Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 07/19/1982 Kent, Washington July 19, 1982 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council- persons Bailey, Biteman, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Kelleher, Leahy and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, Acting City Attorney Heavey, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Administrative Assistant Webby, Associate Planner Hansen and URS representative Ramsey. Approximately 80 people were in attendance at the meeting . CONSENT BAILEY MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through H CALENDAR be approved, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the July 6, 1982 Council meeting with the following cor- rection: The date for the City Council Hearing on the TFater Quality Study is August 2, 1982, not August 6, as reported . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) SANITATION Benson Meadows Plat - Sewer Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for con- tinuous operation and maintenance and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year guaranty period. The Engineering Department has received the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately 1, 884 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed for the plat of Benson Meadows in the vicinity of 108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 220th. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) Benson Meadows No. 2 Plat - Sewer Bill of Sale. ACCPETANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for continuous operation and maintenance and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year guaranty period. The Engineering Department has received the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately 2 , 256 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed for the plat of Benson Meadows No. 2 in the vicinity of 109th Place S.E. and S.E. 222nd. - 1 - July 19, 1982 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) Auburn Water Source Study. APPROVAL to allocate an additional $1, 000 to the Budget for the Auburn Water Source Study with funds coming from the unen- cumbered balance of the Water Fund. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) LID 307 - S.W. 43rd/S . 180th Street Improvement. AUTHORIZATION for Mayor to sic{n 1,,Tire Line Crossing Agreement allowing Puget Power to install underground wire within our street use easement. Union Pacific Railroad has reauested the City exe- cute an agreement allowing Puget Power to install power line crossings within the street use easement that Union Pacific Railroad has granted to Kent. The Public Works Committee has reviewed the agreement and recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute same. Relocation Ordinance Amendment. Ordinance 2037 has been reviewed by our attorney, Robert Sandwick, at the request of the Property Manager. The attorney has recommended that the Ordinance be amended to provide flexibility with regard to those projects for which the City of Kent provides total funding. His recommendations have been reviewed and found acceptable by the Department of Transportation. The Public Works Committee has reviewed the proposed changes and recommends that the changes apply when relocating ten or more persons . MOONEY MOVED that Ordinance No. 2362 be adopted, amending Ordinance No. 2037, Regulations Implementing the Uniform Re- location Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Acts of 1970 and 1971 . B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Six-Year Transportation Program. The annual public hearing for this program has been scheduled for this meeting. The proposed amendments and revisions were discussed at the workshop on July 12 , 1982 . The pro- posed projects are as follows: 1) Lincoln Avenue Connector 4-Lane connection between Smith St. and Meeker St. widening, drainage, curb & gutter, sidewalks, landscaping , lighting, signing . 2 - July 19, 1982 STREETS 2) N. Central Avenue (James Street - S. 228th) Add two-way left turn lane - drainage, paving, sidewalks, landscaping . 3) S.E. 256th at 116th S .E. New signal, illumination, add left turn lanes. 4) East Valley Highway (S . 192nd - S . 180th) Extend 5 lanes to 180th St. - drainage, paving, sidewalks, curl- & gutter, lighting, landscaping , underground utilities, bridge. 5) S .E. 240th at 102nd S .E. Add turn lane, improve 102nd - drainage, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping. 6) Meeker Street (Russell Road - Washington Avenue) Widen to 5 lanes - drainage, paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, landscaping, under- ground utilities . 7) 76th Avenue S . (S . 222nd - S . 212th) New construction - drainage, grading, paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, landscaping, underground utilities . 8) S .E. 252nd at SR 99 (Signal) New signal and lighting. 9) Reith Road (S. 253rd - Military Road) Extend 4 lanes - grading, drainage, paving, side- walks, curb and gutter, lighting, landscaping, underground utilities. 10) 64th Avenue S. (Smith St. - S. 228th) New construction - grading , drainage, paving, sidewalks , curb and gutter, lighting, landscaping, underground utilities . 11) Kent Des Moines Road (Green River - Russell Road) Widen to 4 lanes - possible combination with #6 , drainage, sidewalk, lighting, bike underpass, landscaping , curb and. gutter. 12) Green River Bridge (Kent-Des Moines Road) Widen functionally deficient bridge to 4 lanes. 3 - July 19 , 1982 STREETS 13) 104th Avenue S.E. (S .E. 260th - S.E. 264th) Extend 5 lanes - drainage, paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, landscaping, under- ground utilities. 14) Green River Bridge (S. Central) Widen functionally deficient bridge to 4 lanes. 15) 112th Avenue S.E. (S .E. 232nd - S .E. 240th) Minor widening - grading, drainage, paving , sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, landscap- ing, underground utilities. 16) Miscellaneous Street Improvements The _public hearincT was opened by Mayor Hogan. There were no comments and no correspondence has been re- ceived. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the public hearing be closed, Moonev seconded. Motion carried. MOONEY MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 968 , adopting the 1983 through 1988 revision of the City of Kent's Six Year Transportation Improvements Program. Leahy seconded. Motion carried. ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) CODE Grace Fellowship Church Banners. APPROVAL of author- ization for the Grace Fellowshin Church for up to four banners over the public right-of-way, subject to approval of placement by the Public Works Depart- ment and subject also to the section in the Zoning Code pertaining to temporary signs . This matter was discussed at the Julv 12 workshop. HOUSING & Kent 1983 Block Grant Funding Program Guidelines. A COMMUNITY public hearing is scheduled for this date to consider DEVELOPMENT Kent's 1983 Block Grant funding program guidelines. These guidelines serve as the statement of project categories the City would like to encourage for the Kent Block Grant Program and which will be the basis for project review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. A packet of information was furnished to the Council and made a part of the record and the material was reviewed at the June 28 workshop. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. Harris determined for Bailey that the matter - 4 - July 19, 1982 HOUSING & under discussion was merely setting the City ' s guide- COMMUNITY lines for the Blcok Grant Program and not endorsing DEVELOPMENT any specific program. The public hearing was closed and then reopened to allow input from Gwen Thompson, President of the Board of Directors of the Green River Community Health Project. Ms . Thompson ex- plained that the proposed facility was to be located in the Kent area and designed to meet the medical needs of low to moderate income individuals of the greater Kent area and downtown Kent with the emphasis on diagnosis and treatment of most health care problems. In response to questions from the Council , Bruce Creager of the Planning Department noted that the request was not in conflict with what had been pro- posed for 1983 funding through the Kent Block Grant Program, examples of which are as follows: Projects which help to preserve or expand Kent' s low and moderate income housing especially in the Neighborhood Strategy Area. Projects which improve the safety of pedestrian and/or handicap circulation. Projects which improve senior service facilities . Economic development projects which improve com- merical services and job opportunities for Neigh- borhood Strategy Area residents . He also noted that King County, in its 1983 Block Grant Policy, specifically addresses uses of block _grant monies for health related services . In response to the Mayor ' s question, Creager suggested that the following language be added: The City of Kent will encourage the use of Com- munity Development Block Grant monies for public service projects that will provide the direct delivery of health care , especially in the tar- get area where there are other Block Grant funded activities. " B. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the proposed additional language, J. Johnson seconded . - 5 - July 19 , 1982 HOUSING & Norma Jean Rothe, representing DAWN (Domestic Abused CO11MUNITY Womens Network) organization in Kent, asked that DEVELOPMENT their organization be included in the funding pro- jects. In response to questions from Bailey, Ms . Rothe noted that the organization, which had pre- viously requested Block Grant funding from the City, was now in operation and the organization structure complete. In response to questions, Creager noted that the language contained in the guidelines was sufficiently broad to cover human services . He also noted that the requests would be subject to Council review and prioritization at a later date. The Mayor clarified for Ms. Rothe that the DAWN organization would be required to make a presentation at the time of such review. The motion to add the additional language carried. B. JOHNSON MOVED to close the hearing, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. J. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt the draft 1983 Block Grant Program Funding Guidelines including Creager ' s addi- tion, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. Kent Co-sponsorship of King County 1983 Joint Project Applications. A public hearing is scheduled for this meeting to consider Kent' s co-sponsorship with King County for 1983 Joint Project Applications. These two applications are as follows : 1) The AMPL Program that provides low interest loans up to $15, 000 to homeowners and 2) The Pilot Rental Rehab Program that would allow Rehab loans of up to $7 , 500 for renter occupied housing units . Information was furnished to the Council and the matter was reviewed at the June 28 workshop. The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. It was noted by Creager that a letter had been received from King County and a copy furnished to the Council , establishing the income criteria for rental units. In response to questions from Bailey and B. Johnson, Creager noted that the guidelines were established for this County and region. Opposition was expressed for the dollar figures used to determine loan eligi- bility. On questions from the Council, it was deter- mined that the County could still seek funding for 6 - i I July 19 , 1982 HOUSING the projects without Kent' s co-sponsorship. BITE- 001,51UNITY MAN MOVED to close the public hearing, Bailey DEVELOPMENT seconded. Notion carried. BITEMAN MOVED to approve the co-sponsorship of the joint application, Kelle- her seconded. Motion carried with B. Johnson and Leahy voting against. Kent' s 1983 Joint Project Application for Senior Center Design and Construction. A public hearing is scheduled for this meeting to consider the Plan- ning Department's Block Grant staff application to King County Housing & Community Development request- ing 1983 "joint" (serving Kent and King County resi- dents) Block Grant monies. The application is for partial funding of the Senior Center design and construction and was prepared cooperatively with the Parks Department. The application requests $200 ,000 in joint 1983 Block Grant funds and was reviewed at the workshop on June 28 . The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. There were no comments and no correspondence has been received. MOONEY MOVED to close the public hearing, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the application be approved , Leahy seconded. Motion carried. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) Reclassificationsin Finance Department. APPROVAL of three reclassifications in the Finance Department as follows: Accountant II to Division Supervisor from 27 to 32 Accounts Receivable/Payroll Clerk from 5 to 12 Purchasing Assistant from 12 to 16 As a result of the implementation of Central Services , the Finance Department requested reclassification of these positions . The requests have been approved by the Personnel Director and further reviewed and approved by the Council Finance and Personnel Commit- tees . Funding for implementation of the reclassifi- cations is provided within the current Finance Depart- ment Budget. 7 - July 19 , 1982 REZONES Urbana Rezone (RZ-80-6) . The proposed ordinance approving the Urbana Rezone failed to be adopted at the last Council meeting. Pursuant to the Hear- ing Examiner Ordinance, Findings of' Fact must be adopted by the Council. KELLEHER MOVED to adopt the Findings of Fact as prepared by the City Attorney, Leahy seconded. J. Johnson suggested to include that the staff be directed to return the covenants, deeds, easements or other documents executed by Urbana Equities as required by the Hearing Examiner. Kelleher and Leahy accepted the addition to the motion. The motion carried, with Biteman, J. John- son, Kelleher and Leahy voting in favor and B. Johnson, Mooney and Bailey voting against. The document entitled City Council Findings of Fact has been made a part of the record. Upland Resources Rezone Veto. On July 6, 1982 , Ordinance 2357 was adopted approving the Upland Resources rezone. Mayor Hogan vetoed the ordinance on July 7 , 1982 and the veto message has been dis- tributed to the Council. LEAHY MOVED to accept the veto message for the record, Kelleher seconded. Motion carried. B. JOHNSON MOVED to override the Mayor' s veto, Leahy seconded. B. Johnson stated that she felt Uplands had been cooperative, submit- ting drainage plans , and participating in LID 306. Mayor Hogan questioned whether it was in fact approp- riate for the ordinance to be presented at all until the conditions had been met, noting that she pointed out in the veto message that all conditions had not been fulfilled. She further stated that Ted Knapp' s letter, submitted tonight, also referred to condi- tions not yet fulfilled. Ted Knapp of Upland In- dustries clarified from the audience that the only condition unfulfilled was the signing of three LID covenants which were in process with the Property Management Department. Upon questions, Heavey concurred that the Hearing Examiner ordinance required that the conditions be met before the ordinance is pre- sented to the Council , and that she had been structed to prepare the ordinance. B. Johnson noted that ordinances have been passed on such a basis in the past and the ordinances were either not pub- lished or recorded and therefore not effective until this was done. Heavey clarified for B. Johnson that the ordinance includes the Hearing Examiner conditions 8 - July 19 , 1982 REZONES and that they would still be required, noting that the ordinance would become effective five days after publication. (It was later determined that the Planning Department agenda item' for the June 21 Council meeting instructed the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. ) The motion carried with Leahy voting against it. EAST HILL East Hill Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. PLAN On July 6 , 1982 the City Council moved to continue the East Hill Plan public hearing with instructions to the Planning staff to review the input received from the Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Council, and to provide a summary report of proposed revisions and comments on East Hill Plan Goals , Objectives and Policies. The continued public hearing was reopened by Mayor Hogan. The Clerk noted receipt and distribution of a letter from Debra Mets, President of the Rainier Audubon Society urging that the wording of the draft not be changed. MOONEY MOVED that the letter be made a part of the record, B . Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Harris explained that staff felt that several items should be clarified relating to the planning process which includes the formulation, adoption and imple- mentation of plans and policies and a memo was dis- tributed covering this . A memo from the Hearing Examiner , Nadine Burke, was distributed, giving her comments on interpretation of policy. Jim Hansen distributed a summary report of the proposed revisions and comments received. Lee Armstrong stated that she had property south of 264th, east of 104th which was zoned for medium density multi-family and that she did not want this changed to a lower density. Helen Selig noted that the Soos Creek Plan and the Planning Staff recommended medium density multi family housing for the area across from the Post Office on S. 240th. She noted that the proposed change would make this low density and noted that this could affect the senior citizens as well 9 - July 19 , 1982 EAST HILL as young couples looking for housing. Selig pointed PLAN out that all of the services are available and that the adjacent property owners were willing to annex to the city. Tom Barghausen noted that he had filed a petition relating to the same property and pointed out that high density multi-family development existed on the other side of S. 240th. He stated that no one seemed to oppose the higher density. Bill Turnidge noted that he served on the Natural Environment Element Committee, and that he had re- viewed the changes proposed by the Chamber of Com- merce. He recomrended that the text be adopted as written. There were no further comments from the audience and BAILEY MOVED to close the hearing. Mooney seconded. notion carried. LEAHY stated that this was a planning document, and MOVED for the Council to adopt the East Hill Goals, Policies and Objectives as prepared by staff and further, that staff be directed to begin formulating implementation actions for consideration by the Council. Bailey seconded. Leahy clarified for Mayor Hogan that the intent was to include the re- commendations made by staff. Kelleher stated he would like consideration given to the changes which were discussed at the last Council meeting, noting that the text referred to restrictions without defin- ing such restrictions and that specific guidelines should be established. He stated that he would offer amendments to the motion in accordance with the material presented at the last Council meeting. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 30 , GOAL 3 , OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 2 from: Require building setbacks , limits on vegetation re- moval and other appropriate design and construction controls for development adjacent to streams , ic.k s and wetland areas to protect water quality, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and preserve natural drain- age and wildlife habitat. 10 - I July 19 , 1982 EAST HILL to: PLAN . construction controls when other impact-miti- gating measures are not practical for development. . . . Biteman seconded. Motion failed with B. Johnson, Leahy, Bailey and Mooney opposing. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 30 , GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3 from: Require additional development restrictions, where necessary, to avoid degradation to any water support- ing salmon or trout as identified by the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Game and/or the City of Kent Planning Department. to: Develop for City Council approval, additional develop- ment restrictions . . . . Biteman seconded. Motion failed with B. Johnson, Leahy, Bailey and Mooney opposing. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 30, GOAL 3 , OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 6 from: Retain in a natural state wetlands having value for storm water drainage and flood control , water quality protection and wildlife habitat. to: Identify wetlands. . . and wildlife habitat and develop a strategy for preserving these wetlands. Biteman seconded. Motion carried with Bailey, B. Johnson, and Leahy opposing. KELLEHER MOVED to amend the OVERALL GOAL for the HOUSING ELEMENT on PAGE 37 from: Assure present and future East Hill residents housina that is safe, offers a desirable living_ environment, and is supported bv_ adecivate community facilities and services. - 11 - July 19, 1982 EAST HILL to: PLAN Assure present and future East Hill residents hous- ing that is affordable, safe. . . . Biteman seconded. Motion failed, with B. Johnson, Bailey, J. Johnson, Leahy and Mooney opposing. BITEMAN MOVED to amend to include a new policy sug- gested by Sally Clarke of the Mueller Group as PAGE 39 , GOAL 2 , OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 2, as follows: The East Hill Plan Land Use Map will serve as a general guide for future development of the East Hill. Flexible residential development means that specific development proposals at densities somewhat higher than shown on the Land Use Map may be appropri- ate on certain sites where natural features are pre- served and adequate buffering of lower density develop- ment is provided. Kelleher seconded. Motion carried with Bailey opposing. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 47, GOAL 3 of the Trans- portation Element from: Establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for East Hill. to: . . . . the highest p�tacticat and teaLQ 6tcc level. . . . Biteman seconded. Motion failed with only Kelleher and Biteman supporting it. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 57, GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE 1 , POLICY 4 from: The funding of sewer projects in and around the east side of Kent shall have priority over projects which extend into previously undeveloped areas. to: - 12 - July 19 , 1982 EAST HILL The phrase, "Extension of sewer service" replace PLAN "The funding of sewer service. " and that "East Hill Study Area" replace "in and around the east side of Kent. " Biteman seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Kelleher referred to PAGE 59 , GOAL 2 , OBJECTIVE 4 , POLICY 2 and Bailey noted that at the time of develop- ment, engineering input would be required. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 59 , GOAL 3 , OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 2 from: Limits on vegetation removal and s,te-qQve,rd e�"e be required of any development adj ?ht�ii q,A ,,. ii f) creeks, drainage swales or any oth watercour p to: Limits on vegetation removal and site coverage for development adjacent to streams, creeks, drainage swales or any other watercourse shall be developed for Council approval. Biteman seconded. Leahy stated that his original motion, in directing staff to provide the Council with implementation measures, really accomplishes the same thing. Motion failed, with Biteman and Kelleher voting in favor . KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 65 , RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING POLICY 1 OF OBJECTIVE 1 , GOAL 1 from: No Kent sewer extensions should be permitted east of 116th Avenue SE until such time as 80 percent of the property west of 116th Avenue SE is within the City. to: . . . . such time as a , e"onabte poktion of the . . . . Biteman seconded. Upon Kelleher ' s question, Leahy stated that he was not entirely comfortable with the original wording, but was less comfortable with the change, as proposed . motion carried with Leahy voting against it. - 13 - July 19 , 1982 EAST HILL KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 71 , GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE PLAN 2 , POLICY 2 by deleting this policy which reads as follows: Written notice shall be given to all property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of property to be subdivided, short platted, or developed into multi- family or commercial development. Biteman seconded. It was determined that the state law requires notification to owners within 200 feet. Heavey pointed out that the notices required under the state law did not cover all of the items listed in Policy 2 . Kelleher opined that the state law ORRECTED • REFER TO was inadequate. Harris noted that complaints had MINUTES Of ..�-.�.�.. been received that property owners had not been notified of connerical or high-density development. Biteman concurred with Kelleher, and noted that re- quiring additional notices other than that required by law was a financial burden on the city, hence on the taxpayer as well . Motion failed with Kelleher, Biteman and Plooney voting in favor. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE 73 , GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 1 from: Limit growth until adequate and safe roads are pro- vided and bikeways, trails and eauestrian paths are funded or provided. to: Support growth that pnomota adequate and safe roads , bikeways, trails and equestrian paths. Biteman seconded. Motion carried unanimously. KELLEHER MOVED to amend PAGE. 73, GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 2 , POLICY 2 from: The quality and aesthetic character of new residentiai development shall be at a minimum comparable to the surrounding area. to: - 14 - July 19 , 1982 EAST HILL . . . shall be compati.bte PLAN with. . . . Biteman seconded. Motion carried unanimously. KELLEHER MOVED to delete the RECOMMENDATION CON- CERNING POLICY 2 OF OBJECTIVE 2, GOAL 1 on PAGE 74, which reads as follows: The Zoning Ordinance should be amended to require written notice be given to all property within 300 feet of property to be subdivided, short platted or developed into multi-family or commercial develop- ments. Criteria needs to be established for deter- mining the size of developments which require such a notice; i. e. the number of units or the square footage of the building. Biteman seconded. The motion failed with Kelleher, Biteman and Mooney supporting it. This concluded Kelleher ' s proposed amendments. B. Johnson called for the auestion on Leahy' s motion, appearing on page 10 . Leahy' s motion, including the successful amendments, carried unani- mously. Hansen presented the Land Use Plan, Alternative 4 as recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the package to consider in the adoption of the East Hill Plan. BAILEY MOVED to adopt the original Land Use Plan, Alternate 4 as prepared by the staff. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGRICULTURAL At the June 28, 1982 workshop the City Council re- LANDS viewed the Agricultural Study recommendations and STUDY at the July 6, 1982 City Council meeting set July 19, 1982 as the public hearing date. Mayor Hogan opened the public hearing. The City Clerk noted receipt of letters from the following , copies of which have been distributed: C. P. Curran, Judy Woods , Leslie Poon, Patsy Byrne, Charlotte Jac-,'- : and David Theisen. MOONEY MOVED to accept the letters for the record, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. - 15 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Staff noted that LANDS Resolution 955 adopted in March, 1982 set forth STUDY as a goal of the City preservation of certain lands south and west of the Green River for mixed types of agricultural uses and further directed the staff to make proposals for possible changes to the Com- prehensive Plan and to the Zoning Districts . He noted that four alternatives were contained in the Study, with #1 being no action and #4 being the most stringent in preservation. He noted that the staff recommended that Alternative #4 be adopted as the most consistent with the City' s goals and with the Valley Floor Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. A memo dated July 19 , distributed tonight, and filed for the record, suggests that the Council direct the Planning Department to take to the Plan- ning Commission for review and public hearing, a proposal which is consistent with Alternative #4 of the Agricultural Lands Study. Satterstrom explained that such a proposal would include the following land use strategies : 1. Development of "Farmlands Preservation" element to be added to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and/or Valley Floor Plan. This element would include goals and policies addressing the status and importance of local agriculture. 2. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan map showing areas most suitable for long-term agricultural use and designating them as "Agricultural" . 3. Development of a zoning district classification which limits uses to farming and associated activities. Proposed areas for such classifi- cation would be shown on the City' s zoning map consistent with the amendment of the Comprehen- sive Plan Map (see , item 2 , above) . In addition, staff recommends that three other non- land use strategies be sought to strengthen the City ' s approach to farmland preservation. These include an interlocal agreement with neighboring jurisdictions, designation of an "urban growth boundary," and the exemption of farmlands from LID assessments . These three nonland use actions could be pursued independently and in addition to the land use strategies mentioned earlier. - 16 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL Satterstrom noted that no action the Council would LANDS take at this preliminary step would change any Com- STUDY prehensive Plan designations or change the zoning on any property, and pointed out that hearings would be set at a later date. Harris quoted from the memo as follows : Action of the City Council to pursue Alternative #4 does not implement any specific policy or regulations. What it does is begin a process which will result in a proposal to the Planning Commission. This proposal will be consistent with Alternative #4 in that it will seek to preserve areas for farming. The future process will ultimately determine the specific regu- lations and the specific areas where agriculture will be encouraged. The four land use alternatives are as follows : 1. Do nothing. 2 . Farmlands preservation element/no map changes. 3. Farmlands preservation element and map changes/ Rural residential emphasis. 4. Farmlands preservation element and map changes/ Agricultural emphasis . Satterstrom introduced Gene Dubernoy, Acting Director of the King County Agriculture Office, who stated that he had no informtion on the probable interest rate for the bonds and that a task force had been working on revitalizing the Farmland Preservation Program. He noted that the matter would be before the King County Council soon and that public notice would be given. Tom O 'Connell opined that the farmers were not interested after they heard what figures would be paid for their land. Upon Kelleher ' s question, Satterstrom noted that as of May, 1980 there were about 18 applications from farmers in our study area, coverinq approximately 700 acres, but that these farmers may nc ionger be interested. He noted for Bailey that approximately 1400 or 1500 acres would come under the C.7un(--,,, act. In answer to B. Johnson' s question, he n._)ted that he had talked 17 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL to some of the farmers and that they had acted LANDS negatively on the price offered them for develop- STUDY ment rights. Gary Volchok stated that he was opposed to the Farmlands Preservation Program and that there were presently 43 ,000 acres in King County which might come under the Farmlands Preservation Program. He urged members of the audience to make their wishes known to the Council. Volchok stated that he thought that the Valley Studies had resolved this question and that the land in question would remain RA or PIA zoned. He recommended that the Council adopt Alter- native #1, providing for no action to be taken, as recommended by the Valley Studies. He stated that it is not profitable for the farmers to continue to farm due to the natural constraints of the land, cost of equipment and competition from California and eastern Washington. He noted that the "open space" program was an alternative to farmers . He stated that a study done in conjunction with the Urbana rezone aave statistics as to the revenue which would be gained by the city if the property was developed for industry. Bailey questioned this, noting the cost to the city in services for industri- ally developed land. Elaine Conlon stated that she and her two sisters owned 100 acres south of Kent and could not make enough money from it to pay the taxes , noting that farming was not profitable and asking that their property not be locked into agricultural classifica- tion. Ford Kiene stated that the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce recommended that Alterna- tive #1 be adopted, stating the Chamber had concern regarding the economic feasibility of Alternative #4 to the landowner farmers . He stated also that there was some question as to whether this proposal was to preserve farmlands or if it was really to preserve open space. Greg Wenger opined that farmlands all over the world were being destroyed and that locally the blacktop- ping was causing water run-off problems affecting the existing farmlands . He noted that the question of food had not been addressed, and supported 18 - i July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL Alternative #4�noting that existing farmlands are LANDS taxed on industrial use,,which is why the owners STUDY want to sell. Tom O'Connell stated that this issue had been dealt with and now it was before the Council again. He opined that it is too late in Kent to start trying to preserve farmlands . Annette Conlon Garret agreed with O'Connell, stating that if the City wanted to retain farmlands, it should be purchased, at a fair price to the owners. She favored industrial zoning for the property owned by the Conlon sisters. Tom McCann, part owner of 30 acres on the west side of the river, commented that the Agricultural Lands Study was thorough and very professionally packaged, but that it lacked input from the local farmers. He noted that land that cost $8 , 000 per acre would sud- denly be worth $3 , 000 or less . He favored Alternative #1 and objected to the reference to farming being profitable when the farmers are saying otherwise. He asked if the City would buy the farms and arrange to have it farmed on land designated as agricultural. Upon Mooney ' s question, r"cCann stated that he would lose approximately $2 , 000 per acre. Cal Uomoto of Seattle offered some comments as to the auestion of who would farm the land, long-term. He stated that there were approximately 22 ,000 Indo- Chinese refugees in King County and that he worked with farmers from Laos, some of who had worked on farms in Kent. He stated that he had a successful program underway in the Lake Sammamish area in which the Laos farmers were farming one-acre tracts . Martin Wyland urged the Council to approve Alternative #r 4 . Pete Curran spoke on behalf of his client, Kent Highlands, Inc. and favored AlL(,r-:I.te #1. He noted that people had a right to use their land to the best use and that when the city wanted land for easements, or for parks, it was condemned and then purchased by the city. He noted that the farmers 19 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL made their wishes known at the time of the Valley LANDS Studies. Curran stated that Kent Highlands had STUDY owned 300 acres on the West Hill for many years, and had asked for a rezone a couple of years ago, paid for an EIS and were then told that a study would have to be done of the entire West Hill area. He stated that the reference in the Study to an Urban Growth Zone would affect the entire West Hill and the farmers. Curran advised that if an agricultural zone is created on the valley floor, the city should be prepared to pay for the farmlands, and therefore should not act hastily in this matter. Upon Bailey ' s question, Curran stated that it was his opinion that no action should be taken until the West Hill Study is completed. Dick Scalzo stated that he owned 20 acres on the west side of the river and that he favored Alternate #l. Bob Tidball stated that he raised strawberries on a 5 acre farm and thought that he could make a fair return on his investment. He noted that once the farmland was gone it could never be recovered and opined that there would always be someone who would want to farm. Tidball noted that he had heard some good comments tonight and that he did not have a recommendation. Dewain Lien stated he grew up where Boeing is pre- sently located and was in favor of Alternate #4 or, perhaps even #3 . He noted that those in favor of #1 were really speaking of development, and that adoption of #1 by the Council would only delay a real decision. He noted that the Council had to decide if it was possible to make agriculture work in this area, not- ing that Tidball was committed to making it work. He opined that there were large areas yet to be developed- and the farmland wasn ' t needed for this purpose. He pointed out that urban and rural areas can be combined and noted further that some residents only want a few acres for animals . Lien noted t`: - . the Council should make sure that the farmers do not take a loss on their land but the Council does not have to assure a great profit either. 20 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL Les Sampson stated that most of the property owners LANDS were against Alternative #4 and that he favored STUDY Alternative #1 which would allow time for the West Hill Study to be accomplished. He defined #1 as "wait" rather than "do nothing" . Mark Carter of Renton stated that he owned five acres on S.E. 216th which had not been farmed in eight years. He reauested that this acreage be left as it is and favored Alternate #1 . Irene Conlon McGoveney stated that although she was a nurse, she knew about farming and had done some farming. She stated that she opposed agricul- tural zoning for her property and was in favor of holding off. Dan Smith stated that he agreed with O 'Connell and McCann and that the property should be left the way it is . He stated he had 225 acres and acknow- ledged that no one wants to lose money on their in- vestment. Holding the land in an agricultural de- signation would devalue the land, he stated. Smith noted that farmers used their land for borrowing money frequently and that the Federal Land Bank valued the property at $6 ,000 per acre, but felt the value would decrease if the land was locked into agricultural designation. He pointed out that there were drainage problems in his area and that his farm had lakes on it every winter. Smith noted that he was not in favor of locking his land into agricultural designation even though he planned to continue farming . He pointed out that he had been told that the land under the preservation program was valued at $4, 000 per acre but land a few miles away was selling at $30 , 000 per acre. He stated that he didn ' t think farmers would sell their develop- ment rights for $4 ,000 per acre under these circum- stances . It was clarified that 20 acres of his 220 acres was inside the city and the remainder in the county. Dave Millard stated that he -represented two property owners controliing 153 acres . He noted that Webley Enterprises owned 102 acres on Kent' s south boundary which had been removed from the open dace classifi- I 21 - July 19 , 1982 AGRICULTURAL cation. Some of the property is leased for pasture LANDS for approximately $50 per acre per year, and the STUDY owners favor Alternate #1 . He also spoke for the Church of the Latter Day Saints, owners of a 51 acre farm in Kent, noting that they want to be able to sell in the future at the highest and best use for the land. He pointed out that they also might want to purchase more land to farm but did not want the land locked in to agricultural designation. He noted that the study did not appear to have much input from the farmers, and although the church planned to farm, it appeared that farming would not be profitable and the return on the money invested would not be satisfactory. John Torrence noted that he had purchased 26 acres on the East Valley Highway north of S . 277th, think- ing of industry coming to Kent, and that the land was unsuitable for farming, and he was against hold- ing the property in the agricultural designation. Leslie Poon noted that farmland is being lost all over and that retaining it created an opportunity for younger farmers or possibly Asian farmers . She noted that she shopped for produce at the local farms and favored Alternate #4, commenting that #3 benefitted only a few, not the general public. Ron Stokes noted that he bought property in Kent to get away from industry and to enjoy the rural environ- ment. He opined that many others had also done so and that these residents must also be considered. i Charlotte Jacobs noted that she had been involved in the King County Agricultural Program and it was recognized that if the financial pressure could be removed the loss of agricultural land could be cor- rected. She stated that she recognized the problems of the farmers and that some of these could be solved by working together. Sylvia Weinberg note ' that shy had been a member of the Green River Study Group and suggested that a decision be delayed until after_ the King County Agriculture reports are available. She stated that she supported Alternate #4, that the farmers should be fairly compensated and that. thc.�e who wanted to farm should be able to do so. 22 - i July 19, 1982 AGRICULTURAL Doug Graham noted that he lived on 5 acres and LANDS feared that if more land was developed his pro- STUDY perty would be flooded. He stated he wanted to continue to live on his acreage and' was against allowing upgrading for industry. Isabel Donofrio noted that farming in this area has not been profitable for years and that crops could be raised at less expense in eastern Wash- ington. Catherine Godey noted that she owned land on the Frager Road but did not farm it. She stated she was not against the agricultural designation but they they could not go on paving the taxes for- ever . Mrs. Walter Grav stated she supported O'Connell and McCann and favored Alternate #1. Peggy Roy stated she supported Alternate #4. There were no further comments from the audience. Upon questions from Kelleher , Volchok stated that under the Farmlands Bond Preservation, the value of the farmlands would be $1500 per acre and a 10% return on the investment was not enough to make farming profitable. He confirmed for Kelleher that property within the study area was selling for $26-38 ,000 per acre, and that the value of property was figured on the value as if it was fully developed. Volchok opined that the owners of 60% of the property contained within the study were present tonight. B. Johnson noted that she did not want to consider action until the King County report has been re- ceived. i J. JOHNSON MOVED to close the nublic hearing, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. J. JOHNSON MOVED to table action on this study until the King County report is received . Kelleher seconded. Motion carried unanimously. B. Johnson noted that the County action, especially relating to the sale of bonds, was an important factor in the City' s decisions . 23 - July 19, 1982 PARKS Parks Committee. Bailey stated that there would be a meeting regarding the Reith Road Pit Site Park at Trinity Reformed Church on Tuesday, July 20, 1982 at 7 : 00 p.m. to receive citizen input. GREEN VALLEY Property Acquisition. Cushing reported that the HEIGHTS #5 acquisition of the property in the Green Valley Heights #5 area was near completion and that it was expected bids would be received on the project on August 16, 1982 . COUNCIL Public Works Committee. Mooney noted that the COMMITTEES Public Works Committee would meet on Wednesday, July 21, 1982 at 8 : 15 a.m. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Bills . APPROVAL of }payment of the bills received through July 20, after auditing by the Finance Committee at the 4 : 00 p.m. meeting on July 30 , 1982. ADJOURNMENT MOONEY MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 11 : 45 p.m. , B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. i Marie Jensen, CMC Citv Clerk - 24 - i