WHEREAS, The jurisdictions have completed this analysis and the results show that the
16 junsdlCtions in King County have adequate capacity to accom:riodate the growth exoected in their
20-year plans; ,
Ij
19 W HEREAS, The remaining work program item For the LCirr is to develop a method for
20 calculating 6-year development capacity;
21
22 `VHEREAS, In 1997 the State Growt:i Management Act was amended to require a review and
23 evaluation program be established in King and five other counties and the cities within those
counties consistent with elemenr-s of RCW" 36.70A.215;
�5
2C WHEREAS, The review and evaluation prog_ra::. -eaut:td of Kn ng Counry and its tines will
21 produce informann io inform Lhe GNTC and the jtaIsdictions or wheChe; there is suIiicient land
2g to accommodate the countywide population projection, dete.:nine whether the actual density of
29 housing co is.:ucted and the amount of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within
30 the urban growth boundary is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, and to determine
31 the amount of land needed for co=-:rcial, indus-pal and housing for the remaining oortion of the
32 20 year planning period; and
33
WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program will orovide uuorrraron that is similar to what
.j5 the 6-year development capacity would have provided;
36
CIGMPC/99GM?CNO(99-1.dCC - i -
7 =
PLANNING COMMITTEE _ !
DULY 3, 2000
ATTACHM ENT 2 �' N
�
J1
N
cc
i11�� Q C f,
A m =�
r G j C e=0
orpoap
s` a o..�
1-00
doLSm � moca
O ■
Q � _ W � a�mya =
J Q L cp rb o C m
C� Q j _ �coac _
7 q 1 U�
V
4M� � �
oN �a o
4 • .
zoma �N
�pp p .
c � aE € = n mcm cc a 0
EtPL
40
ao7LL mY � Zd �L" tAmF--'-
10
y
Y OoW
a
N �� �, �� i.a i C� m o°a) m o c 5
arm
WE
Mr-
m9 mZ vd 0m o o = yz
sa 3 r /'
: _ajg; 1
PLANNING COMMITTEE RECEIVED
JULY 3, 2000 QUN 0 9 2000
ATTACHMENT 1 City of
King County Office of the MZY _
A
June 8, 2000
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220 - 4th Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear M e:
We are ased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on June 16`h and July 28`h 1999 and
approved the following motions:
• Motion 99-1: recommends amending the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to
reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
• Substitute Motion 99-2: recommends amending the CPPs to reassign new housinu
targets for potential annexation areas (PAAs) and adoption of an Interim Potential
Annexation Areas map which will remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city PAAs without gaps or overlaps.
• Motion 99-4: recommends amending the CPPs to remove the 6 year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation (`Buildable Lands")
program as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
On May 22, 2000, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf
of unincorporated King County. A copy of King County Ordinance 13858 is enclosed to assist
YOU in your review of these amendments, along with the council staff report.
As you know, amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing
70 percent of the population of King County according to the Interlocal Agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please be aware that the 90-day deadline in this instance is August 21, 2000. if
YOU have any questions about these amendments or the ratification process, please feel free to
contact Carol Chan, Policy Analyst for the Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 205-0772,
or Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst for the Metropolitan King County Council at 296-0352.
�c�
The Honorable Jim White
June 8, 2000
Page 2
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit one certified copy to Carol
Chan, Policy Analyst with the Bing County Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 516 jrC
Avenue, Room 402, Seattle, WA 98104. If no action is taken please submit a letter to the
above address stating the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Pete von Reichbauer, Chair Ron Sims
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures: King County Ordinance 13858 and Attachments
May 22, 2000 Staff Report
cc: Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Y
LAKEFORES
I / 1•'•
47i0REL NF j PARK
T '% _ f TH 'L 0 IL !�
kk ' ENMORE i —
VA
or e3;
; Juanit In 'S f
W.
4 SEAT LE %i•r � ■ � UPD
L`•� KIRK 'Nd= .i
" �. e ►• R DMOND
r ,
. , 1 a.
HUNTS . YA RO t{° Toll
P01 T
P !r
M I )arse
HILYDEoA
M 2� _
erfbe v 7A 4
Royk EISV I SAMMAMISH a
oraFolk
l
ERCEi1
J/ v61
)
w.„ nt. r ` '...+� I LAN tt. . 1. -✓' .,r
cex �° �t�tgatel
SEA. TT' rt. kk ,. . ..
CeJ 4 ' i i- ,
r '. r Puk! Cougar /l'j„/.�;.. �'.....�
NEWCASLE ;IE.
`\\ 1_
�, • ° PdentleCKY of al Annexation Mai. ►14rP " AQUA w r r• \/ 1� �,'.
• rl t �' 1' 1 , 69 '�/.I Col of
_ \ l .1 � Conldor
North)Hl 11111 M ! % O
West
Hill/'._ ...... 1 .
Y i it Renton dcr°rLe /
. .
a!IM
BURIE ,a°°
• �-"k, •_ : I -I �' . From Ordlne,oe 12535 sectlm 1.0.
long County will the City of Norlh Bend will mr,tlnus Joint planning
S E TAC ' ' / /'''' dleareelme regarding WACO d616"end nnendng in the wee
J - aHeded the adlnarm,ThIa arse wl.laely rid be epproprlele ?'
':Y// / /, r j5 'Make/ dY A
NORM N DY ., ; I;; Fai nivood! '.ire r for annexation by the Cly of North leer"until the kaer pert(ft
tl tt years 2002 to 2012)of axe 20 yW�y pWning horlmn outll,led In the#N�I!'.
PAR IY�c 50o Cr`ee Cdndy+rWe PlennYq PeOdea �}
C.
U...
'DES 'A i I 6
OINE$ K
l r�j lehad I I .
.rice Peh
COV TON e�--VALLFY
,
r �I x% W r
.- Q // I ea, Il l'
t' j d $'ou _> o
°""P°'"' F�EDEgAL I - Q BLA
r'VVA BURN /PIAMONDI SIG+T�1
�, ► GO�In ,, a y O
lac°°
7p
/
tTj
I :.r 1 .:Y•' .� .Ry1 C:�i .'v.y i.'4 S ,I r cfa .A .t. '�{•T/
u `f r'• ' K• A ,
` 'In'terim�Potcntial• • • • �., _ �,�
ArinezationAreas : ENUMCL
Urban Areas which are within
® the designated PAA of two or more
cities—OVERLAPS"—OR OTHERWISE Potential Annexation Areas Sources: �•.c� r—.�_� p"I�;;;`
CONTESTED AREAS ��• —,nn N' x :0
City Comprehensive Plans: y�
Urban Areas which are not within >' ''� �✓
Q the designated PAA of any city— Algona,August 1995 =j
'GAPS' Bothell,December 1994
®
Pending Annexation Federal Way,November 1995 Issaquah,September 1997
Potential Annexation Area Kent,April 1995 2 0 2 t
Q Recognized by City-County Milton,December 1995
Intedocal Agreement Comprehensive Plan Amendment Countywide Planning Policy Map Miles
"
Interim Potential November 1997 Rural City Urban Growth Areas:
Annexation Areas Newcastle,June 1997 Carnation,Black Diamond,Duvall,Enumclaw,
Q Cities Pacific,July 1995 North Bend(North Bend Potential Annexation Area
Lower Green River Redmond,December 1997 reflects resolution of a joint planning area,see
it•ra Renton,December 1997 Ordinance 12535 Section 1 D),Skykomish(not
Agricultural Production Districts
AeaTac,December 1995 shown),and Sfloqualmle. O King,County
1.las; Parks Interlocal Agrsement Jn ry:gr :�- +r�or+4•°..•r
9eBllle o- ,, ':, f< 1 I �� r ')r '410 ny Ylu n!'rh tlx 4. a•�IPIY.YOI•�°r
Urban Growth Area Boundary Z s =Tukwila,December 1995 Auburn;March 1999 + ,,} kt y br h r.rf, �tTM
'VI I iol ; T Y,nA11°Warba"d.b
.... (.t ,Y. p. M1�, .yl :y A+' :.� f 1 •,f, f tort9"gt1
, 6 u. ( 1,t(i "1•
.,1Y••• '.. .,� \'�1'{Yf h1 tli ,} Nrr�al.igia 70adirlt.dlWlewereeprnrrry•rarp.(;I,
IIIIIIIIIIIII,
i
1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 18 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: ORILLIA SHORT PLAT BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Orillia Short Plat No.
96-20 submitted by Orillia Industrial District Associates I for
continuous operation and maintenance of 386 feet of sanitary
sewer improvements and release bonds after the expiration
period. The project is located at S . 180th Street and East
Valley Highway.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6E
i
RP Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 18 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: COUNCIL MEETING TIME CHANGE FOR AUGUST 1ST -
ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.
changing the time of the August 1, 2000 , City Council meeting
from 7 : 00 p.m. to 5 : 00 p.m.
National Night Out is an important function Council members
wish to attend. National Night Out is scheduled to occur
on August 1, 2000, during the City Council ' s meeting.
Accordingly, by scheduling the regular Council meeting on that
date to 5 : 00 p.m. instead of 7 : 00 p.m. , Council members will
have an opportunity to participate in National Night Out .
3 . EXHIBITS : Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, changing the time of the August 1,
2000, City Council meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
I
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.01.020 of the Kent City Code, the
currently established time and date for regular council meetings of the City Council are
the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, National Night Out is an important function council
I,
members wish to attend; and
WHEREAS, National Night Out is scheduled to occur on August 1, 2000,
during the time of the City Council's meeting; and
WHEREAS, by scheduling the regular council meeting on that date to
5:00 p.m., instead of 7:00 p.m., council members will have an opportunity to participate
in National Night Out; NOW THEREFORE
i
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
I
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
i
1 City Council Meeting Schedule
!i
For August 1, 2000
_ SECTION 1. The time of the regularly scheduled council meeting for
August 1, 2000, is changed from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. effective only for this council
j meeting. Except to the extent it affects the City Council's August 1, 2000, meeting, this
ordinance does not amend Section 2.01.020 of the Kent City Code.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. E ective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after the date of publication as provided by law.
I
i
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
I
j
I, ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
it
l
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
i
i
I
�I
I
2 City Council Meeting Schedule
For August 1, 2000
PASSED: day of 12000
APPROVED: day of 12000.
PUBLISHED: day of 12000.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
I by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SF-AL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P'`CivNOrdina cc CicyCouncilMttring-09-03-99 doc
j
i
III
�i
li
it
II
I
i'
it
fl
I�
3 City Council Meeting Schedule
j For August 1, 2000
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 18 , 2000
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - EMERGENCY RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No.
declaring an emergency and directing the staff and the Land Use
and Planning Board to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment
to effectuate a local urban separator policy. On July 5, 2000 ,
the City Council voted to review the Countywide Planning Policy
on urban separators .
Pursuant to Kent City Code, an emergency declaration is
necessary to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment separately
from the standard annual comprehensive plan amendment process .
Adoption of the proposed resolution will initiate the compre-
hensive plan amendment on urban separators as directed by
Council .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 6G
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, declaring an emergency to pursue an amendment
to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, incorporating policies
relating to urban separators.
WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution Nos. 1326, 1413, 159, and 1484, the City
Council ratified Countywide Planning Policies and amendments thereto, established by King
County pursuant to the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, included within the Countywide Planning Policies is Planning
Policy LU-27, which establishes urban separators that are designated low density areas
within Urban Growth Areas intended to create open space corridors providing
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Kent's
Comprehensive Plan in order to adopt policies relating to urban separators; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, during its July 5, 2000, Council meeting,
moved to submit the issue of urban separators to the Kent Land Use and Planning Board to
initiate the process of amending the Comprehensive Plan to include urban separators; NOW
THEREFORE,
1 Comp. Plan Amendment- Urban Separators
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That adoption of urban separator polices as part of the City of
Kent Comprehensive Plan constitutes an issue of community-wide significance that promotes
the public health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with the definition of an
emergency as set forth in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code.
SECTION 2. The City Council therefore declares that an emergency exists
and authorizes the Land Use and Planning Board to consider a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the adoption of urban separator policies as an element of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of 2000.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
12000.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
2 Comp. Plan Amendment— Urban Separators
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
, 2000.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P'�Cm�Ra0i.uon�CompPiaM d-UrbwScparatom dm
3 Comp. Plan Amendment— Urban Separators
dAd lkw A/
Rent City Council Meeting
Date: July 18, 2000
Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM - SET PUBLIC P9EPrT-1-NG 11_ ✓ �
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed 2001 CDBG program is
estimated at $550, 114 . Capital funding for the City' s Home
Repair Program and the rehabilitation of Titusville Station
is proposed. Public Service funding is on-going for
agencies that provide health care, food and transitional
housing for victims of Domestic Violence . Part of the
allocation also includes funding for planning and
administration costs of the program.
The Parks Director recommends setting a public date
of August 1, 2000 to accept the 2001 Community Development
Block Grant program.
3 . EXHIBITS: Estimate 2001 CDBG program and staff analysis of
proposed projects .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff, Human Service Commission, Parks
Committee . (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: YES x NO
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $550, 114 . 00 . SOURCE OF FUNDS: CDBG
7 . CITY 'COUNCIL ACTION:
8 . Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No.
MEMORANDUM
August 1, 2000
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CAROLYN SUNDVALL, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER
SUBJECT: 2001 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM
Attached is the proposed year 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the City of
Kent. The estimate of$550,114 is approximately$302.00 more than the City received for the 2000 program.
The estimate is based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD)proposed year
2001 budget. This may increase or decrease due to changes in the entitlement, program income and
recaptured.
On June 29, 2000, the Human Services Commission reviewed and approved the funding levels for all of the
programs. A description of each program and the rationale for the recommended funding is attached for your
review. As in past years, a major portion of the CDBG funds is recommended to support the City's Home
Repair Program. This program continues to serve many low-income,disabled and senior homeowners in Kent
by providing needed repairs. The program also guarantees that some of Kent's low and moderate income
housing stock is maintained and preserved.
The amount of money Kent may receive could change depending upon the final federal appropriations bill
Congress passes in the Fall. Therefore, the recommended funding includes a contingency plan to address
any potential fund changes that may occur when Congress adopts the year 2001 budget. Kenfs adopted year
2001 CDBG Program must include such a contingency plan and be forwarded to King County by September
30, 2000.
On July 12, 2000 the Parks Committee approved the attached proposed 2000 CDBG program and its
Contingency Plan.
Recommended Action
1. Approve the Proposed year 2001 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG),
including the contingency plan.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute appropriate contracts, as adopted.
cc: John M. Hodgson, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director
Katherin Johnson, Human Services Manager
Attachments
ESTIMATED 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
Estimated 2001 Capital Funds: $385,589
Estimated 2001 Planning&Administration Funds 78,986
Estimated 2001 Public Human Service Funds 85,539
Total CDBG Funds: $5509114
Capital Projects Recommend
City of Kent Home Repair Program $285,589
South King County Multi Service Center, Titusville Station Rehab 100,000
Total Capital $385,589
Public (Human) Service Programs Recommend
Kent Community Health &Natural Medicine Services $33,506
Kent Emergency Feeding Program 18,324
YWCA Domestic Violence Transitional Housing 33,709
Total Public (Human) Services $85,539
Planning & Administration $78,986
2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY PLAN
PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES
If the City of Kent receives an increase in public service estimate, the increase will be divided equally between the
funded agencies.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease in public service estimate, the decrease will be split proportionately between
funded agencies.
CAPITAL REQUESTS
If the City of Kent receives an increase in the Capital estimate, the increase will be to the South King County Multi
Service Center Titusville Station Rehab.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease in the Capital estimate,the decrease will be to the Home Repair Program
U:2001 cdbg/adopted
PROPOSED CITY OF KENT
2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
STAFF ANALYSIS
CAPITAL PROJECTS
CITY OF KENT HOME REPAIR PROGRAM
Amount: $285,589
Program Summary:
The City's Home Repair Program provides repairs to income eligible owner-occupied housing
located within the City of Kent. CDBG funds will pay the salaries of the home repair staff(who
do the actual repairs and coordination of the program), a summer painting program, if it can be
done in compliance with new Lead Based Paint rules, supplies and materials, vehicle rental, and
miscellaneous administrative fees.
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies.
If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this
program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details.
Rationale:
The City should continue its commitment to the Home Repair Program, which has operated in the
City since 1975 when the Federal CDBG program began. The program serves 100% low and
moderate income Kent residents. Many of the clients are seniors or disabled persons; the program
helps these people remain in their homes and helps to maintain and preserve Kent's housing stock.
MULTI SERVICE CENTER
Titusville Station Rehab
Amount: $100,000.00
Project Summary:
The proposed funding would be used to replace the roof, along with installing sky lights on the
existing building located at 202 West Gowe. The Multi Service Center is in the process of
purchasing the building. It is mixed use in that it provides retail on the first floor and housing on
the second level. The agency currently leases the top floor for transitional housing for homeless
women coming from substance abuse treatment programs. City of Kent funding is contigent on
funding from other sources for acquisition.
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies.
If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this
program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details.
1
Rationale:
The Multi Service Center will use Federal, State, and King County general funds to assume ownership
of the building. This will preserve a significant historical building in Kent as well as preserve existing
transitional housing and case management for women who are in substance abuse treatment programs
Housing stability is a major factor in self-sufficiency and allows people the time to stabilize their
situation and work toward improving the conditions that led to homelessness. Kent funds will be used
to replace the roof and the addition of skylights.
PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION (for the CDBG program)
Amount: $78,986
Program Summary:
The planning and administration of the CDBG program involves a number of tasks such as contact
development and monitoring,regional cooperation, and fulfilling the various federal reporting
requirements. These dollars will continue to fund an existing, permanent full-time planner
position . Funds will also be used for general program administration costs that support Kent's
CDBG program.
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies.
Rationale:
The Council has already taken action to accept the maximum set aside for Planning and
Administration CDBG dollars. The current estimate is $78,986. We need this amount to be set
aside for planning and administration, because Kent's general fund does not fully cover the staff
time needed to administer and plan for the CDBG program.
PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS OF KING COUNTY
Primary Health and Natural Medicine Services
Amount: $33,506
Program Summary:
Project directly addresses the health care needs of low income and uninsured Kent residents by
providing integrated conventional family practice services and natural medicine services. Funds
would pay a portion of the salary of a Naturopath and some lab fees and to help support the
compensation of one physician,who will provide primary medical care to low and moderate
income people at the Kent Clinic.
2
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The project meets all local and consortium policies.
If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this
program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details.
Rationale:
Health care is a critical need in Kent. The Kent Clinic is the major point of access to medical services
for Kent's low-income population. Access to basic medical services is limited for low and moderate-
income residents because of lack of insurance and the lack of medical providers who accept Medicaid
or Medicare clients. Also, many insurers do not cover natural medicine services, making them
unaffordable to most low income and moderate-income patients.
KENT EMERGENCY FEEDING PROGRAM
Amount: $18,324
Program Summary:
The Emergency Feeding Program provides emergency boxed meals for distribution at a number of
sites in Kent. This program differs from a food bank in that it provides nutritionally balanced
meals for three days. Special meals are available for specific health concerns such as high blood
pressure, low sodium diets, low sugar, and liquid diets. They also provide infant meal packs and
food for the homeless that doesn't need cooking. Funds will be used to fund staff positions and
purchase food for clients.
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program
may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details.
Rationale:
The agency provides nutritionally balanced and special diet meals to individuals and families in
crisis. The agency has demonstrated to the City that it is providing a vital service in a competent
and efficient manner.
YWCA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Amount: $33,709
Program Summary:
This program provides emergency and transitional shelter along with support services for victims
of Domestic Violence and their children. In 2001, the YWCA will continue to provide Kent
victims of Domestic Violence with shelter. Funds will be used to partially support the salary of
the direct service staff,rent and utilities.
3
Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities:
The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may
change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details.
Rationale:
The YWCA's program is the only transitional housing for domestic violence victims in South
King County and is a vital service for Kent residents. This is one major component in the
continuum of housing services needed to help victims move out of the cycle of violence.
2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY PLAN
PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES
If the City of Kent receives an increase in public service estimate, the increase will be divided equally
between the funded agencies.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease in public service estimate,the decrease will be split proportionately
between funded agencies.
CAPITAL REQUESTS
If the City of Kent receives an increase in the Capital estimate, the increase will be to the South King
County lMulti Service Center Titusville Station Rehab.
If the City of Kent receives a decrease in the Capital estimate, the decrease will be to the Home Repair
Program
4
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT 1X11n/ I• l/��GL� tc/t��. P-t -3
a. rr 4'rv-e. G K a.,� 41) 5 M T D ti�� Al a-- -P&"- U
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE O L{ m
0- U L,)
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Fj� bJ -J ZS fn
D. PUBLIC WORKS
E. PLANNING COMMITTEE Z +
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Ce cl a c-
all
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
r�
�'
ov
OPERATONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
JUNE 69 2000
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly (sitting in for Judy
Woods)
STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, Dena Laurent, Bob Olson,Becky Fowler, John Hodgson, Marty Mulholland,
John Hillman, Cliff Craig, Sue Viseth,Jim Hams, Cheryl Viseth
PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana
The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:10 PM.
Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2000
Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2000. The motion was
seconded by substitute Committee Member Connie Epperly and passed 3-0.
Approval of Vouchers dated May 31, 2000
Tim Clark moved to approve the vouchers dated May 31, 2000. The motion was seconded by
Connie Epperly and passed 3-0.
PC Purchase
Information Services Director Marty Mulholland reported that a request for quotes had recently been
put out for 34 Pentium III PC's. She introduced IS Client Services Operations Manager Bob Olson
who said the purchase was part of a continuing process in the PC replacement plan. The training room
will receive new PCs and those replaced will be distributed to other departments to update the Pentium
75s and 90s which are currently in use. Some employees in the IS Department will also receive new
PCs. Ms. Mulholland said staff is trying to get the best expected life out of the current PCs based on
the kinds of software used at the City. Making the machines last for at least 3'/z years was the target
established in the Tech Plan.
Tim Clark commented that the new PCs had 10 gigs of hard drive. Ms. Mulholland said footprint sizes
for disk space were being moved up, particularly in the training room where substantial images would
be stored to support training on the local drives. Rico Yingling questioned why monitors weren't
being purchased. Bob Olson said the 17 inch monitors would be kept and used that belonged to the
Pentium 75s and 90s that would be taken out of service.
Tim Clark moved to recommend to the Council to accept the quote of$55,068.89 for the
purchase of 34 Hewlett-Packard Pentium III computers from Unisoft, Inc., and authorize the
Mayor to execute the necessary contract documents. The motion was seconded by Connie
Epperly and passed 3-0.
Taxation on Internet Sales
Government Affairs Manager Dena Laurent said the Taxation on Internet Sales issue had not been
addressed in any of Council's legislative policy documents. A national advisory committee on Internet
Sales, after meeting over several years, failed to reach consensus on recommendations to Congress
regarding taxation of Internet sales. A moratorium on taxation of Internet sales was extended to
Operations Committee, 6/6/00 Page 2
taxation on Internet service use, although 10 states already have that authority grandfathered in. The
House of Representatives took action to extend the moratorium, prompting several of the associations
of cities and Mayors to take positions in opposition to the extension. Some people prefer a shorter
moratorium, believing that efforts right now to streamline state authority to collect taxes on remote
sales will yield a positive result. Others prefer a complete and permanent ban. The issue has long term
fiscal implications, but it's not clear what the implications or impacts will be.
Tim Clark stated that the task force appointed to come up with a policy not only did not reach
consensus but on a split vote refused to submit a minority report looking at the issues that were not
resolved. Mr. Clark felt the committee was dominated by the industry and that their recommendation
was given in order to avoid the difficulty of having to deal with a tax vote. The general consensus in
Congress is to not look for new taxes on the Internet because it would require a national policy to
coordinate,but to instead look at the establishment of the payment of ordinary sales tax collected
within the counties and cities. Mr. Clark stated the task force was not fairly represented to Congress.
Brent McFall answered Rico Yingling's request for clarification between sales tax on Internet sales
versus sales tax on catalog sales by saying that catalog sales are taxed if the company has either a retail
outlet or a distribution outlet in the state. Internet sales, at this point, are sales tax free. In addition to
the issue of funding state and local governments is the equity issue for the main street retailer that is
collecting local and state sales taxes while also maintaining the overhead of leasing or owning a
storefront. Internet sales do not have that same overhead and can also avoid the sales tax collection
issue.
Mr. Yingling said he had heard a comment from Amazon.com that Internet companies shouldn't pay
sales tax in places where they didn't utilize the roads and utilities infrastructure. Mr. McFall said it
was not a matter of whether a retailer gains services from local or state government,but of the citizens
paying taxes for the services they receive, whether they're buying through a catalog, at the main street
retailer, or over the Internet. The citizens who use the services pay the tax while the retailer is just the
collector.
Tim Clark commented that the national task force included two representatives of the National League
of Cities, both of which publicly disclaimed participating with the committee because it failed to
recognize the split vote in the public report and because the committee was biased in terms of its
outcome. The National League of Cities' position is that the national task force organized by Congress
had an 8/10 split in sending a minority report, but when the House of Representatives received the
report, it was made to appear that the task force was unanimously in favor. Because the chair of the
committee gave the presentation to Congress, no opposition was brought forward at the time to be put
into a legislative action, and it passed the House of Representatives. Mr. Clark said the National
League of Cities had requested the City to take a position on the issue.
Mr. Clark moved that Council support the National League of Cities and oppose the extension of
the moratorium on state and local sales tax on Internet transactions. Connie Epperly seconded
the motion which passed 3-0.
Operations Committee, 6/6/00 Page 3
Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program
Employee Services Director Sue Viseth, in presenting information about the Voluntary Retirement
Incentive Program, said as a result of sales tax revenue losses and the impacts of 1-695, all departments
were tasked with looking at ways to reduce costs to the City. One of those ways is the Retirement
Incentive Program which has been used twice previously in the mid 1990s to provide salary cost
savings to the City. Earlier this year the State Legislature offered an early retirement program that
would have increased the number of employees eligible but that program did not receive approval in
the legislature.
Benefits Manager Becky Fowler said approximately 42 employees would be eligible for the
Retirement Incentive Program. If approved, the program would begin on June 26`h and go through
August 31s1. Employees would have to provide their intent to retire in that time period and would need
to retire by December 31"of this year. The dates were picked to coincide with the budget process and
to give advance notice of those that did intend to retire. The Employee Services Department did an
analysis of the savings to the City by enacting the program. The cost for 3'/2 years of salary for the 42
current employees is $10,275,000. To replace those positions, because of the step classification
system, A through E (which is a 3'/z years process), it would cost $8,033,000, with an approximate cost
savings of$1,836,000 if all 42 positions retired early, or an average savings of$44,000 per each
employee. In 1996-1997, five employees accepted the program. Seven employees are currently
showing an interest.
Tim Clark asked how many of the 42 positions would be critical and difficult to replace. Sue Viseth
i' said that aspect was being evaluated, but the positions did include some high level, experienced
individuals. The time period between now and the end of the year creates an opportunity for
succession planning and working with the departments to determine the process to refill positions, or
whether to restructure or reorganize, as that would be an appropriate time to evaluate the job and its
duties. Mr. Clark asked how many police and fire administration would be in the potential retirees
since that was the biggest pool of employees, Ms. Fowler said five in the total number of potential
retirees are from Police and Fire, but none of the seven that have shown interest are from those
departments.
Sue Viseth said health insurance is the main deterrent for early retirement, and staff is working on a
solution to that with AWC. Medicare coverage starts when a person reaches age 65, and there is only
an 18 month COBRA time period where group health insurance can be continued when a person retires
between the ages of 55-65. Unless a spouse has insurance, only a few employees can afford to take
early retirement even though there is an incentive payment.
Mr. Clark asked if City employees would be eligible for the public employee plan called VEBA that
allows for approving of sick leave into a pool to pay for insurance. Ms. Fowler said that, Citywide,
employees were not eligible for the plan at this time, however the Fire Department has the VEBA
account set up through their union. Mr. Clark stated that in order to attract quality employees, the
VEBA plan should be considered Citywide. Sue Viseth said the plan was being considered, and as
part of the feasibility study with AWC, a shared pool, retiree-access health care plan had been looked
at and staff was waiting to receive a report back. Mr. Clark asked if there would be potential cost
implications to the City if a plan like that was adopted. Ms. Fowler said there would be, and Ms.
Viseth added that cost was part of the feasibility study. The trend in health care is that costs are going
Operations Committee, 6/6/00 Page 4
up, and since the City has a self-funded health care plan for its employees and there is already a risk
pool, staff has the obligation of making sure those funds are covered.
Connie Epperly moved to recommend to Council to authorize the Voluntary Retirement
Incentive Program through August 30, 2000 with retirement commencing no later than
December 3151, 2000. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
April Financial Report
Assistant Finance Director John Hillman said the economy was finally starting to slow down which
could be good news in the long run because the engines of inflation are coming into check. The April
to April cost of living was about 3.22%, and April unemployment rose from 3.9% last month to 4.2%
this month. US manufacturing posted its largest decline in the decade and the electronics part, the
largest group of that industry, took its largest dip ever. The FED, due to meet on June 27", is expected
to raise the discount rate again.
For April, the General Fund revenues were up by 32.7% over budget. Part of the reason for the large
percentage appears to be that people paid their Property Taxes early. By the end of the year, the
difference should be zero from the budget. Sales Tax, shown on Page 6 was up also, with
manufacturing (down by 14%) the only portion of Sales Tax that was down. Wholesaling was up 21%
and retailing 20.8%. Rico Yingling commented that the overall 12% above budget was a significant
increase throughout the year and asked if the trend was expected to continue. Mr. Hillman said that
with the economy slowing down, that trend was not expected to continue.
The Utility Tax and other major revenue graphs are shown on Pages 8 through 11 of the report. The
Utility Tax was up 11.7%because of higher telephone utility taxes. Building Permits, Recreation
Fees, and Fines and Forfeitures were within 5% of the budget for the month. The General Fund
Budget Financial Statement on Page 12 shows a fund balance at the end of April of$6,237,842, which
was an increase of about $400,000 from last month's projections. The ending fund balance of the
Capital Improvement Fund went up about $300,000-$331,000 from last month's projection. The Golf
Course revenues were down a little from budget for the month of April.
Tim Clark asked if the Permit Coordinator in the Planning Department had been hired yet. Brent
McFall said that position had not been hired, but applications had been closed and staff was in the
selection process. The position should be filled by early July. Recruitment had also been done for the
Plans Review position but without satisfaction.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JUNE 512000
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Lubovich, Cyndi Wilbur, Kim Marousek, Fred Satterstrom, Pam Mottram
PUBLIC PRESENT: Joe Miles, Bob Nelson, Jim Rust, Elsy Rust, Ted Sullivan
The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:00 PM. One item was added to the
agenda: Urban Separators. Item Number 2, Open Space Taxation File #E99CT017K was moved to the
last item on the agenda because of a public hearing to be held at 5:00 PM on the issue.
Approval of Minutes May 1, 2000
Committee member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of May 1, 2000. The motion was
seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0.
Kent/King Countv Interlocal Amendment Relating to Processing of Permit Applications
City Attorney Roger Lubovich said the amendment of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Kent and King County relates to the processing of permits for areas that have been annexed into the
City. The original agreement was entered into in 1996 following the Meridian annexation when there
was a number of development permit applications pending with King County. It was determined at
that time that it was best to enter into an agreement where King County staff would do the
administrative processing of permits since they knew the King County rules and regulations, and the
City of Kent would have the discretionary function of approving the permits.
The amendment would allow the development of the Copper Ridge project from Schneider Homes in
the Chestnut Ridge area. Prior to the Meridian Annexation, the City annexed the Chestnut Ridge area,
and at that time Schneider Homes had a plat and PUD application filed and pending with the County.
The City initially determined that Schneider Homes was not vested to a PUD but was vested to a plat;
however the two did not work independently. There was a lawsuit and the court determined that
Schneider Homes was vested to the PUD in King County and was entitled to the PUD application
process. The City of Kent did not have a PUD application process for that kind of development
(attached housing units on small lots), and without the King County PUD, the City could not process
the proposed development. The City appealed to the State Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied.
The City then went into the process of dealing with each of the damages.
Schneider Homes is dismissing the lawsuit and has agreed with the City to an amendment to the
existing Interlocal Agreement that allows King County staff to process the Copper Ridge application.
It was agreed that King County would do the processing and the King County Hearing Examiner
would make any recommendations to the Council. Judy Woods asked if Schneider Homes' agreement
to drop the damage portion of the process was contingent upon Council approving the amendment.
Mr. Lubovich said the matter had been remanded to the trial courts for determination of damages, but
the City had maintained Schneider Homes was not entitled to damages. The agreement entered into in
court was that the City would seek to amend the Interlocal agreement and Schneider Homes would
Planning Committee, 6/5/00 Page 2
dismiss the case if staff would make the amendment recommendations. Mr. Lubovich said if the
amendments are not approved, it could jeopardize the dismissal.
Tim Clark expressed concerns that the area was part of the City but under King County code with the
County administering the processing of the permits. At issue is the amount of traffic on the grid of
residential homes and the width of the roads in terms of public safety. Roger Lubovich stated that
some aspects of some codes might be applicable even though they are vested to King County, and
those would have to be sorted out one by one. The general rule is since Schneider Homes was vested
at the time of annexation, they are entitled to whatever the rules and regulations were at the time. If
King Countv's rules would have allowed the development in that location, the developers are entitled
to develop even though the City of Kent code would not allow a permit for that kind of development.
King County has laws in place regarding traffic, which they would have to follow. There would be a
hearing and the issue would go through the SEPA process where the City could have its say. What is
not typical in this particular case is that the King County Hearing Examiner would be hearing it. The
hearing would take place in the City of Kent to give local access and City staff would be present to
represent the City in the process. It would then go to the City Council for final determination. If
Council should feel at that time there are issues not addressed, it could be sent back for further review.
Tom Brotherton commented that the Hearing Examiner would be making a recommendation under
King County regulations, but the Council and staff, having to make a final decision would not be
especially knowledgeable in those particular King County regulations. Staff would have to become as
knowledgeable as they could in the time allowed to be able to advise the Council as to the proper
course of action under King County ordinances. Roger Lubovich said Schneider Homes would pay the
hearing examiner and all of King County staff. The City of Kent would be paying only for its own
staff time, which would be minimal in comparison to King County's, and the intent is that staffing
from King County would be available to assist City staff at the hearing or Council meeting. Mr.
Lubovich agreed that City staff would need to be knowledgeable because the City of Kent has an
interest in the development and needs to make sure the permit is properly processed.
Judy Woods moved to recommend approval of the proposed Amendment to the Interlocal
Agreement, subject to final approval of the language by the City Attorney, and to place the
matter on Other Business at the full Council meeting of June 6, 2000. The motion was seconded
by Tim Clark and passed 3-0.
Urban Separators
Citizen Joe Miles, 24639 1561h Ave SE, Kent, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on
Urban Separators before the next night's full Council meeting since the item was on the agenda. Mr.
Miles said he was a professional civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington and has a civil
engineering degree from the University of Washington. He also has a Bachelor of Science degree in
Wildlife Biology and a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Biology. He has published in scientific
journals. Mr. Miles has lived in South King County his entire life and has served on various
committees for the City of Kent including the Kent Lagoon Citizen Committee, the original Wetland
Ordinance Committee and also the Play Committee.
Mr. Miles said there had been three misperceptions by the Committee on the Urban Separators. First,
that they were arbitrarily established; second, that they were not enforced by King County; and third,
Planning Committee, 6/5/00 Page 3
that there were no policy legs for the Urban Separator. Mr. Miles produced a series of exhibits
consisting of charts, maps, and an aerial photograph that he had received from the County Executive's
office and the GIS system. All parcels in the Urban Separator in the City of Kent were outlined in
green as was the potential annexation areas for the City of Kent, including an area in Auburn. The
green area connected an open space corridor from the south part of the City, followed Soos Creek to
the north part of the potential annexation area, then went through the Panther Lake area and down into
Renton. Mr. Miles said that, conceptually, the Urban Separator made sense when looking at.the green
undeveloped land.
A topography map presented by Mr. Miles showed steep slopes following the Soos Creek portion of
the Urban Separator. The area where the City of Kent abuts the City of Auburn showed two basins,
one that drained to the east and one that drained to the west, known as Soosette Creek and Olson
Canyon. The topography map line matched the basin breaks. The Geologically Sensitive Areas
exhibit depicted areas of green showing the Urban Separator area. There was a landslide hazard area
shown with heavy green lines. Mr. Miles said Soosette Creek drains into a landslide hazard area and
protecting the basin with lower density makes sense because of the runoff that comes down from the
erosion hazard area. Olson Canyon shows the same landslide hazard area all the way downstream.
Throughout the area are erosion hazard areas with soils susceptible to erosion. The geologically
sensitive areas match up consistently with the Urban Separator designation.
Mr. Miles presented the Hydrologically Sensitive Areas exhibit, associated with Soos Creek Park and
its wetlands, and said they were consistent with the Urban Separator. A series of wetlands were also
depicted with a thread coming off of Big Soos Creek, approaching the proximity of Panther Lake, and
then breaking over the ridge to the Renton Watershed area.
Mr. Miles read from the Soos Creek Community Plan, 1991, that described and designated Urban
Separators. Page 122: "The Soos Creek Community Plan proposes two urban separators. The
northern separator separating greater Renton and Kent links Big Soos Creek Park, single family zoned
property, Panther Lake and its associated wetlands, the Renton Watershed sensitive areas, and the
north portion of the slopes of the ridge defining the plateau of the valley. The southern separator
separating greater Kent and Auburn includes the Kent Watershed, Folson Creek low density single
family zoned property, along the Green River and its flood plains, and the steep sensitive woodland
slopes and ridge lines defining the plateau. " Mr. Miles commented that the county looked for those
properties that were zoned single family. There were criteria, descriptions, and narrative on how the
area was to be protected, and clearly it was not done arbitrarily. There were sensitive areas,
watersheds, and erosive ravines and they tried to capture the basin draining and connecting to those
areas. The Urban Separator matched up, made sense, and was logical for the area.
Mr. Miles explained some erratic lines in the mapping. In doing research, he found that in 1991 when
the community plan was developed there were existing developments. He said it wouldn't have made
sense to designate something already developed at higher density at a lower density. Nevertheless,
adjoining parcels should not be allowed to continue to drain to those. Had the developed pieces not
been developed in 1991 they would have been made part of the Urban Separator also. The logic was
that if there was development already there it didn't make sense to put it as an Urban Separator.
Planning Committee, 6/5/00 Page 4
Mr. Miles addressed the enforcement of the Urban Separator by King County with an exhibit showing
the Urban Separator in green wrapping around the City of Kent and the potential annexation areas, and
with each individual parcel in the Urban Separator shown as it currently exists. He said there are large
parcels and no high density areas, such as 4-5 dwellings per acre, which makes it appear that the Urban
Separator was consistently applied. The zoning map shows the area was zoned R-1, which in King
County requires clustering and may mean there could be a couple of high density exceptions. With a
clustering requirement, what would appear to be high density development may have had a 501X0
requirement for open space tied to it. Also, a project may have been vested prior to the designation.
Mr. Miles contended that the designation had not been abused, and there did not appear to be high
density development occurring in the Urban Separator.
The third perception that the issue needs to have a strong policy in place to maintain the test of time is
answered by the current countywide planning policy LU-27, which requires low density at one
dwelling unit per acre for the 20 year planning cycle. Mr. Miles tied the City of Kent's
Comprehensive Plan, ratified in 1992, to the countywide planning policy by quoting from Pages 1-2,
"The Kent Comprehensive Plan has been prepared according to the provisions of the Growth
Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies. " Page 3-3: "The Countywide Planning
Policies in their entirety have been incorporated by reference in this plan. " The existing policy is a
strong policy.
Mr. Miles expressed concern that the direction the Committee took at the last meeting to go to Option
3B in which the parcels would be reviewed under a potentially new policy or new criteria would do
nothing but weaken the policy in place now. Mr. Miles said a petition had been circulated, asking
residents in the area and people who use the Soos Creek trail whether or not they would prefer the
current policy of a permanent low density, or a new policy that would potentially allow higher
development. Nearly 1200 accumulated signatures would be submitted at the next night's Council
meeting suggesting that citizens prefer the current policy. Mr. Miles recommended that the Committee
change its recommendation to the Council to recommend that the City reaffirm its willingness to abide
by the original ratification of the Urban Separator policy with the understanding that specific properties
could be re-evaluated at the end of the 20 year planning cycle which would be in 2012. If the policy
was reaffirmed, the two requests to amend the comp plan and rezone property should be denied. The
current policy does not preclude development, as the property owners can develop under the current
zoning of one home per acre. Mr. Miles said Option 3B was more of a conceptual general overlay
zone in which each parcel would have to go through a test to see if it met the criteria. He suggested the
City prepare that kind of analysis for when the issue should come up for review in 2012 as it would
take a lot of study and months, if not years, of preparation.
Judy Woods commented that without a policy the City could not accommodate R-1 zoned required
clustering and there is nothing specific in City code that would allow newly annexed people to go
forward in any way. Mr. Miles agreed and said people could develop at one home per acre over a
whole property, or the City could develop a portion of code that would allow clustering in the R-1
zone. The City of Kent Planning Department has indicated that the clustering provision is currently
not allowed in the R-1 zone unless there is a PUD, which requires 100 acres. Developers and people
who want to develop say they have difficulty putting in a long infrastructure with one home per acre
and making it pay for itself. Clustering can shorten the infrastructure and bring economy. Mr. Miles
stated he would rather see the policy go in that direction to accommodate developers of large pieces, so
Planning Committee, 6/5/00 Page 5
they could still make a profit with a clustering provision, than to go into a new rule setting policy
procedure.
Tom Brotherton questioned whether the basin areas to the south between Kent and Auburn were
unique to need more protection than other areas where there are drainage concerns. Mr. Miles said the
Olson Canyon area has a long history of complaints by the City of Auburn and citizens of erosion
coming down and going into the Green River, which is a salmonate stream with Chinook salmon.
Soosette Creek has the same erosion and land damage problem and is a salmon bearing stream right
above the Soos Creek Fish Hatchery. Both are highly sensitive and unique down-streams.
Mr. Brotherton said he would like to see rules determining when a particular piece of property should
be protected, whether a piece of property could cause damage if it wasn't an Urban Separator, or
wouldn't cause damage if it was in the Urban Separator area. A determination needs to be made for
how many houses would create runoff damage that is unnatural. Joe Miles said a lot depends upon the
geomorphology of the downstream basin to determine that. It appeared that the County felt that a
density of one dwelling unit per acre was the appropriate threshold to establish in the designated Urban
Separator areas. That policy could be questioned with the result that a lot lower density would have
been appropriate. Studies could find the appropriate density to be one unit per five acres, but in an
urban area, to go to lower densities than one per acre would be to get away from the intent to try to
allow a development at a lower density. For a clear line, it would take a review of the EIS that was
done to develop the Soos Creek Community Plan.
Tom Brotherton commented that studies had been done in an earlier time without as much science as
now and the answers now may be different than before. The recommended action going before the
Council is to give the issue back to the Land Use and Planning Board for public hearings to collect
information to determine what the appropriate rules should be for the Urban Separator area within
Kent. Council is looking to get a better answer so the citizens in Kent get the maximum benefit with
the least harm. Mr. Brotherton said all the information that Mr. Miles had collected would be very
valuable to the Land Use and Planning Board.
Tim Clark reinforced an earlier point that the City had been handed a plan from the County that talked
about Urban Separators, but the County hadn't actually applied their own plan. There are currently
new developments in the Panther Lake area. In the Lake Meridian area, right next to the trail, the
property in question is surrounded on all four sides with development, yet it's inside the Urban
Separator zone. That is inconsistency on the part of King County. Joe Miles suggested looking at the
history on the individual parcels. One of the properties is not in the Urban Separator. The other piece
is, but research would find that it was either vested, there was a clustering provision, or it was
preexisting. The properties that appear to be exceptions must be looked at specifically. To base a
whole policy on a couple of properties that haven't been thoroughly researched is a wrong approach.
Studies should be done in a proper form and not rushed to try and get the issue through on an
emergency ordinance to amend the Comp Plan.
Tim Clark suggested that Mr. Miles was misinterpreting the process, and that under City law the Comp
Plan could be amended only once a year and therefore it gets a full review by the Land Use and
— Planning Board before the Council sees it. Mr. Miles reminded the Committee that the ordinance
stipulated an emergency for the next night's Council meeting, and that the Land Use & Planning Board