HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 09/17/1984 i
Kent, 17ashington
September 17 , 1934
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-
members Bailey, Biteman, Johnson, Kelleher, T°Thite and Woods,
Assistant City_ Administrator r,ebby, City Attorney DiJulio, Plan-
ning Director Harris and Public P,orks Director 7^Tickstrom. City
Administrator Cushing and Finance Director VcCarthy were not in
attendance. Approximately 20 people were in attendance at the
meeting.
CHA14BER OF Mayor Hogan introcuced Leo Powers , the new Chamber
CONUIERCE of Commerce President who replaced retiring Presi-
dent Glenn Votaw.
PARKS & T•Test Fenwick Park. A letter was read by Mayor
RECREATION Hogan from Darla Dodson regarding the new West
Fenwick Park which was officially opened on
Saturday, Septe-ber 15 . Ms. Dodson addressed
several concerns about the nark in her letter
and Bailey noted that these would be discussed
at the next Parks Committee meeting .
PROCLAMATION' A proclamation v7as read by r"avor Hoc_ an declaring
the week of September 17 through 23 as Constitu-
tion Tleek in the City of Kent.
STATF State Environmental Policy Act. On September 4 ,
ENVIRONMENTAL 1984 a public hearing o.as scheduled for this date
POLICY ACT on the City ' s required implementation of the State
Environmental .Act (SFPA) . The period of September
10 through September 24 was designated to receive
written comments . Proper legal notice has been
given by the City Clerk and a draft ordinance
has been available in the Planning Department.
Additional material was furnished to the Council
in the packets .
The public hearing was opened by 11avor Hogan. City
Attorney DiJulio noted that the purpose of the
public rearing was to review the Draft Implement-
ing Ordinance and referred to his Memo dated Sep-
tember 13 which provided a summary of the SEPA
Process . The memo notes that most of the new
ordinance adopts the provisions required by the
State and that comments are written regarding the
portions where the City has options .
- 1 -
September 17 , 1984
STATE Biteman noted that he had several questions.
ENVIRONP'_ENTAL DiJulio referred to the Summary of the SEPA
POLICY ACT process which. includes the following items:
Substantive Policy Mandate, Procedural Mandate,
Environmental Significance, Threshold Determina-
tion, Categorical Exemptions , Environmental Check-
list, Determination of Significance/Mon-Signifi-
cance, Scoping, Draft and Final EIS and Acgency
Decision. referring to the determination of
significance/non-significance, DiJulio noted
that if an angency decides that a proposal would
not have a probable significant adverse environ-
mental impact, the lead agency issues a determina-
tion of non-significance (DNS) . If an agency
decides that a proposal would have a probable
significant adverse environmental impact, the
lead agency issues a determination of significance
(DS) . If a nroposal has some environmental impact,
agencies may consider �;hether mitigation measures
will reduce or eliminate impacts and may issue
a mitigated DNS , which documents mitigation
measures that will be implemented.
Referring to scoring, DiJulio noted that this
was a statement of the range of actions , alter-
natives and impacts discussed in the EIS . DiJulio
clarified that the new ordinance adopting the SEPA
rules and procedures for the Citv_ of Kent would be
a new section 12 . 12A in the Kent City Code. He
noted that the first portion was a statement of
the background for the Act and the Section 12 . 12A. 100
merely adopts by reference various State laws .
Referring to Section 12 . 12A.. 110 (page 3) Designation
of Responsible Official, DiJulio clarified that this
would be the Planning Director or his authorized
designee.
Referring to Section 12 . 12A. 130 , Timing Considerations:
Catecorial Exemptions - Threshold Determinations,
DiJulio noted that the chance was in referring to
the time limits in calendar days . In response to
Biteman ' s question, he noted that the word SHALL
appears in Paraqraph A. for a determination of
whether an action is catecorically exempt within
seven days of receiving a completed application as
- 2 -
i
i
September 17 , 1934
STATE opposed to workino days" . Referring to Section B,
ENVIRONMENTAL ThresholCl Determinations, DiJulio pointed out that
POLICY ACT some actions may require additional research and
thus the word SHOULD appears in this section.
DiJulio then referred to page 7 of the draft ordi-
nance, Section 12 . 12A. 140 , Timing Considerations :
Submission of DN.S , DEIS , FEIS. He noted that for
non exempt proposals , the DNS or FEIS for the pro-
nosal would normally accompany the staff ' s recom-
mendations to the Planning Commission or the Hear-
ing Examiner or BoarO of Adjustr-.ent. He noted
further that this process takes about 30 to 60
days . He noted that the new section provides
for a case by case basis for determination.
12 . 12A. 210 Flexible Thresholds for Categorical
Exemptions was then discussed with reference being
made to the existing exemption level, the maximum
exemption permitted by SEPA rules and the staff
recommendation. Upon T7hite ' s question, Harris
determined that Paragraph B of the section provides
for mandatory reporting for exempt levels to the
Department of Fcology Headquarters Office, Olympia.
DiJulio referred to page 10 of the draft ordinance,
noting that Suhsections 2 and 3 under Section
12 . 12A. 220 Use of £xemptions were not found in
the WAC but have been established through case
law and therefore are now included by DOE in the
t,odel ordinance. Referring to subsection 3 specifi-
cally, which states A departrient may withhold
approval of exempt actions that would lead to sub-
stantial financial expenditures by a private appli-
cant when the expenditures would serve no purpose
if nonexempt action (s) were not approved" , DiJulio
made the comparison to a parking lot, which on its
own would not recTuire a checklist but if it were
associated with a building construction rroject,
it would be necessary to review the application.
Referring to Section 12 . 12 . 230 Environmental Check-
list, DiJulio noted that subsection C was an optional
item, but �-,Tas recommended by staff to provide assis-
tance to applicants . In response to Bitem.an' s
- 3 -
Sentember 17 , 1984
STATE questions , DiJulio noted that the portion of the
ENVIRONr'_ENTAL checklist being considered concerned the difference
POLICY ACT in the level of information being provided in the
checklist.
Section 12 . 12A. 240 Mitigated DNS was then discussed
with reference made to the fact that the City now
holds pre-development meetings . DiJulio also
noted that provision is now made for the mitigating
measures to be nut in writing, which in effect pre-
serves the Council ' s ability to consider a particular_
matter. In response to i,Thite' s questions about anv
change to rezone procedures , DiJulio noted that
nothing would be changed but that the provisions
were added for clarification. In response to
Biteman ' s cuestions , DiJulio clarified that staff
would continue to make recommendations on a case
by case basis and that the conditions would be
in the staff report for the Hearing Examiner ' s
review and for her subsequent recommendations .
Following her recommendations , the matter would
then go before the Council . DiJulio further
clarified that the main intent of the EIS was to
nrovide information and not as a decision maker.
Ile also clarified that there ,,7as no appeal on an
EIS.
It was determined t7lat Section 12 . 12A. 300 included
portions of the model Ordinance adopted by reference.
Referring to Section .12 . 12A. 310 Preparation of EIS -
Additional Consideration, Paragraph B states "The
draft and final FIS or SEIS shall be prepared by
City staff , the applicant, or by a consultant
selected b� the Citv or the anplicant. " ?bite
cuestioned what would happen if the City and the
applicant could not agree on the consultant.
DiJulio clarified that the ordinance does not
provide for the resolution of that potential pro-
blem, but that it was well for the applicant to
select a consultant who works well with the
jurisdiction. In anv event, DiJulio clarified
that the selection always comes down to the respon-
sible officer of the jurisdiction, and he may even
make the determination that the Citv will do its
own EIS .
_ n -
i
September 17 , 1984
STATE DiJulio further pointed out that the 1983 legislature
ENVIRONMENTAL determined that the socio-economic aspects involved
POLICY .ACT were not part of the environmental checklist. This
includes items such as the tax base, etc. White
concluded that they might be part of the EIS but
were not required. Reference was made to Section
12 . 12?1. 330 Using rxistina Fnvironmental Documents
and the adoption of nertinent sections from the
*yodel Ordinance.
Referring to Part Four of the Ordinance : COMMENTING,
Section 12 . 12A_. n10 , Public notice, DiJulio noted
that notice is required and that the method to be
used was optional , but that it should be uniform
in all cases . He noted that Section D on paae 19
states : . . the City may require the applicant
to complete the public notice requirements for the
applicant' s proposal at his or her expense. "
DiJulio then referred to Part Five: SEPA AND
AGENCY DECISIONS and in particular Section 12 .12A. 510
Substantive Authority. He noted that this was a
controversial issue and involved the adoption of
substantive policies which the City will use in
reviewing matters , in addition to those previously
adopted by the Council. It was determined that
the City must designate local policies . Reference
was then made to Section 12 . 12A. 520 Appeals and in
particular Section 2 . Substantive Appeals . DiJulio
noted that this section was optional but if adopted
there are numerous options allowed. It was deter-
mined for Biteman that the City would not be more
limited in what it was allowed to do. He pointed
out that appeals to the Council from the Hearing
Examiner ' s decision would still be allowed. DiJulio
further explained that the ordinance says there is
no right to appeal , however, if the decision is
to be challenged, such challenge must be filed
within 14 days.
Referring to Part Six : DEFINITIONS , DiJulio noted
that these were adopted by reference.
Part Seven: AGENCY COMPLI_ArICF was pointed out as
being adopted by reference. Section 12 . 12A. 710
- 5 -
September 17 , 1984
STATE Responsibility of Agencies--SEPA Public Information,
ENVIRONMENTAL and Section 12 . 12A. 730 Fees were then mentioned.
POLICY ACT In response to Biteman ' s questions as to the cost
of an EIS , Harris noted that it could range from
$5, 000 to $30 , 000 . Harris determined that in the
case of the City doing an EIS it would be determined
by the number of people assigned to the project.
Referring to White ' s previous Question about the
threshold determination, Harris noted that the
City was changing to a middle ground position. He
noted that the staff recommendation of an existing
exemption level of 10 residential units was an
upward move from the City' s present existing
exemption level of 4 units. He pointed out that
4 units was equal to a short plat. He pointed out
that the Chamber of Commerce had asked that the
City try this level of 10 for a year. At the end
of that time the option to raise the level would
still exist. Regarding agricultural levels , it
was recommended that the City go to the maximum
of 30 , 000 sa. ft. Harris noted that office and
commercial , Presently 4 , 000 , could be raised to
a maximum of 12 , 000 square feet but City staff
was recommending 8, 000 . Parking lots were also
recommended for a middle ground level . Landfills/
Grading remain the same at less than 500 cubic
yards .
Kelleher then made reference to Section 12 . 12A. 710
Environmentally Sensitive Areas and questioned
whether a project that fell outside the exempt
level would be subject to anv SEPA review. DiJulio
noted that the Project must comply with the Act
but noted that the EIS is done after the checklist
is completed. If the Project is exempt then no
checklist would be done. It was determined for
Kelleher that such a Project could still be placed
under the compliance Provisions of Unique and Fragile
Areas if it fell into that category. DiJulio fur-
ther clarified that a project such as a plat falling
into this category would be subject to the Council ' s
right to place conditions on the approval, under
the Platting review process. Regarding fees, Harris
pointed out that the increase in the cost was
largely related to the increased advertising costs.
- 6 -
I
i
Sentember 17 , 1984
STATE The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. Raul
ENVIRONMENTAL Ramos presented a letter on behalf of the Chamber
POLICY ACT of Commerce Local Government Committee, suggesting
some changes to the ordinance as follows :
p• 5. Sect. 12.12A.130 Substitute
A. Categorical exemptions. The City shall identify whether an action is
categorically exempt within seven days of receiving a completed epp++cat+en
checklist..
P. 7, Sect. 12.12A.140 paragraph B Add
B. For any nonexempt proposal, the applicant must submit a completed
environmental checklist, detailed site plans as determined by responsible
official for environmental review and a description of the proposal as a
part of the development plan review process.
p. 8-9, Sect. 12.12A.210
We recommend acceptance of the Flexible Thresholds for Categorical Exemptions.
We also recommend a review by the City Council of these thresholds after
one year.
p. 11 , Sect. 12.12A.230 paragraph C Add
C. The City may work with an applicant to complete all or part of the
environmental checklist for a private proposal , if either of the following
occurs:
P. 34, Sect. 12.12A.730 paragraph B-2
Deletion of all paragraph B-2 and insert The applicant shall first consult
with the City before the applicant selects a consultant.
The committee recommends that any appeal process should be both expeditious
and reasonable.
The committee suggested there should be a "fee" for filing appeals which
go only to the hearing exaniner. The fee should consist of a reasonable
portion of the total cost for this appeal process. it was suggested $75-100.
BAILEY P".OVED to make the letter part of the record,
White seconded. :notion carried . In response to
Bailey ' s questions , Harris noted that the recent
meeting with the Chamber of Commerce had gone very
well and there was no problem with the suggestions
made. Responding to a further question, Harris
noted that he could see no problem with the con-
sultant selection issue at this point but that the
matter could be discussed at the next workshop
session. Harris further clarified for Kelleher
that in most instances the Chamber was going along
with the City' s recommendations with regard to the
7 -
September 17, 1984
STATE threshold exemption levels . There were no further
ENVIRONMENTAL comments and BAILEY MOVED to close the public
POLICY ACT hearing, [woods seconded. Motion carried. BAILEY
MOVED that the matter be referred to the workshop
of September 24 , 1984 , Woods seconded. Motion
carried.
STREETS LID 304 - Smith Street Improvements , 4th to Lincoln.
The date has been set for a public hearing on the
confirmation of the Final Assessment doll for LID
304 . The Final Assessment Roll totals $596, 988 . 48 .
The City Clerk has given the proper legal notice
to property owners . Wickstrom described the project
as full improvement of Smith Street from 4th Avenue
to Lincoln, consisting of water main stubs , storm
drainage, undergrounding, street lighting and
landscaping. The same improvements were made on
Lincoln Avenue from Smith Street to a point 385 feet
north. He further noted that the portion of Lincoln
from Smith to Meeker and the sewer rebuild and water
main extension on Smith were not included in the
assessments , and that these were funded by the City.
Wickstrom noted that. the LID was formed in August,
1980 with Protests totalling 370. He pointed out
that the property owners had asked that this be
made a 15 year LID and explained the methods of
payment.
The public hearing was declared open by Mayor Hogan.
The City Clerk reported that letters of protest
had been received today from the following: Jakk
Roberson of Bowl Investments , Charlie T. Perkins ,
Miles Drake and Joan Nussli . Andy Padvorac of
Puget Power then submitted a letter. All of the
letters were distributed to the Council and to staff
and were filed for the record, by motion.
Miles Drake stated that his property, assessed at
$5, 187 . 10 was used. as a residence , and opined that the
improvement of a street to an arterial was of no
value to residential property. He noted that due
to the increase in traffic, the driveway was now
too dangerous to be of use to the tenant. He stated
that the residents on Willis Street had not been
assessed for that improvement.
8 -
i
Sentember 17 , 1984
I
STREETS Andy Padvorac stated that Puget Power had protested
the project from its inception. He noted that Puget ' s
property is a right-of-way and is further encumbered
by the Interurban Trail , the Olympic Pipeline and
a drainage ditch, which reduced the value
of the property by 800 . The assessment is for
$32 , 663 . 41 , and Padvorac noted that Puget would be
willing to pay 200 of this amount. An appraisal
of the property was submitted with the letter.
Padvorac noted that it appeared that the assessment
on Lot 14 had been reduced due to the encumbrance
of the railroad tracks .
Charlie Perkins noted that his assessment was
$27 , 079 . 24 and submitted a Valuation Change Notice
from King_ County, showing that the value of his
property had increased only $19 , 100. 00. He asked
that the assessment be reduced by the difference,
$7 , 979 . 24 .
Jakk Roberson stated that prior to the improvement,
he could have built on the southeast corner of
Lincoln and Smith, a 7400 sq. ft. building, with
parking for 37 cars and with three sites for ingress
and egress . After the improvement, only a 5600 sq. ft.
building could be built with parking for 28 cars
with ingress and egress at only two places. He
contended that the project was detrimental to his
property. Upon Bailey ' s auestion , Roberson noted
that he had received some compensation from the
city. Joan Nussli referred to Assessment No. 17
in the amount of $13 , 523 . 17 noting that the assess-
ment was more than the property cost, and that a
warehouse type business existed on this 8 ,989 sa. ft.
lot.
After all who wished to speak had done so, Bailey
suggested that the hearing be continued to allow
time to evaluate the protests . Wickstrom noted
that this would reruire appraisals and sufficient
time should be allowed. BAILEY MOVED to continue
the hearing to the October 15 , 1984 meeting. White
seconded and the motion carried.
9 -
September 17 , 1984
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C)
LID 307 - 180th Street Improvements/LID 311
130th Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements . AUTHORI-
ZATION to set October 15 as the date for the public
hearing on the confirmation of Final Assessment Rolls
for LID 307 and LID 311 .
LID 317 - 45th Place South. This project was re-
advertised and the bid opening was on September 11
with two bids received . It is recommended that the
low bid of $27 , 490 from Universal Utility Contractors
be accepted . KELLEHER SO MOVED, Bailev seconded
and the motion carried .
CONSENT KELLEHER MOVED that the Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through F be approved, Biteman seconded . Motion
carried .
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A)
Apz)roval of minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of September 4, 1984 .
HATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D)
Impoundment Reservoir Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for
Mayor to sign a lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs .
Holland Kinsey, Jr. for use of a portion of the
Impoundment Reservoir propertv at 29910 118th
Avenue S .E. It was determined for Biteman that
the property would be used for the Kinsey ' s livestock.
MOBILE Silent Meadows Mobile Home Park Combining District
HOME PARK No. CD-MHP-83-1 . On September 4 , 1984 the Council
COMBINING set September 17 , 1984 as the date for public hear-
DISTRICT ing to consider the approval of. the Silent Meadows
Mobile Home Park Combining District for the purpose
of constructing an eiahty-eight unit mobile home
park located east of the Valley Freeway, north of
South 212th, and south of 208th. The Hearina
Examiner has recommended approval with conditions .
The Mayor opened the public hearing . The Clerk
noted that no correspondence had been received.
JOHNSON MOVED to close the public hearing . 1-loods
seconded. A4otion carried . KFLLEHEP MOVED to
approve the Silent Meadows Mobile Home Park Combining
District with the conditions recommended by the
Hearing Examiner, Biteman seconded. Motion carried.
10 -
i
September 17 , 1984
I
FINAL PLAT Northwest Business Park I - Final Plat No. SU-83-1 .
On September 4 , 198A the City Council set September
17 , 1984 as the date to consider the Northwest
Business Park I Final Plat. This plat has been
signed by the Public T,lorks Director and the Planning
Director . To complv with the subdivision ordinance
regulations , a meeting must now be held by the City
Council to approve, disapprove or return the plat
to the applicant for modification or correction.
KELLEHER MOVED that the Northwest Business Park I
Final Plat be accepted with the conditions as
modified:
1. The applicant shall dedicate Tracts A, B, and C as shown on the
preliminary plat drawing to the City for storm drainage purposes.
2. The applicant shall enter into a no-protest LID covenant for the
construction of the North/South Drainage Channel and Detention
facility known as LID W306 and a no-protest LID covenant for the
construction of the P1 and P2 Valley Drainage Channel project
also known as the SCS Eastside Green River Watershed Project.
3. The applicant shall construct all streets and street improvements
as shown on plans approved by the City Engineer August 15, 1983.
Improvements shall include bicycle lanes on both sides of 54th
Avenue S. The applicant may elect to post a bond with the City
for construction of these improvements.
4. Landscape maintenance agreements between properties located adjacent
to street landscape medians and the City shall be recorded within
six (6) months of the recording of the final plat. Payment of
irrigation costs shall be included in the maintenance agreements.
5. The applicant shall enter into agreements with the City for the
construction, operation and maintenance of all railroad grade
crossings, including the signalization equipment, safety devices,
and related equipment. This agreement must be executed prior to
City approval of any railroad crossing on any street.
6. All necessary easements for water, sewer and other improvements
including a 30 foot storm drainage easement across the Puget
Power right of way as shown on p. 15 of construction drawings
(dated August 15, 1983) shall be granted to the City.
7. The applicant shall deed to the City the property required for the
storm detention pond as shown on sheets 15 and 16 of the construction
drawings (dated August 15, 1983) and approved by the City.
8. The final location of rail lines shall be determined prior to sub-
mittal of final plat.
Woods seconded. Motion carried.
- 11 -
September 17 , 1984
STREET Vacation of Portion of 80th Place So. At the re-
VACATION quest of Burlington Northern Railroad and Mannesmann-
Tally, a public hearing was held on September 4 , to
consider vacating a portion of 80th Place S. The
Planning Department has recommended approval of
the vacation with the following conditions:
1 . The City shall retain a utility easement on
that portion of 80th Place S . to be vacated,
the location to be determined by the Public
Works Department.
2 . The City shall. he compensated for one-half
the appraised value of that portion of the
street to be vacated. (80th Place S. is
classified as a Class B street under Ordi-
nance 2333 . )
Action on the vacation was delaved to this meeting
to allow time for the Public Works Director to
supply further information regarding Condition
No. 2 . Wickstrom explained that under the ordi-
nance, compensation is recruired and the only
option the City has is to accept property of
equal value in lieu of cash. He noted that
although Mr. Scholes had asked that the compensa-
tion be waived, that there was no provision for
this in the ordinance. KELLEHER MOVED to approve
the vacation and for the City Attorney to draft
the ordinance after the applicants have met the
conditions as proposed. Woods seconded. Mr.
Scholes stated that he thought that since the
applicant had dedicated property for the construction
of the new street for Norpac III Plat, that the
City could waive the compensation for the vacation
of the old abandoned portion of 80th Place S . He
noted that he had talked to the City Attorney,
who had been most helpful and had explained the
intent of the ordinance. Motion carried.
ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E)
Moore Annexation. AUTHORIZATION to set the October
8 workshop as the date to meet with the initiators
of the Moore annexation . The ten percent petition
has been received, and the Property Manager has
validated the signatures.
12 -
i
September 17 , 1984
HOUSING & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F)
COMMUNITY H & CD King Countv Block Grant Consortium Interlocal
DEVELOPMENT Cooperation Agreement (1985-1987) . AUTHORIZATION
for the ravor to sign the agreement with King
Countv under which Kent will continue to be part
of the King County Block Grant Consortium through
1987 .
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B)
Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through September 18 after auditing by the
Finance Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on
September 28 .
COUNCIL Public Works & Planning. Kelleher noted that the
COMMITTEES committee would meet on Wednesdav, September 19 at
3 : 30 p.m. in the 3rd floor conference room.
Parks Committee . Bailey noted that the committee
would meet on the 27th at 4 : 00 p.m. at which time
Raul Ramos N,Jill make a presentation.
Administrative Reports . Webby reminded staff and
Council that a basketball came was scheduled for
September 29 , with a practice session scheduled
for September 25.
Mayor Hogan noted that at the next workshop a date
would be set to tour the Valley General Hospital
facilities and have breakfast with staff members .
PLANNING Harris presented a copy of the new Community Profile
DEPARTMENT compiled by the Planning Department, for which Sarah
Stiteler has been responsible. The project was
financed by a grant, and will be updated next year.
Jim Hansen asked about a cover letter to be distributed
with the brochure .
POLICE DiJulio noted that the city had received a grant
today of $8 , 418 . 27 for DT^7I Impact Advisory Committee
purposes . He noted that the funds would be used
to hire a part time Assistant City Attorney to
monitor and assist in DWI enforcement. BAILEY
MOVED to accept the grant. white seconded and the
motion carried.
- 13 -
September 17 , 1984
ADJOURNMENT KELLEHER MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at
9 . 22 p.m. , Tloods seconded . Motion carried.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
- 14 -