Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/16/2002
City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda 42 KEN T WASHINGTON '' Yx Sr�F 4 F Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Tim Clark, Council President s Connie Epperly Bruce White Leona Orr Judy Woods Julie Peterson RicoYingling July 16, 2002 Office of the City Clerk a SUMMARY AGENDA ` 140 KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING `� KENT July 16, 2002 W A S H I N O T O N Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Tim Clark, President Connie Epperly Leona Orr Julie Peterson Judy Woods Bruce White Rico Yingling 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS -5 rn f'vr (t&n k-e Loss A. Proclamation—National Night Out .3! 2002 AWC Municipal Achievement Merit Awards — f3• I t4tye tD / '�--r 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills—Approval C. King County Flood Control District Interlocal Agreement—Authorize D. S. 228th Street Corridor Noise Abatement Wall—Autb zeDesign E. Street Vacation, Smith Street and Thompson Street Res ution Setting ti Hearing Date F. Microsoft Software Purchases—Authorize G. Desktop PC Replacement Plan 2002—Authorize H. Lodging Tax Budget Change and Contract Amendment—Authorize I. Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium Interlocal Agreement Amendment—Authorize J. Parks Fee-in-Lieu of Revenue Budget Transfer—Approve K. King County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application—Authorize L. Park/Facility Naming Policy—Authorize PO 1 1P1. M. Service Club Ball Field Donation—Accept and Amend Budget N. Public Health of Seattle and King County Grant—Accept O. Local Law Enforcement Block A lication—Authorize _ P. Agricultural Lands Amendm Or ' ce—Authorize !" Q. Kent Station Planned Actio4 Ordinimce—Adopt 3(on$ R. New Years 2002 Fireworks biti —Adopt 3bo°l S. Permanent New Years Fireworks Prohi itio ce—Adopt ��10 P olontinued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED of 7. OTHER BUSINESS 3 A. Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 200 Once and Bond Purchase B cot—Adopt and Authorize 8. BIDS A. 2002 Traffic Striping—Award Contract 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. CtONT ub i D COi4� LJ1VC ATION Zug 12. EXECUTNE SESkkSION None 13. ADJOURNMENT v V NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us. An explanation of the agenda format is.given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability aoc p"odation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at (253)856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Waslrington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC • PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) PROCLAMATION-NATIONAL NIGHT OUT B) 2002 AWC MUNICIPAL ACHIEVEMENT MERIT AWARDS CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action Councilmember QAA) moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through/.T w Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 2, 2002 6B Approval of Bills Approval of payment of the bills received through June 30 and paid on June 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on July 2, 2002. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/30/02 Wire Transfers 1203-1212 $ 990,967.18 6/30/02 Prepays & 535098 1,586,262.61 6/30/02 Regular 535738 1,959,395.73 $4,536,625.52 Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 1 through June 15 and paid on June 20, 2002 Date Check Numbers Amount 6/20/02 Checks 261081-261427 $ 268,954 26 6/20/02 Advices 130320-131006 1,158,372 06 $1,427,326.32 Approval of checks issued for Qa roll for June 16 through June 30 and paid on July 5, 2002: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/5/02 Checks 261428-261818 $ 278,468.19 7/5/02 Advices 131007-131755 1,105,49613 $1,383,964.32 Council Agenda Item No 6 A-B KEN T Kent, Washington July 2 , 2002 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m by Mayor White . Councilmembers present : Clark, Epperly, Orr, Peterson, White, and Yingling Others present : Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Brubaker, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Community Development Director Satterstrom, Finance Director Miller, Police Chief Crawford, Parks , Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson, Fire Chief Schneider, Information Technology Director Mulholland, and Employee Services Director Viseth Councilmember Woods was excused. Approximately 40 people were in attendance . (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA From Council, Administration or Staff. Martin requested that two attachments which have been distributed to Councilmembers be included with the material in Consent Calendar Item 6J, Meridian Ridge Division I Final Plat There was no objection and it was so ordered. (CFN-198) Mayor White added Confirmation of Appointments to the Consent Calendar as Item 6L. (CFN-198) From the Public . Russ Hanscom requested that Consent Calendar Item 6F, East Hill Skate Park Budget, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion (CFN-198) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor White noted that Lyle Bush, Storm Facilities Inspector, has been chosen as Employee of the Month for July. He explained that in 1997 a new law mandated a drainage inspection program be implemented by the City, and since Lyle was the ideal candidate, he would be starting all over after a successful, positive career with the City spanning over twenty years He added that Lyle has done this with great success, and that his efforts have enhanced the Drainage Inspection Program and improved water quality for Kent and the surrounding community (CFN-147) Recreation and Parks Month. Mayor White read a pro- clamation stating that community recreation and leisure opportunities create socially beneficial connections between individuals, groups and communities, and that parks and recreation services contribute to the overall quality of life of a community He declared July 2002 as Recreation and Parks Month in the City of Kent and called 1 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS upon citizens to recognize the benefits derived from quality public and private recreation and park resources at the local level Hodgson accepted the proclamation and invited citizens to participate in the many summer events, and noted that parks and recreation brings economic benefits to the community. (CFN-155) Bicycle Advisory Board. David Hoffman stated that the non-motorized improvements on Meeker Street between West Valley Highway and 64th Avenue South are very effective He said the bicycle lanes provide the means to enable cyclists to transit safely, efficiently and lawfully and they help cyclists to use the technique that is compati- ble with other users of the right-of-way. He pointed out that Meeker Street is important to the cycling public because it is the most energy-efficient connection between West Hill residential areas and downtown destina- tions He commended City personnel who were involved in this pro] ect and said the Meeker Street bike lanes are a valuable asset to the City, and their value will increase in the future. Mayor White expressed appreciation to the Board for their work. (CFN-997) Introduction of Appointees . Mayor White announced that he has appointed Ray Coleman to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board and Rod Saalfeld to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission (CFN-198) CONSENT CALENDAR CLARK MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L, with the exception of Item F and including the amendments (attachments) to Item J. Orr seconded and the motion carried MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) (CFN-198) Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of June 18 , 2002 . SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM SA) (CFN-239) Sale of Surplus Water Equipment. The City owns certain water equipment which the Public Works Director has 2 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 SURPLUS EQUIPMENT determined is no longer needed as part of the water system. It consists of approximately 400 used water meters and 2, 000 pounds of brass and copper scrap pipe, fittings and other materials State law requires that the City hold a public hearing to receive public comment before determining whether this public utility equipment is surplus to the City ' s needs and should be sold by public bid The Mayor opened the public hearing There were no com- ments from the audience and CLARK MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried ORR MOVED to pass Resolution No 1621 which declares certain water system utility equipment surplus and authorizes its sale to the highest bidder at public bid Clark seconded and the motion carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) (CFN-1126) Transition of Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Employee to Police Department. Authorization to transition the office manager position from Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team grant budget (N00101) to Police Drug Task Force budget (N00045) , to retain the current employee as a Kent Police Department employee when the financial management of VNET grant moves to Tukwila, and to establish budget documents as required. The employee is currently a City of Kent employee paid with existing VNET grant funds Tukwila will reimburse the City of Kent in full for the position from the grant when the new grant period starts 7/01/02 , the requested transition date . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (CFN-122) Community Oriented Policing Services in Schools Office of Justice Grant. Authorization to accept the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) in Schools Grant in the amount of $125, 000 and to establish budget docu- ments as required. This grant would allow one additional Safety Education Officer (SEO) in the Kent and Federal Way elementary and middle schools located in Kent . Currently one SEO is working in six elementary schools 3 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) (CFN-171) S. 196th Street Corridor Middle Leg. Accept the South 196th Street Corridor - Middle Leg project as complete and release the retainage to Scarsella Brothers upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Committee The original contract amount was $3 , 732 , 572 . 74 . The final contract amount was $4 , 677, 969 96 . Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover this overage . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) (CFN-171) Washington State Department of Transportation Grant, SR 99 . Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Washington State D.O.T. grant agreement in the amount of $86, 000 for participation in the preliminary engineering for the North Phase of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Project (S . 252nd Street to SR 516) , subject to the Public Works Director ' s concurrence of the language therein, and to establish a budget for same, as recommended by the Public Works Committee ASPHALT OVERLAY (BIDS - ITEM 8A) (CFN-103 ) 2002 Asphalt Overlays . The bid opening for this project was held on June 25th with four (4) bids received The low bid was submitted by Watson Asphalt Paving in the amount of $495, 212 .47 . The Engineer' s estimate was $483 , 210 . 75 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding schedules I , II , III , IV, V, X, XI and XII of this contract to Watson Asphalt Paving. ORR MOVED that the 2002 Asphalt Overlays contract, schedules I , II , III , IV, V, X, XI and XII be awarded to Watson Asphalt Paving in the amount of $495, 212 . 47 . Peterson seconded and the motion carried. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (BIDS - ITEM 8B) (CFN-117) Kent-Meridian High School Sidewalk Improvements. The bid opening for this project was held on June 25th with two bids received. The low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott Construction Co. in the amount of $309, 202 60 The Engineer' s estimate was $299, 737 00 The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to R W. Scott 4 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Construction Co ORR MOVED that the Kent-Meridian High School Sidewalk Improvements contract be awarded to R. W. Scott Construction Co . in the amount of $309, 202 . 60 Epperly seconded and the motion carried. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) (CFN-1196) Meridian Ridge Division I Final Plat (FSU-98-8/KIVA #2020753) . Approval of the Hearing Examiner ' s condi- tional approval of the Meridian Ridge Final Subdivision and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mvlar. The final plat application was submitted by Schneider Homes The Hearing Examiner issued his Findings , Conclusions, and Decision of the preliminary subdivision on January 20 , 1999 , and for a plat alteration December 7 , 2001 . PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) (CFN-118) (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 6F REMOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE AT THE REQUEST OF RUSS HANSCOM) East Hill Skate Park Budget. Russ Hanscom, Executive Director for Arbor Village Retirement and Assisted Living Community, 24121 116th Avenue SE, expressed concern about placing a skate park in front of the retirement com- munity. He said the $50 , 000 is to develop a plan for a park which the City does not have the money to build or maintain He said many residents of the retirement and assisted living community would be adversely affected by noise, the view, graffiti and traffic He proposed putting the skate park in another location and forming a public and private partnership to develop a senior park at the 116th and 240th location; he asked for a year to develop such a plan and obtain financing. Upon questions from Council members, Parks Director Hodgson explained the process for developing parks, noting that it includes a number of community meetings He said that not all the money would be spent before a decision is made as to the location of the skate park_ He also noted that there is currently a home on the 5 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES property with a two-year lease, that the master plan and the community process will have taken place before the lease expires, and that the project would be ready to go out for bid when the lease expires . He explained that it has taken three years to find this location for a skate park, and that if the location is changed, probably not all the money would be spent wisely, but the majority would. He opined that it would be best to spend the money to have a professional consultant in attendance at the community meetings, and that remanding the issue back to the Parks Committee would not be of value. Epperly noted that when the Parks Committee approved an East Hill skate park, it was not site specific She pointed out that the action requested tonight is to move money into an account to provide an East Hill skate park at an undetermined site She was not in favor of remand- ing the issue back to the Parks Committee . Orr noted for Peterson that the community meetings will help solve many of the issues . Yingling expressed complete trust in Parks Director Hodgson White noted that he plans to attend the community meetings and urged Council members to approve this item, understanding that it is not site, specific EPPERLY MOVED to transfer $50 , 000 from the Capital Fund of the Youth/Teen utility tax to the East Hill Skate Park budget for architectural and engineering services, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. White seconded and the motion carried. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) (CFN-1155) Network Backbone Replacement. Approval of the City Network Backbone Replacement equipment and related services purchases, and authorization for the Mayor, subject to the City Attorney' s approval of final terms and conditions, to sign the agreements necessary to • (1) Purchase Cisco equipment from the State DIS contract , (2) Purchase implementation assistance from NEC Business Network Solutions; and (3) Purchase ongoing annual maintenance directly from Cisco. 6 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) (CFN-104) Councilnianic Bonds (LTGO) for 2002 . Authorization to approve a consolidated Bond Ordinance for the issuance of $13 , 600, 000, plus issuance costs, to provide transportation improvements; East Hill park development; technology; campus expansion and renovation; as well as moving the Kent Station Project forward for the public purpose infrastructure and public purpose land costs , as recommended by the Operations Committee at their June 18 , 2002 meeting. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 613) (CFN-104) Approval of Bills Approval of payment of the bills received through June 15 and paid on June 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on June 18 , 2002 Approval of checks issued for vouchers . ➢ate Check Numbers Amount 6/15/02 Wire Transfers 1193 -1202 $1, 169, 819 . 53 6/15/02 Prepays & 534578 326, 860 33 6/15/02 Regular 535097 3 , 744 , 208 65 $5 , 240 , 888 . 51 APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) (CFN-1127&873) Appointments . Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of Mr. Ray Coleman to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board Mr Coleman is CEO of SKCAC Industries and will represent persons with disabilities . Mr. Coleman was employed with the King County Justice System for many years before accepting his current position. He is a long-time community activist . Mr. Coleman will replace Jennefer Henson, who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/2005 Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Mr. Rod Saalfeld to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission Mr Saalfeld has been associated with Bell- Anderson Insurance here in Kent since 1969 He is a long-time member of Kent Kiwanis, was active in the Kent 7 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 APPOINTMENTS Community Foundation and in earlier years was a member of Kent Jaycees . Mr. Saalfeld will replace Judi Sarff, who resigned, and his term will continue until 1/1/2003 . COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) (CFN-198) Excused Absence for Council Member Woods . Approval of an excused absence from tonight ' s meeting for Councilmember Woods, who is unable to attend. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) (CFN-198) Special Council Meeting on August 6th, National Night Out. On August 6 , 2002 , the City of Kent, along with other cities all across the country, will recognize "National Night Out" , an event designed to bring neighborhoods together for the purpose of community enhancement and crime prevention The Police Department , the City Council and the Mayor also take this opportunity to thank the citizens who make this neighborhood crime prevention work. In order to attend this event , the Council will change its regular meeting time from 7 : 00 p .m. on August 6, 2002 , to a special meeting at 5 00 p m. on that same day. CLARK MOVED to cancel the regular City Council meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. on August 6, 2002 , to set a special Council meeting at 5 : 00 p.m. on August 6 , and to direct the City Clerk to provide the necessary notices, as provided by law, and to finalize the agenda for the special meeting no later than close of business, Thursday, August 1 , 2002 . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. It was clarified that there will not be a Council workshop that night, and that the Operations Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p .m. that day. REPORTS Operations Committee . Yingling noted that the next meeting will be held at 4 : 00 p .m. on July 16 (CFN-198) Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 . 00 p m on July 9 (CFN-198) Public Works Committee. Orr noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 00 p.m on July 15 (CFN-198) 8 Kent City Council Minutes July 2 , 2002 REPORTS Planning Committee. Orr noted that the Planning Committee will hold meetings on July 9 at 2 : 00 p m and on July 16 at 3 00 p m. (CFN-198) Administrative Reports . Martin noted an Executive Session to be held on contract negotiations, that it should take approximately 15 minutes, and that action may be taken when the meeting reconvenes . (CFN-198 ) EXECUTIVE SESSION The regular meeting recessed into executive session at 7 :48 p.m. and reconvened at B 06 p .m (CFN-198) Labor Negotiations . EPPERLY MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign a three-year collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1747, Fire Fighters Unit, effective January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004 Clark seconded and the motion carried Martin commended Anh Hoang for her work in these negotiations (CFN-122) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adDourned at 8 . 06 p.m. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacobe , CMC City Clerk 9 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar I. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This interlocal agreement provides for the continued support for the flood hazard reduction, flood warning and emergency response embodied in the Green River Basin Program. The term of the agreement is for ten years. The citizens of Kent and the business community have benefited substantially from this program by the high level of risk reduction provided. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum & agreement 4 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: S SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION. ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 6C PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom,P E Public Works Director • KENT Phone Fax 253-856 6500 WASHINOTON Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date July 1, 2002 To Public Works Committee From Don Wickstrom, P E Subject. King County Flood Control District Interlocal Agreement The Green River Flood Control Zone District was formed in 1960 and activated in 1978 upon the initial signing of the Interlocal agreement The purpose of the Distnct at that time was the maintenance and operation of the Black River and Tukwila Pump Stations and the maintenance of the Green River levee system The District includes portions of unincorporated King Dounty and portions of the cities of Auburn,Kent, Renton and Tukwila A total assessed valuation of S15 86 billion(2001)is protected by the flood levee system maintained by the District The Green River Flood Control Zone District is a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Washington and independent taxing district, authorized by Chapter 86.15 RCW The source of funding is an ad valorem tax levy on all properties within the District's boundaries The District levy rate in 2001 was 0 05205 cents per$1,000 of assessed valuation Additional federal and state funding, grants and disaster assistance funding are pursued to the maximum extent to fund the flood protection program This interlocal agreement provides for the continued support for the flood hazard reduction, flood warning and emergency response embodied in the Green River Basm Program The terms of the agreement is for ten years The citizens of Kent and the business community have benefited substantially from this program by the high level of risk reduction provided MOTION Recommend Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement for the Administration of the Green River Flood Control Zone District PWCGreenRiverAgmt 6f INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR 0.2 THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapters 86 15 and 39 34 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), by and between the municipal county and city governments signing this Agreement, that are located in King County lying wholly or partially within those areas of the lower Green River watershed that are within the boundaries of the Green River Flood Control Zone District as shown in Appendix A (collectively the "Parties") The Parties share interests and responsibility for addressing flood hazard reduction planning, river facility project construction and repair, and maintenance and operation of critical flood protection facilities within the lower Green River watershed, and wish to provide for planning, funding and implementation of programs, activities and projects therein The Parties have actively participated in these interests and responsibilities through the Green River Basin Program since its inception in 1978 In addition, in 1990 the Parties pledged their support for activation of the Green River Flood Control Zone District by King County It is the purpose of this Agreement to extend and renew the principles embodied in the 1985 Green River Management Agreement and 1992 Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement in order to provide a coordinated program for achieving the goals contained in these two agreements The Parties further agree that flood hazard reduction, flood warning and emergency response, and integrated resource management is best achieved throughout the approximately 68 square miles of the lower Green River basin through multi-jurisdictional coordination as provided for in this Agreement The Green River Flood Control Zone District is a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Washington, authorized by Chapter 86,15 RCW, which provides a permanent and reliable regional funding source to accomplish the following purposes to repair and maintain flood protection facilities, to operate and maintain pump stations in the lower Green River watershed, to implement King County's comprehensive flood hazard reduction plan for the Green River Flood Control Zone District, and to coordinate with federal, state and other local agencies for • June 2002 Page 1 of 17 uAMrlMrmAVtweed 4 C`e,UnctQ �� ilb'6 GuLid'elines for r I.L. Bank StabLifization • jects in _ Riverine Env 7 ironments of King County Or ♦d s Of . . i � . AV w Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 SUBJECT: S. 228TH STREET CORRIDOR NOISE ABATEMENT WALL— AUTHORIZE DESIGN 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by Public Works Committee, authorization to direct staff to include the design and construction of a noise abatement wall in conjunction with the 228th Corridor project. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5 UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION- ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 6D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wrckstrom,P E Public Works Director KENT Phone Fax 253-856-6500 WASH IN OTON Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 96032-5895 Date: July 1, 2002 To. Public Works Committee From Don Wrckstrom,Public Works Director Regarding South 228th Street Extension Project-Noise Wall Public Meeting As directed by Council during its December 11th, 2001 meeting, (excerpt of Council minutes attached) the Engineering Department completed the preliminary design of a noise abatement wall which was to run along the north side of The Lakes residential development and met with the affected residences As you are aware, the purpose of the wall is to mitigate noise impacts to the first floor living areas of those homes bordering S 228th Street While mitigation is not required by local ordinance, in light of the concern raised at the December public meeting, it was felt that some level of mitigation should be pursued and it's the Public Works Director's recommendation that we proceed and construct same in conjunction with the construction of the 2281h Street Comdor project The preliminary cost estimates for the proposed 6-8 foot high noise wall are in the $500,000 to $700,000 range As indicated, a public meeting for residents of The Lakes and other interested parties was held (June 13, 2002 from 4 00-7 00 PM in the City Council Chambers) At said meeting, staff reviewed with the residents the proposed noise mitigation measures and took comments and input thereon Approximately 20-25 residents attended the meeting Those residents attending were in favor of noise walls, and reported that their neighbors are in favor of them as well The existing design would end at approximately Russell Road Two to three residents living West of the proposed termini requested that the wall be extended further west This would require an additional several hundred feet of noise wall and additional study to determine whether it would have any benefit This is a design detail that can be determined after Council directs staff to proceed and after further study, as to its affectiveness Other concerns included associated landscaping, the exact location of the wall, and several attendees came to discuss bicycle facilities MOTION Recommend to full Council to direct staff to design and construct the noise abatement wall in conjunction with the 228`n Corridor project 228thWa11 Project Number 97-3007E Kent City Council Minutes December 11, 2001 TRAFFIC CONTROL Mullen noted that cut-through traffic could be addressed through a neighborhood traffic control program. He reiterated that it is not feasible to widen Meeker because a new bridge cannot be built there. He noted that the traffic problem on Meeker will be helped by the 228th corridor. City Engineer Gary Gill noted that there is already both residential and industrial in the valley and explained that the city does not control the construction timing of private developers . CLARK MOVE➢ to approve the South 228th Street Corridor Extension project, to select Alternative A for the project, along with identified mitigation for this alternative as set forth in the EIS, and to direct the Public Works Department to proceed with design and implementation of the project, including additional design for noise control for further Council considera- tion. Woods seconded. Clark thanked those in attendance and explained the road project process, including the Growth Management Act, funding, restrictions and safety factors . He reiterated that this project has been coming for fifteen years, and that it has been worked on annually. Orr noted that The Lakes would not exist if it weren ' t for this project, and that the impact has been planned for the past fifteen years . She added that residents bought the homes antici- pating that in a short period of time there would be improved access, making their homes even more desirable . Brotherton stated that the city does not have to mitigate noise, but that it should, and that this project helps more people than it hurts . Woods said it is painful to make decisions such as this, but that there are no other options. Clark' s motion to approve the South 228th Street Corridor Extension project then carried. Later in the meeting ORR MOVED to add the materials received tonight to the public record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION, SMITH STREET AND THOMPSON STREET —RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by Public Works Committee, authorization of the adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date of August 20th for the street vacation located along a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Street. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, vicinity map, petition and resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee • (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5 UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 6E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom, P E Pubhc Works Director K EN T Phone Fax 253-856-6500 Ww5.1nOTOn Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date : July 1, 2002 To : Pub Works Committee From: Don Wtckstrom, Public Works Director Sub3ect : Street Vacation - Smith Street & Thompson Street we have received a valid petition to vacate a portion of Smith St . and Thompson St . In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held. The Public Works Department recommends adoption of a resolution setting the public hearing date . MOTION: Recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date of August 20th for the street vacation located along a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Street . stvacation RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of a portion of Smith Street and Thompson, lying between the northerly production of the west line of Lot 11 in Block A in Meeker's supplemental plat first addition, in volume 5, page 96, produced to the north line of said Snuth Street, and the west of the west line of SR 167, and also that portion of Thompson Street, lying within said plat lying north of the easterly production of the south line of Lot 15 in said Block "A" produced to the east line of said Thompson Street in King County, and setting the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for August 20, 2002. WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Attachment 1, has been filed by Still Manor Kent, LLC to vacate a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Street, a deeded street legally described in Attachment 1, in King County, Washington, and WHEREAS, the petition is signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of the real property abutting that portion of Smith Street and Thompson Street to be vacated, and WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS 1 Street vacation — Smith Street and Thompson Street SECTION 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting the vacation of a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Street shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7 00 p in, Tuesday, August 20, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Ch 35 79 RCW SECTION 3. The Planning Manager shall obtain any other necessary information from appropriate departments and shall transmit the information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 20, 2002 PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of July, 2002 CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of July, 2002 JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Street Vacation — Smrth Street and Thompson Street APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 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, on the day of July, 2002 (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Street Vacation — Smith Street and Thompson Street `L KENT was" oiow Mayor Jim White K[VAM: ZDL�B`I� MAIL TO:, APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT NAM LL.G Property Management 220 S.0 Avenue ADDRESS: 7Ao Kent,Washington 98032 �� 1 Aim. Jerry McCaughan Aex /, dfl,4 9P'DrL PHONE: 253 SZf 9 9f7r STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION Dear Mayor and Kent City Council We,the undersigned abutting property owners,hereby respectfully request that certain Tl,..,xeo, s%%,r —<hereby be vacated Legal Description of Street/Alley Sought to be Vacated (Must Contain Total Square Feet of Area Sought To Be Vacated) BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT SEE yfTRcHEO� A"CCIRRENT'title report must be submitted with this application that covers all the abutting properties contiguous to alley or street sought to be vacated When Corporations, Partnerships, etc are being signed for, and then proof of individual's authority to sign for same shall also be submitted Attach a color-coded map of a scale of not less than 1"=200'of the area sought for vacation (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal dsenption. ABUTTING 29OPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT# SIG ES LOT,BLOCK&PLATISEC.TOWN.RG �y3G.2o -o�sD o � FRR /i ccK 5150 00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No Land Value Paid Treasurer's Receipt No Deed Accepted Date Wade Accepted Date 5 V'rupmy Manaaenrnl{Vacalwn A,d. h *4 Te 1 nc u u - a9o.a �2e •dam rzo r �2i :gin � 'u� 1l`J y D� l 7 y ` 0• IM I � ,}1'7 \ aY \\1•, �� y b+ ` t91 LG t61.26 IGI i6 IDE ^ p s ++ o xc v o I� I j'� I rtv Ales, _ N I r2 0,4 N r+ do ~ y Iw 7' 2t w ZIP —� ZO 0 N e I s cr- 0.947 P,C = o.7>t6 078 AC •7 7At- N O 7, o oA;9 � At471, pµoD 113 ,J4D o b°� SL 0 8. y -... 2 0 1 l 159 ° ^�OV SM s _ aLsa4.1r rrs• G i a3 16e 70 L 124 30 3e 1 7- r3 4 IS 6 7 a r to It IL 13 14 IS ,r 2 ' 3 4 5 6 m G f` • i po D /-I rSt S c- GY .7sn 9gsG oy�D `c° qy �9� 95p 0, 4 ar rr o A, (n 3 ` 4 j0 r� 0\D a 0I G°oo 1 af 7 Gt )A 1> 30 29 S�" 27 26 25 2+ 23 ii -Z 20 19 I♦! 17 16 t\•�I ti�G 17 16 I IS I} 13 al r 30 Le tO 30 P / B 30 PC� I-IARR190N ST. }-i a„7/ t7•r 3C [3oPv) % 71� 3o , 30 1 0 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 101 I l l2 13 14 is L ] 4 3 6 3e 3, ti ) n 1 I4 b •• O 9) , D"qOp ai i Ef• =14 7 lot n w �• Big t8 27 26 z5 24 2! 22 tl 2C 19 1 ! 17 16 79ja 11 /{� ) If , I• IS 11 • r Y l �J��3O IAd \ taro ejw -- 70 /� \ A 30 h irroeP°..r/�� ,c.•••6 7oerso, 7 r >inrs•w° reQe�7- 7 �B D I D Z d{ �. D-j r � D=GMEEKER ST o-3z ��ossro+.+ - ar�>.s»wx EXFIIBIT "A" U �c JUN 2 1 2002 C/7y CITy�OrF KENT THAT PORTION OF SMITH STREET LYING BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY-LEAK PRODUCTION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT ELEVEN IN BLOCK "A" IN MEEKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT FIRST ADDITION TO KENT, IN VOLUME 5 PAGE 96, PRODUCED TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SMITH STREET, AND WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF SR 167, AND ALSO THAT PORTION OF THOMPSON STREET LYING WITHIN SAID PLAT LYING NORTH OF THE EASTELY PRODUCTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 15 IN SAID BLOCK"A" PRODUCED TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET NEW ?Ist ORIZONS Century Lc Still Manor Kent, LLC 320 Washington Avenue,North Kent, WA 98032 Ph- 25315688978 6/20/02 ( Ng 0 11 Un g J l�� City of Kent �VIY 2 1 2002 400 W Gowe CIT-Y Or` ARK Kent, WA 98032 C11y T Subject Street Vacation To Whom It May Concern We have requested a partial street vacation for the intersection of Smith and Thompson streets. All access to the portion of these streets we are requesting to be vacated only enter or encroach on our project In May 2002 we purchased the Skyview Apartments, which are now apart of our overall project and will have no need to include a separate access We also purchased Dr Harmon's land so that there will be an access form Smith street to Harrison street without requiring a turn-around In addition, we have asked the State to vacate their land along Thompson Street and plan to landscape that land all the way to Meeker Street Our goal is to be a contributing asset to the new City landscape and infrastructure We appreciate your considerations Sincerely, John Still Family Representative L&-=(90Z) XVd 00"-WE(90t) • ZZIa6 VA1 `caizwds- ow -ar 3AV auisa IV-I 0a g7-,aT HJl1V .4naunw QLV-J 1&UIJIw-, 6 `.�� 'r''ir FLCY!YM AYM'IVlif ZCOBB YML(3M t i • rU �� m9 aioc mxa 1331fiS Nll'16 1S3M Sf01 ---- [ " i =E�nz O171N3)I HONVW 1715 - swamM31 a �U V a l -- --_—_ fa3a15 NOSIaaVll I TTTTTT I r1 ! ilk �9 I - I ° l � I� --- 1 WO I ® ®1 I ® �®'I ® uy01 1 0190090006 - - ® 00080066 �' I Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar I. SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SOFTWARE PURCHASES—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign purchase agreements necessary to, Purchase Microsoft Upgrade Advantage licenses from Insight Direct USA; and Purchase Microsoft Software Assurance licenses from Washington State DIS contract. The need to update the City's Microsoft software licenses was identified as part of Technology Plan 2002. Upgrades are planned for both the Office Suite and e-mail systems software Microsoft has altered purchasing programs and has eliminated a program that allowed us to purchase version upgrades at a reduced price. This purchase takes advantage of a government open licensing program that expires on July 30th The purchase includes upgrades and upgrade protection for Office Suite and e-mail system software licenses 3. EXHIBITS: Staff summary memo, request for quotes and quote results 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5 UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $161.247 SOURCE OF FUNDS. Technology Plan 2002 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ® ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F KENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2nd, 2002 TO: City Council Operations Committee FROM: Marty Mulholland,Director of LT _ I,6"." CC: Chris Beagle, Senior Network Specialist RE: Microsoft Software Purchases Background: Here is some general information about Microsoft software products Office Suite(Includes Word, Excel,PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access): Office 97 — Released in 1997, currently in use at the City Office 2000— We did not put this release into production at the City Office xp— Released in 2001—proposed for deployment in late 2002 E-mail System: Exchange 5 5 —Released in 1997, currently in use at the City Exchange 2000—Released in 2000 Note We plan to upgrade the e-mail system in 2003 after key network upgrades are completed Microsoft Upgrade Licensing Program Eliminated: In July 2001 Microsoft announced that it was discontinuing the version upgrade program, which the City has been using for many years to purchase software updates The elimination of this program is unfortunate because it provided us with significant cost savings July 30`h of this year is the deadline for entering alternate licensing programs for Microsoft software City staff members have spent significant hours researching and evaluating these alternatives in order to make a recommendation for Microsoft purchasing practices for the next three years Alternate programs are available to the City in January 2003, however the 2003 programs are more expensive and are not recommended Request for Quotes Issued Normally the City has purchased Microsoft software licenses from the Washington State D I S contract because of the volume pricing we receive However in order to achieve the best price plan for the future we issued a formal request for quotes to obtain pricing information for the upgrade advantage program using Microsoft Government Open Licensing This program is available only through July 2002 and provides some advantages that the state offerings do not provide Twelve quotes met our requirements The lowest costs for entering the upgrade advantage program for Microsoft Office Professional and for coverage of Exchange client access licenses came from a company called Insight Direct USA Recommended Purchase: Funding Source: Technology Plan 2002 As part of Technology Plan 2002, we proposed to update a number of our Microsoft software licenses This purchase represents the single largest expense toward meeting that goal The recommended solution involves a blend of licensing strategies We will upgrade some of our licenses using the Government Open Licensing program, and extend the life of other licenses by purchasing software assurance from the Washington State D I S. program The end result of these purchases will keep us in a good position with regard to future Microsoft products,but will cost significantly less than alternative programs Cost including Recommendation Tax $82,704 Purchase 325 Office xp professional licenses under the Upgrade Advantage program under Government Open Licensing This will provide two years of"upgrade protection"for 325 copies of the Office Suite (Full price for the same licenses if purchased after July 2002 would cost$107,077 ) Purchase from Insight Direct USA—lowest cost on competitive quote $42,809 Place 446 copies of Office xp on the Software Assurance Program This will provide"upgrade protection" for three years Purchase from Washington State D I S 535,734 Purchase 850 Exchange client access licenses Although the City does not plan to upgrade Exchange until 2003, this purchase costs less than what we would pay in 2003 at full price, and also provides us with "upgrade protection"for two years Purchase from Insight Direct USA— lowest cost on competitive uote $161,247 Total Attachments: • Request for Quote—issued June 10, 2002 • Quote Summary—Microsoft Government Open Licensing quote • Insight Direct USA—Quote for Microsoft software under Government Open License Council Motion: I move to recommend that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase agreements necessary to • Purchase Microsoft Upgrade Advantage licenses from Insight Direct USA, and • Purchase Microsoft Software Assurance licenses From Washington State DIS Contract ST w. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY QUOTE SPECIFICATIONS QUOTE FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE June 10, 2002 The City is considering purchase of Microsoft software through the Upgrade Advantage Government Open Licensing program. The City is evaluating Microsoft Office purchase options The purpose of this cost quote is to gather costs for Government Open Licensing purchases using the Upgrade Advantage program Only suppliers authonzed by Microsoft to sell government open licensing products will be considered No plea of mistake in the quote shall be available to the supplier as a defense to any action based upon the neglect or refusal to execute a contract No supplier may withdraw his/her quote for a period of 45 days after the date the quote is due The City of Kent reserves the right to reject any and all quotes, or waive any informalities in the process The City of Kent will award this contract to the lowest and best responsible supplier, based on that supplier's quote, and shall be the judge thereof Any clarifications or addendum will be provided to suppliers who have requested these quote specifications Software Currently Owned by the City(estimated) • 325 copies Office 97 Professional • 900 Exchange 5 5 Client Access Licenses General Information: City Contact Information. Chris Beagle, Senior Network Specialist 253-856-4600 cbeaoleCa a kent wa us Schedule of Events: Request for Quotes Issued June 10, 2002 Sealed Quotes Due to City Clerk June 21, 2002 - noon Notification to Apparently Successful Supplier June 25, 2002—5pm Approval by Kent City Council July 16, 2002 Formal Acceptance of Quote July 20, 2002 Vendor Submittal (format on next page) should be sent to: QUOTE FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE City Clerk 220 4`h Ave S Kent, WA 98032 Due by 12 00 as shown by the clock in the City Clerk's office—June 21, 2002 �� i KENT *ASHIMOTCH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY QUOTE FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE - VENDOR SUBMITTAL Vendor Submittal shall include the following: 1 Vendor name, address, and contact information 2 Proof of authorization to sell Microsoft software via the government open licensing program (please attach) 3 Completed price table below 4 Assuming software is purchased in July 2002, date Upgrade Advantage program will end Product If total number of Per copy cost— DO NOT copies purchased is INCLUDE SALES TAX between: UA Microsoft Office xp professional 200 and 300 — Mfg art#• 269-04219 UA Microsoft Office xp professional 300 and 400 — Mfg art#- 269-04219 UA Microsoft Office xp standard 200 and 300 - Mfg art#• 021-04324 UA Microsoft Office xp standard 300 and 400 - Mfg art# 021-04324 UA Exchange CALS 700 and 800 -Mfq Part# 381-01370 UA Exchange CALS 800 and 900 -Mfg art#, 381-01370 i Z KENT W.I.. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Microsoft Software — Quote Results - June 21, 2002 Upgrade Advantage - Microsoft Office Professional & Exchange Vendor & Product Price Per Copy Before Taxes CDWG UA MS Office Pro —200 to 400 copies $239 57 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $39 65 Comark UA MS Office Pro —200 to 400 copies $241 96 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $40 05 GE Capital MS Office Pro —200 to 300 copies $245 28 MS Office Pro — 300 to 400 copies $242 95 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 700 to 800 $40 60 UA Exchan e 2000 CALS —800 to 900 $40 21 GovConnection UA MS Office Pro —200 to 400 copies $243 12 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $40 44 GovStreet USA MS Office Pro — 200 to 300 copies $251 00 MS Office Pro — 300 to 400 copies $249 00 UA Exchange 2000 CALS— 700 to 800 $42 75 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 800 to 900 $41 25 Insight— Low Quote UA MS Office Pro —200 to 400 copies $233.89 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $38.64 1 IS Outsource Inc UA MS Office Pro—200 to 400 copies $239.98 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $39 78 Onsite Technical Services MS Office Pro— 200 to 300 copies $247 00 MS Office Pro —300 to 400 copies $246 50 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 700 to 800 $41 50 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 800 to 900 $41 25 Logical MS Office Pro —200 to 300 copies $274 00 MS Office Pro —300 to 400 copies $271 00 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 700 to 800 $46 00 UA Exchange 2000 CALS —800 to 900 $45 00 MicroWarehouse MS Office Pro —200 to 300 copies $243 95 MS Office Pro—300 to 400 copies $243 90 UA Exchange 2000 CALS—700 to 800 $40,42 UA Exchange 2000 CALS — 800 to 900 $40 47 Steck-Vaughn' n/a Software Spectrum MS Office Pro—200 to 400 copies $251 00 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $42 00 Zones, Inc MS Office Pro — 200 to 400 copies $238 50 UA Exchange 2000 CALS $39 47 ' Responded with letter stating they could not participate 2 MY �� KENT IN FONMA=N T CMNOLGGY QUOTE FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE - VENDOR SUBMITTAL Vendor Submittal shall include the following: 1. Vendor name, address, and contact information J n4s1GHT 2 Proof of authorization to sell Microsoft software via the government open licensing program (please attach) 3 Completed price table below 4 Assuming software is purchased in July 2002, date Upgrade Advantage program will end SU /y 3C ZvU4- Product If total number of Per copy cost— DO NOT copies purchased is INCLUDE SALES TAX between: UA Microsoft Office xp professional 200 and 300 v7�` — Mfg art#- 26904219 v 7 UA Microsoft Office xp professional 300 and 400 — Mfq part#- 269-04219 3 I I UA Microsoft Office xp standard 200 and 300 I � Z - Mfg art#- 021-04324 UA Microsoft Office xp 04324 standard 300 and 400 Mfg part#- 021 J / I UA Exchange CALS 700 and 800 - -Mfq Part# 381-01370 �¢ UA Exchange CALS 1800 and 900 -Mfq part#- 38101370 I Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DESKTOP PC REPLACEMENT PLAN 2002 —AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign purchase orders for replacement computers, payable to Washington State Department of Information Services, not to exceed $191,968 The City PC inventory tracks 632 desktop computers that are eligible for replacement. Each year the City replaces some of the oldest and slowest computers in the City. This project will replace 150 of the oldest desktop computers in the City. Computers will be purchased from the Washington State D.I.S. contract. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff summary memo and chart 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $191,968 SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP —Computer Replacement Program 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6G KENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2nd,2002 TO: City Council Operations Committee FROM: Chris Beagle, Senior Network Specialist C'A'f J �"t', bl— CC: Marty Mulholland,Director of I.T. RE: Desktop PC Replacement Plan—2002 * Corrected to reflect motion adopted by Council Operations Committee Background: The City PC inventory currently tracks 632 desktop computers that are eligible for replacement Each year we identify the slowest and oldest machines to be replaced Prior to 2001, we had hoped to replace machines on a scheduled basis so that our oldest machines were approximately 3 '/2 years old Most organizations choose a replacement schedule between 3 and 4 years Last year we limited the number of machines replaced in order to reduce spending levels Our oldest machines are now approximately 4 %:years old By the time this year s replacement process is complete, our oldest machines will be about 4 years old Most of our Desktop machines were manufactured by Hewlett-Packard Recently Hewlett-Packard has merged with Compaq I T conducted research in this area to learn about the plans for PC models after the merger We propose to continue to purchase HP desktop computers These computers will be altered to incorporate Compaq design components This Year's Replacement Plan: We are proposing to replace 150 of the City's oldest desktop computers The goal is to eliminate computers with the 233 Mhz through 300 Mhz processor speed, and to replace approximately 30%of the machines with the 350 Mhz processor speed I T is working with department representatives to identify replacement plans for each work group. When we replace computers, we do not automatically replace the monitors Monitors are purchased separately and are replaced only as failures occur By taking advantage of the Washington State D I S contract, we are able to take advantage of special pricing available only to the highest volume customers We will order the machines in groups of approximately 25 to 30 Prices may vary from order to order The minimum machine configuration to 10 be ordered will be a Pentium IV 2 Ghz processor with 512 MB RAM Budget: Source of funds-2002 CIP Computer Replacement Plan Budget Item Cost 150 Pentium IV desktop $167,250 computers $1115 00 each Tax $14,718 *Contingency $10,000 Total $191,968 *It is possible for the prices to vary slightly as computer models and shipping costs change over time Attachments: • List of Desktop Computers by Processing Speed • Washington State DIS Master Contract Information Council Motion: I move to recommend that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign purchase orders for replacement computers, payable to Washington State Department of Information Services, not to exceed$191,968 i Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 SUBJECT: LODGING TAX BUDGET CHANGE AND CONTRACT AMENDMENT—AUTHORIZE 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the First Amendment to Contract for Services between the City of Kent and the Kent Chamber of Commerce At its July 2, 2002 meeting, the Operations Committee authorized the revised Kent Lodging Tax budget of$57,530 for the Kent Chamber of Commerce tourism efforts and amended the work plan by adding $7,530 for a total 2002 budget and contract to reflect the changed scope of work 3. EXHIBITS: Contract for Services 4, RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5 UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS- 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION ACTION Council Agenda Item No 6H FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES (Between the City of Kent and Kent Chamber of Commerce) THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES is made between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal .corporation ("City"), and KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a Washington non-profit corporation ("Kent Chamber") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Kent Chamber entered into that certain Contract for Services, dated December 31, 2001, ("Contract") wherein Kent Chamber agreed to create and implement a promotion campaign for the Kent Lodging Association, and WHEREAS, City and Kent Chamber express their mutual intent and desire to amend the Contract in order to extend the completion date of the work from June 30, 2002, to December 31, 2002, and to adjust the compensation amount to be paid for the contract work, NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual intent, desire and promises of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, City and Kent Chamber agree as follows 1. The Kent Chamber of Commerce has requested an additional $7,530 to augment the salary of staff assigned to marketing activities until December 31, 2002 Exhibit"A" to the Contract is hereby amended by reallocating the original S50,000 00 Budget for the contract work and increasing the overall budget by an additional S7,530 00 A revised Exhibit "A," which amends and extends the 2002 Budget to $57,530 00 through December 31, 2002, is attached hereto and shall be incorporated into the Contract, as if originally set forth therein. 2 Paragraph II, entitled "Payment," is hereby revised to read as follows 21 The City shall pay Kent Commerce, an amount not to exceed $57,530 00 during the duration of this Contract for the services performed as set forth in Exhibit "A," This is the maximum amount to be paid for the services contemplated in Section I of this Contract, and shall not be exceeded without prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed Addendum to this Contract 22 The payment of funds to the Kent Chamber as established in this agreement shall be made on or following the dates set forth below following appropriate documentation of the work performed pursuant to the work schedule set forth in Exhibit"A" as follows FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES- I (between the City of Kent and Kent Chamber of Commerce) a Payment of$45,000 00 was made upon the execution of the original Contract, and b. $7,530.00 shall be paid upon the execution of this First Amendment, and C. The remaining$5,000 00 shall be paid upon completion of the contract, as set forth in Exhibit"A," and following submittal of a final report on or before December 31, 2002 It is understood that most of the work performed by the Kent Chamber is performed during the early part of the contract term and that significant costs are incurred during this time, therefore, the parties have agreed to the payment structure as set forth herein Final payment of funds are subject to satisfactory documentation of the completion of work schedules set forth in Exhibit "A" corresponding to the payments to be made by the City 23 The Kent Chamber of Commerce shall make a 1st quarter report and a final report as noticed in Section 2 2 above to the City and to City of Kent Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, if requested by the City 2.4 The City, or its authorized representative, shall have the authority to • inspect, audit, and copy on reasonable notice and from time to time any records of Kent Chamber regarding its billings, payments or work under this Contract to verify matching funds and expenditures made for the work performed herein 25 In the event the Scope of Services is modified or changed so that more or less work or time is required by Kent Chamber, and such modification is reached by mutual agreement of the parties to this Contract, the payment for services and maximum Contract amount shall be adjusted accordingly 3 Kent Chamber certifies to City that the Contract is in full force and effect and that there exist no uncured defaults on the part of Kent Chamber under the Contract The City certifies to Kent Chamber that the Contract is in full force and effect,that there exist no uncured defaults on the part of the City under the Contract 4 Except as specifically amended, all remaining provisions of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES-2 (between the City of Kent and Kent Chamber of Commerce) 5 The effective date of this First Amendment Is June 30, 2002 Although the Amendment may be executed after this date, it is the parties mutual intent and desire that the Amendment be retroactive to June 30, 2002 IN WITNESS, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Contract for Services on the last date written below CITY OF KENT By Print Name Jim White Title Mayor Date KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE By Print Name Barbara Ivanov Title Executive Director Date Approved as to Form Tom Brubaker, City Attorney w.vix..w nvuou..rnusw+n�.wv9 a.Y:w.M..a..vw,as FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES-3 (between the Gay ofKew and Kent Chamber of Commerce) Kent Lodging Association *1002 Budget(Revised 6-7-02 NOTES: Total hotel occupancy for 2001 generated $151,175 in tax revenue Budget for 2002 reduced by $41,000 from original proposal of$98,530 Jan. -Jun. Jul.-Dec. 2002 Total Service Budget Web site Hosting $ 300 $ 300 $ 600 Consulting $ - $ - $ - Content administration $ 5,400 $ - $ 5,400 Content management system $ 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 Search engine marketing $ 2,500 $ - $ 2,500 Subtotal I $ 9,700 $ 300 $ 10,000 Individual Traveler Collateral Print pad map & lure brochure $ $ $ - Postage $100/mo ) 1 $ $ $ Certified Folder distribution $ $ $ Subtotal (2001 Funds available for 2002 print) $ $ - $ - Meeting Planner Print $ $ 500 $ 500 Postage $ $ - $ FAM tour (In-kind donation KOA$1,000) $ $ - $ - Subtotal $ $ 500 $ 500 Advertising WA State Visitors Guide $ $ 3,200 $ 3,200 Puget Sound Business Journal $ 1,400 $ - $ 1,400 Olympia FTE Newspaper $ - $ $ - AAA Tour Guide I $ - $ $ Toll free number 125 calls mo @ 10 min @ $0 10/min $ 300 $ 400 $ 700 Subtotal $ 1,700 $ 3,600 $ 5,300 Marketing Representative Salary PT $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 18,000 Payroll =1 $ 810 $ 810 j 1,620 Benefits $ 2,700 $ 2,700 $ 5,400 Training/contractor $ - $ - $ - Travel $ $ $ Admin O/H $ 8,355 $t 8,355 $ 16,710 Subtotal $ 20,865 $ 20,865 $ 41,730 Total 1 $ 32,265 $ 25,265 $ 57,530 . Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON CITY AND COUNTY PIPELINE SAFETY CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment 1 to the Interlocal Agreement Establishing the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium, extending the current Interlocal Agreement for an additional year. The Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium was established by Interlocal Agreement in the Year 2000 in response to the devastating explosion of the Olympic Pipeline in Bellingham. The current Consortium membership includes- Auburn, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, Kent, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tumwater, Woodinville, Clark County and Thurston County. The Consortium is now reaching its two year sunset and termination, as provided in the Interlocal Agreement. Paragraph 3.G on the Interlocal Agreement provides that . additional one-year renewals may be approved by agreement of the principals. The City Attorney's office has approved this amendment. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of the Amendment extending the agreement for an additional year and Interlocal agreement establishing the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief Schneider and Public Safety Committee (3-0) (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. 6I Amendment 1 to Interlocal Agreement Establishing the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium The undersigned parties to the Interlocal Agreement Establishing the Washington City and County Pipeline Consortium (the "Agreement") agree as follows 1 In accordance with section 3 G of the Agreement, the duration of the Agreement is extended by one year, until June 5, 2003 2 No other provision of the Agreement is affected by the Amendment IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No 1 has been executed by each party on the date set forth below CITY OF BELLEVUE Approved as to form Connie Marshall Richard Gidley Mayor Assistant City Attorney Date Date CITY OF BELLINGHAM Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF BOTHELL Approved as to form Date Date CLARK COUNTY Approved as to form. Date Date CITY OF KENT Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF REDMOND Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF RENTON Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF SEA-TAC Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF SEATTLE Approved as to form Date Date THURSTON COUNTY Approved as to form- Date Date CITY OF TUMWATER Approved as to form Date Date CITY OF WOODINVILLE Approved as to form Date Date INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WASHINGTON CITY AND COUNTY PIPELINE SAFETY CONSORTIUM THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the undersigned cities and counties. This Agreement is made pursuant to the Intedocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction. WHEREAS, concern about pipeline safety has been expressed by the member cities and counties; and WHEREAS, Cities and Counties along the Olympic Pipeline corridor have a common goal of ensuring the safety of their communities; and WHEREAS, Cities and Counties seek independent, expert third party assessments of the condition of the Olympic Pipeline and its potential hazards; and WHEREAS, Cities and Counties desire legal analysis of the pending pipeline safety legislation at the state and federal level and assistance in developing a model franchise; WHEREAS, Cities and Counties desire expert third party analysis of the procedures required to maximize the safety of the pipeline; and WHEREAS, Cities and Counties desire a unified voice relating to pipeline safety issues where Olympic Pipeline Facilities are located; now, therefore, The City and County signatories agree as follows: Establishment of the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium. There is hereby created a city and county consortium hereinafter called the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium (the Consortium). The parties hereto each hereby task the Consortium with the responsibility for achieving the following goals: 1. Provide a coordinated response for member Cities and Counties on certain issues related to fuel pipeline safety in general and the activities of Olympic Pipe Line Company in particular, 2. Obtain expert independent analysis and monitoring of the Olympic Pipeline Corridor Safety Action Plan so as to ensure it provides the degree of safeguards and security that our communities demand and deserve; 3. Identify deficiencies in Olympic Pipeline's Pipeline Corridor Safety Action Plan; 4. Identify steps Olympic Pipeline should take before re-starting the flow of product through its pipeline; 5. Provide advocacy and public relations services on behalf of cities and counties; 1 6. Monitor franchisee compliance in jurisdictions along pipeline corridors; 7. Coordinate signage and activity within pipeline corridor right of ways; 8. Analyze and provide comment on federal and state legislative efforts with regard to pipeline safety; 9. Work cooperatively with other groups and governments mutually interested in pipeline safety; 10. Work directly with the State of Washington and any state task force established to examine pipeline safety; 11 Work to meet other goals as defined by the membership. 1. Definitions. A. P 'n ' a . A Principal is a City or County which has accepted the terms of, and is a party to, this Intedocal Agreement and has paid its share of the costs of the Consortium. The initial Pnncipals to this Agreement are the undersigned cities and counties. Principals will receive services as offered by the Consortium according to such terms and conditions as may be established, B. General Membership. The General Membership shall consist of all the voting representatives of the Principals. C. Voting Representatives. Each Principal will designate one representative, and one alternate representative to vote on issues before the General Membership. D. Alternate Representatives. Each Principal shall be entitled to designate one alternate representative who shall serve on behalf of the voting representative during his or her absence or inability to serve. E. Administrator. The City of Bellevue shall be designated as the Consortium's Administrator. Principals shall pay to the City of Bellevue the agreed upon Financial Contribution. F. Financial Contribution. Each Principal shall make an initial$5,000 Annual Financial Contribution. Additional Finenciab Contributions shall be provided in the future on a basis and in an amount agreed by the General Membership. A Principal shall be obligated as to any future Financial Contributions only upon ratification by its respective legislative body. A Principal shall be allowed to withdraw from the Consortium and not incur any additional financial obligation if its legislative body decides against a future Financial Contribution. 2 G. Executive Board. The Executive Board shall be composed of seven representatives of 7 different Consortium members, appointed by their jurisdictions. The initial slate of Executive Board Members shall include a member from each of the following jurisdiction: The cities of Bellevue, SeaTac, Renton, Redmond, Bellingham, Tumwater, and the county of Thurston. The initial Board shall serve for a period of one year from the effective date of this Agreement Subsequent Boards shall consist of seven members elected by the General Membership from among the representatives appointed by their respective jurisdictions. 2. Roles A. General Membership. The General Membership shall approve the budget and have final decision-making authority to approve the final budget and the work plan of the Consortium. The General Membership shall approve the members of the Executive Board. B. Executive Board. 1.) Chair. The Chair of the Executive Board shall be elected by the members of the Board from the Board membership. The Chair of the Executive Board shall process issues, organize meetings and preside over meetings of the Board, and shall have no other powers than those enumerated here. 2.) Powers of the Executive Board. The Executive Board shall meet as often as it deems necessary and shall have the following powers: (a.) To recommend periodic budgets and work plans for the Consortium for approval by the General Membership; (b.) To establish policies to carry out the work plan approved by the General Membership; (c.) To establish policies for expenditures of budgeted items for the Consortium; (d.) To hold regular meetings on such dates and at such places as the Board may designate and call for meetings of the General Membership; (a.) To authorize the Administrator to enter into agreements with other federal, state and local agencies, and private entities to receive grants and funds, and other agreements for services. C. Administrator. City of Bellevue,as Administrator, shall contract for services as necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Consortium under this Agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Board; establish a special fund or funds as authorized by RCW 39.34.030; collect from the Principals Financial Contributions due to Bellevue as Administrator for the Principals; and reimburse its Principals. In addition, the Administrator will provide for secretarial and other administrative support for the Board as the Board deems necessary. The Administrator shall not be reimbursed for expenditures made prior to the effective date of this Agreement 3 3. Other Pertinent Matters A. Proportionality of RepresentationNoting. Each Principal shall be entitled to one vote on all actions required to be approved by the General Membership and each Principal which has a representative on the Executive Board shall be entitled to one vote on all actions required to be approved by the Executive Board. B. Voting Percentage Reouirements. All actions required to be approved by the General Membership or the Executive Board shall require approval of 70% of the vote of those present Dissenting comments shall be recorded. C. Quorum. A quorum at any meeting of the General Membership or the Executive Board shall consist of the voting members or Board members (or alternates) who represent a simple ma)ority of the General Membership or Executive Board membership. D. Additional Principals. The Executive Board may, by vote, accept new Principals who become parties to this Agreement and who have paid the agreed-upon amount as the new Principal's share. The Executive Board may, by vote, accept new Principals to the consortium by approving the proposed new Principal's signed agreement. E. Finance and Budget. 1.) Acceptance of Funds. The Administrator is hereby authorized to accept all Financial Contributions of the Principals allocated to the Consortium and any federal, state or private grants in order to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and Chapter 39.34 RCW. 2.) Budget The Executive Board shall draft a proposed initial budget for the remainder of the current calendar year and present it to the General Membership. Thereafter, the Executive Board shall draft proposed period budgets as it deems appropriate. The General Membership shall review and recommend revisions to the draft budgets as it deems appropriate. The Executive Board shall revise the draft budgets and shall present them for a vote of the General Membership.The budgets are adopted when approved by the General Membership. 3.) Delinauencles. A Principal who is six months delinquent in payment shall be considered to have withdrawn from the Consortium. Withdrawal does not extinguish the obligation to pay for services rendered. 4.) Use Guidelines. The Consortium may use any available funds for any purpose authorized by this Agreement, and included in the work plan adopted by the Consortium. Additional projects and expansion of the scope of work are authorized, for purposes of this Agreement, when approved and funded by all the then current Principals or through any grants provided the Consortium. Consortium funds will not be used to pay for any City or County staff time. 4 F. Interaovemmental Cooperation. The Consortium shall cooperate in all practical and available ways with local, state and federal government agencies so as to maximize utilization of grant funds and to enhance the effectiveness of operations and to minimize costs. G. Duration. This Agreement shall continue in effect for at least two years from creation of the Consortium. Additional one-year renewals shall be approved by agreement of the Principals. Any Principal may withdraw from this Agreement by giving 60 days written notice to the Executive Board of its intention to terminate. A Principal shall not be entitled to reimbursement for its financial contributions to the Consortium. A Principal who withdraws shall hold the remaining Principals harmless against any resultant increased costs allocated to them, for a project or contract approved by the General Membership before its withdrawal. This Agreement shall be effective until terminated as provided herein. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by agreement of Principals holding at least 70% of the vote of all the Principals hereto. Upon termination of this Agreement, any assets acquired during the life of the Agreement or any financial contributions remaining shall be disposed of in the following manner 1.) All property contributed without charge by each Principal shall revert to the contributor, 2.) All property purchased after the effective date of this Agreement shall be distributed based on the percentage of the total annual charges assessed by the Executive Board during the period of this Agreement and paid by each Principal; 3.) Ali unexpended or reserved funds shall be distributed to the Principals based on their financial contribution on a pro rata basis. H. Hold Harmless. Except for acts or omissions which are dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious, any loss or liability resulting from the ads or omissions of the Executive Board, or Administrator while acting within their scope of authority under this Agreement shall be bome by the Consortium. If a claim, demand, or cause of action arises from any other negligent ad or failure to ad, or intentional wrongful ad of one of the Principals or its agents or employees, that Principal shall hold the Consortium and other Principals harmless except to the extent that the harm complained of arises from the negligence or other fault of another Principal; provided, that "Fault"as herein used shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 4.22.015. I. Insurance. The Consortium may obtain and provide insurance for the Executive Board and the Administrator for coverage consistent with the terms of this Agreement J. Amendments, This Agreement may be amended by written agreement of the legislative bodies of all the Principals hereto. 5 SAY.�'RM.^• it K. Severability. The invalidity of arty clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement. L Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of filing with the appropriate County Auditors, the Secretary of State, and the Clerk of each Principal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: CITY OF BELLEVUE Approved as to Form- Chuck Mosher Lon Riordan Mayor C itj Assistant City Attorney Date: �a kA `7� "?� Date: r— COUNTY OF k I tf Approved as to Form: 3 a6la 0 . (z)Xc Donald D. Rose Wavn . Tanaka City Manager City Attorney Date: TWqk,I'a, C2000 Date: LqL I'a a.000 CITY OF Woodinville Approved as to Form- Date: Date. CITY OF Approved as to Form. 6 1. Insurance. The Consortium may obtain and provide insurance for the- Executive Board and the Administrator for cov6rage consistent with the terms of this Agreement J. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended by written agreement of the legislative bodies of all the Principals hereto. K Severability. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement L. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of filing with the appropriate County Auditors, the Secretary of State, and the Clerk of each Principal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: CITYOF BELLEVUE Approved as to Form: Chuck Mosher Lon Riordan Mayor Assistant City Attorney Date: Date: COUNTY OF VL- J Ci Approved as to Form: Date: Date: CITY OF Approved as to Form: Ago —IPrn peV 6 rr Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 SUBJECT: PARKS FEE-IN-LIEU OF REVENUE BUDGET TRANSFER— APPROVE 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the fee-in-lieu of funds totaling $66,567.00 and amend the appropriate budgets. 132nd Ave. Neighborhood Park (P68) $9,375.00 Clark Lake park Land Acquisition (P21) $14,367.00 Service Club Ballfields (P24) $42,825.00 $66,567.00 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Supt. of Parks Planning and Development, Lon Flemm and revenue report 7 • 4 RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of$66,567.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fee-in-Lieu of funds 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• • ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 6J City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Memorandum To. Kent City Council - Parks Committee From Lon Flemm, Superintendent Parks Planning and Development Copy. John M. Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Date July 2, 2002 Re Fee-in-Lieu Revenue Budget Transfer - Authorize From April through June 2002, the City of Kent received a total of $66,567 00 from three subdivisions who voluntarily paid fee-in-lieu of dedicating parkland to mitigate the development of single family homes The City has five years from the date of deposit to spend these funds for park acquisition, development, or open space Funds are used at a park close to the subdivision 132nd Ave Neighborhood Park $9,375 00 Partners Mortgage Corporation for Allenback Division IV Clark Lake Park $14,367 00 Bradley Goodwin for Landmark Subdivision Service Club Ballfields $42,825 00 Schneider Homes Inc for Meridian Ridge Division I Total $66,567 00 Attachment Revenue Report Recommended Motion I move to recommend accepting the fee-in-lieu of funds totaling $66,567 00 and amending the budgets accordingly c a a a n. m o o � c N w O O N w C N w G rn c � B E 0 � o = w m 9 C � C N � U `o 4 6 Z w N I n 10 rn C C N N N N y m O O O U J � C� � a m J m y a TI Oo O O VtN0 tmO h m O 10- �I a 0 N a a y J J N C w V� m Elm op 'L oo m M M r n n C d N N v�i 7y r O O pp Q O O O I � O m m D RN N O S N O Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 SUBJECT: KING COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS FACILITY GRANT APPLICATION— AUTHORIZE 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, authorize submittal of the 2002 King County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Supt. of Parks Planning and Development Lori Flemm and three description pages of grant application 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of$30,000.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: $50,000 revenue/grant fund with matching funds of$18,750 (in 2002 budget) and volunteer labor 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 6K City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Memorandum To Kent City Council - Parks Committee From Lon Flamm, Superintendent Parks Planning and Development Copy John M Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Date July 2, 2002 Re King County Youth Sports Facility Grant - Authorize The Youth Sports Facility Grant program provides grant funding up to $50,000 00 to renovate, expand, or develop sports fields and facilities serving youth, ages 21 and under in King County The program requires a partnership be formed between a community or youth sports organization and a public entity on whose land the field or facility is located The Parks Department is asking for $50,000 00 to purchase bleachers, soccer goals, bases, pitching rubbers, back stop pads, and construct long lump pits at East Hill Youth Sports Complex There is a 1 2 match requirement, for ever'y two dollars requested the City must provide one In this case we have formed a partnership with the Kent Kiwanis Club They have pledged to donate $6,250 00 in volunteer labor planting the trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the parking lot of East Hill Youth Sports Complex The Parks Department will purchase the $18,750 00 worth of landscape plants from the existing budget for the East Hill Youth Sports Complex The total project cost is $75,000 00, which includes a $50,000 00 cash grant, $18,750 00 city cash match and $6,250 00 in volunteer labor Attachment Pages 1-3 of grant application - Recommended Motion: I move to recommend authorization to submit the 2002 King County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application APPLICATION Application Number Date Received King County 2002 Youth Sport Facility Grant (YSFG) Proposal Please read through this application form carefully before starting to fill It out, the instructions are on it Be thorough, but brief Excessive use of appended materials (beyond those requested in the application or Policy Plan) is neither encouraged nor Is to your advantage 1 Title of Proposed Project (be concise but descriptive, e g Hillcrest School Ballfield Improvements) East Hill Youth Sports Complex Development 2 Protect Location (provide an address, including cross streets, for the proposed project) Located at the intersection of SE 2481" Street and 132nd Avenue SE on the east hill of Kent 3 Proposed Census Tract if known: 1029502 4 Proposed Use of YSFG Funds (Summarize In one sentence what the YSFG funds would be used for) YSFG Funds will be used to purchase and install viewing bleachers for soccer and youth track and field events, to purchase portable soccer goals, to construct long lump pits, and to purchase and install bases, rubber pads, and player benches for the baseball/softball fields in a newly constructed youth sports complex 5 Project Cost (a) YSFG funds requested $50,000 Please note that the figures used in item 5 (a) and(b) must correspond with the b Total match funding donations figures used on the Tasks and Cost ( ) 9 $25,000 page (p 9) and the Budget Page (p 10) and m-kind services (c) Total Project Cost $75,000 6 Public Entity Co-applicant Agency and Address: Authorized Signature of Public Entity Co- applicant Agency: City of Kent Parks, Recreation & Community Services (Agency Name) 220 4"'Avenue South Signature (Street Address) John M Hodgson, Director (P 0 Box) Name and Title Kent,WA 98032 (City) (Zip Code) Public Entity Co-Applicants must submit a copy of Contact Person (this must be their Board or Council minutes authorizing someone who will be available to submittal of this application, or a letter from an answer questions about the project authorized member of the administration Check one during July) Copy of Authorization is attached Shane Gilbertson (253)856-5115 X Authorization will be submitted as soon as possible Name Phone Page 2 of 13 7. Co-Applicant Community Organization Authorized Signature of Co-Applicant Name and Address, Community Organization Signature Name and Title Contact Person Name Phone 8 Persons to Whom King County should send the Notice of Recommendation, Notice of Award and contracting instructions Shane Gilbertson City of Kent Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Individual Public Entity or Youth Sports Organization 220 4`"Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253)856-5115 Address City/State/Zip/ Phone 9 Project Description Describe the Youth Sports Facility Grant Project for which funding is requested Provide a thorough Scope of Services detailing how the funds will be used and how they relate to a master plan if the funds do not complete the project The City of Kent purchased 10 19 acres of undeveloped land on the east hill of Kent for construction of a youth sports complex The Complex will consist of three lighted youth baseball/softball fields, two youth soccer fields, long lump pits and track and field area The complex will also provide a shelter with restrooms, maintenance storage and picnic tables Compliant pathways throughout the complex will offer easy access to all the fields The fields will be surfaced with synthetic turf to allow for multiple, all-weather use The large baseball/softball field will be lite for extended evening play Concrete teired areas well as portable bleachers will be located along the track and field area while the larger ballfield will provide a concrete grandstand area Fencing with locking gates and a gated parking lot will ensure complex security The parking lot will provide spaces for 250 cars and the entire complex will be landscaped with buffers of native trees and shrubs offering privacy to adjacent neighborhoods Storm water detention for the fields will be adequately handled by a collection system under the fields and a separate detention pond will handle the stormwater from the parking lot Youth Sports Facility Grant Funds will be used for the purchase of • Portable soccer goals for two fields • Aluminum viewing bleachers for youth track and field program • Construction of two long jump pits and sand installation • Purchase and install baseball/softball bases and pitching rubbers for three fields • Purchase and install player benches for three fields • Purchase and install padded rubber matts for the back stops Page 3 of 13 As part of the match City of Kent will purchase landscape plants valued at $18,750 The other part of the match will be the from the Kent Kiwanis Club who will donate $6,250 in volunteer labor, to plant the plants The site will be used primarily for youth sporting events including baseball, softball, soccer, flag football and track and field events Hours of operation will be from 3 30 to 9 00 p m Monday through Friday, and from 9 00 a m to 9 00 p m on weekends Kent Parks has a thirty-five year history of sponsoring youth track and field teams in the Kent School District During the 2001 track and field season, the City of Kent had 25 school track and field teams with a total of 1,108 youth participants Due to the construction of the Kent Valley Ice Centre in 2000-2001, the track and field events were temporarily relocated to Kent Commons Playfields The Kent Commons Playfields are scheduled for renovation in 2003 The new track and field location at the East Hill Youth Sports Complex (EHYS Complex)will provide a much-needed state-of-the art venue for the youth track and field athletics in the Kent area closer to residences 85% of our program participants that live on the East Hill of Kent The 10 19-acre site is flat, well-drained site that is ideally suited for the youth sports complex construction The site was previously used for cattle grazing, so no trees will have to be removed for construction Three public meetings have been held to gather input from the community regarding the master plan and the impact of the youth sports complex on the community • Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PARK/FACILITY NAMING POLICY—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Passage of Resolution No. &* which amends Resolution No. 1049, regarding the policies and procedures for the naming of City parks and public facilities. On February 19, 1985, the City passed Resolution No. 1049, which enacted a policy and procedure regarding the naming of parks and public facilities The City now finds it appropriate to update the original policy and procedure to further develop the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to name a park, pubic facility, or feature within a park after a living person. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and memo from Director Hodgson 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee (7/9/02) (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. 6L City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Memorandum To Kent City Council - Parks Committee From John Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Date July 2, 2002 Re Park/Facility Naming Policy-Authorize Director John Hodgson will request authorization from the Parks Committee for changes to the existing Park Naming Policy Attachment Copy of Park Naming Policy Resolution Recommended Motion: I move to recommend authorization to make proposed changes to the Park Naming Policy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Resolution No 1049, which established a policy and procedure for the naming of City parks and public facilities WHEREAS, on February 19, 1985, the City adopted Resolution No 1049, which enacted a policy and procedure regarding the naming of parks and public facilities, and WHEREAS, the City now finds it necessary to update the original policy and procedure to further develop the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to name a park, public facility, or feature within a park after a living person, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. — Amendment Section 4 0 of Resolution No 1049, entitled "Procedure," is hereby amended to read as follows 40 PROCEDURE 41 Suggestions for names shall be solicited from organizations, individuals and the media, and all suggestions, solicited or not, shall be acknowledged and recorded for consideration by the City I Naming of Park Facilities— Updating Policy and Procedure 42 The legislative authority, following such review and public hearings by the Parks Committee as deemed appropriate, shall designate names for 10 park,recreation and other public facilities 4.3 There shall be a time lapse of at least six months between receipt of a name proposal and the final recommendation on its adoption in cases where the person is living, or in cases where whieh-the death of the person or the event to be commemorated took place within the past year 4 3 1 The six month lapse period may be waived by the City when a park, public facility, or a feature within a park is to be named after a living person when an unusually outstanding public service would so lustifv In those instances, the Mayor, Council President, Parks Committee Chairperson, and Parks Director may unanimously designate the name of such park, public facility, or a feature within a park The park name so designated will be announced at the park or public facility dedication 44 Facilities shall be identified by the established name, and signs shall be maintained as a source of identity and civic pride. SECTION 2. - Severabikty If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution SECTION 3. - Ratification Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed 2 Nam mg of Park Facilities— Updating Policy and Procedure SECTION 4. - Effective Date This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of 2002 CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of , 2002 JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 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 , 2002 BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Naming of Park Facilities— Updattng Policy and Procedure Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SERVICE CLUB BALL FIELD DONATION—ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the $4,500.00 from the Kent Sunrise Rotary Club and amend the Service Club Ballfield budget. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Supt. of Parks Planning and Development Lon Flemm and copy of Rotary check 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of$4,500.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent Sunrise Rotary Club 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 6M MEMO TREASURER'S RECEIPT . ®PnwEmIY;�6f Py�49y Wry CITY OF KEhT Na M67890 Lri3 H p DATE 7 0 U 0 Z-- a" T �` ENGINEERING m 3 a ❑ DEPARTMENT PARKS ��1f191LJ/.fir{"r�/iG'� 0 LOCATION POLICE p y l y► ❑ DEPARTMENT ❑ OTHER_ ti �C/1 SPEGIF� � G u.! > REC'D OF _ ,may!`�. i"ll/SG •T mac! r. x � wr. w FOR (DESCRIPTION) AMOUNT 5nn ru c In m W m �i 1 � Ll o N rr a TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED $yf � N rA El W ❑ CASH $xf� CHECK $ �ix�•GYJ I REC'D 6`r CASHIER // CUSTOMER COPY Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEALTH OF SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY GRANT— ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept a grant in the amount of$20,000.00 from Public Health of Seattle & King County, and establish budget documents, as required. The funds from this grant will be used by the Kent Youth Board to provide tobacco education and training during the 2002 "Game of Life" youth conference held in December. The grant will also allow the Kent Youth board to participate in a regional summit next spring. The program period will run from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 and will include media and public education activities. The match requirement for this grant will be met with current Drinking Driver Task Force funds. 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter dated 6/14/02 from Public Health of Seattle & King County and grant application form with attachments 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (7/9/02) (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. 6N Public Health Seattle & King County HEALTHY PEOPLE. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. Alonzo L.Plough,Ph.O,MPH,Director and Health Officer June 14, 2002 Stacy Judd Kent Police Department 220 4th Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms Judd: Thank you for submitting a Tobacco Prevention RFP application for the South King County Youth Coalition grant. This letter is to notify you regarding the results of the RFP for services to be delivered during the period July 2002 through June 30, 2003 A panel of community members knowledgeable in tobacco prevention services reviewed your application. The members of the community panel made the final decision. We are pleased to announce that your application has been selected to receive tobacco prevention funds for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. Results will only be finalized, however, following the closure of the appeals process A maximum of$20,000 In community grant funds for this grant may now be awarded to your organization for 2002 — 2003 RFP based upon our allocation received from the State of Washington Department of Health Tobacco Settlement. Funds will be contingent upon successful contract negotiations and completion of a King County contract, For your information, a description of the review/selection process, including the appeals process is also enclosed Overall, the proposals were well written and responsive to the RFP guidelines Those proposals selected for funding were selected because of their exceptional responsiveness to the RFP and inclusiveness of tobacco prevention research/evaluation and community collaboration with a clear statement of work. Tobacco Prevention Program 999 3n'Avenue,Suite 900 • Seattle,WA 98104-4039 oty of Sertne King County T(206)296-7613 F(206)296-0177 • www metrokc gov/health G,eoory Pockets Maya Ron Sims E e nw Of the 25 grants that were available, 17 proposals were received for 12 of the grants. There were 13 grants that received no proposals, and that work will be required to be completed by either Public Health — Seattle & King County Tobacco Prevention Program or Public Health — Seattle & King County Tobacco Prevention Program may sublet that work out to other agencies. Again, congratulations on your successful bid for funds. A program staff person will be contacting you within the week to schedule an appointment for contract negotiations. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Sherard at (206) 296-7613 Sincerely, n Wiesman Prevention Division Manager APPLICATION FACE SHEET • APPLICANT INFORMATION Name and Title of Authorized Representative: Stacy Judd, Public Edurao'pn Specialist Name of Kent Police Department Organization- Address: 220 dth Avenue South City Kent State WA Z:o Coce 98032 phone (253) 856-5883 Fax (253) 856-6892 `00— OF ORGANIZATION (Please Check One) Incorooratec as a private not-for-orofit cerooranon in the State of Wasnington and granteo 501 ic; (3) tax-exemot status oy the U.S internal Revenue Service (IRS, Attacn a copy of !RS determination letter to this face sneer J Government entity. ouolic agency, or tnoai organization C T HER INFORMATION cmoiover IRS .0 numoer/Feceral tax 1D numoer 91-6001254 =. State of Wasnmgton Business License Number GRANT APPLIED FOR: 3 South King County Youth Advisory Board / Tobacco Prevention Grant Number Grant Name 16 5/30/02 F& IL 4 - AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE 1 Chief Ed Crawford, Kent Police Department APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please use the following list of application forms and submittal requirements as a checklist to ensure that all portions of the application are completed and in the apprnpnate order for submittal. Applications must be on 8 '/2 X 11 paper, with a minimum margin of 1", and a minimum font size of 12 point. For each application submitted, attach this checklist behind the application face sneet and mail or hand deliver to: Public Health - Seattle & King County Tobacco Prevention Program Attn: Mark Sherard 999 Third Ave., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104-4039 MS TO 3E 'MAXIMUM MAXIMUM GAGE SU ��ErJ NUMBER NUMBER ✓ OF ?AGES OF POINTS NUMBERS aooucanon Face Sheet =ORM PASSiFAIL 1 400ucauon C`feCKIISt FCRM oASS/FAIL 2 C.can¢anon 7lescrtonon �4G� Summary of Past Worx 1 FDAGE 4 r-oiect 1 PAGE 10 5 StarfinclPersonnei Statement of WorK 5 PAGES ;Z0 6 - 10 CodaoorauonlLetters of NC LIMIT 10 11 - 13 SuoDort o' Project iiimeline FORM 10 j 14 i i i Suaget Worksheet FORM 10 16 3. Youth-Coafit[on 16 Attachment(Youth 1 PAGE PASSIFAIL Coalition Grants Only) 2 nfl P _ O_ South King County Youth Coafition/Advisory Board Organization Description The City of Kent is currently the second largest city in South King County, with a population of 82, 782. The city encompasses 29 square miles. The city's population is expected to grow to 100,000 within the next few years. The Kent Police Department Drinking Driver Task Force (DDTF)was formed in 1983 to provide services and community education to reduce drinking and driving incidences in Kent. DDTF programs and activities are coordinated with local service organizations, agencies, schools and other government programs. Many of the DDTF programs are supported by grant funding, monetary and in-kind donations from community organizations and community volunteers. The DDTF focus has expanded over the years to include working with youth to develop constructive thought processes leading them toward healthy choices The DDTF's youth board consists of 30 volunteer youth, ages 12-18, that choose to serve as role models for their peers throughout South King County To serve as a youth board member, each must sign a board developed pledge to remain alcohol. drug and tobacco free. Although the program is based in Kent, youth board members reside throughout South King County, and represent diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds Their knowledge and mtere�ts are vaned. assuring for a comprehensive program The youth board meets from September through June each year Meetings are held at least bimonthly From September through December, the youth board plans and implements the "Game of Life- .Attitudes & Choices" youth wellness conference. The "Game of Life" is a one day conference, repeated over three days, and is open to all junior and senior lugh schools, and community youth groups within South King County Each group is invited to bring a team of youth to the conference. The format of the "Game of Life" is based on the Risk and Protective Factor research of Hawkins and Catalano The primary focus of the conference is the risk factor `Friends Who Engage in the Problem Behavior' Through the "Game of Life" the youth board's vision is to combat the myriad of problems faced by youth today Although the major focus is on substance abuse, the youth board realizes that other challenges, such as decision making and self-esteem often lead to impaired driving, tobacco and drug abuse. In other words, they recognize possible reciprocal relationships. 1n addition, the youth board also recognizes the importance of positive peer role modeling, an underlying protective factor of the entire youth board and conference. They are working to decrease youth driver related auto fatalities; drug, tobacco and alcohol use, reduce youth violence and support youth initiatives surrounding prevention, wellness and positive decision making. The youth board and"Game of Life" implements their goals by: ❑ Offering relevant workshop topics ❑ Providing peer to peer teachmg/leanung/modehng ❑ Providing professional & knowledgeable speakers/facilitators ❑ Providing opportunities and funding for student driven follow-up projects specific to school/community needs ❑ Providing opportunities for youth to become leaders and advocates within their commumties 3 Kent Police Youth Board South King County Youth Advisory Board The 2001 "Game of Life: Attitudes & Choices"youth wellness conference represented the 14i° annual Kent Police sponsored event. Over the past five years, the "Game of Life"has been offered to all Junior and senior lugh schools and community youth groups within South King County. Attendance for the 2000 youth conference totaled 265 youth and 67 adults from 31 schools. The 2001 conference brought 288 youth and 77 adults from 36 teams. Through conference workshops and post conference follow-up activities, local youth collaborate with their peers, parents, teachers, law enforcement, mental health professionals and media to create prevention activities specific to their school and community environments. Conference topics and follow-up activities are adjusted annually to address precipitating issues and community concerns related to youth wellness. All topics are driven by youth awareness and concem. Workshop Topics: Past tobacco workshop topics have included"Ever Licked an Ashtray?"presented by Scot Neal of King County Public Health. It focused on the effects of tobacco and what it takes to "quit" an addiction. "Up in Smoke", a youth led workshop, emphasized eliminating under age smoking and how approaching local businesses can help. Other workshop topics promote youth discussion of healthy choices, which includes choices regardmg youth tobacco use. (See workshop descriptions in addendum) Follow-Up Projects: Each year, attending teams agree to complete a follow-up activity focusing on the risk and protective factors present in their schools and/or communities Such follow-up activities are funded through "mum grants" Follow-up activities last a day to a week, and topics range from drug and alcohol awareness to wellness weeks. As a result of the 2001 follow-up activities, seventy-one follow-up projects reached 33,352 youth. The 2002 follow-up activities are well under way 1997-98 Kilo Junior High created a drug, alcohol and tobacco peer pressure program. Two- hundred fifty Y graders were reached. 2000-01 The Auburn Youth Council implemented four tobacco prevention fans. The fairs provided tobacco prevention education to Auburn School District middle school students. A total of 1,100 students participated in these events and gamed skills to educate youth and peers on tobacco use risks through interactive learning activities. Truman High School focused on tobacco prevention through team building and using youth as leaders and role models. 2001-2002 The $lack Diamond Youth Council focused on tobacco prevention through media education and creating their own video prevention messages. Youth council members were scheduled on the city council agenda to propose a new law limiting the smoking proximity to public buildings, with emphasis placed on schools. Valley Cities Youth Group from Auburn, created posters focusing on tobacco, domestic violence and healthy families fe 4 Kent Police Youth Board South King County Youth Advisory Board PROJECT TITLE TOBACCO PREVENTION RFP 10 Seattle/ King County Public Health APPLICANT AGENCY City of Kent, Washington Police Department "Game of Life" Youth Board Project Director Ed Crawford, Chief of Police, City of Kent, Washington 025 FTE! Project Supervision Lt Bruce Weissich, Kent Police Department. Facilitates agency collaboration; provides program overview and direction 025 FTE Project Overview Nancy Mathews, Drinking Driver Task Force Program Coordinator. Manages Mayor-appointed advisory board which establishes project goals and objectives using the logic model format Supervises Youth Board projects, provides program budget and accounting support. 20 FTE Grant Project Manager Stacy Judd, Public Education Specialist. Directs the twenty-five member youth board, coordinates the Youth Conference, oversees all aspects of youth board coordination, recruitment, facilitation, conference planning, implementation and evaluation, liaison with community and youth programs. .25 FTE Education Mike Buckingham, Program Assistant Assists the Public Education Specialist (project manager) with all aspects of recruitment, facilitation program training, special event planning, implementation, evaluation; and documentation of this project 22 FTE • FTE estimates based on time allotted to Tobacco Project Employees range from full time to three-quarter time to special assignment part time Partnerships Policy Direction Kent City Council Member, Leona Orr- Chair, Drinking Driver Task Force Steering Committee School Kent School District Drug/Alcohol Coordinator, Debbie Solatka Community Black Diamond Community Center, Helen Bitner Compliance Rich Manoli, Washington Liquor Control Board Tobacco Pry Gmt SKCPH Resumes 5 Statement of Work Problem Identtftcarion Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. In King County, over 19% of preventable deaths are linked to tobacco use.' Given the fact that the average onset of tobacco use by youth in King County is 12 8 years old', a lack of comprehensive, community-based prevention education programs needs to be supplemented. When youth begin smoking at such a young age, many do not realize the total impact that smoking will have over the years on both their physical and mental health. As stated in the five- year plan to control tobacco use in King County, in Washington State over 107,000 youth currently under the age of 18 will die prematurely from the effects of their addiction to tobacco.' There are a myriad of reasons that youth begin to use tobacco, whether or not they understand their choices and the consequences depends upon education, experience and healthy development Approximately 80% of adult smokers started smoking before the age of 18. Every day, nearly 5,000 young people under the age of IS try their first cigarette." Tobacco use alone is dangerous enough However, when linked with other substance abuse, its threats are greatly enhanced Approximately 52 percent of youth who had smoked cigarettes daily within the past month were also past month users of illicit drugs. Youth who smoked daily were more likely than older smokers to be past month users of illicit drugs.' In studies, alcohol use has also been linked to tobacco use Youth who had used both cigarettes and alcohol within the past month were more than twice as likely to have used illicit drugs within the past month compared with youths who had used only cigarettes or only alcohol' The Surgeon General reports that "educational strategies, conducted in conjunction with community and media-based activities, can postpone or prevent smoking onset in 20 to 40 percent of adolescents. Tobacco use prevention policies and programs exist in most U S schools, however not all schools administer these policies and programs effectively The Surgeon General's report encourages more consistent, collaborative approaches for education strategies. Target Population Students from eight South King County school districts and community groups are the target audience for the educational portion of this program. A larger and more diverse population is served by mcorporatmg all eight school districts in South King County The school districts include: Auburn Renton Enumclaw Tahoma Federal Way Tukwila Highlme Kent 6 Kent Police Youth Board South King County Youth Advisory Board Synopsis of New Program Element. The new South(Kent Police Youth Board), East and West King County youth advisory boards and the South King County school and community teams will receive the initial education and experience at the"Game of Life: Attitudes & Choices" youth wellness conference. A newly formed tobacco track will be added to the "Game of Life" for the King County advisory boards and other interested school/community teams. Workshops in this track will include risks of tobacco use, how to break the addiction, media training and youth tobacco possession laws. Depending upon the progress of the advisory board planning the summit, a workshop on developing and implementing a summit event will be included. A team planning session will be included to allow for the three advisory boards to discuss youth tobacco concerns in their commumhes and to collaborate on the youth summit The school/community teams will disseminate tobacco prevention information to their peers at their respective schools through their follow-up projects. The spring 2001 follow-up projects reached 33,352 youth and adults within South King County. The South, East and West King County youth advisory boards will return to their communities and promote tobacco prevention projects and messages Use of Tobacco Prevention Program Funds: The goals for this project are. Goal 1: Reduce tobacco use initiation by youth and other risk taking behaviors through education. Objectives: Utilizing a comprehensive & collaborative program. ❑ Educate youth on tobacco use risks and other risk taking behaviors ❑ Train youth to do peer education ❑ Provide support for school and community group follow-up projects addressing the education of tobacco use and risk taking behaviors Goal 2: Promote youth-dnven public debate on control issues and possession laws to reduce youth access to tobacco. Objectives: To assure that youth are the driving force behind public education and policy debate on tobacco control issues: ❑ Utilize media events to use counter-marketing to inform public of youth tobacco possession laws and influence social norms regarding tobacco use ❑ Provide support for school and community groups follow-up projects regarding youth possession laws and youth access ❑ Provide youth advisory board members opportunity to serve as youth operatives 7 Kent Police Youth Board South King County Youth Advisory Board Project Details Goal 1: Reduce tobacco use initiation by youth and other risk taking behaviors through education. The "Game of Life: Attitudes & Choices"youth wellness conference takes place every year in December. Schools and community groups implement post conference follow-up projects during the spring. The timing of the conference allows the youth board to promote their messages when risk factors for tobacco use and risk taking behaviors are most influential. These risk factors include, but are not limited to: lack of commitment to school, academic failure and friends who engage in the problem behavior. The 2002 "Game of Life"will include a tobacco health risk awareness workshop. The objectives for the workshop will result from the youth board and their collaboration with mental health professionals, media training, and others involved with tobacco prevention. The "Game of Life"will also provide a specific track of workshops for the East and West King County youth advisory boards. This would include the tobacco health risk awareness workshop In addition, the advisory boards would attend workshops on putting on a tobacco prevention summit and media trauung. If other schools or community groups are interested in a tobacco specific track and show interest in tobacco prevention follow-up projects, they would be able to attend the workshops with the advisory boards. Other workshops at the "Game of Life" will focus on risk taking behaviors and avoiding such behaviors, including tobacco use. Past workshops have included leadership, self-esteem, stress, understanding emotions and drug and alcohol use. These workshops are able to stand alone, but serve a more comprehensive role when dealing with tobacco, substance abuse and decision making. When creating workshop topics and objectives for the 2002 conference, the youth board will ensure that this pattern continues. Education of tobacco use risks and other risk taking behaviors will begin with the Kent Police Youth Board. Tobacco education training will be scheduled throughout the period of September through December, when the youth board plans the workshops for the "Game of Life". Training will be provided by mental health professionals, media and marketing experts and others involved in tobacco prevention. During the "Game of Life" the South King County school districts and community groups will receive training through the conference workshops. Dunng the conference, the attending teams will be encouraged to plan and implement tobacco prevention follow-up projects With this, the schools and commumnes will also receive education on the risks of youth tobacco use and tobacco prevention The East and West King County advisory boards will receive tobacco prevention and summit training m a specialized tobacco track. The entire process will focus on a comprehensive community approach. It will stem from the Kent Police Youth Board and grow in collaboration with local schools, youth community groups, mental health professionals, law enforcement, parents and media All will serve as educators, resources, and role models. Kent Poitce Youth Board 3 South King County Youth Advisory Board The Kent Police youth board will attend the King County Youth Summit to work with and learn from the East and West King County Youth Advisory Boards. Up to 75 youth will receive "Game of Life"T-shirts (at conference or prior to summit), along with a"summit"patch, designed by the summit hosts and included in the South King County Youth Advisory Board budget Deliverables The number of students attendng and the number of tobacco prevention brochures distributed will be documented. Evaluations from the"Game of Life"will be used. Pre and post workshop self-assessments are completed Principal, teacher, and youth surveys will chronicle opimons about the youth conference, and the tobacco prevention workshops specifically Community interaction will be documented School and community teams report their follow-up projects to the Kent Police Department's Public Education Specialist Reports include type of activity, materials handed out, number of students and adults administering the project and number of students reached. As in the past, these evaluation methods will be analyzed and revised when necessary Goal 2: Promote vouth-dnven public debate on control issues and possession laws to reduce youth access to tobacco Awareness of youth tobacco possession Iaws and the reduction of youth access messages will begin with the Kent Police youth board. The youth board will receive training during their scheduled youth board meetings on possession laws and methods to limiting youth access. This will allow them to feel more confident and powerful in relaying information to their peers and community It will also provide them with the necessary knowledge to choose and develop both the tobacco prevention workshops as well as workshops on youth possession laws and access. The youth board will then spread their messages of the possession laws and reduction of access to their peers and community The "Game of Life"will serve as an outlet. The conference will include a workshop on youth tobacco possession laws and methods to reduce youth access to tobacco. By offering the workshop on each of the three conference days, at least 150 youth will be reached. Awareness will then move from teams at the conference to schools and communities through tobacco prevention and awareness follow-up projects The Kent Police Youth Board will also serve as strong voices with any public policy issues surrounding tobacco control. This will be accomplished by attending any applicable city council meetings and a possible appearance on the Mayor's forum, a program featured on the City of Kent television station channel 21. The youth board will take a lead role in utihzmg media events such as Kick Butts Day and World No Tobacco Day to use counter marketing methods to inform the public of possession laws and to influence social norms regarding tobacco use. They will also use counter marketing measures and social norming to educate theirpeers and the public on the risks of tobacco use. The Kent Police youth board will also provide press releases to local newspapers such as the South County Journal and The Kent Rg2orter on the media events and outcomes. Kent Police Youth Board 9 South King County Youth Advisory Board City of Kent youth board members will also be given the opportunity to serve as youth operatives for tobacco compliance checks. In conjunction with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the Kent Police Department participates in alcohol compliance checks through out the City of Kent. Kent Police Explorers are used as operatives Deliverables Evaluations from the"Game of Life" will be used. Pre and post workshop self- assessments are completed. Principal, teacher, and youth surveys will chronicle opinions about the youth conference, and the tobacco prevention workshops specifically Community interaction will be documented. School and community teams report their follow-up projects to the Kent Police Department's Public Education Specialist Reports include type of activity, materials handed out, number of students and adults administering the project and number of students reached. As in the past, these evaluation methods will be analyzed and revised when necessary In addition, resources and materials on youth tobacco possession laws and reducing youth access with be provided at the youth conference as well as follow-up projects and community events. Copies of media releases will be provided to the Public Health - Seattle & King County The Kent Police Department and the Kent Police youth board will provide Public Health- Seattle & King County with a copy of the smoking policies The Kent Police Department's Public Education Specialist will attend King County Tobacco Free Council meetings. Youth board members will attend when feasible. The Kent Police Department and the Kent Police youth board will support the promotion of the Washington State Quit Line through distributing quit line materials at scheduled events, such as Great American Smoke Out, Kickbutts Day, and community events such as Kent Cornucopia Days. Statement of Work References 1. Public Health—Seattle & King County 5-year Plan to Control Tobacco Use in King County, 2002-2007. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Information & Prevention (TIPS). Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. www cdcgov/tobacco 3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, December 2001. 4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Tobacco Use-A Report of the Surgeon General-Executive Summary. Atlanta, Georgia:U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2000, • www cdc oov/tobacco 10 Kent Police Youth Board South King County Youth Advisory Board BUDGET WORKSHEET MATCHING AMOUNT AMOUNTS AND UDGET CATEGORY REQUESTED OTHER FUNDING TOTAL THIS RFP SOURCES FOR THIS PROJECT Staff Mike Buckingham Title- Program Assistant Prg Ast 4,836 wages222 Hrs x $20 hr 4,440 Chief 025% 2,700 Lt 025% 2,200 Coord 10% 4,000 Prg Mngr 25% 9,300 27,476 benefits 396 Prg Ast 396 Spt Staff 6,000 6,792 Supplies T-shirts 600 (75 patches Q 2.17 ea) 163 Conf Incentives 500 500 Reprographics/Misc Supplies 341 1,065 Food YB Pr) Mtgs & Events 1,000 City Goods & Services 2,750 6,919 Sacco Prevention Materials Watenals (min 5%) 2,500 2,500 Sub-Contracts / Professional Services Speaker Honoranum(3 days og$200 ea day) 600 Conference Team Follow--.ip 5500 ea 4,000 (one team from ea of B Scnool oistncts) Youth Board Facilitation' (RFP in progress) 6,000 10,600 Transportation E & W Teams (to Conf) 200 So KC Team & Staff 300 City & Other Grant Support 1 ,000 1,500 Other Tobacco Education/Media Training 1 ,000 Youth Board Projects 2,500 Food-YB Tobacco Events 300 Summit Support 1,000 Community Donations 5,000 9,800 Overhead max 20% 0of Admin Costs - 2 teams of 10 400 egistration Q S6 ea 120 Conf Break/Lunch $12 ea x 20 240 760 $ 20,000 $ 46,347 $ 66,347 Tobacco Budget Worksheet N O 'CD a ` N m 01 a) N 0 O m m m m a1 N m m c m C c c m m m � m O U y7 O V H LL ` CY. O m O m C m m m 0 J N m 2 O d O O O O m m m a a v a a a a 4. d t/1 Co m a m ° J J J ° a ° m ° z g ° m° c - - - c E c m c a y y =° c S E E v �° ? z y W as O 00 m 7 7 O O O O a' a a LL > U m m U U a v >- U Z �1 ,F a a m w "' z LL W z 2 a H 4 U W W O, 'Y > a O z h U O r- a W U' ca a c �, o m m ca0. > O C ° 41 O m 0 c c cl m c m 07 O cl CD m of c C g c � a x 3 Ix - c 9 w ca aE o - CL m U ca HE a) u Wm . O d N co ° E c ~ i E a) t Y w 0 y m o in c E S ul u In o a 0 o m m ?i m .= o U r W rA O O m m N U m V U hU O — U m m m m m mE m rpQ QL c> O m .3 a a m CD O O O O O O C O a7 co O v h Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION — AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to apply for an LLEBG in the amount of $68,410. Funds from this grant will be used by the Community Education Unit for crime prevention and publication education programs. Funds will also be used for officer training software. The total award amounts to $68,410 with a City match of$7,601. The grant project total is $76,011. The deadline for the application is July 17, 2002. 3. EXHIBITS: Grant application form with attachments (online application process) 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (7/9/02) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS. 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 60 au w 1JJE1 s iunQIIlg opportumtles Page 1 of 2 �I istanCe 00 rr�jiWY v- gtt>q� T '• WHAT$NEW CRAM 113900 iAW + 1 • _ Search B]A >GR '4• Q CExrM >usncEwincs Local Law Enforcement Block Grants ) PUeuCATlohs (LLEBG) Program FY 2001 L f L201ES&LLEBG tINIa EBGIPRIIIATED � Program > TEM411MG& Bnef „"!yPKALE Click here to view Recent LLEBG Program Announcements (last updated on 5122102) Disparate Certification > E Processes(FYs 20002002) > •90UTWA Fiscal Year(FY) 2002 LLEBG Application Timeline Elyibdlty Lists(FYs 1999- Stage 1 April 18-May 16, 2002 2002) The FY 2002 LLEBG Disparate Certification Process, to be completed by the State Attorneys General (SAG), opens on FY 2002 LLEBG ADDlicatlon April 18, 2002, and closes on May 16, 2002 5 p m e t Instructions LLEBG Program Stage 2 June 5-July 17,2002 Repmrements The FY 2002 LLEBG application system, accessible via the Internet-based Grants Management System(GMS), opens Recent LLEBG Program on June 5, 200Z The FY 2002 LLEBG application period Announcemen s(last will close at 5 p m e t on July 17, 2002 updated5/07/02) Click here for information concerning the FY 2002 LLEBG LLEBG SAAs Disparate Certification Process and the FY 2002 LLEBG Application Instructions Archived Program Announcements LLEBG Program Overview Grants Management The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) system(GMS) Program is administered by the State and Local Assistance Division (SLAD), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) BJA is LLEBG Jurisdiction a component of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) You A ns&Protect p Details may contact SLAD by calling 202-514-6638 In the 104th Congress, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Act (H R 728) to establish the LLEBG Program The omnibus Fiscal Year(FY) 1996 Appropriations Act (Public Law 104-134) instructed BJA to ' make funds available to units of general purpose local government under the LLEBG Program pursuant to H R 726 for the purpose of reducing crime and improving public safety Each year since, Congress has appropriated funds to continue the program The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to provide units of government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety The FY 2001 LLEBG Program fact sheet(PDF or ASCII) provides a comprehensive overview of the program LLEBG Program funds must be spent on one or more of the following seven purpose areas . .o,.riugia na. i CdU dVOUL nil of Wet s tunatng opponunmes Page 2 oI L 1 Supporting law enforcement a Hiring, training, and employing new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel on a continuing basis b Paying overtime to currently employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel to increase the number of hours worked by such personnel c Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions 2 Enhancing security measures in and around schools and in and around other facilities or locations that the unit of local government considers special risks for incidents of crime 3 Establishing or supporting drug courts 4 Enhancing the adjudication of cases that involve violent offenders, including cases that involve violent juvenile offenders 5 Establishing a multqunsdictional task force, particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement officials that represent units of local government This task force must work with federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control crime 6 Establishing crime prevention programs that involve cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or to prosecute criminals 7 Defraying the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers For a thorough review of the LLEBG Program Requirements, Eligibility and Distribution of Funds, Application Process, and additional relevant information, read the contents of each link located in the box entitled, "LLEBG Program Related Links " The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the LLEBG Program is 16 592 For more information regarding the LLEBG Program, call the BJA Support Services Line at 1-888-549-9901, option#4 U S Deoartment of Justice I Office of Justice Programs Privacy Statement and Disclaimers I FOIA menu aooui all of B A's funding opportunities Page 1 of r �nce Y WHATS NEW Y CRAM • AMS• • . X3 Search B]A PABB11 AM6 Y GRANTEE RESOURCE Y CENTER Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Y PueuCAnoNS The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program provides funds to units of Y TRAINING& local government to underwrite protects that reduce crime and improve public safety TECHNICAL The LLEBG Program emphasizes local decisionmakmg and encourages communities ASSISTANCE to craft their own responses to local crime and drug problems Y TWUIA� ae0trT Rra LLEBG Program funds must be spent in accordance with one or more of the following > seven purpose areas • Supporting law enforcement . Hiring, training, and employing additional law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel on a continuing basis . Paying overtime to currently employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel to increase the number of hours worked by such personnel . Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions • Enhancing security measures in and around schools and in and around other facilities or locations that the unit of local government considers special risks for incidents of crime • Establishing or supporting drug courts • Enhancing the adjudication of cases involving violent offenders, including cases involving violent juvenile offenders • Establishing a multijurisdictional task force, particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement officials representing units of local government This task force must work with federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control crime • Establishing crime prevention programs involving cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or to prosecute criminals • Defraying the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers Legislation:The LLEBG Program was originally proposed in H R 72B (Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995) Funding: FY 2002 funding is $340 million The funds are allocated by a formula based on Part l Violent Crimes as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform aUUul dii oI WA S tundmg opportumties Page 2 of',, Crime Reports BJA makes awards directly to units of local government when award amounts are at least$10,000 BJA makes one aggregate award directly to the State Administering Agency SAA) The state then distributes LLEBG funds to the state police department that provides law enforcement services to units of local government and/or to those units of local government whose allotment is less than$10,000 Eligibility: Units of local government are eligible to apply for an award Units of local government are counties,towns and townships,villages, cities, Louisiana pansh sheriffs, and Indian tribes and Alaskan Native villages that carry out substantial governmental duties and powers Each state (including the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U S Virgin Islands) receives funds that remain after the amounts for direct local awards are determined How/When To Apply:When allocations have been determined, BJA notifies each SAA and every unit of local government eligible to apply for an award of$10,000 or more In general, BJA opens the LLEBG solicitation on the Internet-based Grants Management System (GMS) in early June and has a 6-week application period, which ends in July Awards are made by August Related Publicationsllnformation: FY 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program (Program Brief) FY 2002 LLEBG Eli iq bdity List Related Link. LLEBG web site Contact Information State and Local Assistance Division Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street NW Washington, DC 20531 202-305-2088 Fax 202-305-2543 E-mail AskBJR oJpusdo)gov or State Administering Agency U S Department of Justice I Office of 3 tce Programs Pnvacv Statement and Disdaimers 1 FOIA rage 1 01 t ista ce 00 -> -- . • • . i '- _ Search 67A CRMIiIr ct� >CRVfn]E RESOURIX CENTM FY 2002 LLEBG Application Instructions >"TICE 70MCS To apply, submit an electronic application via the Internet-based Grants Management PUBLICATIONS System (GMS) > TRAINING& TECHNICAL ASSI`'TANDE Read the following instructions and guidance to complete and submit your Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 LLEBG application For assistance, call the BJA Support Services Line at 1- > 80VRR 888-549-9901 Please listen to the automated menu items and, for LLEBG Program- > ABOur BIA specific matters, select option#4 1 Only the Chief Executive Officer(i e , Mayor, City Manager, County Commissioner, et al ) of your jurisdiction (unit of local government), or the Program Point-of-Contact officially designated by the Chief Executive Officer, may apply for funding under the LLEBG Program Only public officials have the authority to bind the jurisdiction legally to the terms of the LLEBG Program The Chief Executive Officer may not delegate this responsibility to a nonpublic official or a public official outside his or her jurisdiction A jurisdiction may use whatever assistance it deems appropriate to gather the information required for the completion of the LLEBG online application and payment acceptance processes, however, it may only delegate a public official within the applicant jurisdiction the responsibility of actually completing the online processes Any applying jurisdiction that violates these requirements will be subject to formal action, including nullification of the FY 2002 LLEBG application and eligibility for future LLEBG funding cycles 2 Confirm that your jurisdiction is eligible to apply for FY 2002 funds by locating your jurisdiction's name on the FY 2002 Eligibility List (coming soon) If your jurisdiction is not listed, then it is not eligible to receive FY 2002 LLEBG funds directly from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) You should contact your State Administering Agency to determine if your jurisdiction is eligible to receive LLEBG funds from your state 3 First-Time Users of GMS: If your jurisdiction has never applied for an LLEBG award via the online Grants Management System, you must go to the LLEBG GMS Home Page and click on "Create New Account" Follow the instructions to create an LLEBG user name and password for your jurisdiction 4 For FY 1999, FY 2002, and FY 2001 LLEBG Recipients: Go to the LLEBG GMS Home Page Use your existing user name and password to log in to the system Proceed through the application process by following the onscreen instructions If you do not have your user name and/or password or you have replaced the previous LLEBG GMS user,click on the "Having Login Problem?" button and follow the instructions on the screen 5 Proceed to the LLEBG online Grants Management System, and log in to the system Read all of the information on the screen before entering the system You cannot begin the FY 2DO2 LLEBG application until the system opens on June 5, 2DO2 6 All users should bookmark (i e , save as a "favorites")the LLEBG GMS site to allow u au ui DjA s iunatng opportunities Page 2 of 2 for more efficient return to the log-in screen Return to LLEBG Home U S Deoartment of Justice I Office of Justice Programs Privacy Statement and Disclaimers I POIA Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT ORDINANCE (CPA-2000-3)— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Committee recommends approval of an amended Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map,text, and use amendments in the Agricultural Lands study area The study area includes lands with a current zoning designation of A-1,Agricultural, and AG,Agricultural General The Committee's recommendation includes Agricultural Resource Land,Agricultural Support, and low-density Single Family Residential designations. The Committee recommendation is consistent in the southern area with the Board's recommendation,with the exception that "reserve" lands with development rights previously sold to King County would be designated A-10 The Committee recommendation for the central and northern areas again designates King County lands as A-10 and designates all other areas SF-1/SR-1. The Committee also recommends a subsequent comprehensive plan and zoning amendment procedure to provide a clustering provision in areas zoned SR-1 Details of the Planning Committee's motion are included in the staff memorandum of July 10th. 3. EXHIBITS: Staff Memorandum of 7/10/02, Map of Planning Committee's recommendation, Table outlining recommendations of Board and staff, including amended Option B maps, Determination of Nonsignificance dated 3/5/02, Environmental Review Report Decision Document, Staff Reports and Minutes from Land Use &Planning Board public hearings of 3/25/02, 2/11102, 10/8/01, and 9/24/01, Maps of Options la, lb, 2, 3,4, A, B and C Copies of the complete file are available for review in the Council and Planning Services offices 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALlPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION. Is ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, CD Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager WY 5..N.T. Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 July 10, 2002 TO MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIM CLARK AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE AGRICULTURAL LANDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS (#CPA-2000-3) At their July 9"' meeting, the Planning Committee unanimously approved a motion to accept in part and modify in part the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation regarding Agricultural Lands as follows • For the southern study area to accept the map, text and use recommendations regarding comprehensive plan designations of Agricultural Support and zoning designations of AG, and to modify the recommendation to replace the zoning designation of A-1 on King County PDR program lands with a zoning designation of A-10, and • For the central and northern study areas to modify the map, text, and use recommendations to replace the zoning designations of A-1 on King County PDR program lands with a zoning designation of A-10, and to change the remaining comprehensive plan and zoning designations to SF-1/SR-1, and • Forward this Committee's recommendation to the July 16, 2002 City Council meeting for approval and to set an August 20, 2002 public hearing on the limited issue of adding clustering to the SF- 1/SR-1 designations for lands in the agricultural study areas Included with this memo is a map of the Planning Committee's recommended zoning and comprehensive plan map amendments Text and use amendments are as follows Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Designation: 1 Add the Land Use Designation Agricultural Support with the definition as follows The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use 2 Change the Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land with a change in the definition as follows The Agricultural Resource Land designation is for land reserved for agricultural use Single-family residential uses may be allowed, but at very low densities Agricultural Lands City Council Memorandum July 10, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Kent City Code-Development Regulations: 1 Kent City Code (KCC) 15 03 010-Establishment& Designation of Districts AG—Agricultural General District "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate locations for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural production " 2 Change A-1 Agncultural Distnct to A-10 Agncultural Distnct and no change in definition 3 Remove the "C" (i e Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Drive-in churches, welfare facilities Drive-in churches, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated, facilities for rehabilitation or correction, etc "under A-10 Agricultural District 4 KCC 15 04 040-Manufacturing Land Uses Add a"P" (i e Principally Pemutted Uses) in the "Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of dairy products and byproducts"under AG—Agncultural General District 5 Add a"C" in "Warehousing and distribution facilities" under AG—Agricultural General District with a note that states Reuse or replacement of existing structures for non-agricultural uses, where it is shown that the existing structures are obsolete for agricultural use and unless they can be put to non-agncultural use will have no viable economic use Any replacement structures must maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the property Signs shall be lmuted to not more than one-hundred (100) square feet in area per business, and of that amount, freestanding signs shall not exceed forty(40) square €eet in area No increase m the area of existing impervious surface shall be allowed in connection with a non-agricultural use 6 KCC 15 04 060-Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Uses Remove the "C" in the land use category "Transportation and transit facilities" under AG Agricultural General and A-10 Agricultural District 7 KCC 15 04 070-Wholesale &Retail Land Uses Add land use category "Agriculturally related retail' for AG district and add a"C" with a note that states "Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural products, at least 25% of the gross sales value of which are grown within Washington State Up to 50% of the gross sales value may be for seed, gardening equipment and products, private label foods, and locally hand-made products Any structures must be designed to maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the area" 8 KCC 15 04 170-Agncultural &Residential Zone Development Standards Change the "Maximum density dwelling units per acre" from A-1 to A-10 with a density of 1 du/10 acres Agricultural Lands City Council Memorandum July 10, 2002 Page 3 of 3 Change the "Minimum lot area square feet or acres, as noted" from A-1 to A-10 with 10 acres minimum lot area 9 KCC 15 04.190-Commercial and industrial zone development standards Add AG with the following development standards(See Exhibit A for details) Minimum lot area 1 acre Maximum site coverage 60% Front yard- see KCC 15 04 195 —(5) Side yard see KCC 15 04,195 —(12) Side yard on flanking street of comer lot see KCC 15 04 195 —(17) Rear yard see KCC 15 04195 — (20) Yards, transitional conditions see KCC 15.04 195 —(23) Additional setbacks see KCC 15 04 195 —(29) Height limitation, 2 stry/35 ft and see KCC 15 04 195 —(35) Landscaping see KCC 15 07 and see KCC 15 04 195 —(52) Outdoor storage see KCC 15 04 195 — (43) Signs see KCC 15 06 (regulations for MI) Loading areas see KCC 15 04 195—(47) & (48) Off-street parking see KCC 15 05 and see KCC 15 04 195 — (58) Additional standards see KCC 15 04 195 —(50), (53), (54), (55), and (56) 10 KCC 15 04 170 Agricultural and residential zone development standards Remove AG from Table Miscellaneous Additions: 1 Disallow industrial uses, transportation and transit terminals (trucking hub) and fuel farm facilities in AG and A-10 zoning districts CA\pm S\Pemit\Plan\CompPlanAmdmenm\2001\agccmemo DOC EXHIBIT A 40 Recommended Kent City Code Zoning Code Regulations and Standards For Agricultural General (AG) District within District Regulations Chapter 15.04 Sign Regulations Chapter 15.06 Landscaping Regulations Chapter 15.07 Chapter 15.04 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 15 04 195 Commercial and industrial land use development standard conditions Front Yard 5 The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer The setbacks are as follows a Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20)feet b Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20)feet Side Yard 12 The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than forty (40) feet There shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on each side Side Yard on Flanking Street of Corner Lot 17 The minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer The setbacks are as follows a Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty(40) feet b Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet Rear Yard 20 No rear yard is required, except as may be required by other setback provisions of this section Yards. Transitional Conditions 23 Transitional conditions shall exist when an industrial park M1 or M1-C district and AG district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes intervening use such as a river, freeway, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face When 1 transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50)feet shall be provided Additional Setbacks 29 Development in the M1 or M1-C district and AG district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the riverbank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200)feet Such setbacks are in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act Height Limitation 35 Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stones or sixty (60)feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each one (1)foot of additional building height The planning d+reeteF manager shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses Any additional height increase may be granted by the land use and planning board Landscaping 52 Where building walls face adjacent streets and are un-fenestrated for more than forty (40) feet at any point along the facade, additional landscaping shall be required to reduce visual impacts In such circumstances, type II landscaping, as defined in KCC 15 07 050, shall be required, provided, that evergreen trees shall be at least ten (10)feet in height and deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of planting Outdoor Storage 43 Outside storage or operations yards in the M1 or M1-C Zeae district and AG district shall be permitted only as accessory uses Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of the principal building or the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the property and reasonably screened from view from any property line by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds or landscaping Outside storage exceeding a height of fifteen (15) feet shall be so placed on the property as to not detract from the reasonably accepted appearance of the district Loading Areas. 47 Loading areas must be located in such a manner that no loading, unloading or maneuvering of trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way 48 Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way Berms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches and a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping as described in KCC 15 07 050 Off Street Parking 58 Those areas not required to be landscaped may be used for off-street parking Additional Standards- 50 Development plan approval is required as provided in KCC 15 09 010 2 53 Predominant activities and operations shall be completely enclosed within buildings or structures, except for customary appurtenances such as loading and unloading areas, or where special conditions exist as a result of a conditional use public hearing The planning d+FesteF manager shall be authorized to determine the reasonable application of this provision in cases of operational hardship or other showing of uncommon circumstances 54 Multi-tenant buildings shall be permitted 55 All required yards, parking areas, storage areas, operations yards and other open uses on the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all times The planning d'FesfeF manager shall be authorized to reasonably pursue the enforcement of this subsection where a use is in violation, and to notify the owner or operator of the use in writing of such noncompliance The property owner or operator of the use shall be given a reasonable length of time to correct the condition. 56 The performance standards as provided in KCC 15 08 050 shall apply Chapter 15.06 SIGN REGULATIONS 15 06 050 Regulations for specific districts In all districts the planning manager shall have the option to waive sign type requirements in unique and special cases where due to building design or other special circumstanue the development is unable to conform to stated standards E Signs permitted in industrial districts 1 Aggregate sign area The aggregate sign area for lots in the MA and M1 and AG distracts shall not exceed one-half(112) square foot for each foot of street frontage The aggregate sign area for lots in the M2 district shall not exceed three-fourths (3/4) square foot for each foot of street frontage The aggregate sign area for lots in the M3 district shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage In no case shall the aggregate sign area exceed one-half (112) square foot for each foot of street frontage on a corner lot The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area a Identification signs for buildings One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each lot on each street frontage, which may be a freestanding sign or a wall sign The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred (200) square feet for the total of all faces No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet If the sign is a wall sign, its size shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the building facade A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet The sign may be illuminated b Identification signs for occupancies One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy on each street frontage and shall be a wall sign The maximum size of the sign shall be ten (10) percent of the building facade This sign may be illuminated If the identification sign permitted under subsection (E)(1)(a) of this section is a wall sign, an additional wall sign may be permitted on a building facade not facing a street frontage 3 2 Farm product identification signs No permit is required, but the sign may not be located in the public right-of-way Chapter 15.07 LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS 15 07 010 Purpose A The provisions of this chapter are to provide minimum standards for landscaping in order to maintain and protect property values and enhance the general appearance of the city B The planning d+reetG manager shall have the authority to waive specific requirements or impose additional requirements in unique or special circumstances to ensure the fulfillment of the stated purpose of this chapter and to allow for flexibility and innovation of design Special circumstances or unique conditions shall be reviewed with the planning dlreeter manager prior to submittal of a landscape plan Examples of special conditions might include 1 Preservation of unique wildlife habitat 2 Preservation of natural or native areas 3 Compliance with special easements. 4 Renovation of existing landscaping 5 Unique site uses 15 07 050 Types of landscaping Type I - Solid Screen Type I landscaping is intended to provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate incompatible uses Type II -Visual Screen Type II landscaping is intended to create a visual separation that is not necessarily one hundred (100) percent sight-obscuring between incompatible uses Type III - Visual Buffer Type III landscaping is intended to provided visual separation of uses from streets and main arterials and between compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking lots and building facades Type IV - Low Cover Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired or as a complement to larger, more predominant planting materials Type V - Open Area Type V landscaping is primarily intended to visually interrupt large open spaces of parking areas 15.07.060 Regulations for specific districts. I Industrial agricultural, MA (industrial uses) and Agricultural general district. AG Industrial park district, M1 1 Front yard The front twenty (20) feet shall be improved with appropriate permanently maintained landscaping 2 Side yard At least fifteen (15) feet of the side yard shall be landscaped as provided in subsection (1)(1) of this section 40 S 1Perm(tPlanlCompPlanAmdments1200112004535-CPA2000-3CouncilWkShpExhibitB2 doc 4 Rupp _� xF egg i -- ■ EXHIBIT A LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Designation Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Designation: Add the Land Use Designation Agricultural = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) Support with the definition as follows The recommendation Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Change the Land Use Designation from Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land with a - recommendation change in the definition as follows The Agricultural Resource Land designation is for land reserved for agricultural use Single-family residential uses may be allowed, but at very low densities Zoning Designation: Zoning Designation: No Change in zoning district A-1 Agricultural Change zoning district from A-1 Agricultural with a residential density 1 dwelling unit/acre to A-10 Agricultural with a residential density of 1 dwelling unit/10 acres. Agricultural Preservation Program: Agricultural Preservation Program: Establish a Transfer of Development Rights Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and a Purchase of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program (PDR) Preservation Program. City Code-Development Regulations: City Code-Development Regulations: Kent City Code (KCC) 15 03 010-Establishment Kent City Code (KCC) 15 03 010- & Designation of Districts Establishment & Designation of Districts AG - Agricultural General District = AG -Agricultural General District "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) appropriate locations for agriculturally related recommendation industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural production " A-1 -Agricultural A-10 - Agricultural No change in definition = Change A-1 Agricultural District to A-10 Agricultural District and no change in definition. KCC 15 04 020-Residential Land Uses Remove the "C" (i e Conditional Uses) in the KCC 15 04 020-Residential Land Uses land use category "Drive-in churches; welfare Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) facilities Drive-in churches, retirement homes, - recommendation with the exception of A-10 convalescent homes and other welfare facilities Agricultural District rather than A-1 whether privately or publicly operated, facilities Agricultural District. for rehabilitation or correction, etc" under A-1 Agricultural District 1 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS City Code-Development Regulations (cont): City Code-Development Regulations (cont): KCC 15 04 040-Manufactunng Land Uses KCC 15 04 040-Manufacturing Land Uses Add a "P" (i a Principally Permitted Uses) in the = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) "Manufacturing, processing, blending and recommendation packaging of dairy products and byproducts" under AG —Agricultural General District Add a "C" in "Warehousing and distribution Not recommended for approval. facilities" under AG— Agricultural General District with a note that states Reuse or replacement of existing structures for non-agricultural uses, where it is shown that the existing structures are obsolete for agricultural use and unless they can be put to non-agricultural use will have no viable economic use Any replacement structures must maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the property Signs shall be limited to not more than one-hundred (100) square feet in area per business, and of that amount, freestanding signs shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area No increase in the area of existing impervious surface shall be allowed in connection with a non-agncultural use KCC 15 04 060-Transportation, Public and KCC 15 04 060-Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Uses Utilities Land Uses Remove the "C" in the land use category = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) "Transportation and transit facilities" under AG recommendation with the exception of A-10 Agricultural General and A-1 Agricultural District Agricultural rather than A-1 Agricultural District KCC 15 04 070-Wholesale & Retail Land Uses KCC 15 04 070-Wholesale & Retail Land Uses Add land use category "Agriculturally related Add land use category "Agriculturally related retail' for AG district and add a "C" with a note retail' for AG district and add a "C" with a note that states. 'Retail use must be for sale of that states `Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural products, at least agricultural or horticultural products, with at 25% of the gross sales value of which are grown least 25% of the gross sales value in products within Washington State. Up to 50% of the grown within King County. Up to 25% of the gross sales value may be for seed, gardening gross sales area may be for seed, gardening equipment and products, private label foods, equipment and products, NW regionally and locally hand-made products Any structures labeled foods, and locally hand-made must be designed to maintain or enhance the products Any structures must be designed to agricultural appearance of the area" maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the area" i 2 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS City Code-Development Regulations (cont): City Code-Development Regulations (cont): KCC 15 04 170-Agricultural & Residential Zone KCC 15 04 170-Agncultural & Residential Zane Development Standards: Development Standards No change to the "Maximum density dwelling Change the "Maximum density dwelling units units per acre" underA-1 (1du/lacre) per acre" from A-1 to A-10 with a density of 1 dull 0 acres. No change to the "Minimum lot area square Change the "Minimum lot area square feet or feet or acres, as noted" under A-1. acres, as noted" from A-1 to A-10 with 10 acres minimum lot area. KCC 15 04 190-Commercial and industrial zone KCC 15 04 190-Commercial and industrial development standards zone development standards Add AG with the following development = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) standards (see exhibit A for details) recommendation Minimum lot area 1 acre Maximum site coverage 60% Front yard see KCC 15 04 195— (5) Side yard see KCC 15 04 195— (12) Side yard on flanking street of corner lot see KCC 15 04 195— (17) Rear yard see KCC 15 04 195 — (20) Yards, transitional conditions- see KCC 15 04 195— (23) Additional setbacks see KCC 15 04 195 — (29) Height limitation 2 stry/35 ft and see KCC 15 04 195— (35) Landscaping see KCC 15 07 and see KCC 15 04 195 — (52) Outdoor storage see KCC 15 04195— (43) Signs see KCC 1506 (regulations for Ml) Loading areas see KCC 15 04 195 — (47) & (48) Off-street parking see KCC 15 05 and see KCC 15 04 195— (58) Additional standards see KCC 15,04 195 — (50), (53), (54), (55), and (56) KCC 15 04 170 Agricultural and residential zone KCC 15 04 170 Agricultural and residential development standards zone development standards Remove AG from Table = Remove AG from Table 3 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Miscellaneous Additions: Miscellaneous Additions: Disallow industrial uses, transportation and = All industrial uses (with the exception of transit terminals (trucking hub) and fuel farm agricultural processing), transportation and facilities in AG and A-1 zoning districts transit terminals (trucking hub) and fuel farm facilities are presently disallowed in the AG Agricultural General District or as recommended for deletion in previous sections Eliminate requirement for Planned Unit Use the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development (PUD) in Transfer of Development process to manage development within the Rights (TDR) Receiving Area Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Receiving Area Direct staff to broaden the proposed TDR TDR Preservation Program receiving area is Preservation Program to include additional located within the Northern Agricultural receiving areas and a variety of transferable Study Area and a small portion of land development standards. located to the west of the Northern Study Area. Not specified in LUPB recommendation but Include in public notice requirements of included in March 18'" staff memo to Board for Kent City Code the GMA requirement to March 25'" Public Hearing notify applicants and property owners located within 500' feet of designated Agricultural Resource Lands of the presence of agricultural activities. Not specified in LUPB recommendation but Remove from Option B the inclusion of included in staff memo to Board for March 25'" Comprehensive Plan annual amendment Public Hearing requests in the TDR program. S \permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2001\2004535-CPA2000-3CouncilWkShpTablel doc • 4 Land Use & Planning Board Retain A-1 Recommendation Option B a Change to SR-1 with Discussion: TDR Receiving Overlay A-1/Agricultural Resource Land Designate land use as , ° Agricultural Resource Land because of"prime farmland" Class II soils, existing land use, historical zoning and Retain A-1 land use designation Maintain A-ldistrict G/Agricultural Support. Create a land use designation "G called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is * I� defined as supporting"agricultural production by allowing F agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas / \ Retain A-1 designated for long term agricultural use" f N� SR-1/Single Family 1 Unit/Acre Change to Single Family 1 Unit/Acre with a TDR Receiving Area Overlay TDR Receiving Overia (see below)because 1) no longer"pnine farmland-soils due to human intervention or large un-dramed wetlands that have little regulatory possibility for reclammation, 2)lack of water rights for irrigation, and 3) conflicts with adjacent existing and proposed land-uses SR-1/Urban Separators Change to SR-1/Urban Change to SR-1/ Separators because 1)enwronmental,visual,recreational Y Urban Separator and wildlife benefits;2) no longer"prime farmland"sal / due undrained wetlands that have little regulatory possibility for reclaimation, 3)existing land uses are Retain A-1 _ storm water detention and golf course,and 4) need to minimize impacts of increased usage on Frager Road at is designated"scenic&recreational"and adjacent to the Green River Change to SR-1/ SR-3/Single Family 3 Units/Acre Designate land adjacent Urban Separator to A-1 as a TDR Receiving Area Overlay to increase r agricultural preservation program's capacby to absorb 'market value"ofAgncultural Resource Land DR Receiving Area Overlay Density based an carrying capacity of existing infrastructure, market value of eligible resource land, and market viability of proposed density Townhouses and clustering are recommended Chan a to A-1 Legend 40%♦ City Limits Study Area i O TDR Receiving Area Overlay it m Urban Soil Classification Proposed Land Use Designations Agricultural Resource Land Agricultural Support Cha a to AG Single Family 1 UniNAcre Urban Separator Existing Single Family 3 Units/Acre N KEN T Planning Services Scale AVdMM Chan a to A-10 Staff Recommendation Option B Change to SR-1 with Discussion: TDR Receiving Overlay A-10/Agnculturel Resource Land Designate as ° Agricultural Resource Land because of"prime farmland" Class II soils,existing land use, historical zoning and land use designation Change zoning to AgriculturaFlO G/Agncuftural Support Create a land use desgnabon called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is Chan a to A-10 defined as supporting"agricultural production by allowing agnculturally related industrial uses in or rear areas Chan a to A-10 designated for long term agricultural use' Q, 1 SR-1/Single Family 1 UnNAcre• Change to Single Family 1 Unit/Acre with a TDR Receiving Area Overlay TDR ReceNln Overly (see below)because 1)no longer"prime farmland*sods due to human intervention or large un-drained wetlands ou that have little regulatory possibility for reclamation, 2)lack of water rights for irrigation, and 3)conflicts with adjacent existing and proposed land-uses SR-1/Urban Separators Change to SR-1/Urban Change t0 SR-1/ Separators because 1)environmental,visual, recreational Urban Separator and wildlife benefits, 2)no longer"prime farmland'sal due undramed wetlands that have little regulatory possibility for reclamation, 3)existing land uses are Chan a to A-10 storm water detention and golf course, and 4)need Lto minimize impacts of increased usage on Frager Road that is designated"scenic&recreational"and adjacent the Green River Change to SR-1/ SIR-3/Single Family 3 UndslAcre Designate land adlaa Urban Separator to A-10 as a TDR Receiving Area Overlay to increase agricultural preservation programs capacby to absorb 'market value of Agricultural Resource Land DR Receiving Area Overlay Density based on carrying - capacity of existing infrastructure, market value of eligible resource land, and market viability of proposed density Townhouses and clustering are recommended. Chan a to A-10 TDR overlay requires a PUD Legend City Limits b Study Area TDR Receiving Area Overlay j a Urban Soil Classification Proposed Land Use Designations j Agricultural Resource Land Agricultural Support Chan a to AG Single Family 1 Unit/Acre j Urban Separator •sort fJ -- t' •mid Existing Single Family 3 Units/Acre r ENT.a Planning Services Scale F.bry ry2002 KENT W.S......M CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No #ENV-2001-56 Project CITY OF KENT KIVA#2013133 AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY Description The City of Kent Plannme Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals, policies, and land use designations for Agricultural Resource Lands and Agricultural Support, and amendments to the zoning man and code for the Agricultural and Agricultural/General Zoning districts With the designation of Agricultural Resource Lands, the city must establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program (TDR) for those property owners to who choose to preserve their lands for agricultural purposes, now and into the future There are eight(8) options under consideration • Option 1 a - Preservation of Entire Studv Area Usme PDR Preservation Program, • Option lb- Preservation of Southern Studv Area Using PDR Preservation Program, • Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 3 - Preservation of the Central Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Usme PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas, • Option A—Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation Program • Option B—Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program, or • Option C— Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area"Designation Applicant Gloria Gould-Wessen Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator City Of Kent Planning Services 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent Ca 98032 Lead Agency City of Kent The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 21 C 030(2)(c) This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Determination of Nonsigmficance Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 #2013133 Page two lead agency This Determination of Nonsignificance is specifically conditioned on compliance with the conditions and mitigating measures described below This information is available to the public on request There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 There is no further comment period on the DNS X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2) The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision, this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Comments must be submitted by March 19, 2002 Responsible Official Kim Marousek Position/Title Senior Planner Address 220 S Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Tele 53 856-5454 Dated March 5, 2002 Signatualo km APPEAL PROCESS AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATIO OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14)DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 1103 520 CONDITIONSIMITIGATING MEASURES: NONE Paue 2 of 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 KENT w.s H I N G,o w Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY ENV-2001-56 (KIVA#2013133) Responsible Official Glona Gould-Wessen I PROPOSAL The City of Kent Planning Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals, policies, and land use designations for Agricultural Resource Lands and Agricultural Support, and amendments to the zoning map and code for the Agricultural and Agncultural/General zoning districts With the designation of Agricultural Resource Lands, the city must establish a Purchase of Development Rights(PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program (TDR) for those property owners to who choose to preserve their lands for agricultural purposes, now and into the future There are eight (8) options under consideration • Option 1 a -Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program, • Option lb-Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program, • Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 3 -Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDRITDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas, • Option A — Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation Program • Option B — Preservation of Portions of the Nor-them and Central Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program, or • Option C —Preservation of Lands with Existing Agncultural Preservation Covenants and Change of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area" Designation II BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3222), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance 3117) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12 11, Kent City Code)will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner/Subdivider with the City of Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts Decision Document Agncultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention,treatment and conveyance, utilities,sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the deeding/dedication of right of way for identified improvements Compliance with Title 1103, and with Sections 15 08 220 to 15 08 224, and to Section 15 08 240 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent, in order to preserve trees, or to regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6 12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094 Any conditions applied to the following Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, iNhich are intended to mitigate impacts from the project herein being reviewed, are applied because identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing identified City Codes and Ordinances Eight (8) options have been proposed for consideration There are approximately 691 acres comprised of 150 tax parcels within the Agricultural Study Area (i e. Northern, Central, and Southern Study Areas) The options are discuss below Option 1 a-Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program The properties owned by the City of Kent and used for, or to be used for recreation, would be rezoned SR-1 The remaining properties within the A-I zoning district would change to A-20 (i a one dwelling unit (d u)/20 acres) and the entire Southern Study Area would be designated as Agncultural Resource Land and changed from AG and A-I to A-20 Option lb -Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program This option designates only the Southern Study Area as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR)preservation program The Northern and Central Study Areas would change to an Urban Separator land use with the associated SR-1 zoning district applied (i a approximately 213 acres, with 56 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers). The entire Southern Study Area would be designated as Agricultural Resource Land and changed from AG and A-1 to A-20 Option 2 -Preservation of Central and Southern Studv Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Studv Area as a TDR Receiving Area This proposal would designate the Southern and Central Study Areas as pnmanly Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) preservation program The existing and proposed recreational lands in the Northern and Central Study Areas would change to SR-1 The Northern Study Area would be designated as a TDR receiving area with different types of land uses and densities applied [i e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial — NCC (--6 acres), Medium Density Multifamily—MRM(-3 acres), Townhouse/Condo -MRT-16 (-20 acres), and Single-Family Residential - SR-6 (-41 acres)] to absorb the bulk of the Central and Southern Study Area's market value Proposed developments of 20 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Page 2 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Option 3 - Preservation of the Central. Southern and a Portion of the Northern Studv Area Usme PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area This proposal would designate the Southern, Central and a portion of the Northern Study Area as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by PDR and TDR preservation programs The TDR Receiving Area is made up of 238 acres, of which approximately 32 acres located between S 212" St and S 216" St and 3 acres located north of S 2121h St are unencumbered by environmental constraints Different types of land uses and densities would be applied [i e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial — NCC (-6 acres), Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16 (-5 acres), and Single-Family Residential - SR-6 (-20 acres)] adding approximately 206 dwelling units and 78,000 sq ft of commercial Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) The existing and potential recreational uses within the Northern and Central Study Area would change to SR-1 Zoning designations for the remaining lands within the Central Study Area, and the entire Southern Study Area would change from A-1 and AG to A-20 Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas This option designates the Central and Southern Study Areas, and nearly all of the Northern Study Area as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a PDR and TDR preservatioi, program Property north of S 212'1' St would be designated Urban Separator with an SR-1 zoning district with clustering (i e approximately 100 acres) The existing recreational lands in the Central Study Area would be zoned SR-1 The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to A-20 and the entire Southern Study Area would change from AG and A-1 to A-20 The Midway Neighborhood would be designated as a TDR receiving area (i e approximately 20 acres) The extent of the receiving area and the types of land use changes would be determined through a Neighborhood Planning Process, that would be conducted prior to a final decision on the amendments It would be proposed that the existing zoning districts would change from General Commercial (GC) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (O- MU), and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) when TDR's are purchased The resulting density of housing and employment would depend on the Neighborhood Planning Process and market forces Option A—Preservation of Large Portions in all Studv Areas Using PDR Preservation Program This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a PDR Preservation Program The zoning districts A- 1, AG and the four parcels with an Agricultural land use designation and MR-M zoning would change to an A-10 (one dwelling unit /10 acres) zoning district The single property located in the Southern Study Area and zoned A-1 would change to AG and a new land use designation of "Agricultural Support"would be assigned(i e approximately 30 acres) Option B — Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Studv Areas Usme a TDR Preservation Program. This option designates portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a TDR preservation program Land primarily north of South 2161h St would have the land use designation SF-1 with SR-1 zoning and a TDR Receiving Area Overlay (i e approximately 211 acres, with 7 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers) The TDR Receiving Area Overlay would allow Medium Density Townhouses (MRT-16) allowmg16 d u/acre on lands not encumbered by wetlands and buffers, and would be processed through a Page 3 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 PUD The remaining land within the Northern and Central Study Areas would have a land use designation of Urban Separator and zoning would be changed from A-1 to SR-1, with clustering allowed (i a approximately 120 acres, with 23 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers) The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural Support" and with no change to the existing AG zoning district designation The single A-1 property within the Southern Study Area would be rezoned to AG, because the existing dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards (i a approximately 30 acres) Option C—Preservation of Lands with Existing Agncultural Preservation Covenants and Chanee of Zoning and Land Use Desienations to Reflect GMA"Urban Growth Area"Designation This option does not designate any new Agncultural Resource Lands with the exception of the properties that have had their agricultural development nghts purchased by King County Their zoning would change from A-1 to A-10 The remaining lands in the Northern and Central Study Area would have a land use designation of Urban Separator with the zoning changed from A-1 to SR-1, allowing clustering (i a approximately 309 acres, with 5 25 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers), or a land use designation of SR-3 rtiith the zoning changed from A-1 to SR-3 (i e approximately 102 acres, with 80 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers) The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural Support" and with no change to the existing AG zoning distnct designation The single A-1 property within the Southern Study Area would be rezoned to AG, because the existing dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards (i a approximately 30 acres) HI ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS The impacts of project-specific applications under this plan with regard to the various environmental elements will be analyzed dunng the review of the project-specific applications and their associated SEPA environmental checklists, as determined necessary A Earth Nearly the entire agricultural study area is Class 11 "Prime Farmland Soil" based on the U S Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1972 maps (Sheet No 10-Des Moines Quadrangle, Sheet No 15 —Poverty Bay Quadrangle and Sheet No 16—Auburn Quadrangle) and the Agricultural Handbook No 210 "Land-Capability Classification" There are wetlands scattered throughout the study area, causing some of the hydnc soils to change from Class H "Prime Farmland" to Class III, IV or V having "severe limitations" and "very severe limitations" that would limit their use largely to "pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover" There are also two parcels that, because of human invention, are classified as "Urban" Other parcels within the study area may have historically been filled and no longer meet the definition of"Pnme Farmland Soil" The soils within the Midway Area (i e Option 4 — Proposed TDR Receiving Area) are urban in nature and nearly completely developed (i a located along Pacific Highway South, between Kent-Des Moines Road and South 240 St Each option is discussed below with theoretical densities calculated based on Kent's 2001 Wetland Inventory, applied regulatory buffers, and other environmental and regulatory constraints Development would occur only on unconstrained soils with grade and fill calculated at the time of development The increased density allowed in the Study Area would be subject to Kent's regulations stated in the "Background Information" section Page 4 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVAN2013133 Option la No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural activities (le farming, grazing, wholesale nursery of woody and herbaceous plant materials, fallow) and single-family residences The zoning would primarily change to A-20, which reduces density and removes the potential for agricultural industrial development in the AG zoning district Option lb Approximately 2% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the associated land use changes The majority of remaining land would be zoned A-20, allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-1 and AG zoning districts Option 2 Approximately 5% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the associated land use changes The majority of the remaining land would be zoned A-20, allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-I and AG zoning districts The other remaining land use changes would not increase allowed density Option 3 Approximately 3% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the associated land use changes The majority of remaining land would be zoned A-20, reducing future density in the existing A-1 and AG zoning districts The other remaining land use changes would not increase allowed density Option 4 The majority of land would be zoned A-20, lowering the potential for development Proposed increased density would occur in the Midway Area where the soils are urban(i e nearly built out) and development would occur through redevelopment Approximately 80% of the Midway Area would be impervious, or about a 10% increase over existing development Option A No change to existing land uses,w hich are dominated by agricultural activities and single-family residences The zoning would primarily change to A-10, reducing density and removing the potential for deN elopment in the AG zoning district The remaining land use changes would not increase allowed density, although development would be clustered to direct it away from sensitive areas tion B Approximately 2% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the associated land use changes The majority of the remaining land would be zoned A-10, allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-1 zoning district The Southern Study Area would not change from the existing AG zoning district with the exception of an existing dairy processing plant that would change from A-1 to AG, commensurate with existing land uses The allowed impervious surface for AG zoning district will be 60% Option C Approximately 7% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the associated land use changes The Southern Study Area would not change the existing AG zoning district, with the exception of an existing dairy processing plant that would change from A-I to AG, commiserate with existing land uses The allowed impervious surface for AG zoning district will be 60% B. Air All options that increase density have the potential of increasing Carbon Monoxide(CO) and other suspended particulate matter into the air, during both construction and occupation Page 5 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA42013133 C. Water The Green River winds through the Study Area and is fed by several creeks These creeks,their associated wetlands, and the river define the landscape of the Study Area In the Northern Study Area, there is a large wetland classified as Unique&Fragile I, as well as several smaller wetlands scattered throughout the area One of the larger wetlands is dedicated to water quality from upland land uses The Central Study Area also has creeks and associated wetlands connected to the Green River, including one dedicated to water quality The Green River is the eastern boundary for both the Northern and Central Study Area Frequent flooding from the Mill Creek Auburn system impacts the Southern Study Area All the options designate Agricultural Resource Lands with proposed zoning of A- 10 or A-20, both allowing less development activity There is no change to the existing AG zoning district The exceptions are Options A, $ & C, where the existing dairy processing plant would be rezoned from A-1 to AG Development within the floodplain near the river or wetlands would occur based on local,state, and federal regulations Preserving agricultural uses in any portion of the Study area ensures the potential for discharge of waste materials into surface waters from farming activities, although the kinds of agricultural discharges and their volume are unknown at this time Several of the options involve increased development and associated increases in impervious area Following the selection of a preferred option, the effect of land use changes on the local storm water conveyance system and any related creeks or streams shall be analyzed The results of the analysis may indicate that new and/or enhancements of existing storm water quantity and quality control facilities and/or conveyance systems shall be constructed. If such facilities are necessary, the City shall determine whether they will be regional facilities or site-specific facilities, when they will be built (e g in advance of or at the time of platting/site development), and who will be responsible for funding Some of the options will also require the filling of FEMA designated floodplam areas Floodplain filling would require the establishment of offsetting compensatory storage areas This will severely limit or restrict any plans to fill or build upon these properties Those properties located within storage floodway zones are required to provide 100% compensatory flood storage and on-site detention/retention Other zones require a minimum of 50% compensatory storage in addition to the required on-site detention/retention The initial review of the City's contour maps indicates there is very limited upland property available in the Study Area to provide offsetting compensatory storage The Study Area contains sei eral wetlands as identified by the City of Kent 2001 Wetland Inventory No delineations are required for the adoption of this agricultural lands study However, the designated sending and receiving areas for development credits will be required to have wetland delineations completed in accordance with Kent City Code Chapter 11 05 if the City of Kent Wetland inventory or on-site visits indicate that wetlands and/or buffers are potentially encumbering the subject properties Lion la No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural activities Any new development would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King County Health Department . Page 6 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Option lb The economics of low density development would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King County Health Department, unless development could hook up to existing sewer lines Option 2 The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck line just across the Green River along South 212t° St Dunng the construction phase of development, City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion Option 3 The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck line just across the Green River along South 212`h St Dunng construction phase of development, City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion Option 4 No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural activities Any new development in Urban Separator designated areas would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King County Health Department The remaining land uses would reduce density and the impacts on water quality Added development within the Midway Area n ould not change the existing urban form As redevelopment occurs,there may be improvements to old outdated storm water conveyance systems, oil separators,or old leaking seNN er lines Option A No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agncultural activities Any new development would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King County Health Department Option B The potential development areas within the TDR Receiving Area Overlay are limited by environmental constraints Areas along South 216'h St may be able to tie into the pump station located to the south The TDR Receiving Area Overlay located north of South 212`h St would likely tie into the existing sewer line near South 200a St once development occurs in this unincorporated area of King County During the construction phase of development,City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion Option C The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck line just across the Green River along South 212`h St The Central Study Area would need to bring sewer across the river on available lines During the construction phase of development, City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion controls D. Plants The original vegetation of the valley floor long ago disappeared through years of human intervention Plants are resilient, and stands of trees indigenous to wet river bottomland have returned in places that have been left fallow for years These diverse communities provide food, shelter, and breeding habitat for various animal species Even the invasive species (i e Himalayan Blackberry, Scotch Broom, Cannery Grass, etc ) that dominate the Green Riser's npanan corridor offer some bank stabilization, as well as food and shelter for wildlife The majority of the landscape,however, consists of agricultural plant life and single-family homes with landscaped yards Any of the options proposing changes in the existing land use would have to conform to the City's Shoreline Management Program, ensuring that buffers were maintained along the npanan and wetland habitats Stand-alone wetlands would also have protection under Kent City Code • 1105 The Midway Area is urban,providing minimal landscaping Page 7 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Option la No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural • activities and single-family residences If agricultural activities expand into fallow lands, trees, shrubs and wetland plant species would be removed,reducing the existing diversity and habitat hon 1b• The Urban Separator development form is clustered, which would reduce the impacts to wetlands (i a open or forested wetlands) The buildable land area has a 50% open space requirement The area designated for agricultural land use would not change, %%ith the exception of increased activities Option 2 The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses The proposed development in the Northern Study Area would occur on relatively open land presently used for agricultural purposes The riparian habitat would not be affected hon 3 The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses Like Option 2, development in the Northern Study Area would occur on open agricultural lands The riparian habitat would not be affected Option 4 The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses Changes due to increased density would occur in the Midway Area, which is presently developed as an urban form Option A The majority of land would remain in agricultural use Like with Option la, over time there is the potential for increased agricultural activities and the reduction of the existing plant diversity existing on fallow ground hon B The majority of land would remain in agricultural use The TDR Receiving Area Overlay within the Northern Study Area would be on unconstrained lands that are presently dominated by grasses and other ground cover, a topsoil processing plant, a construction storage yard, or single-family homes Developing homes in these areas would bring additional plant diversity not presently occurring in the area Citition C A change to the plant community would occur only on the unconstrained landscape Agricultural plant species would be replaced by plant communities associated with residential development, including trees, shrubs, grasses, and bulbs There is the opportunity to increase plant diversity, and potentially add to the habitat that would be preserved E. Animals The open agricultural landscape within the Northern and Central Study Areas adjacent to a wooded hillside provides a wide range of habitats for indigenous animals Raptors, heron, and a variety of songbirds live or migrate through this relatively uninhabited area The dominant terrestrial species is the coyote The endangered Chinook Salmon resides and migrates in the Green River, as does the candidate species Coho Salmon Other fish species, such as Chum Salmon, Steelhead and Cut Throat Trout migrate up the Green River and Mill Creek Auburn The anticipated amount of open space that any one of the options will provide should ensure habitat opportunities for these existing species Local, state and federal regulations will protect the fisheries There is no habitat for animals in Option 4, with the exception of multifamily and commercial landscaping Page 8 of 17 Decision Document Agncultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 F. Noise Some noise will result from the options that propose increased land uses During the construction phase of any development, the noise will have the highest impacts on surrounding uses Residential development dominates the options, with two options considering 78,000 sq ft of neighborhood commercial development (i e Options 2 & 3) SEPA review of the commercial development will provide the opportunity to mitigate any impacts noise may have on the surrounding multifamily residences In Option 4, where development is directed to the Midway Area, noise is generated by the proximity to Pacific Highway South, Interstate-5, and air traffic to and from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport G. Land and Shoreline Use The Study Area has a land use designation of Agricultural and zoning districts of Agricultural (A-1) or Agricultural/General (AG), with the exception of four parcels totaling approximately 6 acres that are Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M) All these lands are considered in the Agricultural Study Area The existing land uses are agricultural (i a approximately 442 acres of both active and fallow farm land), single- family residences, dairy processing plant, soil processing, construction yard, and a WSDOT maintenance yard Surrounding land uses vary in the individual study areas The Northern Study Area has the Kent Boeing Aerospace Plant across the Green River to the east and a large residential community (1 e —700 d u) located to the southwest Proposed land uses outside the city are multifamily,office, and light industrial, The Central Study Area has a large residential community located across the Green River to the east and to the west backs up to a steep wooded slope All options proposing increased land uses would be compatible with the surrounding and existing residential land uses found in the Northern and Central Study Area The proposed neighborhood commercial development in Options 2 & 3 would be mitigated through the SEPA process Its presence in the area would provide a commercial center that would be easily accessible by foot or bike to surrounding neighborhoods The Southern Study Area is flanked to the east by SR-167 and warehousing beyond, and to the south and west, the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District (APD) dominates the landscape Re-zoning the land either A-10 or A-20 would fit the surrounding land use in the APD Maintaining the AG zoning district would support the APD by ensuring the agricultural uses have industrial support (i e lettuce processing,berry packaging, etc ) The Green River within the City of Kent is designated Urban, allowing development to occur within the urban context Because of Frager Road's placement, all options proposing increased land uses will not encroach onto the river The Central Study Area is an exception Private property abuts the river Therefore Options lb & C would place residential development adjacent to the Green River SEPA review should provide the necessary design to ensure protection of the shoreline and fisheries The Midway Area is characterized by auto oriented commercial development along Pacific Highway South (1 e Option 4) One block to the east of Pacific Highway, there are multifamily and mobile home parks, a hotel, and the business offices of the Highline Water District To the west within the City of Des Moines, is Highhne Community College The zoning is General Commercial (GC), Mobile Home Park (MHP), Garden Density Multifamily (MR-G), and Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M) Not all properties would be redeveloped However, there is the potential that redevelopment Page 9 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 would displace 93 dwelling units (d u), of which 90 d u are mobile homes During the Neighborhood Planning Process, solutions for the potentially displaced households would be made The preferred Option B will direct development into developable lands within the TDR Receiving Area These lands are unconstrained and are too small to be economically viable farming operations The amount of development likely to occur in Option B will be relatively compressed in size and surrounded by wetlands, Natural Resource Lands, and a scattering of single-family homes H. Housing The increases in housing vary by option,but all would provide housing that represents the mix of housing throughout the City of Kent Single-family, townhouse condominiums and medium density multifamily housing are all represented. Option lb uses clustenng of housing units into 8 dwelling units with 120' foot separation in the Urban Separator land use designation While dense, it ensures environmentally sensitive areas are preserved as open space Options 2 and 3 cluster a vanety of housing types together representing the urban form that dominates the Puget Sound Basin Option B clusters townhouse condominiums(i e MRT-16) into relatively small areas surrounded by environmentally sensitive areas and farmland The amount of dwelling units is approximately 112 d.0 Option C allows only single-family housing at 3 63 d u/acre This zoning type is closer to the existing housing form,but the architecture (1 a size)of the homes will probably change The increased housing will ensure the City of Kent will continue to meet the housing needs of the area and what's required by the GMA I. Aesthetics The options that increase land uses are predominately residential The residential development is dominated by single-family homes with some townhouses(i a 16 d uJacre) and multifamily residences(i e 23 d u/acre) Kent's City Code allows a single-family home to be 30 ft tall,while the townhouses are 35' ft tall, and the multifamily residences are allowed to be 40' ft in height A neighborhood commercial development would be allowed to be 35' ft tall The older residences in the Study Area are pnmanly single story structures The newer neighborhood located to the southwest in the Northern Study Area have building heights that are multi-stoned(i e 25' to 30'tall) The following is a discussion of the relevant individual options ODtion la No Change Option lb New housing would be clustered in groupings of eight (8) d u The clustering of small lots would certainly promote two story structures, to maximize building area The required open space should mitigate the feeling of density Option 2 The introduction of neighborhood commercial, multifamily residential, and single family would change the aesthetic character of the existing residential enclaves scattered throughout the Study Area Through the SEPA process, the commercial and multifamily development can mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhoods Option 3 Same as Option 2, with the exception that there would be some agricultural lands preserved to the south,keeping some of the character of the area Page 10 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Option 4 There would be no change to the Study Area However, the appearance of the Midway Area would change from redevelopment Much of the existing building stock is 50 years old Some are single-family homes converted to commercial use, and the majority of construction is a single story The mixed-use office/commercial land uses proposed for the Midway TDR Receiving Area would update the architecture and uses The City of Kent is planning major improvements to Pacific Highway South, adding planting medians, street trees and sidewalks Option A No change Option B. The majority of the landscape would not change in character,but there are unconstrained areas within the TDR Receiving Area Overlay that would be allowed to build townhouses at a density of 16 d u/acre The potential of 30' fit tall blocks of townhouses punctuating the agricultural landscape would change the existing character, but they would be replacing a huge—80' ft tall mound of dirt and the associated heavy equipment, or replace a construction yard also filled with heavy equipment The development would be limited to the TDR Overlay area,preserving the surrounding agricultural lands Option C The agricultural lands, which provide much of the aesthetic character for the Northern and Central Study Area, would convert to residential neighborhoods with potentially two-story single-family homes at 3.63 d.0/acre. J. Light and Glare The options that increase land uses are primarily residential in nature, with the exception of Options 2 & 3 where neighborhood commercial would be permitted During the SEPA process, mitigation of light and glare from the commercial area into the adjacent residential areas will be addressed All other changes will be primarily residential in nature Multifamily development will have landscaping to buffer the use and impact of light into the single-family areas K. Recreation There are a multitude of existing and proposed recreational opportunities for increased land uses in the Northern and Central Study Area Frager Road winds through the Northern and Central Study Areas and is a "scenic and recreational" asset of the City Also nearby are the Green River Trail, Grandview Park, VanDoren's Landing Park and the Municipal Golf Course There is a new BMX dirt bike track planned for the area, and land has been purchased by the City of Kent for a potential large ball field complex will for the community (i e north of South 212" St) In the Southern Study Area, there is the Inter-Urban Trail L. Historic & Cultural Preservation While the Lushootseed speaking communities of the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Peoples probably hunted, fished, collected plant materials, and lived within the study area, there are no known archaeological sites recorded It is known, however, that in the Northern Study Area two villages were reported from T T Waterman's ethnographic work in the early 1900's Caution should betaken if development occurs in the Northern Study Area, to ensure there is no disturbance of possible cultural materials or burial sites Page 11 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 M. Transportation The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law was adopted by the 1991 legislature and incorporated into the Washington Clean Air Act as RCW 70 94 521-551 SHB 1513 went into effect on July 28, 1997 and revised the original law The basic idea behind the CTR law is to get employees who drive to work alone to consider commute alternatives such as buses, carpools, bike riding, walking, compressed work weeks, and flexible work schedules The City addresses the bus alternative by requiring that applicant accommodates the needs for public bussing as expressed by METRO All Land Use Options: In general, the Agricultural Study Area is within an area characterized by public streets, which in general have narrow traffic lanes and narrow or no shoulders, and have been identified as having substandard pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities Prager Road, South 216th Street, and 30`h Avenue South (i a located in the Midway Area) are examples of streets that have these characteristics Many of the streets serving the Study Area are currently not improved to their applicable design standards, and these streets will require improvements in conjunction with any development associated with land uses changes The City will require that developers provide the necessary street and utility improvements as a condition of future development, OR require that development not occur until such time as the necessary street and utility infrastructure is in place Prager Road is of particular interest because of its designation as a "scenic and recreational' road Presently, it provides only two narrow traffic lanes with narrow paved and gravel shoulders, and for all practical purposes is operating at maximum capacity at the present time The horizontal alignment of Prager Road parallels the course of the Green River over an alignment controlled by the City predominantly through prescriptive rights only In addition to several substandard horizontal curves it has many steep drop-offs along the east side This existing street does not meet current street standards for a Residential Street as would be required by the proposal In order for Frager Road to function as a Residential Collector Street, it would require two 16-foot wide traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot wide planter strips, 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks, and a street lighting system along both sides of the street when fully developed. Adequate right-of-way to accommodate these required improvements is not available Due to its proximity to the Green River, adjacent wetlands, and sensitive areas, and the resulting adverse storm water quality impacts, it is questionable whether the necessary State and Federal permits for improving Frager Road could be obtained by the City If the necessary permits were obtainable, it is very likely they would contain conditions that would be cost-prohibitive to provide Any increases in existing land uses will cause significant and/or additional congestion at many existing and/or future street intersections The amount of congestion cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively addressed at this time Option la This option would result in negligible adverse traffic impacts, since the total number of residential dwelling units would remain essentially the same as currently existing Page 12 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Cintion lb This option has the potential to add an additional 3000 ADT and about 300 PM Peak Hour Tnps to the public street network, plus an additional number of ADT and PM Peak Hour Trips created by the proposed park Option 2 The SR-1 element has the potential to add an additional 2350 Average Daily Trips (ADT), and about 248 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The MRT- 16 element has the potential to add an additional 1880 ADT and about 173 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The MRM-23 element has the potential to add an additional 716 ADT and about 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The NCC element has the potential to add an additional 5810 ADT and about 533 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network, This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 8,636 ADT and about 1021 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This option would require the construction of several new public streets, and the improvement of South 216"Street from Frager Road Lo 42nd Avenue South These streets would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, Residential Collector, Arterial Streets, or Commercial Streets, depending upon the final layout and abutting land uses The new street connection to South 212" Street would have to be carefully located in order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance, and to provide for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212'h Street — a designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes The new cornection to South 216" Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips onto Frager Road, which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints The new street connections to the 42"d Avenue South Corridor — which will ultimately connect to our new South 224" Street/ South 228t' Street Corridor — should not connect to Frager Road for the reasons previously cited above Option 3 The SR-6 element has the potential to add an additional 3560 ADT, and about 376 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The MRT-16 element has the potential to add an additional 540 ADT and about 51 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The NCC element has the potential to add an additional 5810 ADT and about 533 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This total option, therefore, has the potential to add 9910 ADT and about 960 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This option would require the construction of several new public streets These streets would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, Residential Collector Artenal Streets, or Commercial Streets, depending upon the final layout and abutting land uses The new street connection to South 212d' Street would have to be carefully located in order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance,and to provide for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212" Street — a designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes The new connection to South 216ih Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips on Frager Road, which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints These new public streets, and subsequent residential developments should be designed to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of new vehicle trips on Frager Road for the reasons previously cited above Pa"e 13 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 Option 4 The SR-1 element has the potential to add an additional 130 ADT, and about 14 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This option will have virtually no adverse traffic impacts upon Frager Road In the Midway Area a Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) Shopping center element has the potential to add an additional 5400 ADT and about 495 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The CC-MU office element has the potential to add an additional 5440 ADT and about 784 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The CC-MU residential element has the potential to add an additional 1340 ADT and about 141 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 17,840 ADT and about 1434 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This land use option will require the improvement of both SR-99 / Pacific Highway South and 30'h Avenue South SR-99 is a designated Principal Artenal, and as such is intended to provide the necessary north— south vehicle capacity for the City's West Hill The City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) contains the SR-99 HOV street improvement which will provide the necessary street improvements for that street, and that will hopefully address the necessary access management issues that will need to be solved to increase the capacity and safety of this vital street link This street improvement will provide for six to seven traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, cement concrete sidewalks, street lighting, and non-traversable medians to prevent unsafe left turns across three or more lanes of traffic 30th Avenue South provides for two lanes of traffic and narrow shoulders, has no sidewalks or a street lighting system along most of its length, and is not contained within the City's TIP This street is a designated Residential Street, which should include two 16-foot wide traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot planter strips, and 5 to 10-feet wide cement concrete sidewalks (depending upon the nature of the land uses abutting the street), and a street lighting system when fully improved to current street standards The increase in vehicle trips along 30`s Avenue South will also adversely impact South 240'h Street,which currently provides for two narrow traffic lanes with narrow shoulders This street will also have to be improved between 30th Avenue South and SR-99 to safely convey the new vehicle trips generated by this land use option This street is also designated as a Residential Collector Street, which should provide for two 16-foot wide traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot planter strips, and 5 to 10-feet wide cement concrete sidewalks (depending upon the nature of the land uses abutting the street), and a street lighting system when fully improved to current street standards Option A This option would result in negligible adverse traffic impacts to existing public streets, since the total number of dwelling units would remain essentially the same as existing Option B The MRT-16 element has the potential to add an additional 720 ADT, and about 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The MRD element has the potential to add an additional 350 ADT and about 37 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 1070 ADT and about 104 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network Page 14 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 This land use option would impact Frager Road because of the reasons cited previously, but the amount of adverse impact is much smaller than the land use options which would result in the generation of many more new vehicle trips upon this substandard City street. Option C The SR-I element has the potential to add an additional 210 ADT, and about 22 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network The SR-3 element has the potential to add an additional 2770 ADT and about 292 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 2980 ADT and about 314 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network This land use option would require the construction of several new public streets between South 212'h Street and South 216'h Street, and the improvement of South 216'h Street These streets would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, and Residential Collector Arterial Streets, depending upon the final street layout and abutting land uses The new street connection to South 212'h Street would have to be carefully located in order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance, and to provide for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212'h Street — a designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes The new connection to South 216'h Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips on Frager Road, which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints These new public streets, and subsequent residential developments should be designed to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of new vehicle trips on Frager Road for the reasons previously cited above The central area of this land use option would create additional, but not significant adverse traffic impacts upon Frager Road between South 228 h Street and West Meeker Street, for the reasons previously cited above These adverse impacts to Frager Road might be mitigated by the costly construction of a new bridge over the Green River at the west end of West James Street/ S 240'h Street, and the construction of new public streets connecting to this new extension of West James Street, but the associated costs and unavoidable environmental impacts would make the construction of this bridge infeasible N. Public Services The entire Study Area has police, fire and EMT service provided by the City of Kent Service in the Northern and Central Study Areas will be improved with the purchase of an aid car for the north valley Station 76, to which new development will need to financially contribute If Frager Road is closed to through traffic, the City will require fire suppression systems in all newly constructed residences O. Utilities The Study Area is currently without water or sanitary sewer service, and the cost of extending these services to these areas will be logistically difficult and very costly The options propose varying land use densities The lower the density, the higher the cost to provide utilities Some densities would be so low that providing sewer would not be fiscally practical Water can be provided in the Northern and Central Study Areas from the Highlme Water District to the west The costs associated with extending the necessary infrastructure would have to be home by the developer(s) of these areas at the time of development Page 15 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 The options that increase land uses in the Northern and Central Study Areas face different concerns In the Northern Study Area, it is unlikely that sanitary sewer from the designated receiving areas will be able to gravity flow to the existing Polygon lift station and sanitary conveyance across the Green River There are two existing sanitary lines on the east side of the Green River which could potentially receive sanitary effluent from these receiving areas provided additional lift station(s) are constructed on the west side of the river to convey the effluent across the river. One existing sewer is located at S 212" and the other is located south of S 196". Sanitary sewage generated in the designated receiving area would be required to gravity flow to the prospective lift station serving it The alignment of this conveyance could be particularly challenging due to the proliferation of wetlands/sensitive areas, the generally flat topographical characteristics of the area, and the need to acquire easements in which to build the required infrastructure The Central Study Area is also devoid of sanitary sewer and water service and faces challenges similar to those listed above in order to allow development to occur in this area IV SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The recommended option (B) has the potential of providing TDR Receiving Area Overlay capacity to absorb the market value of the Agricultural Resource Lands Concerns have been raised over increased density The following addresses those concerns The addition of MRT-16 townhouses will be 720 ADT and 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network Improvements to South 216t° St will be absorbed by the developer(s) and can connect to 42"d Ave South/South 212d' St The 228`" Corridor will alleviate impacts of increased traffic onto South 212'h St A suggested mitigation to ensure Frager Road is protected from increased traffic is to close it to through traffic Pass through traffic from within the neighborhood and from outside the neighborhood will be eliminated, enhancing it as a "scenic and recreational"road The City of Kent will ensure that utility easements will be allowed through the Agricultural Resource Lands, allowing sewer and water lines to cross agricultural lands for access to existing or proposed sewer pump stations A Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include 1 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act 2 The State Shoreline Master Program and the Kent Shoreline Master Program 3 Kent City Code Section 7 07 Surface Water and Drainage code 4 City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and six-year transportation improvement plan 5 Kent City Code Section 7 09 Wastewater facilities master plan 6 City of Kent Comprehensive water plan and conservation element 7 Kent City Code Sections 6 02 010 and 6 02 020 construction standards 8 Kent City Code Section 6 07 street use permit requirements 9 Kent City Code Section 14 09 flood hazard protection 10 Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivision Code 11 Kent City Code Section 12 05 Mobile Home Parks and 12 06 Recreation Vehicle Parks 12 Kent City Code Section 8 05 Noise Control Page 16 of 17 Decision Document Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133 13 City of Kent Uniform Building and Fire Codes 14 Kent Zoning Code 15 Kent City Code Title 1103, Environmental Policy, and amending Ordinance 3282 16 Kent City Code Section 7 13 water shortage and emergency regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227 17. Kent City Code Sections 6 02 and 6 03 required public improvements 18 Kent City Code Section 7 05 Storm and surface water drainage utility 19 City of Kent comprehensive sewer plan 20 City of Kent Fire Master Plan 21 City of Kent Wetland Management Ordinance 3109 B It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this project without conditions The following documents are incorporated by reference Mill Creek Auburn Basin Flood Management Plan (Draft 1999) City of Kent, City of Auburn, City of Federal Way, and King County Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (Draft March 1997) Sponsored by City of Auburn, City of Kent, King County, U S Environmental Protection Agency, and U S Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Final Environmental Impact Statement —Agricultural Zoning Alternatives, June 1984 City of Kent Agricultural Lands Study,June 1982 • National Flood Insurance Rate Maps—FEMA,May, 1995 Habitats &Species Map-Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife,July 2001 City of Kent Wetlands Inventory, July 2001 (digital map) City of Kent Major and Minor Water Bodies(digital map) City of Kent Hazard Area Development Limitations Map (digital map) Land-Capability Classification Agriculture Handbook No 210 and Associated 1972 Maps (i e Sheet No 10 —Des Moines Quadrangle, Sheet No 15 —Poverty Bay Quadrangle, and Sheet No 16 — Auburn Quadrangle) — Soil Conservation Service U S Department of Agriculture KENT PLANNING SERVICES March 5,2002 GGW jm\1S\PermitlPlan\Env\2001\2013133-2001-56 doc 0 Page 17 of 17 KENT was nixorox CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No #ENV-2001-56 Project CITY OF KENT KIVA#2013133 AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY Description The City of Kent Planning Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals, policies, and land use designations for Agncultural Resource Lands and Agncultural Sunnort, and amendments to the zoning map and code for the Agricultural and Agrcultural/General zoning districts With the designation of Agricultural Resource Lands, the city must establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program (TDR) for those property owners to who choose to preserve their lands for agricultural purposes, now and into the future There are eight (8) options under consideration • Option 1 a -Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation ?rogram, • Option lb -Preservation of Southern Studv Area Using PDR Preservation Program, • Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 3 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area, • Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Studv Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midwav Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas, • Option A—Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation Program • Option B —Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Program, or • Option C — Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area"Designation Applicant Gloria Gould-Wessen Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator City Of Kent Planing Services 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent Ca 98032 Lead Agency Citv of Kent The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 21C 030(2)(c) This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Determination of Nonsignificance Agricultural Lands Study #ENV-2001-56 #2013133 Page two —iead agency This Determination of Nonsigm5cance is specifically conditioned on compliance with the conditions and mitigating measures described below This information is available to the public on request There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 There is no further comment period on the DNS X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2) The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision, this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11 680 Comments must be submitted by March 19, 2002 Responsible Official Kim Marousek Position/Title Senior Planner Address 220 S Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Tele 53 856-5454 Dated March 5, 2002 Signatu APPEAL PROCESS AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATIO OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14)DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION PER KENT CITY CODE 1103 520 *CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager KE O T Phone 253-856-5454 w.s Hixc.ow Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING March 25,2002 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday,March 25, 2002 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman,Chair Fred N Satterstrom,AICP, C D Director David Malik, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Mgr Steve Dowell Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS/Planner Nicole Fmcher Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst City Attorney Ron Harmon Leonard Olive,Dev Mgr, Public Works Engineering Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Les Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ron Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to approve the Minutes of March 11, 2002 with one correction to replace Les Thomas's name with the name of the Board member who seconded the matron for Option 5 Motion CARRIED ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the City Council will hold a public hearing on April 2, 2002 to discuss the zoning and comprehensive plan land use map designations for the DeMarco Annexation area #CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record • Exhibit#1 Letter dated February 22, 2001 from Rita Bathe with FarmCrty Alliance • Exhibit#2 Letter dated March 26, 2001 from Gary Young with Polygon Northwest • Exhibit#3 Letter dated March 26, 2001 from Dorothy Knitter • Exhibit#4 Letter dated March 29, 2001 from Casimiro and Lucille de la Cruz • Exhibit#5 Letter dated April 12, 2001 from Judith Hemng, Coordinator with King County Farmland Preservation Program • Exhibit#6 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Jack& Alice Nelson on behalf of their selves and Howard and Nancy Bauer • Exhibit#7 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Mike Carpmito • Exhibit#8 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Judy Herring with King County Farmland Preservation Program • Exhibit#9 Documents dated 4/23/01 from Mark Sollitto,TCD Program Manager with Kmg County Office of Regional Policy and Planning concerning"Transfer of Development Credits Program" • Exhibit#10 Letter dated 8/6/02 from Rita Bathe with FarmCity Alliance concerning Farmers Markets statistics Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 25, 2002 Page 2 of 6 • Exhibit#11 Letter dated August 10, 2001 from Elaine Spencer with Graham &Dunn PC concerning wetland status • Exhibit#12 Letter dated August 16, 2001 from Bea Adams • Exhibit#13 Letter dated February 9, 2002 from Jennifer Kim and Lance Springer, • Exhibit#14 Letter dated February 11, 2002 from Linda Hayes on behalf of Casimuo&Lucille de la Cruz • Exhibit#15 Letter dated February 15, 2002 from Debt Nicholson representing "7" families in Northern Study area • Exhibit#16 Letter dated February 20, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn concerning MA zoning and recommended changes to AG • Exhibit#17 Letter dated February 22, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn concerning SEPA issues • Exhibit#18 Letter dated February 26, 2002 from Linda J Hayes on behalf of Casimiro&Lucille de la Cruz • Exhibit#19 E-mail transmission dated February 26, 2002 from Albert Dreisow with attached letter from Mr George Lancaster with Safeway • Exhibit#20 Letter dated February 27,2002 from Don Stuart with American Farmland Trust • Exhibit#21 Letter dated March 6, 2002 from Albert Dreisow • Exhibit#22 Letter dated February 22,2002 from King County Farmland Preservation Program • Exhibit#23 Letter dated March 14, 2002 from Jennifer Kim and Lance Springer concerning protection of farmland • Exhibit#24 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Don Stuart,Regional Director of American Farmland Trust • Exhibit#25 Letter dated March 22, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham &Dunn • Exhibit#26 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Marguerite Sutherland, President of"Preserve Land for Agriculture Now. • Exhibit#27 Letter dated March 22, 2002 from Alexis Koester with Smith Brothers Farms • Exhibit#28 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Anne Huckins • Exhibit#29 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Barbara Petersen,Federal Way • Exhibit#30 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Vance Gray,Enumclaw supporting Option C • Exhibit#31 Letter dated March 22,2002 from Mr Jerey Rosso • Exhibit#32 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Mr John E Nelson, Attorney • Exhibit#33 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Marshall Norman,Minister of Unity Church of Kent • Exhibit##34 Letter dated October 11, 2001 from Mr Bob Tidball • Exhibit#35 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Bethany Lmn • Exhibit#36 Submittal dated March 25, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn recommending the addition of text to Kent City Code Section 15 04 070 • Exhibit#37 Submittal dated March 25, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham &Dunn recommending changes to AG zoning,Kent City Code Section 15 04 040 and 15 04 070 • Exhibit#38 Letter dated March 21, 2002 read into the record from Sara) Khan • Exhibit#39 Letter dated March 25, 2002 read into the record from Rita Bailie,FarmCity Alliance • Exhibit#40 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Tim Trohimovich, AICP,Planning Director David Malik MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to accept into the record the above exhibits as well as Exhibits #1 through #10 presented at the public hearing of October 8, 2001 and Exhibits #1 through #10 presented at the February 11, 2002 public heanng Motion CARRIED Ms Gould-Wessen briefly discussed additional funding opportunities that may become available from the state and federal levels for preservation of agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen described the eight options before the Board referring to the February 11, 2002 staff report She stated that staff recommends Option B which combines the preservation of portions of the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 25,2002 Page 3 of 6 Northem and Central study areas using a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program and designating portions of lands adjacent to the Northern Study area as TDR receiving areas David Malik MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion CARRIED Bethany A. Linn,30621 153'a Avenue S.E., Kent,WA 98032 stated that learning to farm is valuable to everyone and bolsters the nation's food supply She wants the agricultural lands preserved Brenda Dreisow, 5221 S 212t' St., Kent, WA 98032 stated that she supports Option C to change zoning and land use designations to reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area" designations She stated it is too late to preserve farm land as there is not enough farm land to be productive Mark Logan,665 S.W. 143'a St., Burien, WA 98166 stated that he owns ten acres in the Northern Study area and that he supports Option C He voiced his concern over how development will affect traffic Debi Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is concerned with what impacts could occur as a result of development of single family residential housing in the Central study area Ms Nicholson voiced concern over traffic conditions near Frager Road and 216" She stated that increased traffic could create negative impacts on recreational opportunities in this area, Ms Nicholson stated that although she is concerned with how TDR build out occurs and infringement on wetland buffers, she supports Option B if a ceiling is placed on development She does not support a Planned Unit Development requirement because the development potential for PUD's is too open ended Ahce Watkins, 31621 West Lake Morton SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she would prefer that the land use remain as it is currently designated but would support Option B She believes federal and state funding is years away She asked the Board to consider the financial impacts to landowners in considering their recommendation Jere Thornton,2453 '% S 135th St., Sea Tac,WA 98168 stated that she supports Option C Ernie Aquilar, 25934 68th Avenue S , Kent,WA 98032 stated that he does not specifically endorse any of the Options before the Board He stated that he has lived in the valley ten years and has seen the deterioration of the agricultural lands and therefore cannot support the preservation of these lands He does not believe the Kent lands can be classified farmland The Skagit Valley land can be classified farm lands Mr Aquilar stated that he desires to see that all the landowners are given the opportunity to receive full value for their land He voiced concern over increased traffic conditions in the valley Scott Highland, 13721 SE 260" St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that has been a member of the Board of Directors of Smith Brothers Farms since 1975 and the President of Smith Tractor and Equipment Company Mr Highland stated that fifty percent of the land owiied by Smith Brothers Farms is covered with buildings, concrete, asphalt and mature gravel roadways with approximately 225,000 square feet of buildings on the property 150,000 square feet of building space sits vacant Mr Highland strongly urged the Board to rezone their land from Al to AG zoning in order that they become a conforming business He said that this business needs to utilize their now idle property assets in a financially acceptable way Mr Highland stated that agriculture is not expanding in King County nor are agricultural processing companies He stated that they have proposed language to staff asking for a conditional use process that would allow the property and buildings to be used for certain nonconforming businesses, while maintaining an agricultural appearance with sloping roof structures, limited signage and no increased density of buildings Mr Highland stated that he would prefer Option C with the caveat that he would like to be creative with what he does with this agricultural process in the valley Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 25,2002 Page 4 of 6 Albert Dreisow,5221 S 212*, Kent,WA 98032 stated that he does not favor retainmg agricultural lands for farming as the economic climate of the valley is changing and no longer supports viable farming He would like to see reasonable zoning that would allow land owners to receive full value for their land Mr Dreisow did not voice support of a specific option He stated local buying offices of major grocers are moving out of the area and he expects there will be no purchase of local produce by these chains within the next one to two years Barbara Hansen, 21847 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she supports Option B as it would preserve open space and compensate farmers She voiced concern over how PUD's would be implemented and what the traffic and safety impacts to 216`h and Frager Road would be. Sara] Khan, 24719 43rd Ave S., Kent,WA 98032 stated that he owns 26 acres between 216d'and 21211 west of Frager Road He stated farm land is fragmented and no longer economically feasible for agriculture. He voiced support of Option C with a zoning and land use designation of SR-3 Larry Wagner, 11703 28"' St. NE, Lake Stevens, WA 98258 stated that he is a member of the Lake Stevens City Council He stated that he is on the PSRC Board and is a state legislator and advisor to the Region 3, Department of Social and Health Services, Unemployment Division and the State of Washington Regional Advisory Council Mr Wagner spoke about how the GMA governs growth for urban areas such as Kent He stated that Kent is no longer viable for use as agricultural and voiced support of Option C R. Jery Rosso, PO Box 80345, Seattle,WA 98108 stated that he owns 60 acres in the Central study area on Frager Road He stated that he does not support any of the options, as he believes that all options devalue the land He reminded the Board of earlier testimony that indicated a 74°io failure rate for TDR programs Glen E. Gray, 20866 102°d Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that he supports Option C as he believes this option gives property owners full value for their land Hans Korve, 4215 S. 216`h Place, Kent, WA stated that he would support Option A as his first choice and Option B as an alternative He stated that Kent has a dwmdimg supply of agricultural lands and an obligation to preserve what is left He stated the Board should consider voting for the community and not for the highest profit for landowners He stated that he lives in the Planned Unit Development of Riverview at the Landings and is the President of the Board of the Homeowners Association He stated that if the City intends to rezone the land from agricultural for other uses that they should consider developments other than PUDs Alexis Koester, 26518 68`h Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is the President of Smith Brothers Farms and strongly supports a redesignahon to AG for Smith Brothers Farms She asked that the Board consider zoning that would allow their business to utilize the 150,000 square feet of vacant barns on their land Ralph LoPriore, 26414 68th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 stated that preserving agricultural lands for farming purposes is no longer lucrative but would recommend that these lands be considered for zoning that would allow for other types of agricultural purposes, such as landscaping supply distribution or nurseries He stated that he does not favor a specific option and wants to let individual property owners do what they want with their land Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, RA 98032 stated that the wholesale agricultural market is diminishing and faces extinction potentially within the next two years He stated that the Board Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 25,2002 Page 5 of 6 needs to consider flexible zoning that would enhance the retail abilities at their farm located at 277" and West Valley Highway Mr Carpmito stated that he supports AG zoning Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA stated that she represents Smith Brothers Dairy and Carpinito Brothers Ms Spencer submitted proposed language for the record, which was assigned exhibit numbers 36 and 37, addressing the needs of both Smith Brothers and the Carpinitos, Rita Bailie, 20607 101" Avenue SE, Kent, WA referenced the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Four, Land Use Goals and Policies which address the vision of the community Ms Bailie spoke about farm land goals and policies Ms Bailie urged the Board to base their recommendation on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to work closely with each property owner in their considerations Ms Bailie stated that she envisions a public market at SR-167 and 277th She encouraged the Board to take advantage of King County's preservation programs Tim Trohimovich, 1617 Boylston Avenue, Suie 200, Seattle,WA 98122 stated that he represents 1000 Friends of Washington a citizens groups that supports implementation of the Growth Management Act and halting sprawl Mr Trohimovich stated that his group recommends that Soil Classes I through IV be used to identify agncultural lands of long-term commercial significance Mr Trohimovich stated that he supports Option A and many of the comprehensive plan and zoning designations proposed including A-10 zoning He urged the Board to provide an appropriate level of flexibility for farmers, such as allowing onsite sales and processing and limiting allowed uses in the AG zone to fanning, sales of agricultural products, agncultural processing and similar uses Mr Trohimovich spoke about Redmond's TDR program and methodology for developing an effective program Les Thomas MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to close the Public Heanng Motion CARRIED The Board Members deliberated briefly on the options before them Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to adopt Option B regarding CPA-2000-3 Agncultural Lands Amendment with the incorporation of the following changes to the AG zone directly affecting Smith Brothers and Carpmito Brothers and submitted as Exhibit#37 • Kent Citv Code 15 04 040 Under the use category "Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of dairy products and byproducts"add 'P"underAG Agricultural General District Under the use category "Warehousing and distribution facilities" add, in addition to the current "P(26)",a "C"with a note The note should state "Reuse or replacement of existing structures for non-agricultural use, where it is shown that the existing structures are obsolete for agricultural use and unless they can be put to non-agricultural use will have no viable economic use Any replacement structures must maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the property Signs shall be limited to not more than one hundred (100) square feet in area per business, and of that amount,freestanding signs shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area No increase in the area of existing impervious surface shall be allowed in connection with a non- agricultural use " Kent City Code 15 04 070 Add a use category "Agriculturally related retail" and add a "C"with a note,for that use under AG Agricultural General District The note should state `Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural products, at least 25% of the gross sales value of which are grown Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 25,2002 Page 6 of 6 within Washington State Up to 50% of the gross sales value may be for seed, gardening equipment and products, private label foods, and locally hand-made products Any structures must be designed to maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the area . • This recommendation proposes text changes in land use and zoning designations as indicated in the February 11, 2002 staff report on page 4, 5 and 6 • There is to be no industrial, no trucking or distribution hub and no fuel farm distribution • Retain present landowners' zoning • Eliminate the PUD option • Allow PDRs, and • Implement the TDR Program and direct staff to allow for maximum flexibility in location and use options in TDR receiving areas Motion CARRIED with 4 voting in favor and 3 opposed ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9 40 p in Resygct llyySubmitted, Ch�arJlen A Berson, n� e er Secretary HEARTH ESISDATATemitTlanILUPB12002\Minutest020325mm dm COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 W ASNIN OTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD March 18, 2002 TO: TERRYAMMERMAN CHAIR ANDMEMBERSOFTHELANDUSE&PLANNING BOARD FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER SUBS: #CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535) AGRICULTURAL LANDS LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2002 Staff requests consideration of the following items as part of the Agricultural Lands Study 1 Include in public notice requirements of Kent City Code the GMA requirement to notify applicants and property owners located within 500' feet of designated Agricultural Resource Lands of the presence of agricultural activities, and 2 Removal from Option B the inclusion of Comprehensive Plan annual amendment requests in the TDR program There is concern that this maybe seen as an imposition of an illegal fee by the City If there is further clarification by the legislature or the courts, this could be added later to expand the TDR preservation program The proposed TDR program in Option B would function without this provision Exhibits 19 and 21 from Mr Albert Dreisow has an unexplained attachment illustrating the Frankford Tracts The following explains the Frankford Tracts based on existing King County Assessor's Parcel Map and consulting staff at the Assessor's Office 1 The Frankford Tracts was a subdivision that resulted in the single family homes adjacent to South 212th Street, 2 The remaining lots were consolidated into four separate tax parcels, 3 The original plat was "Vacated 6/7/54" through a petition and passed by King County Ordinance, resulting in no underlying legal or non-conforming lots CAIGWf pni S IPermrlPlanlCo,npPlanAmdments1200112004535-CPA2000-PH032502 doc cc Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Fred N Satterstrom,AICP, Community Development Director Mike Martin,Chief Admm Officer Project File COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856- 454 WASH i NGTO N Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD\IINL-TES PUBLIC HEARING February11,2002 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday,February 11, 2002 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman,Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Planning Mgr David Malik, Vice Chair Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS/Long Range Planner Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst City Attorney Nicole Fetcher Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Ron Harmon Jon Johnson Les Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to approve the Minutes of January 28, 2002 Motion CARRIED unanimously ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Tuesday, February 19 Planning Committee meeting will cover "The Townhouse Zoning Process ", "Mobile Home Park Relocation Assistance", and "Public Participation Process " Ms Anderson stated that March 11 is scheduled for the DeMarco Heanng CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT The Board members stated that they need additional time to revie" the new options A, B & C provided by staff The Board concurred that the public needs opportunity to study these options as well as the public testimony correspondence received by the Board as exhibits for the record Board members stated that they would like this amendment to return to another workshop, then continue this to a public hearing Assistant City Attorney, Ms Adams-Pratt stated that material packets are available to the public through the Planning Services office She stated that it would be acceptable for the Board to hold another workshop with an additional heanng to follow Planner, Glona Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record • Exhibit#1 - correspondence from Mr Roger Omess • Exhibit#2 - correspondence from Mr Bock Thias • Exhibit#3 - correspondence from Kent Youth Soccer Association • Exhibit#4 - correspondence from Justina Ordomo • Exhibit#5 - correspondence from Buck& Gordon law firm • Exhibit#6 & 7- correspondence from the law firm Graham &Dunn • Exhibit#8 - correspondence from Rita Bailie • Exhibit#9 - correspondence from Buck and Gordon law firm • Exhibit#10 -correspondence from Polly Wilson Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11,2002 Page 2 of 8 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Kent is studying the Southern, Central, and Northern Study areas, indicating their locations She indicated where the lower Green River agricultural production district is located, stating that this district is within King County Ms Gould-Wessen stated that she has based the location of wetlands on Kent's 2001 Wetland Inventory and the location of flood areas on FEMA's designations Ms Gould-Wessen stated that her research of wetlands and FEMA impacts, particularly related to Options A, B, and C is based on soil charactenstics, seasonal versus permanent wetlands, and access to water rights, Ms Gould-Wessen indicated the location of wetlands within the study areas Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the majority of issues are part of Growth Management's way of assessing whether agricultural lands should remain and be designated as agricultural resource land and zoned in a way that would protect those lands She stated that Kent's agricultural lands are zoned A-1, one unit per acre, with the potential of subdividing the land into one acre lots, which is not what you would consider as agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff is evaluating Comprehensive Plan, potential land use and zoning designations for the study areas Ms Gould-Wessen stated that uncultivated fallow land and woodland areas exist to the north Ms Gould- Wessen stated that within the study areas, publicly owned land exists She stated that this land includes a Golf Course, Department of Transportation (WSDOT) park, a WSDOT maintenance yard, and wetlands owned by the City of Seattle and used to monitor issues related to water quality concerning the closed landfill area Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the study areas include parks and parcels of land owned by the City She stated that these parcels of land exist near single family homes and where some cultivation exists. Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the intent of Option A is to preserve the majority of the agricultural study area using a (PDR) Purchase of Development Rights Ms Gould-Wessen explained that the City of Kent would have to present this request to the voters, asking them for funding She stated that if this issue were to pass, the City would have available funding to proceed with the purchase of development rights from property owners residing within the agncultural resource lands Ms Gould-Wessen defined "Agricultural Support" as a new land use designation intended to support the AG zoning She stated that the AG zone allows agricultural industrial uses, such as a peat processing plant or a business like Smith Dairy Farms Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff acknowledges that Smith Dairy Fauns needs a different type of land use designation which supports their type of agricultural, industrial use Staff would recommend changing zoning as well as land use designations for the Smith Diary Farm to AG and Agricultural Support Ms Gould-Wessen defined the Urban Separator designation as allowing for clustering eight single-family units, which is compatible with a SR-1 zoning designation Clustering allows construction of homes away from wetlands, streams and steep banks Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the intent of the urban separator designation is to preserve environmentally sensitive areas without removing development opportunity Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the GMA uses the "Agricultural Resource Land" definition She stated that the intent of the "Agncultural Resource Land" designation is to preserve agncultural uses such as production of fruits, crops, flowers or any agricultural activity use She stated that "Agricultural Support" supports agricultural uses located within the agricultural resource lands through agricultural industry Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Kent needs a zone that focuses on the agricultural industrial needs of those folks located in the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District She stated that Option A, B and C uses "Agricultural Support" as a land use designation for the AG zone The AG zone would also allow for retail uses specifically related to agricultural products from the NW Region Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff is recommending that the Agricultural Support land use designation and the AG zoning district be reserved for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long term agricultural use Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 3 of 8 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Section 15 04 040 of the Kent City Code defines manufacturing land uses as " manufacturing,processing,blending,packaging of dairy products and by-products " She stated that these uses would be added as a permitted use under the (AG) Agricultural General Distnct Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the AG distnct restricts industnal uses to the processing of agricultural products and does not allow storage or distnbution centers Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff prefers Option B which acknowledges the AG zone in the Southern study area She stated that this option retains AG zoning which includes the Smith Dairy Farm Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the Urban Separator areas are designated SR-1 and include the golf course, the Seattle Public Utility property and the Kentview Development's water quality detention facility She stated that Urban Separators or Agricultural Support would not need to be preserved as they would not be considered as Agricultural Resource Lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Option B preserves a portion of Kent's agncultural lands in the North and Central areas and uses portions of the northern area as a TDR receiving area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that she spoke with the State's Soils Conservation Distnct regarding lands which have been inundated by water and left undramed She stated that with these lands wetland characteristics change soil composition and would not be considered as Class 1 or 2 farm land soils or as prime agricultural farm lands without first draining the land Ms Gould-Wessen stated that these lands do not lie within the State's definition of Agncultural Resource Lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that land zoned SR-3 exists outside of the study area, and could provide opportunity for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) receiving area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this area could absorb more density as well as some of the value in the agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen defined a TDR program, citing an example allowing a farmer with A-1 zoning, one dwelling unit per acre, to sell that right and transfer development Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the receiving property could now have an additional unit developed on the site and the fanner would retain his property for agricultural purposes Ms Gould-Wessen stated that a covenant would be drawn up restricting the land for agricultural use in perpetuity Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the State requires that cities provide a preservation program when designating agricultural resource lands within urban areas, as the City of Kent is proposing under some of the options She stated that the PDR or TDR programs are preservation methods used by those property owners who would otherwise be developing like any other urban area Ms Gould-Wessen calculated the areas of developable land that could be a TDR receiving area based on the City's wetland inventory, stating that there were approximately 10 acres of land available for a TDR receiving area in Option B Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Option C is intended to preserve lands currently under a preservation program by designating them as Agricultural Resource Land She stated that the development nghts were purchased on these lands twenty years ago and Kent would change the zoning to A-10 in support of those agncultural land uses Ms Gould-Wessen stated that in Option C staff does not intend to preserve additional lands in any of the study areas She specified which lands are designated as AG and SR-1,Urban Separator Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the City meet urban density requirements of no less than SR-4 Ms Gould-Wessen indicated the areas where staff recommends SR-3, as the City does not have a land use designation of four She stated that SR-3 should meet the GMA density requirements because SR-3 has a density of 3 63 dwelling units per acre The designation would recognize Frager Road as a scenic, recreational road Ms Gould-Wessen responded to Mr Dowell's concerns about the Green River Comdor by stating that this corridor is governed by its own development standards Ms Gould-Wessen stated that there are approximately 10 acres of developable land in Option B Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 4 of 8 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Option B applies wetland standards for Frager Road She stated that development from Frager Road is restncted by a 65 foot no build zone setback with access limitations to Frager Road Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Class 1 wetlands must maintain 100-foot setback and Class 2 wetlands must maintain a 50-foot setback Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the Public Hearing Chair Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open Georgine Looney, 2100 Boyer Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98112 stated that she represents St Demetrios Church who owns approximately 65 acres, located north of South 212th and West of Frager Road in the northern study area She stated that this property is zoned A-1 Ms Looney stated that the property was given to the church 25 years ago and has not been cultivated for 20 years Ms Looney stated that the church supports, funds and hosts several programs including "Kids and Cancer, Camp Agape" She stated that this is a two-week camp experience held in conjunction with Children's Hospital and Good Sam The camp hosts terminally ill cancer patients ages 18 and under along with their families Ms Looney stated that St Demetrios Church provides 6000 to 7000 dinners per year to homeless facilities in the Pacific Northwest Ms Looney stated that the services of the church extend beyond their community Ms Looney stated that the current zoning and some proposed zoning, for the northern study area, would affect the church property. She stated that the church mould like to be able to parcel off or sell portions of their property as needed She urged the Board to consider zoning in light of how it would affect their land Ms Gould-Wessen stated that St Demetrius Church property has about 2 5 acres of developable land Ms Looney stated that to her knowledge there has not been accurate or current wetland delineation completed on the 65 acres Jeff McCann, 24826 247th Place SE, Maple Valley, WA 98038 stated that his family resides at 25870 Lake Fenwick Road He stated that his family supports Options B and C and does not favor Option A as lands with altered soils were left out and he believes legal challenges and opposition will grow Mr McCann stated that he favored the implementation of a TDR program through Option B He expressed an interest in the TDR program process, stating that a successful program requires an enormous amount of planning, education and economic analysis, more than is necessary for other land use planning issues Mr McCann stated that Option C allows a mix of agricultural, urban separators and SR-3 zoning He stated that Options B and C attempt to balance protecting the lands while maintaining their monetary value Ralph LoPriore,26414 68th Ave. S, Kent, R'A 98032 stated that his family's property is zoned AG and is located next to the Highway Department industnal site Mr LoPriore urged the Board to consider what would be in the best interest of each land owner as well as for the City of Kent in considering zoning Mr LoPnore stated that construction is occurring with such intensity that it is conceivable that areas under consideration could develop into wetlands He stated that he favored another workshop and hearing to allow both the Board and the citizens to evaluate the new options A,B and C presented by staff John Green, 21839 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his property is zoned A-1 and is centrally located in the northern development area with operational farms north and south of the property Mr Green stated that his group is the only development in the A-1 zone with seven homes on one-acre lots Mr Green urged the Board to reevaluate PDR's as a viable solution stating that a bond issue should be presented to the Kent citizens He stated that the citizens of Kent need additional opportunity to voice their opinions on the preservation of agricultural lands Linda Hayes, 19229 SE 234th Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that she is speaking on behalf of her parents, Casey and Lucille DeLaCruz, whose property is zoned A-1 She stated that her parents own three Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 5 of 8 parcels of land, with two of the parcels consisting of five acres and one nine-acre parcel located along Frager Road, south of 216th Ivls Hayes stated that staff favors Option B which would change their zoning to A-10 She stated that her family favors Option C Ms Hayes stated that according to the GMA, their land is considered as small scattered portions of land that are potentially farmable but not to be considered as having long term significance for agricultural production Ms Hayes stated that this land no longer meets the GMA definition of long term significance for agricultural production, which is one reason they choose Option C Ms Hayes stated that economically, farming is no longer feasible for the family as her dad is 91 years old and would like to retire She stated that she does not believe there is a market for a buyer for their property and has not had any offers for agricultural Ms Hayes stated that the land surrounding their property is being fully developed Ms Hayes stated that an individual should have the right to use their land as they wish stating that zoning should be considered based on an individual basis Jere Thornton, 2453 1/2 S. 135th St., Sea Tac, WA 98168 stated that her property is located on the north side of 216th between 42nd Avenue South and the river She stated that this property is accessed by way of 212th, 216th and 42nd Avenue South Ms Thornton stated that she believes that zoning criteria should be based on evaluation of individual landowner's requirements Ms Thornton stated that her property is on the market to be sold for development purposes and she has received an offer from a developer that she would like to accept She stated that no one has shown an interest in purchasing her property for agricultural purposes Ms Thornton stated that she believes Purchase of Development Rights Programs do not work, citing the property located at the southeast corner of 212th and 42nd Avenue South as being part of a PDR program Ms Thornton stated that this property sits idle and overgrown with briar patches Ms Thornton stated that she does not favor any of the options presented Alexis Koester, 26518 68th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is the president of Smith Brothers Farms, which has experienced radical changes over the past few months She stated that Smith Brothers Farms are unique in that they process and sell milk from their own cows Ms Koester said that 1600 cows were milked at their facility in Kent up to December 2001 Ms Koester stated that they own a total of 225 acres She stated that 65 acres are located in the City of Kent's southern study area She stated that the remainder of the land is located in King County Smith Brothers sold the development rights to 159 acres of that land in the 80's Ms Koester stated that a majority of Smith Brothers' Kent property is comprised of impervious surfaces She stated that the processing plant is located next to their trucks on the property with the west side of the property consisting of 16 barns, formerly holding the 1600 cows Ms Koester stated that environmental laws have forced Smith Brothers to tnm their herd to 80 cows in Kent with a new facility erected in Eastern Washington to accommodate the remainder of those cows Ms Koester stated that their raw milk has to be trucked across the mountains to their processing plant and consequently, they are left with 15 vacant bams useful only for housing animals Ms Koester stated that these barns would not be used for cows in the future She stated that the same environmental regulations that forced them to move the cows will prevent them from being used for any other livestock such as horses, pigs or sheep Ms Koester stated that Smith Brothers' attorney submitted a proposal that would allow them to reuse the land under the bam structures through a conditional use permit process She stated that this would prevent any increase in impervious surface and maintain the visual character of the area She stated that staff has not recommended this change, but she urged the Board to consider this request Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11,2002 Page 6 of 8 Ms Koester stated that Smith Brothers have sixty Kent employees and sixty independent distnbutors She stated that their success is important to their family and the 120 families whose security depends on it Ms. Koester stated that they would like to be zoned AG with more flexibility than AG allows for at this time Ms Koester stated that Agricultural Support is acceptable with the addition of conditions as recommended by their attorney Mike Carpinito, 1148 North Central, Kent, WA 98032 stated that Carpinito Brothers is a diversified, hand harvested fresh vegetable fann which as been farmed for over 30 years by him and his brother through a successful retail market in Kent He stated that Carpinito Brothers employs between 60 to 75 people in Kent, pnmanly selling wholesale to customers such as Fred Meyers, QFC, and Safeway Mr Carpinito stated that some proposals presented by staff would leave 75 acres of their property at the south end of Kent unusable for their intents He stated that all of the proposals have involved down zoning and disregard the disastrous state that agriculture is in both locally and across the Northwestern United States Mr Carpinito stated that their future existence demands more flexibility to respond to changing markets and crops He stated that any form of down zoning constricts their ability to continue to be successful in years to come Mr Carpinito stated that the City of Kent needs to look at zoning their property in a way that would allow them to respond to change so that they may remain in business He stated that the luxury of simply growing, harvesting and shipping crops to a local distribution center will end as the major grocery chains will no longer maintain a local produce buying office Mr Carpinito stated that Carpinito Brothers would be forced to look at alternatives such as developing a potato growing and processing facility or a lettuce growing and processing facility Mr Carpinito stated that those areas the City has designated as having wetlands have never been scientifically delineated by any agency and have only been visually observed from off the property Mr Carpinito stated that in 1994, Carpinitos spent thousands of dollars to have a scientific delineation study completed by an expert soil scientist during high water season Mr Carpinito stated that this report indicated that w etlands were nonexistent Mr Carpinito urged the Board to reject any option that calls for down zoning or robs them of the general conditional uses they now have Mr Carpinito recommended that the City retain AG zoning and amend it with a conditional use which would allow them to continue their retail activities similar to what they have at their present North Central Avenue facility Barbara Hallock, 405 Clark Avenue North, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she does not own agrculture property, but that her family has resided in the valley since the turn of the century Ms Hallock stated that her family owns property on East Hill, which was originally a potato farm Ms Hallock said that she supports Option B to preserve as much farmland as possible She stated that she believes it would be germane to provide for opportunities in the future that the City may not see now, suggesting that bond issues may be an option Ms Hallock applauded the City's efforts voicing her desire that the City preserve as much pnme agneultural land as possible Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that 30 years ago farm land preservation first became an issue in the Central Puget Sound area She stated that people believed the assumption that if government preserved the land, farming would be preserved Ms Spencer stated that King County has preserved thousands of acres from development, but over those thirty years the number and acreage of farms in King County has continued to drop, She stated that 30 years of experience has taught us that to preserve agriculture, you have to preserve farmers, in the urban shadow, to keep farmers, cities need to help them and not tie their hands Ms Spencer stated that she represents the two largest fanners in the valley, both third generation fanners She stated that she favors all three Options changing the Smith property to AG while Option A down zones the Carpinito property from AG to A-10 ensunng that the Carpinito business ends with this generation Ms Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 7 of 8 Spencer urged the Board to reject Option A, as one of his option', key assumptions is that the Carpinito property cannot be developed,which is false Ms. Spencer reiterated that a formal wetland delineation report was completed for the Carpimto Brothers in 1994 and submitted to the City and the Corp of Engineers She stated that the Corp of Engineers concluded that no wetlands exist on the property City staff held the position that they would not provide a decision until a development application was actually submitted Ms Spencer stated that she submitted a letter from DBM Engineers in respect to FEMA, which points out that floodway status does not preclude development but does require provisions for compensating flood storage, which is an engineering matter Ms Spencer stated that she believes the City would like Smith Dairy and Carpinito Brothers to remain in business She stated that the City needs to address their circumstances by considering broadening the definition of AG zoning which w ould apply specifically to these businesses Ms Spencer stated that if the City desires to assist these businesses, these zoning discussions need to be brought to a conclusion She stated that these fanners are not like commercial businesses, and they need to know where they stand and to be able to move on Les Thomas MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion Carved Board member Dowell questioned why the MA zone had not been considered in previous discussions, asking if revisions to the MA zone might make it a viable zone to consider Ms Gould-Wessen stated that(MA)Agricultural Manufacturing is an industrial transition zone in nature and that all of the City's zoning allows agricultural uses in it including the M1 and M2 zones Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff chose to ensure that AG zoning supported agricultural land use with a focus on agricultural activity In response to Board member Harmon, Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff has reviewed the recommended changes submitted by Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn, incorporating some of those suggestions into their recommended option 'Be Board members agreed that this issue should be discussed at a workshop on February 25, 2002 to consider possible alternatives to the options already presented, then schedule a public hearing for March 25, 2002 Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to hold a workshop on February 25, 2002 with a public heanng to be scheduled for March 25, 2002 on the CPA-2000-3 - Agricultural Lands Amendment Motion CARRIED Mr Dowell said that he dislikes down zoning and would like staff to examine MA zoning at the workshop Ms Zimmerman stated that the Board members would like staff to provide recommendations and explain their rationale behind accepting rejecting or amending zoning based on the correspondence submitted from citizens as exhibits at this hearing The Board voiced their desire to receive additional correspondence that might arrive in Planning Services Mr Malik stated that he would like Public Works Traffic Engineering to address traffic volume, movement and road widening issues if land development escalates south of Orilla or 212th, He stated that both Frager Road and 42nd could not handle additional traffic capacity Ms Zimmerman questioned how the environmental checklist would assist the Board in reaching zoning decisions Charlene Anderson stated that the environmental checklist is intended to show the Board staffs analysis on an environmental basis for all eight of the options Ms Anderson stated that staff would likely have issued a threshold determination for the environmental review by March 25, to answer Mr Malik's concerns Ms Gould-Wessen clarified that there are eight options before the Board She stated that Option IA is similar to Option A and does not change the zoning in Smith Farms Ms Gould-Wessen stated that these Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 11,2002 Page 8 of 8 two options are the most similar in that they preserve the most agricultural land She stated that the zoning does change in terms of A20 versus A10 Ms, Zimmerman questioned what the City would need to do to develop an agreement about wetlands Ms is Gould-Wessen stated that wetland delineations would have to be completed at the cost of S4,000 to $10,000 per property She stated that wetlands change over time and are constantly moving targets Ms Gould- Wessen stated that the City only accepts a wetland delineation report when it is associated with development, and it is good for one year Ms Zimmerman stated that the FEMA floodplam superimposed over the various usages of the land is one of the guiding principals in the recommendations the City is making Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the FEMA flood plain is intended to illustrate that property owners would now have additional restrictions on lands that they would have to comply with in order to obtain financing for their development Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City's wetland inventory functions like a red flag, citing Mr Carpmito's property as a red flag Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Mr Carpmito could request specific development for his property, indicating that he has had a wetland delineation report completed based on wetland delineation standards which indicate 100 square feet of wetlands The City would review this report for compliance with code requirements Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that it would be too expensive for the City to delineate all the wetlands, even though it does leave some vagaries in estimating amounts of developable land, such as for the TDR and PDR sites Ms Fincher stated that the wetlands seem to be a driving force in the way in which the options are designed She stated that there seems to be a tremendous amount of wetlands designated in the TDR receiving site Ms Fincher stated that when the City is looking at transferring those rights, it seems that there is only a small amount of developable land available Ms Fincher questioned if the City is setting that program up for failure in that the City is not going to be able to transfer anything there Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Option B suggests expanding the TDR's to annual comprehensive plan updates Ms Gould-Wessen stated that these comprehensive plan requests would then be reviewed for applicability of a TDR program, with the possibility of including the Midway area for its economic opportunities in the future Mr Harmon stated that the City needs to look to the future and formulate zoning and policy recommendations based on the community's desire and needs Mr Harmon voiced support for tying the TDR's to an annual Comprehensive Plan process Ms Zimmerman stated that she is concerned with how the City is to comply with the RCW's requirements for the City to designate agricultural lands with long term significance for commercial food production when wetland locations are unclear Ms Zimmerman voiced concern over the use of PDR's and TDR's as the County has purchased the development rights of land in the lower Green River Valley, which remains uncultivated She stated that she was concerned that farm land not cultivated for five years could lose their water rights or the right to dram the land ADJOURNMENT Ron Harmon MOVED AND David Malik SECONDED to adjourn the meeting Motion CARRIED Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9 23 P M Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary S%PermitlPlan\LUPB120021Mmuies1020211 min doe COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Community Dev, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WA5NINGTGN Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT February 11, 2002 TO: T'ERR=AMII N,CHAIRANDMEMBERSOFTBE LAND USE&PLANNINGBOARD FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER SUBJ: #CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535) AGRICULTURAL LANDS INTRODUCTION This staff report is intended to be inclusive and supersede the September 201 public hearing staff report This staff report 1) summarizes the Agricultural Land Study process, 2) reviews the State's legislative impetus and guidance from state agencies charged with administering the Growth Management Act (GMA). 3) introduces new environmental information that supports the three (3) new options, and 4) proposes textual changes in Kent's land use and zoning code where needed The original five (5) options will be presented, along with three (3) new options The recommended option has changed from the September 24th staff report HISTORICAL CONTEXT During the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Map amendment process, the City of Kent received a request to change the land use map designation for a parcel of property from Agricultural (A-1) to Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre (Kentview Pod-H CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1) During the amendment process, the Land Use and Planning Board (the Board) requested staff to review current land use policy related to the agricultural zones, The issue was forwarded to the Planning Committee to initiate the policy discussion After two meetings, the Planning Committee directed staff to limit discussion to Agricultural lands on the valley floor, focusing on the Agricultural (A-1) and Agricultural General (AG) zoning districts The matter was referred to the Board, which held workshops on March 12th, April 23rd, June 111h, July 9th, and August 131h Community Development held an Open House on March 28 where all property owners were mailed invitations and the public was encouraged to attend On September 281h and October 8th, the Board held a public hearing to consider five (5) land use and zoning options for the study area with staff recommending Option 4 (i e Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas) The Board took public comment and closed the hearings, requesting that staff address the concerns that came to light through public testimony and return early in 2002 to resume the process On January 28`h 2002, the Board held a workshop to review and discuss three (3) new options that Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 2 of 14 reflect insights obtained from relevant findings of the Puget Sound Growth Management Heanngs Board and Superior Court cases, and to better reflect what was heard at the public hearing It must be noted that during staff s additional research, four(4)parcels were identified with a land use designation of "Agricultural" and zoning designation of Medium Density Multifamily (MRM) Because of the "Agricultural" land use designation, staff has included the 4 parcels in the Agricultural Land Study. These parcels are located at the southernmost tip of the Central Study Arealust south of West Meeker Street, sandwiched between the Green River and Frager Road Two parcels are owned by Washington Department of Transportation and are developed as a park (i e approximately 4 3 acres) and two others are privately owned and cultivated in wood plant materials (i e, approximately 19 acres) The Study Areas have been broken into Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas (See Attachment 1 "Agricultural Land Use Study Potential Midway Receiving Area"), LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDS The State's Growth Management Act directs cities and counties that choose to plan under RCW 36 70A.040 to "designate where appropriate agricultural lands that have long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products" (RCW 36 70A 170[la]) It further states that "Forest land and agricultural land located within urban growth areas shall not be designated by a county or city, as forest land or agricultural land of long-term commercial significance under RCW 36 70A 170 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights " (RCW 36 170A 060[41) Kent's City Code (KCC) uses the same language as the GMA when defining Agncultural Use (KCC 15 02 010), as does the state (RCW 37 70A 030[2]) (also see September 24th staff report) However, the GMA further defines long-term commercial significance to include " the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the land" (RCW 37 70A 030[10]) There is further clanfication of what are agricultural lands in WAC 365- 190-050(1) where it states `In classifying agricultural lands of long-term significance for the production of food or other agricultural products, counties and cites shall use the land-capability classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as defined in agriculture handbook no 210 " The State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development is charged by RCW 36 70A 170(2) with providing guidelines for designating "Natural Resource Lands" They are guided by ten (10) factors for "classifying agricultural lands of long-term significance for the production of food or other agricultural products" (WAC 365-190- 050), and are listed below 1) The availability ofpublic facilities, 2) Tax status, 3) The availability ofpublic services, 4) Relationship or proximity to urban growth areas, 5) Predominant parcel size, 6) Land use settlement and their compatibility with agricultural practices, 7) Intensity of nearby land uses, 8) History of land development permits issued nearby, Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 3 of 14 9) Land values under alternative uses, and 10)Proximity of markets These factors, in addition to the statutory text, offer guidance in determining if land has "long-term significance" for agricultural production ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS & CONSTRAINTS The ten factors used for classifying agricultural lands gave structure for additional staff research and a better understanding of the relevance of information previously acquired, but not specifically reported This new information will be used to support two of the three new options Additional research from the National Resources Conservation Services (NRSC) revealed that some lands within the Agricultural Study Area would not meet the definition of `prime farmland" as defined in the United State Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service handbook no. 210 (i.e. Class I or Class II) i The NRSC staff reviewed the different soils classifications in the Study Area and determned that, if the wetlands were year-round and un-drained, the soils would be Class IV or V and no longer"prime farmland" It should also be noted that agricultural lands that are actively farmed and that have high water tables (i e wetlands) are not regulated by Section 404, they can be drained and cultivated However, if a farm is left fallow over five (5) years, the Army Corp of Engineers considers it abandoned and the existing wetland is considered an environmentally sensitive area requiring a DA (Department of Army) Permit or a Nationwide Permit for draining, plowing or re-grading There are, however, federal laws that support fanning Under the National Foods Securities Act, existing wetlands can be drained and plowed, although obtaining permission is a lengthy process and not assured Being able to cultivate the land is relevant to its economic "long-term significance" Access to irrigation water is another issue that had not been addressed in earlier discussion papers or the September 241h staff report Research through the Washington State Department of Ecology — Northwest Regional Office determined that numerous properties did not have "water right" claims or certificates to either extract water from the Green River for agricultural purposes, or from the ground Without the ability to irrigate a field, the productivity of the land diminishes to possibly one crop per year instead of two or three 2 Obtaining a water certificate is extremely difficult A property owner can lose the right to water if not used for five (5) consecutive years Many properties within the Northern and Central Study areas have lost their water rights, or there is no documentation of ever having water rights for agricultural purposes There are other properties within the same areas that do have water nghts and that have been actively using the water for its permitted use Having access to irrigation water for agricultural purposes effects the "long-term significance" of land The NRCS is an agency within the Department of Agriculture Its goal is to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment To that end,they provide expertise on water conservation, water quality,and soils It was discovered there is an addendum to the aforementioned handbook no 210 This reference reclassifies soils that are hydric, or permanently inundated with water. Staff at the Puyallup office of the NRCS revealed that several soil types changed from Class II to Class IV and V when hydric Those soils are now characterized as "very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants" or"Intut their use largely to pasture,range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover" 2 Crop refers to annual vegetable crops such as lettuce, radish, onions, carrots and the like Also all containerized plant materials require irrigation Cultivated berries, com,pumpkins, and the like,produce higher yields with irrigation, particularly during periods of drought Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 4 of 14 PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES IN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS: There will need to be text and map changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to support the recommendations in the Agricultural Land Study The proposed changes are to existing zoning districts, the creation of new zoning drstncts and land use designations, and also changes in zoning development regulations The following are proposed changes- Changes in Kent's Comprehensive Plan: Add New Land Use Designation—Agricultural Support The proposed "Agricultural Support" land use designation is intended to reflect the existing Agricultural General (AG) zoning district It is defined in Chapter 15 03 Kent City Code where it states the following "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate location for agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural production " The following is a suggested text change in Kent's Comprehensive Plan to describe "Agricultural Support"- The Agricultural Support designatzon is reserved for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Change Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land The proposed "Agricultural Resource Land" designation is intended to clearly support agricultural land uses within the City of Kent as defined under the GMA, with the required preservation program in place prior to designation The following is a suggested text change in Kent's Comprehensive Plan to describe"Agricultural Resource Land" The Agricultural Resource Land designation is for land reserved for agricultural use Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at very low densities Changes in Kent's City Code— Chapter 15 Zoning: Agricultural General (AG) Agricultural General needs to provide the flexibility for a wide variety of "agriculturally related industrial activities" The AG zoning district allows for the "Storage, processing and conversion of agricultural products (not including slaughtering or meat packing)" but does not allow retailing of agricultural products other than a roadside stand 3 The following are proposed changes to the definition of AG and allowed uses 3 KCC 15 02 340 Roadside stand means a temporary structure designed or used for the display or sale of agricultural products primarily produced on the premises upon which such a stand is located Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 5 of 14 Kent City Code 15 03 010-Establishment and Desienation of Districts AG -Agricultural General District "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate location for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural production " Kent City Code 15 04 040—ManufacturinQLand Uses For the land use category "Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of dairy products and byproducts" under AG—Agricultural General District add a "P" (i e Principally Permitted Uses) Kent City Code 15 04 060— Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Uses Remove the "C" (i e Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Transportation and transit facilities" under AG—Agricultural General District Kent City Code 15 04 070— Wholesale and Retail Land Uses Add a land use category "Agriculturally related retail" and in that category under AG—Agricultural General District add a "C" (i e Conditional Uses) with a note that states "Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural products, with at least 25% of the gross sales value in products grown within King County Up to 25% of the gross sales area may be for seed, gardening equipment and products, NW regionally labeled foods, and locally hand-made products Any structures must be designed to maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the area " At present the AG zoning district lacks detailed development standards and has none for the inclusion of proposed agricultural retail While recognizing a need to develop such standards, the task for the Board is to designate land uses for A-I and AG zoning districts, and if"Agricultural Resource Lands" are designated, selecting a TDR or PDR preservation program to support those agricultural uses Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 6 of 14 Understanding that development standards are needed for the AG zoning district, below are some suggested standards for consideration Minimum lot area I acre Maximum site coverage. 60% Landscaping: As required in Ch 15 07 KCC for M-1 district Other regulations as found in M1 district Agricultural (A-1) Agricultural (A-1) needs to increase the minimum lot size to either 1-du/10 acres or 1-du/20 acres to ensure that land is not subdivided into one-acre parcels that are not a suitable size for agncultural use The following are proposed changes to the definition of Agricultural (A-1), allowed uses, and development standards Kent City Code 15 03 010- Establishment and Designation of Districts Change A-1 —Agricultural District to A-10 or A-20—Agricultural District No change to text Kent City Code 15 04 020—Residential Land Uses Remove the "C" (i e. Conditional Uses) in the land use category 'Drive-in churches, welfare facilities Drive-in churches, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated, facilities far rehabilitation or correction, etc "under A-1 Agricultural District Kent City Code 15 04 060— Transportation Public and Utilities Land Uses Remove the "C" (i e Conditional Uses) in the land use categories "Transportation and transit facilities", under A-1 Agricultural District Kent City Code 15 04170 — Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards Change the "Maximum density- dwelling units per acre" under A-1 from I du/acre to either Mull acres or 1 du/20 acres Change the "Minimum lot area square feet or acres, as noted" under A-1 from 34,700/sq ft to 10 acres or 20 acres OPTIONS The first five (5) options were presented on September 24"' 2001 in a staff report prepared for the public hearing Those five (5) options are presented again with changes underlined and omissions struck through Three (3) new options are also being presented (i e A, B & C) In light of new insights, staff has reviewed all options, made new evaluations, and made a new recommendation, Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 7 of 14 Option 1 a - Preservation of Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using PDR: This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as "Agncultural Resource Land" supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR)preservation program The properties owned by the City of Kent, and presently used or to be used for recreation, would be rezoned SR-1 The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to A-20 (one dwelling unit /20 acres) density and the AG zoning district would change to A-20 The single property located in the Southern Study Area with the zoning designation of A-1 would also change to A-20 A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program (See Attachment 2 "Option 1 a"Map) Option 1b - Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR- This option designates only the Southern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program The Northern and Central Study Areas changed the land use to "Urban Separator" with the associated SR-1 zoning distnct applied The two study areas meet the definition of "Urban Separator" with their existing open space corridors, providing a visual link as well as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, historic resources, and critical areas within and between urban growth areas The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20 A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program (See Attachment 3 "Option lb"Map) Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This proposal would designate the Southern and Central Study Areas as primarily "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) preservation program A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program Because of existing recreational uses within the Central Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed from A-1 to SR-1 The Northern Study Area would be designated as a TDR receiving area with different types of land uses and densities applied (i e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial - NCC, Medium Density Multifamily - MRM, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR- 6) adding approximately 674 dwelling units and 78,000 sq ft of commercial The intention of the proposed density is to absorb the bulk, if not all of the market value found in the Central and Southern Study Area Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Because large portions of the Northern Study Area have been mventoned with wetlands, densities would vary depending on the carrying capacity of the land (i e using the City's GIS, it has been found that a minimum of 56 acres are unencumbered by environmental constraints, or 8% of the total agncultural lands) The majority of the Central Study Area's zoning would change from A-1 to A-20 The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20 and designated "Agricultural Resource Land" (See Attachment 4 "Option 2" Map) This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses r,.mpy-,.i.,,...ive Land Us Zoning distnct changes in the TDR Receiving Area would be effective only at the time of development Option 3 - Preservation of the Southern, Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 8 of 14 This proposal would designate the Southern, Central and a portion of the Northern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by PDR and TDR preservation programs A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program. A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program The TDR Receiving Area is made up of 238 acres, of which approximately 32 acres located between S 212`h St and S 216`h St and 3 acres located north of S 212`h St are unencumbered by environmental constraints (or 5% of the total agricultural lands) Different types of land uses and densities would be applied (i e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial - NCC, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR-6) adding approximately 206 dwelling units and 78,000 sq ft of commercial Only a portion of the market value would be absorbed in the TDR receiving area, requiring a PDR as a supplement Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Because of existing and potential recreational uses within the Northern Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed from A-1 to SR-1. The remaining lands within the Central Study Area would have their zoning changed from A-1 to A-20 The entire Southern Study Area zoning would be changed from AG and A-1 to A-20 and designated as Agricultural Resource Land (See Attachment 5 "Option 3" Map) This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses G,.mpfehe ftsv,e Tana Us Zoning distnct changes in the TDR Receiving Area would be effective only at the time of development Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas: This option designates the Central and Southern Study Area, and nearly all the Northern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a PDR and TDR preservation program North of S 212`h St would be designated Urban Separator with a SR-I zoning district A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program Selected parcels within the Northem and Central Study Areas presently owned by the City of Kent and used for recreational purposes would be zoned SR-1. The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to an A-20 (one dwelling unit /20 acres) and the entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20 All A-20 zoning districts would have a land use designation of "Agricultural Resource Land" (See Attachment 6 "Option 4" Map). The Midway Neighborhood would be designated as a TDR receiving area. The extent of the receiving area and the types of land uses would be determined through a Neighborhood Planning Process that will be completed in 2002 It will be proposed that the existing zoning districts would change from General Commercial (GC) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0), Office- Mixed Use (O-MU), and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) when TDR's are purchased The resulting density of housing and employment will depend on the Neighborhood Planning Process and market forces At this time, it is projected that 140 dwelling units and 1,254 employees could be accommodated (See Attachment 7 "Midway TDR Receiving Area") This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's employment targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses Option A — Preservation of Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using a Purchased of Development Rights (PDR) Preservation Program: This proposal designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a "Purchase of Development Right" (PDR) preservation program Selected properties that do not meet the GMA definition of"prime farmland' because of Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 9 of 14 existing uses (i e, dedicated storm water detention and golf course) would be designated Urban Separator and rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential 1-du/acre) with required clustering The entire Southern Study Area with an AG zoning district would be rezoned A-10 (Agricultural 1 du(10 acres) and designated "Agricultural Resource Land" The A-1 zoning district located in the Southern Study Area would be rezoned to AG and given a new land use designation "Agricultural Support" All other lands would be designated "Agricultural Resource Land" and rezoned from A-1 to A-10 (See Attachment 8 "Option A"Map). Approximately 467 acres would be designated "Agricultural Resource Land" The cost of purchasing development rights would be calculated on the unconstrained parcel size (i a gross acres excluding any wetlands and buffers from environmentally sensitive areas or Frager Road) Using the City's GIS program, staff calculated the eligible unconstrained area The potential cost of the PDR program ranges from $6 6 to $8 8 million dollars It must be noted that the land use calculations are based on Kent's 2001 Wetland Inventory and not a scientific wetland delineation Option B — Preserve Portions of Northern and Central Study Areas Using a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program and Designating Portions of and Lands Adjacent to the Northern Study Area as TDR Receiving Areas: This option designates portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a TDR program Land north of South 216'11 St and portions of land between South 2161h St and South 212`h St (including one parcel located south of South 2121h St) would have the land use designation changed from Agricultural to SF-1 (Single-Family 1-du/acre) The zoning would change from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential 1-du/acre) with a "TDR Receiving Area Overlay" The proposed density for the TDR Receiving Area Overlay is Medium Density Townhouses (MRT-16) allowing 16-du/acre and would potentially add 113 dwelling units The TDR Receiving Area Overlay would be administered through a PUD on lands not encumbered by wetlands and buffers The following conditions support the designation to an SF-1 land use 1) "Urban" soils classification, 2) primarily altered soils from fill, 3) primarily un-drained wetlands no longer meeting the "prime farmlands" soil classification, 4) no Washington Department of Ecology water rights or certificates for agricultural purposes, or 5) adjacent existing and proposed residential land uses that conflict with agricultural uses Additional land outside the Study Area is proposed for a TDR Receiving Area Overlay This area is adjacent to the Northern Study Area, located just west in an SR-3 zoning district An MRD (Duplex Multifamily) zoning district with a density of 10 89-du/acre would be allowed and administered through a PUD Approximately 71 dwelling units could be built This proposal also identifies lands within the Northern and Central Study Areas that no longer meet the definition of `pr:nie farmland" because of existing conditions and uses They would be designated as Urban Separator and rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential 1du/acre) with required clustering The following conditions support the designation to Urban Separator 1) storm water holding pond, 2) large un-drained wetlands, 3) existing golf course or other recreational uses, 4) Unique and Fragile Areas Class I & II, and 5) proximity to the Green River The land also meets the definition of "Urban Separator" because of the critical area status of wetlands and the shorelines of the Green River, a river of"Statewide Significance", and the function of the landscape as an open space corridor that provides a visual link as well as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, and historic resources within and between urban growth areas Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 10 of 14 The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation"Agricultural Support" and remain zoned AG The single A-1 property would be rezoned to AG, because its existing use as a dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning distract development standards This option would designate approximately 109 acres as "Agricultural Resource Land" A multiplier of four (4) would be applied to calculate the number of dwelling units eligible for transfer to TDR Receiving Areas If the total capacity of the proposed TDR Receiving Areas is less than the capacity of the TDR Sending Area, additional TDR Receiving Areas will be designated through future annual land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses (See Attachment 9 "Option B"Map) Option C — Preserve Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change Zoning and Land Use Designation to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area"Designation: This option designates only properties that have had their agricultural development rights purchased by King County as "Agricultural Resource Land" and rezones them from A-1 to A-10 (Agricultural ldu/10 acres) No additional preservation program is required Lands within the Northern and Central Study Areas that no longer meet the definition of`prime farmland' because of existing conditions and uses would be designated as Urban Separator and rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential ldu/acres) with required clustering, The following conditions support the designation of Urban Separator 1) dedicated storm water holding • ponds, 2) large un-drained wetlands, 3) existing golf course or other recreational use, 4) Unique and Fragile Areas Class I & H, and 5)proximity to the Green River The land also meets the definition of "Urban Separator" because of the critical area status of wetlands and the shorelines of the Green River, a river of"Statewide Significance", and the function of the landscape as an open space corridor that provides a visual link as well as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, and historic resources within and between urban growth areas The remaining lands in the Northern and Central Study Area would have a land use designation of SR-3 (Single-Family 3-du/acre) with the zoning changed from A-1 to SR-3 (Single-Family Residential 3-du/acre) Some of the lands are designated SR-3 for the following reasons 1) lands are within an "Urban Growth Area", 2) "Urban " soils classification, 3) incompatible existing and proposed adjacent residential uses, 4) disconnection to agricultural industries, 5) disconnection to Lower Green River Agricultural Production District (APD), and 6) the density of SR-3 (i e density of 3 63-du/acre) puts the least amount of trips onto Frager Road while still meeting the GMA definition of"minimum density" for an "Urban Growth Area" The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural Support" and remain AG. The single A-I property would be rezoned to AG, because its existing use as a dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses (See Attachment 10 "Option C"Map) is STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending Option B for the following reasons Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 11 of 14 Option la— Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR This option preserves all 685 acres as an "Agncultural Resource Lands" A conservative estimate of the potential cost ranges from $36 to $48 million dollars Considering the City's other financial commitments, this option is cost prohibitive Option lb — Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR: This option designates 197 acres as "Agricultural Resource Lands" in the Southern Study Area (or 28 8% of total land area) A conservative estimate of cost ranges from $8 to $17 2 million dollars, and would need to be approved by the community The Urban Separators/SR-1 designation has the potential for 294 dwelling units (du) being built in the North and Central Study Areas. With the low density and potential incremental nature of development, sewer expansion probably would not occur, making ground water-polluting septic systems the only alternative While open space would be preserved, it is unlikely that farming would be viable The Urban Separators designation could be reviewed and changed only during the 20 year GMA planning cycle There would be additional traffic on the "scenic and recreational"Frager Road Option 2 — Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This option preserves 265 acres (or 38 7% of total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Lands", converting the rest to a TDR Receiving Area (347 acres) and SR-1 (73 acres of parks and utilities) There are a minimum 56 acres in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental constraints and available to absorb the market value from the TDR Sending Areas The increased density is projected at 674 d u (1 e 1,571 in population) and 156 new lobs, generating 2,185 net new trips per day This option does not fulfill Kent's Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 102 acres of actively farmed land to 56 acres of development Approximately three uuarters of the land has no water rights and potentially one half of the land is not "prime farmland" due to un-drained wetlands Additionally, adjacent existing and planned residential development conflicts with farming activity Option 3 — Preservation of the Southern, Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This option designates 315 acres as "Agricultural Resource Lands" (or 46% of total land area), converting the rest to TDR Receiving Area (281 acres) and SR-1 (89 acres of parks and utilities) There are a minimum 35 acres in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental constraints and available to absorb a portion of the market value from the TDR Sending Areas The increased density is projected at 206 d u (i e 480 in population) and 156 new jobs, generating 1,536 new tnps per day A PDR program with an estimated cost that could range from $18 million to $24 million dollars would need to be approved by the community As in Option 2, much of the land no longer is considered "prime farmland" due to un-dramed wetlands and the conflict of existing and proposed residential developments with agricultural uses This option does not fulfill Kent's Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 66 acres of actively farmed land to 35 acres of development Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas: Option 4 has the potential to fulfill fulfills Kent's long term commitment to preserve agricultural lands by designating the Central, Southern and a portion of the Northern Study Area south of S 212`h St as "Agricultural Resource Land" and changing the zoning districts from A-1 and AG to A-20 This option preserves 391 acres (57% of Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 12 of 14 total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Land", converting the remaining 294 acres into Urban Separators/SR-1 (of which 141 acres are owned by utilities, parks and potential parks) As its name implies, Midway is half way between Seattle and Tacoma, and it is anticipated in the near future there will be major improvements to that area The City of Kent plans to improve Pacific Highway South with sidewalks, street trees, lighting and planted medians Highhne Community College will be partnering with Central Washington University, expanding the existing campus up along its eastern edge. The proximity to I-5 and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport makes the area desirable for locating business, providing hotel accommodations and housing Looking at the near future markets, office is very desirable for Midway At present, the GC zoning allows a full range of retail uses including outdoor storage, lumberyards, drive through restaurants, convenience stores, taverns Facilitating the conversion from General Commercial (GC) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) through a TDR program could possibly add 1,394 employees, and 1,500 peak hour trips to the area The projected population would not change. Care would need to be taken to address the dislocation of approximately 90 affordable housing units presently within three mobile home parks. The city could help these residents through the use of Washington State "Housing Tax Credits" or by encouraging a non-profit housing developer to build some of the needed housing for the displaced home owners and renters Prior to designating the Midway Neighborhood as a TDR Receiving Area, a "Neighborhood Plan" needs to be completed with full participation of residents, property owners and ausmesses A "Funding Feasibility Study" would need to be completed to ascertain how much market value exists in the "Agricultural Resource Lands" A General Obligation bond would go before the public for approval with a conservative estimate of$8 to $10 million dollars to establish a TDR Bank and fund a "Purchase of Development Right" (PDR) preservation program (See Attachment 12 "TDR Preservation Program") Because there is more market value in the "Agricultural Resource Land" than can be absorbed in the Midway TDR Receiving Area or that could be purchased through a PDR program, all future land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be tied to the TDR program Market value would be held by the TDR Bank and sold to developers interested in making changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning maps Option A — Preserve Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Preservation Program: This option designates 467 acres (i a not including acreage already preserved through King County Agricultural Preservation Program) as "Agricultural Resource Land" at a potential cost to the city ranging conservatively from $6 6 to $8 8 million dollars Given the economic climate and voter concerns about property taxes, a General Obligation bond would probably not pass Option C - Preserve Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change Zoning and Land Use Designation to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area Designation: This option designates only lands that have already been preserved through King County Agricultural Preservation Program as "Agricultural Resource Land" There would be no cost to the city or its citizens The remaining land would be designated for higher density residential development (i e SR-3) where wetlands do not dominate the landscape The remaining lands would be designated as Urban Separator/SR-1 with clustering in recognition of the extensive wetlands and land classified Unique & Fragile Class I & IL The required clustering would provide development potential for the land that is largely encumbered by wetlands Conservatively, there is the potential for 419 dwelling units to be built within the Northern and Central Study Area Approximately half of the development Land Use and Planning Board February 11, 2002 Page 13 of 14 potential is located within the Central Study Area and has no other access than Frager Road Frager Road will become the main arterial for all development within the area. While it can be argued that the Northern and Central Study Areas no longer have agricultural land with "long-term significance" because they are isolated from agricultural industries and the Lower Green River APD by major roads (i e South 216t° St, West Meeker St, SR-518, and SR-167) and, they are encroached upon by existing and proposed incompatible residential land uses, there is nearby infrastructure and, there is an estimated 109 acres that are presently farmed and have water rights Land Use and Planning Board February 11,2002 Page 14 of 14 Option B — Preserve Portions of Northern and Central Study Areas Using a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program and Designating Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas as a TDR Receiving Area: This option fulfills Kent's commitment to preserve agricultural lands by designating 109 acres (1 e not including acreage already preserved through King County Agricultural Preservation Program) as " Agricultural Resource Land" These are also lands that have been found to no longer meet the GMA definition of"agricultural lands of long-term significance" because 1) soils are no longer "prime farmland", 2) existing use is not agricultural (i a golf course), and 3) adjacent existing and proposed residential land uses are incompatible with agricultural uses Lands meeting the above criteria will be rezoned to SR-1 with a TDR Receiving Area Overly The allowed density in the TDR. Receiving Area Overlay will be MRT- 16 and will conservatively have the potential for 113 dwelling units The additional TDR Receiving Area Overlay just outside the Study Area will be MRD and conservatively has the potential for 71 dwelling units (1 e density is 10 89-du/acre in MRD) The lands proposed for Urban Separator/SR-1 with clustering would probably not convert to housing because of dedicated existing uses All the new land use designations will be on land that would not be considered by GMA to have "long-term significance", including the land presently zoned A-1 in the Southern Study Area that is proposed to be rezoned to AG (i e Smith Dairy Farm — Existing Processing Plant Operations) This proposal does not put a lot of additional traffic onto Frager Road (i e south of South 216th St) The areas designated for TDR Receiving Areas have access to South 2161' St and South 212°' St, with the exception of a small receiving area north of South 216th St Staff calculated there are approximately 2 25 acres unencumbered by wetlands and buffers, having the potential for 36 dwelling units, which should not be a large burden for Frager Road Maintaining the Agricultural General (AG) zoning district is essential to ensure that the agricultural industries referred to in the GMA will have land set aside for their specific uses There is a critical mass of agricultural lands in the nearby Lower Green River APD to support the AG zoning district The new land use designation, "Agricultural Support", reflects the intent of the AG zoning district and expands it to include agricultural retailing This expansion provides flexibility for the property owners, as well as additional support for local farmers Providing an area to market locally produced and processed farm products will strengthen the surrounding agricultural uses, The proposed retailing would also allow the sales of agricultural support products such as seed, tools, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials needed for farming CAIGWIpm HEARTH_FSISDATAIPermulPlanlCompPlanAmdmenis1200112004535-CPA2000-PH021102 doc cc Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager Fred N Satterstrom,Community Development Director Michael H Martin,Chief Adman Officer Project File i _ • I �I�� :. I � lull �r�1� ��' •� i,...1�. � Own ai oil ii1i Mai:► � �=�'►�'����� ��=!j � � ��= t,;e-...._ I/r/am��j:!•-..:�'.. ���/i '��I`���1•W ''� +�'iw I S"r7 •� .,, ME1' lowl All' Aim TDR Receiving A, Area r_ js •�1�:::.� /I r,anri'I�� `=��_ � � tad i�;,� 11 `� Ii1111111D - � .iti � r�=Erv.m ���H��1 err �s ��/_'`�■�■, � _. .. MEon. 99 VM EMU mm Pop V �,���■Ilt�i�ar1. ■��1 iidira �j l' �I�■ � •! 111111•.� IP rani � nnurpn. i=■RE. i �I I ,' �••mlil����� � I�(� � �1 � 7hlj ■ �,: �J IIN16�'Itl •ni. �nun.:::n. -I-�' y ■ • • i 1, �+� !„ ■+��� NCC P11f'■■ • • - . ��� �(/�,/fit/� � �,�� i(���:Ili ■ � �uodttw _ - �fJ .� '� 111111•'�ilr .a�n. anu••.. � _ - _; . • - ..r���,: �i�1� ��� `psi owl •�...ter,/�_ � • ��A�� 1� ' " " �'\��1'�'��'=\ � hell►* pimp�I� .L low. =: A WIN IM `■ ` .J �111114�'IP 'nn . num... WIN _..mow•� �fr�i�, AN a, NOR POP IN IN I •��n� 1�ems.. k AN, :7R�tlllIMFEll a all �1 ' 11�■,I'll' •:�. nuu•-.. �::�?::.....cadL� ■=ate j�- 1 r ■ s INS NEW MU r i � 1�� 1/1 ! III■ 1/1 7s' _ I Ex —■ . i r. I � . �:rl�����'�I11P�� . - . • i III J��r��'7�/ ice. •. ••. FFF age 51 ME USTM M Q�II4 ilk: ` ( Ilk r_•. _ Of; ,_: a �� iej- # 1 •-a i oil All ge to SR-1 Mth eceiving Oveday IIII!II �J �'tl /i qffj�jjm NMI No Fill 1 /■I"�, �" ' _ ' Imo„' -, - .��� � . . - . . Imo■ � jv ON t��� _ I `, � '..■;imu.■in 1r'=:1ifI111 ., E. ro- � �►5 �■ \-I� I'"' R .r * �� . . .III �l�• � I,� - .•- _ f, r. - - i I IlG11i sit - �, 'I{�{������.•;'t;�lry��—��rC�� �MENNENrliildi7�r1 sommeniv agriculturally rested!indusbrial uses in or near areas designated for long term agriculitral use". Road that Is designated 7scenic&feasaftnarand being , s . 4 11rre4acent to the Gaon RNer which upports the endangered Cimnook Salmon and Is a'River of state AN WR SR-1/Urban Separator: '•�•',•' tea= .:r ��� PROM /! YSeparator .1 •. Y. �. .11 1In II1IIII LII 1111 �•�� ■ , VI .*. = [_ ■ T, RNOr sto fah!. �� ` 111 • norm. with exkdog and proposed adjacerd land 6)conflict and use - 6 41 Wes_ • 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager er K E N T Phone 253-856-5454 w.sNincloN Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 8,2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday, October 8, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LAN'DUSE&PLANNIN'GBOARDMENIBERSPRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,AtingP]mri ngMgr Brad Bell Gloria Gould-Wessen, PlatmedClS Coordinator Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney Ron Harmon Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary David Malik LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Jon Johnson(Excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the September 24th and October 8th minutes has been moved to the October 22nd hearing ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT (continued) Ms Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record • Exhibit#1 -E-Mail letter from Mr and Mrs Len Elliott • Exhibit#2 - Letter from King County Agricultural Commission with minutes from their May loth meeting • Exhibit#3 -Letter from American Farm Trust • Exhibit#4-Letter from Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn PC on behalf of the Carpimto Brothers • Exhibit#5 - E-Mail letter from Jennifer Kim and Lance Spnnger • Exhibit#6- Letter from Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn PC representing Smith Farms Ms Gould-Wessen defined a PDR as a Purchase of Development Rights and a TDR as a Transfer of Development Rights She stated that PDR's and TDR's are planning tools being considered in the preservation of agncultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that PDRs and TDRs are used to purchase or transfer development rights of land, based on applicable zoning She stated that the Al zone is based on the market value of one dwelling unit per acre and the AG zone on agnculturally related industrial uses Ms Gould-Wessen stated that a landowner benefits financially by selling their development rights either through a PDR or TDR without necessitating the sale of their property, the owner also may continue the agricultural uses on their property She stated that landowners are allowed to retain their property but they sell the development potential of the property LaAd Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 2 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the transfer is permanent and recorded in a public record She stated that this transfer serves as a conservation easement and runs m perpetuity with the land Ms Gould-Wessen stated that a PDR is an incentive program using a General Obligation Bond to fund it She stated that once this program is established, an applicant would be required to have the land evaluated, typically based on soil classification and parcel size Ms Gould-Wessen stated that development rights would be appraised for their fair market value based on existing zoning and environmentally sensitive areas. She stated that if the price were agreeable to both parties, payment would be made and all speculative value associated with development of the parcel would be removed Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the owner would retain ownership of the land and payment to the property owner would be in a lump sum or on a payment basis for tax purposes Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the TDR differs from the PDR in that the City is not purchasing the land directly through general obligation bond funds, rather a developer approaches the property owner to purchase the development rights Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the property owner who sells their development rights is a TDR sending site and the total development rights sold is based on existing zoning Ms Gould-Wessen stated that a TDR receiving site applies development rights, for example, to increase density beyond the existing zoning Ms Gould-Wessen stated that like the PDR program, restrictive covenants are applied to the title on the agricultural property, so that the resource will remain available for agricultural purposes David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion carved Chair Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open Jack Nelson, 601 W. Gowe St., Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has owned their 10-acre site in the southern study area for over 100 years He stated that his family opposes every option, as they would affect his property by rezoning it to A20 Mr Nelson stated that his family favors retaining the existing zoning or rezoning to commercial or industrial use Mr Nelson stated that a rezone to A20 would be counter-productive to nurturing agriculture and does not allow flexibility for change Mr Nelson voiced his belief that land owners will not be fairly compensated under a TDR or PDR program as these programs are inequitable He voiced his concern that a fair market value is based on existing zoning without consideration to other potential land uses In referring to the September 24 minutes, Mr Nelson stated that if a landowner does not choose to have their development rights purchased, they would be down zoned to A20 He stated that this method would not fairly compensate landowners Mr Nelson stated that the TDR program seems speculative He questioned the methods used by the City to determine a unit per acre value, saying that this is only one indication of the value of property Mr Nelson questioned how the potential for commercial or industrial development would be evaluated, stating that the south study area is well suited to that type of development due to the existence of a transportation infrastructure and availability of utilities Mr Nelson stated that City Administration would incur continued expense under the PDR program as they will need to monitor landowners for compliance with land restrictions imposed by the City Mr Nelson stated that the Carpinitos are farming his property and he is not receiving any compensation for their use of his land Chris Curtis, 4219 Corhss Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that she is the Director of the Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance, a community-based nonprofit organization in the City of Seattle Ms Curtis stated that the Alliance operates the University Distnct Farmers' Market, the Columbia City Farmers' 4p Market and the West Seattle Farmers' Market with a new market opening in Lake City in June 2002 Ms Curtis stated that the markets are open for only 13 hours per week and have experienced remarkable success with an increase in farm sales of 30 percent this year She stated that farmers' gross sales over the past 8 weeks have averaged$100,000 per week and will reach $2 million dollars in local farm sales by the end of the season in November Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 3 Ms Curtis stated that the University District Market routinely collects $45,000 to $60,000 on market day through direct farm sales She stated that there are 115 farmers in their database with waiting lists at all three of the markets Ms Curtis stated that farmers from Eastern Washington and King County are represented in the markets Forty percent of the farmers are from King County and represent approximately 30 percent of their total sales Ms Curtis stated that the average King County farm size is less than six acres with intensive farming Several farmers have generated $10,000 to $40,000 in gross sales per acre She stated that the demand for locally grown produce at the markets has risen between 20 to 40 percent per year with this demand occurring in Woodinville, Redmond and Issaquah Ms Curtis stated that the markets are receiving less than a half percent of total produce dollars spent in Puget Sound She stated that if the farmers' markets could secure one to two percent of produce sales, this would be equivalent to$12 million dollars in revenue Ms Curtis stated that the loss of local agricultural resource lands would undermine the local farm economy Don Stuart, 3213 South Normand St., Seattle, WA 98144 stated that he serves as the Pacific Northwest Regional Director for a national organization known as American Farmland Trust He stated that this organization works to protect and keep active farmland in production and encourage use of good stewardship practices Mr Stuart stated that public opinion strongly supports agriculture in this state and encouraged staff to support the protection of farmland to provide for economic diversity and recreational activities Mr Stuart stated that the Kent Valley's proximity to Seattle makes it convenient for farmers to sell their produce at local farmers' markets Mr Stuart stated that farming is diversified including u-pick operations and on site processing operations, which allows for direct sales to farmers' markets He stated that the diversity in farming includes tourism, entertainment farming and Consumer Supported Agriculture and home delivery service He added that the old way of farming might not work,but there are new ways to farm Barbara Hallock, 405 Clark Ave. N., Kent, WA 98031 stated that in her 83 years of residency, she has experienced remarkable changes in the Kent valley She commended staff for their work on the study areas stating that a simple solution does not exist in balancing the interests of all those connected with the land in these study areas Ms Hallock stated that the City should retain agricultural land to provide a high quality of living that could provide diversity and meet the recreational needs for the community as well Ms Hallock voiced her support of Option 4, as it seems to provide equitability and will provide a way to preserve the land for future generations Rita Bailie,20607 101"Ave. SE,Kent,WA 98031 stated that she serves as the Rainier Audubon Wetland Chair She stated that farmlands serve as wildlife habitats, migrating and breeding corridors She stated that she appreciates the flood storage, wetland resources and the ground water recharge areas that farmlands provide Ms Bathe stated that these services provided for free by the farmlands would be costly to replicate Studies show that flood peaks may be as much as 80%higher in watersheds without wetlands Ms Bailie voiced her support of Option 4 as it seems the most equitable to those landowners that may wish to sell their land In quoting from a book "Better not Bigger" on Growth Management, Ms Bathe stated that "Open space and farm land are valuable and irreplaceable assets that contribute significantly to every community Undeveloped land requires few if any public services and there is little or no public cost required to maintain it Studies by the Amencan Farmland Trust (AFT), consistently show that farmland and open space pay more in taxes then they require in services, providing a net surplus to the community" Ms. Bailie stated that a study by the AFT found that farmland and open space required only 52 cents in services for every dollar paid in taxes She . stated that the cost of services created a surplus, helping to make up the budget shortfall created by residential land Residential land required $1.14 for every dollar paid resulting in a $20 million dollar net loss to Frederick County,Maryland in 1995 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 4 Ms Bailie stated that a similar study of four New Hampshire towns conducted in 1995 found that each town had a net revenue gain from open space and a net loss for residential land Ms Bailie stated that it may cost Kent to save farmland now,but over the years the savings returned in keeping the land in open space may make up a good portion of that cost. She stated that the City stnves for every housing site now, but we cannot be certain our population growth will continue as rapidly as in the past Ms Bailie stated that if our population growth escalates rapidly then farms will be needed and appreciated even more than at present Ms Bailie stated that government and businesses have neglected Western Washington's small farms She stated that farming is a viable business but needs consistent support, and most government farm support goes to large farms and agricultural businesses Ms Bailie stated that the King County Agriculture Commission was formed in 1995 to help meet the needs of these farmers by developing helpful programs She stated that farmers' markets are a program providing a profitable direct link between the farmer and his customer Ms Bailie stated that successful local farming means fresher food,less shipping,truck traffic,pollution, fewer redistribution warehouses and greater food security Jack McCann, 25870 Lake Fenwick Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has owned 7 acres in the northern study area for 48 years, which contains altered soils with no agricultural value Mr McCann stated that he objects to the options presented He stated that implementation of any of the programs would exempt his land as a sending area due to the State's law requinng Class 2 soils Mr McCann stated that there is no demand for TDR's in the Midway area and wants to be assured that he and other property owners are fairly compensated for their land He stated that he would support either Option 2 or 3, as these options would preserve some of the agncultural lands and greenbelt area He stated that the use of TDR's could be funneled into the northern study areas near the Polygon development Mr McCann stated that the greatest demand for further development seems to be exhibited near the Polygon development due to sewer and utility accessibility Kathy (Smith) Highland, 13721 SE 260th St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that she was raised on the Smith Brothers Farm, a fourth generation family business Ms Highland stated that pressures from urban growth and development have forced Smith Brothers to move their large herd from the property. She stated that the GMA does not define resource land as having that type of urban pressure,but clearly Smith Brothers has that pressure or they would still be allowed to have their herd on the property Ms Highland stated that it seems contradictory to designate this property as "long term agricultural resource land" when Smith Brothers has been told that they can no longer farm as they have for the last four generations She stated that Smith Brothers would like to retain their business which includes processing and bottling of milk and warehousing milk, eggs, cheese, cottage cheese and ice cream which Smith Brothers distributes Ms Highland stated that their markets could force them to change their business strategy to include producing their own yogurt, cottage cheese and ice cream She stated that this would involve building additional processing and packaging facilities, which are not permitted under their current Al zoning She stated that it is her understanding that neither A20 nor AG zoning would permit this type of expansion Ms Highland stated that Smith Brothers needs zoning that would guarantee them the necessary flexibility to improve their business and remain in compliance now and in the future. Scott Highland, 13721 SE 260th,Kent,WA 98042 said that he has worked in the Smith Brother Farms business since 1975. He stated that he is president of Smith Tractor and Equipment Company which sells,repairs and rents earth moving equipment from eight locations in Washington State,with two of those locations located in Kent Mr. Highland stated that an earlier presentation indicated that farmers' markets have the potential to gross $2 million dollars in a season He stated that when 115 farmers divide that$2 million dollars,the result is$17,000 in gross sales per farmer and by figuring in a 5 percent margin,the resulting income is $1,000 per farmer Mr. Highland stated that Smith Brothers has 60 acres of their property in Kent zoned Al located in the southern study area on the comer of 277al and West Valley Highway He stated that it would not be reasonable to describe this property as agricultural resource land Mr Highland stated that fifty percent of the land is covered with Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 5 buildings, concrete, asphalt, maintained mature gravel roadways and parking areas He stated that a large industrial facility exists on the property comprised of approximately 300,000 square feet of buildings Mr Highland stated that milk is processed, packaged, warehoused and distributed along with other products from this site Mr Highland stated that an estimated 100 trucks or more deliver goods to and from Smith Brothers Farms daily He stated that Smith Brothers has employee housing, two office buildings,numerous bams, loafing sheds, a truck and farm equipment repair shop and storage areas for many of the delivery vehicles that reside there every night Mr Highland stated that if the cows were removed from this property, it looks like an industrial park Mr Highland stated that Smith Brothers Farm needs AG zoning at the minimum He urged staff to consider a zoning and comprehensive plan designation that not only would reflect how the company has evolved over the last 50 years but would give Smith Brothers sufficient flexibility to expand their facilities as our markets change He stated that neither Al nor A20 accommodates the changes they can foresee as necessary for the future viability of their business Mr Highland stated that if the City were to move ahead with their existing proposals, their property would be designated as A20 resource land and would require compensation as a PDR or TDR based on current zoning He stated that the real value of the 60 acre portion of Smith Brother's Farms is estimated at between $6 and $15 per square foot or between $15 and $40 million dollars if allowed to develop in this urban environment without zoning interference Mr Highland stated that Smith Brothers Dairy was unable to keep their cows on the farm, as the cost became prohibitive due to environmental issues connected with the distribution of manure Mr Highland stated that he was unclear what level of government imposed this order, and assured Chair Zimmerman that he could obtain this information. Maria Dorn,PO Box 1623/293 S. "D" St.,Buckley,WA 98321 stated that she would prefer that the City retain the current zoning or that she would support Option 2 She stated that although her grandparents have either farmed their own land or rented it out to others to farm, farming is no longer a viable way for young people to earn a living Ms Dom stated that farming competes with large manufacturers and constraints imposed by environmental regulations Ms Dom stated that developing this land would be beneficial in creating housing for future generations and increasing the tax base for the City of Kent Saraj Khan, 24719 43rd Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 introduced a letter for the record as Exhibit #7 He stated that his family owns 26 acres of land in the northern study area between 212th and 216th, west of Frager Road. He stated that the land is not farmed and sees it following the same direction as the Greek Orthodox Church property located northeast of Onlha Road, vacant and out of production, having grown into wetland and blackbemes Mr Khan stated the Central and Southern study areas have large, profitable farms but needs the City to consider zoning this land AG He stated that logistically,the Northern Study area requires development as it is close to the airport, Southcenter Mall, Interstate 5 and Highway 167 Mr Khan urged the City to zone the entire northern study area to allow for development to include soccer fields,housing and neighborhood commercial Sylvia Gray, 20866 102nd Ave. SE, Kent,WA 98031 submitted a letter for the record as Exhibit#8 She stated that her family has owned property in the northern study area for over seventy years She stated that she does not support any of the options but believes that Option 2 is potentially the least encumbering for the City and affected property owners Ms Gray addressed the options for preservation of agricultural lands within city boundaries She stated that the State Growth Management Act requires that agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance located within urban growth areas cannot be designated for preservation unless the City has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 6 Ms Gray stated that each option incorporates transfer and/or purchase of development rights along with senous zoning changes for properties titled agricultural,whether or not they are so used Ms Gray stated that her property is not under cultivation because there is no one interested in using it She stated that information has been presented about the amount of land in commercial use, income so generated and possible valuations of land relative to the purchase of the development rights Ms Gray stated that Option 4 of the report was recommended which has the most far-reaching changes and the most extensive use of TDR's and PDR's with funding by public bond issue Ms Gray stated that farming is becoming a harder way to earn a living She stated that farmers for over 35 to 40 years have worked a day job then fanned evenings and weekends Ms Gray stated that people testifying have reached the age of retirement and no one has appeared to replace them Ms Gray stated that the two biggest agricultural businesses, Mike Carpinito and Alexis Koester testified that a change in their zoning to A20 would not support or enhance their ability to do business,but severely restrict it Ms Gray stated that those of us who are not in farming have our retirement income invested in various ways She stated that a farmer's future retirement investment is the value of the land itself, which is meant to be sold to provide care and retirement Ms Gray stated that Jeff McCann's research on transfer of development rights programs indicated that they were not an overwhelming success She stated that he raised questions about the choice of either a mandatory or voluntary program indicating that legal challenges and opposition have occurred in those circumstances Ms Gray stated that she understands that when a property owner sells or transfers development rights, he is still obligated to maintain ownership and use of the property, as he is the taxpayer of record Ms Gray questioned how a property owner within City boundaries with no development nghts could sell their land She stated that the staff report and options attempt to address the preservation of agricultural lands of long term commercial significance within urban boundanes Ms Gray stated that the testimony at this hearing refers repeatedly to commercial agnculture activity not surviving for the long term- at least not under these options Ms Gray stated that reports presented to the LUPB refer to FEMA regulations and the Shoreline Management Act impacting the use of these properties even for agriculture She questioned if the proposal intended to preserve, maintain and support long term agricultural activity and property or is the City of Kent going to embark on a costly program which binds up acres of nonfunctioning land, labeled agncultural,but rendered worthless to the mandated sale of development nghts She stated at issue is the continued right and ability of individual property owners to sell their land at fair market value,not just sell the development rights Ms Gray stated that to those who spoke earlier this evening, in support of farming, where are those people who want to farm Tom Vertetis, 10115 SE 200th, Kent, WA 98031 stated that Options 2 and 3 seem the most viable in striking a balance of fairness for those land owners who want to receive fair compensation for their property at the same time protecting agricultural lands Mr Vertetis stated that Option 4 concerns him in that it seems that there is no demand or capacity for TDR's in the Midway area and that this option,if implemented,could create legal issues Bob Tidball, 28810 57th Place South,Auburn,WA 98001 stated that he grows bemes on a small farm he owns south of Kent He stated that it is his understanding that zoning restricts what property owners are allowed to do with their property without compensation He stated that the Growth Management Act places restrictions on property with guaranteed compensation to the property owner Mr Tidball stated that Benaroya challenged the City of Redmond's agricultural zoning on property in the city, which went to the State Supreme Court He stated that the Supreme Court determined that the TDR/PDR must be in place before a zoning designation is placed on the property Mr Tidball stated that if land is entered into a TDR/PDR program, the benefit to the owner exceeds the compensation that they receive He stated that he participates in a TDR/PDR program through King County Mr Tidball stated that if his land remains in production, he would realize substantial tail reductions He stated that Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 7 under the current program, he pays $90 per year in taxes and were he not under this program, he would pay approximately$2000 per year Mr Tidball stated that a number of people have stated that no one wishes to farm these lands He stated that his experience has shown that a number of people who own these lands have speculative interests and do not allow people to farm their lands Mr Tidball stated that if these landowners seek out farmers, their rental fees exceed what the farming economy can support Mr Tidball stated that King County has entered into a program called Farm Link where they actively attempt to match landowners or farmers with people who want to farm He encouraged the City of Kent to participate if they decide to designate agricultural lands Mr Tidball stated that he paid full commercial, industrial pnce for his land and his business has paid for the land in less than five years He stated that in order to accomplish preservation of resource lands Government and individual property owners must work together Mr Tidball stated that his farm has served thousands of people over twenty years and he has yet to hear anyone say they do not want farmlands to remain Kevin Phelps, 26311 78th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family owns Triple A Auto Wrecking at 26311 78th Ave South, along the Green River Mr Phelps speaking on behalf of his father stated that they are concerned about the land proposal for his area, as they are located adjacent to railroad tracks He stated that they favor industrial or commercial zoning as they are bounded on three sides with industrial uses Mr Phelps stated that their property consists of 14 5 acres with 11 acres zoned agricultural by King County and it has not been farmed for 15 to 20 years Mr Phelps stated that the tax benefits to the City would be substantial if this land were converted to commercial or residential use Mr Phelps stated that any of the proposals would impair land values and jeopardize the city's economy as the cost to the city for purchasing Smith Brothers at commercial rates is more than the city could afford Debi Nicholson, 21831 Frager Rd, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she respects the opinions of the land owners who desire to be compensated fairly for their property saying that she is a land owner in the northern study area Ms Nicholson voiced concern that increased development in the northern study area will increase traffic particularly on 216th and Frager Rd, which is a two lane narrow road Ms Nicholson stated that traffic has increased substantially due to the River View Development She stated that upon completion of this development there would be over 800 homes,which would further increase traffic on the overburdened road system Ms Nicholson stated that when the River View Development began, the 228th Street corridor was to be completed and would serve as an access route from the south side of the development into Kent, deferring traffic from Frager Rd She stated that the completion of the 228th St Corridor is now in question Ms Nicholson stated that a roundabout has been placed at the intersection of 216th and 42nd to funnel traffic to 2121°, however, traffic still turns right out of the development heading to Frager Road Ms Nicholson stated that the developer has indicated they are seeking permission from the City to place a no right-turn sign at the exit from the development She believes this will not deter people from continuing to turn right towards Frager Road Ms Nicholson stated that the City has designated Frager Road as a scenic and recreational corridor She stated that she fears if development continues south of 216th even more traffic will be funneled onto 216th and down to Frager Road, further impacting Frager Road Ms Nicholson questioned Kent's commitment in maintaining this road as a valued recreational corridor Ms Nicholson stated that she would like the city to provide its citizens with more recreational opportunities including development of soccer fields Ms Nicholson voiced her support of an option that would fall between Options 3 and 4 utilizing parts of the northern study area close to 212th and the Midway neighborhood as receiving areas. Ms Nicholson stated that if development occurs between 216th and 212th, vehicular outlets should exit only onto 212th and not 216th or Frager Road Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 8 Ms Nicholson urged staff and the Board to carefully consider these decisions as the loss of farming land and the resulting impacts to the Green River Recreational Corridor are irrevocable Karen Tiffany,4807 S. 216th St,Kent, WA stated that she resides in the Northern Study area She raised safety concerns associated with the volume of traffic generated as a result of the Polygon development Ms Tiffany referred to the September 24th Land Use and Planning Board's minutes in stating that zoning within the TDR receiving area would generate 2,185 new trips per day increasing traffic flow substantially on 216th and Frager Road She stated that Option 3 indicates that 206 dwelling units would generate 1536 new trips Ms Tiffany encouraged the Board to consider the health and safety of those owners who have resided in this area over the last ten to fifteen years Ralpb LoPriore, 26414 68th Avenue S, Kent,WA 98032 stated that his family owns a ten acre farm on 26414 68th Ave S bordering the State department which has not been actively farmed since 1977 and is not lucrative for his family to farm due to equipment maintenance and labor costs Mr LoPriore asked that the Board not devalue his family's property voicing his belief that he should not have to pay for the development which has occurred in Kent since the 1980's with his property Mr LoPriore stated that when his family sold their produce at the farmers' market they could not meet their cost and remain in business. He stated that his family owns some commercial real estate in Kent but believes that the options need further analysis and consideration towards compensating his family for the actual value of their land Brett Flajole, 20705 SE 260th St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that his family resides on a one-acre parcel and carpools through the Kent Valley to work enjoying the view and fauns He stated that he does not understand how the City can dictate the value of someone's property Mr Flalole stated that he believes that landowners are allowing market forces to act Mr Flalole stated that it not fair to believe that we can restrict growth Therefore, we have to look at how to control that growth, which needs to be done in a way that compensates people fairly for the years of effort and dedication to their land He stated that he opposes Option 4, favonng Options 2 or 3 as more equitable to landowners Earline Legge, 10125 SE 200th Street, Kent,WA 98032 stated that she has lived in the Des Moines, Kent area all her life and is a property rights advocate She stated that the City needs to protect and preserve those rights Ms. Legge stated that she supports the local farmers' markets stating that this produce is trucked over the mountains from Eastern Washington with very little of the produce supplied by Western Washington fanners She stated that the other half of the people at the market are selling arts and crafts Ms. Legge stated that approximately half the profit from the local farmers' market is generated through the sale of arts and crafts and three-quarters in sales goes to farmers in Eastern Washington or the truckers Barbara Hansen, 21847 Frager Rd., Kent, WA 98032 stated that she lives in the Northern Study area stating that this issue is before the Board due to a permit given to Polygon to dump fill on Al property Ms Hansen encouraged the City to extend their review of this issue while considering citizen input She stated that she favors dropping the current options and retaining the current zoning Ms Hansen stated that if the City develops the Northern Study area she is concerned with how this development will be implemented She stated that she is concemed with the high volume of traffic in the area, which will increase with development Ms Hansen stated that the infrastructure does not have the capacity to support more traffic Ms Hansen stated that the Hearing Examiner's Findings for Polygon's PUD set forth nine recommendations and conditions for development which included condition#9 "traffic and storm water analysis shall be performed after each of the three major phases of development to determine what the actual impacts are on the neighborhood and environment from completion and occupation of each development phase The Development of Public Works shall define the scope of the analysis and the time for completion The Department of Public Works shall review the analysis for completeness and shall determine if additional mitigation is required to reduce impacts to Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 9 surrounding neighborhoods and the environment Necessary additional mitigations must be completed before any additional construction is allowed to occur" Ms. Hansen stated that she does not believe that condition #9 has been met and the development is approximately 0 two-thirds complete Ms Hansen stated that if development moves forward, are developers going to follow the recommendations that are set down Ms Hansen stated that she would provide Mr Malik with a copy of the Hearing Examiner's report Brian Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he resides in the Northern Study area He stated that he initially supported Option 4, which appears to leave most of the irreplaceable farmland in open space After further consideration, he would like to see an Option somewhere between Options 3 and 4 Mr Nicholson stated that his family enjoys the recreational opportunities in the Kent Valley He stated that Option 4 is in contradiction with his desire to sell his land at the highest price possible so that he might have an opportunity to stop farming and enjoy his retirement Mr Nicholson stated that he does not want to deny his neighbors and other farmers the opportunity to retire or be able to meet their financial obligations He stated that he does not desire to see his neighborhood developed and overrun with asphalt and traffic Mr Nicholson asked the Board to consider health and safety issues connected with the increased traffic that would be generated with further development and how this increase will affect the Frager Road recreational corridor He stated that tabling of the 228th corridor creates additional traffic impact issues Mr Nicholson stated that he would like to see a plan that carefully balances the needs of both the commercial landowners as well as the small farmer He urged the City to proceed carefully in analyzing the issues before them Rita LoPriore,26414 681h Avenue S.,Kent,NI A 98032 stated that she has lived in this area since 1959, farming the land in the Kent Valley Ms LoPriore stated that the only reason her husband continues to farm is to remain healthy and be able to pay the taxes on the property Ms LoPnore stated that farming no longer provides a livable income She stated that they want to receive fair value for their land if they sold it and do not want their land to be devalued. Jerry Rosso,P.O.Box 80345, Seattle,WA 98108 stated that his family has owned a sixty-acre nursery at 24202 and 24813 Frager Road in the Central Study area for 35 years He stated that in 1984, 34 owners objected to rezoning of their property, yet it was downzoned in 1985 He voiced concern that the same thing could occur again Mr. Rosso voiced his objection to all options, as he believes they would further devalue his land Mr Rosso stated that ten years after appraisal of his land(in 1989), the GMA and Al zoning was approved, reducing the value of his land by 15%. He stated that by changing zoning from Al to A20, the value of his property would diminish further Mr Rosso stated that he does not support a TDR or PDR program, after hearing that TDR's have experienced 74% failure rates and since PDR's must be funded by a general obligation bond which the citizens of Kent must approve He stated that be does not believe that the citizens of Kent would want to come up with the $8 to $10 million dollars it might take to fund the PDR's Mr. Rosso stated that there are many government run nurseries throughout the region in direct competition with their nursery. He urged the Board to consider the concerns voiced by the property owners and not change the zoning Michele Brennan,35215 221"Ave. SE, Auburn,WA 98092 stated that she lives above the Green Valley Road where owners sold their development rights and it was followed by litigation and unrest She stated that our government elected officials and appointed members of our Board need to be accountable Ms. Brennan stated that the Carpinito Brothers provide fresh produce at reasonable costs and Smith Brothers delivers milk to her door, which she appreciates Ms Brennan stated that economic balance needs to be considered when looking at preserving farmland She stated that Kent needs to consider the desires of the Carpinito Brothers and Smith Brothers Farms as part of their La A Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 10 decision making process. She urged the Board not to be hasty in considering the options before them, recommending that the City go with the status quo and move slowly Mark Logan, 665 S.R. 143rd St., Burien, WA 98166 read a letter into the record from his mother Patty Logan (with DeMarco Farms) as Exhibit#9 The letter reads as follows "her father was Sam Pecardo, his father and brothers were all well known farmers in White Center and the valley area. My father started farming in the Kent area at the start of World War II He owned the O'Brien Greenhouses and adjacent acreage plus several other farms on the East Valley Highway in South Kent Albert Dreisow, my sister Angle Pecardo and I all worked on the farm as young children Albert was the son my father never had When Sam passed away unexpectedly in 1959 we had to sell the greenhouses and other properties because there was no one to run the property or to farm the land Albert has leased and farmed the remaining 9+acres that were left that are my families heritage He has kept the land free from being a dumping ground or haven for weeds and berry bushes After Albert Dreisow retires there is no one left in my family or his to farm the property Even if our property continues to be farmed, it is not economically feasible anymore The small farmer in this northern study area is going broke Now is the time to rezone our property for its highest and best use I feel that our area should be developed as a neighborhood, which would allow single family residential townhouses and condominiums, Medium Density Multifamily and Neighborhood Commercial Conveniences I am concerned that a TDR or PDR program will have little chance of success based on information presented at the hearing and the results of similar programs across the county It is unfair to force farmers into a program that could take years to make any payments to our family. Out right zoning is the best solution for all the properties in the northern study area since they are smaller, non-economic parcels I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Land Use and Planning Board to express my feelings in this matter" Mr Logan stated that he has owned property at 5249 South 212d'Street for fifteen years He stated that traffic has increased dramatically and urged the Board to consider options that would be fair to all property owners Shelley Pasco-Verdi,27405 78i" Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that Chris Curtis's three farmers' markets accept no crafts people and are comprised entirely of farmers She stated that 50% of their farmers are from King County Ms Pasco-Verdi stated that she is not an expert on TDR's and PDR's but is aware that the future of our farms depends on a farmland preservation program She stated that she and her husband farm 15 acres of rented land Ms Pasco-Verdi stated that every spring they are anxious to plant fruit trees and other perennial crops like asparagus, stating that without the sense of permanence they cannot afford the risk involved with such an investment. She stated that they would like to build a barn to store their equipment and produce in, but it is too expensive to build on rented land They cannot begin to afford the going rate of $50,000 an acre for industrial zoned land Ms Pasco-Verdi stated that she and her husband operate Whistling Train Farm, a certified organic farm located between the train tracks She stated that approximately half of their yearly income comes from their subscription programs Ms Pasco-Verdi stated that their summer program runs from early June through the end of October and the winter program runs from early November through the end of February She stated that they grow and harvest produce 9 months of the year with half their income derived from direct sales to their customers Ms Pasco-Verdi said that half of these direct sales are made at the West Seattle market in four hours every week, stating that they are on a waiting list for the University District Farmers' Market as well Ms Pasco-Verdi stated that their growing farm stand customer base generates another 25% of their income She stated that they have the only certified organic farm in South King County, attracting customers from Bunen to Federal Way and from Renton to Enumclaw Ms Pasco-Verdi estimated that they provide 400 families with their produce every week Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 8,2001 Page 11 Rich O'Connell, 20431 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he resides on 30 acres in the northern study area where the development nghts have been sold Mr O'Connell stated that the sale of his development rights allows him to run a breeding facility for thoroughbred horses although it is not lucrative enough to pay all the bills He stated his family has been on this land since 1875 when his great grandfather homesteaded it Mr O'Connell stated that he is acquainted with the farmers who spoke and empathizes with their situations Mr O'Connell stated that the City needs to work closer with the fanners and landowners in generating a viable solution for all parties involved Mr. O'Connell stated that it is difficult for customers to exit and enter his property from Frager Road,largely due to the bridge that was put in there which he feels could hamper him from increasing his business. Mr O'Connell stated that his neighbors include the Greek Orthodox church property of 80 acres which has not been farmed for 30 years, Mrs Ordonio with five acres cultivated in flowers and the City of Kent's property Mr O'Connell questioned if Kent will retain their land for agricultural or recreational purposes He stated that he would support recreational, questioning how this would affect zoning Mr O'Connell stated that he is concerned that farmers like the Carpmito Brothers, Smith Brothers Farms and other farmers could be downzoned to A20 He urged the Board to not dei alue the landowners' property, voicing concern that the City is moving too fast and that the City needs to receive more input from landowners David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion carried Ms Gould-Wessen thanked the citizens who have attended workshops and hearings on this issue stating that she has appreciated the opportunity to talk to many of the property owners Ms Gould-Wessen requested that this issue be moved to a workshop to ei aluate the testimony and clarify issues surrounding the proposed TDR receiving area as proposed in staffs options Brad Bell and Steve Dowell concurred Acting Planning Manager Charlene Anderson concurred with the Board members to move this issue back to a Land Use and Planning Board workshop on Monday, October 22, assuring the Board that notification would be sent to all parties of interest In response to Mr Harmon, Ms Anderson stated that there is a moratorium on the receipt of a land use application that proposes subdividing property, increasing the comprehensive plan, or zoning designation Ms Anderson stated that there is no moratorium on the receipt of building permit applications on existing lots or other type of land use applications on an existing lot She stated that the moratorium is on applications for further subdivision to increase density on a particular piece of property or rezone to a higher density Chair Zimmerman stated that the Board would review their notes, listing the issues that have been heard She stated that it is difficult to craft something that will serve each situation or meet the needs of all the folks in the valley and all citizens of the City of Kent She assured them they will be kept informed during this process Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to take CPA-2000-3 Agricultural Lands Amendment back to a Land Use and Planning Board workshop Motion Carried ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9.30 p in Respectful Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting Planning Manager Secretary S IPe,mttlPI..UUPB00011m,..we 10I1008mn dot COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom,Acting Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WASHINGTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue 5 Kent, WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 8, 2001 TO: TERRY ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER SUBJ: #CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535) AGRICULTURAL LANDS On September 24, 2001, the Agricultural Lands public hearing began with a presentation followed by comments from the public The public hearing was continued to October 8, 2001. Following is an explanation of PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) and a TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) preservation programs, as requested by the Board What is a PDR and TDR Preservation Program? The PDR and TDR preservation programs are innovative planning tools intended to ensure the preservation of a particular land use In the case of Kent, it is agricultural land use Neither program involves the purchase of fee simple property, but rather it is the purchase or transfer of a development right as permitted under applicable zoning Once the property owner has been compensated, the title is written with a covenant that restricts the land use to agricultural only This restriction runs with the land title in perpetuity The property owner sells or transfers the present market value or development rights of the property, while maintaining ownership and use of the property These preservation programs can be voluntary or mandatory, and have been used to preserve land uses like agriculture, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, or historic structures. Purchase of Development Right (PDR) A PDR preservation program uses public funds to purchase the development rights from the property owner It is typically funded through a general obligation bond that is approved by the community at the ballot box, and paid using a portion of assessed property taxes. Once the funding and administrative mechanisms are in place, property owners of farmlands who are interested in participating in the program would find funds readily available The mechanism is simple Upon application by the property owner, the land is evaluated for its eligibility, as defined by the community, with the minimum criterion being soil type The development rights are appraised for their fair market value based on existing zoning and existing environmentally sensitive areas The property title is encumbered with restrictive covenants that run with the land in perpetuity Ownership of the resource remains in private hands, but all "Speculative Value" associated with the possibility of any future development is removed Payment to the property owner for development rights is usually in a single lump sum Some agreements, however, permit installment payments over a period of time This method of payment allows the property owner to postpone the capital gains taxes that typically are part of sales of development rights. Land Use and Planning Board October 8,2001—Page 2 Transfer of Development Right (TDR) A TDR program differs from the PDR program in that rather than purchasing the development rights with public funds, it is the developer who purchases the rights The developer uses those development rights at some other location to increase density, for example. The mechanism starts with the City designating areas for preservation, called"TDR sending site". Persons owning land in a "sending site" can sell their development rights, (i.e. 1 dwelling unit/acre) as permitted under applicable zoning, to interested developers Those developers then can use those development rights (i.e. 1 dwelling unit/acre) to increase density in areas the City has designated a "TDR receiving site". As in the PDR preservation program, the "sending site" must meet the criteria for eligibility as defined by the community, with the minimum being soil type Also like the PDR program, the TDR program uses restrictive covenants so that the resource will remain available for agricultural purposes in perpetuity. CAWR Ipm S IPermitWianILUPM20011StaffReportsl2004535-CPA-2000-3-100801 doc cc Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Fred N Satterstrom,Acting Community Development Director Michael H Martin,Acting Chief Adrian Officer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 ` ASHI NGTON Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING September 24, 2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7 00 p in on Monday, September 24, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LANDUSE&PLANINNGBOARDMEMBERSPRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,AchngPbnnrgMgr Brad Bell Glona Gould-Wessen,PlarneriGIS Coordinator Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney Ron Harmon Bill Wolmski, Env Engineer Manager Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair(Excused) Jon Johnson (Excused) David Malik(Excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to approve the minutes of August 27, 2001 Motion carried ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS Ms Anderson, in response to concerns from the Board regarding abandoning private wells as conditions of short plats, stated that the City and staff believe that these wells should be abandoned based on potential sources of contamination Ms Anderson stated the City of Kent's Wellhead Protection Plan identifies medium density residential development as the highest potential source of contamination to the aquifer for vanous water sources Wells provide a direct link to our aquifer, one which can provide a route for contaminants such as fertilizer and pesticides (commonly over applied in residential areas) By requiring wells to be abandoned in accordance with DOE standards, we are protecting down gradient private wells, down gradient municipal water supply wells and water quality of streams,many of which provide habitat for salmonids Ms Anderson reported that Planning received eight comprehensive plan amendments, with three applicants requesting changes from residential to commercial, (two of those properties are located on East Hill and one on the valley floor) She stated that three applicants are requesting a higher density residential, (two properties are located on the East Hill and one is located on the West Hill) Two additional applications relate to the Capital Facilities element Ms Anderson stated that additional information would be provided at the November workshop NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Ms Anderson stated that the City of Des Moines along with the assistance of Washington State Office of Community Development is providing training to members of the Des Moines planning agency and extends an invitation to the Board members to attend Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2001 Page 2 Ms Anderson stated that the Des Moines Citizens Advisory Group makes either recommendations or decisions on development proposals and draft land use policies She stated that the training is oriented toward land use and open to anyone interested in hosting successful public meetings, serving on advisory boards and making decisions Ms Anderson stated that the training will be held at 7 00 PM October 1, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, 21630 Eleventh Avenue South, Suite B,Des Moines Chair Zimmerman announced that the hearing on agricultural lands would be continued to October 8,2001 #CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff s evaluation and research on agricultural lands began in March with a public open house, followed by five Board workshops Ms Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record • Exhibit#1 - Letter submitted from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn PC,representing Mike Carpimto • Exhibit#2 -E-Marl submitted from Mr Bob Tidball • Exhibit#3 - Letter from Judith Kilgore,C D Director,City of Des Moines • Exhibit#4- Letter from Mr Jerry Rosso with R R R Enterprises • Exhibit#5 -Letter from Lori M. Flemm, Superintendent of Parks Planning&Development Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Option 1b, Attachment 4 of the staff report should read (A-20) Agricultural and not(AG-20) Agricultural General Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Des Moines has voiced concern that they will not have time to voice their comments related to Option 4 in connection with the Midway neighborhood as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)receiving area Ms Gould-Wessen emphasized that the TDR designation in Option 4 is the first step in the planning process She stated that staff will invite $ighlme Community College, City of Des Moines, property owners, tenants and public utilities to participate in that planning process if that TDR receiving area is selected Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the Board is to consider if the City of Kent wants to designate the existing Al and AG zoning districts as agricultural resource lands She stated that the City is required to provide either a TDR or Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program under the Growth Management Act (GMA) in order to preserve the agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the agricultural lands issue began along with the Kentview comprehensive plan amendment in September 2000 She stated that the applicant made a request to change the zoning and comprehensive plan designation from an Agriculture (Al) zone to a single-family residential (SR-6) zone Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the issue was brought to the City Council's Planning Committee to initiate a policy discussion She stated that the Planning Committee held two meetings, deciding to focus a study on Al and AG zoned agricultural lands on Kent's valley floor Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the Planning Committee forwarded their request to the Land Use and Planning Board,resulting in workshops held in March, April, June, July and August Ms Gould Wessen stated that staff held an open house March 28, public questions and comments were taken and a survey handed out Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent is mandated by the State's Growth Management Act (GMA) to designate appropriate agricultural lands of long-term significance for commercial production of food and other agricultural goods and products She said that the GMA further states that agricultural land located within an urban growth area shall not be designated agricultural land of long term significance without enacting a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the GMA further defines long-term commercial significance to include growing capability, productivity, and soil composition of the land connected with long-term commercial production She stated that long term commercial significance considers proximity to population areas with the possibility of more intense uses of that land Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2001 Page 3 Ms Gould Wessen stated that family farms have been in jeopardy for decades due to heightened technology, the domination of food processing and transporting of products from large agricultural plants She stated that the use of irrigation has seen a shift in agriculture from one region to another Ms Gould-Wessen stated that packing and processing plants are moving out of this region to areas where they can decrease their labor costs Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the King County Agricultural Commission announced their support of farmers and the "Farm Fresh Program" at their May 10 meeting She acknowledged farming exists in Kent and the City's potential annexation area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that farmers'markets are a viable economic resource in our region, with sales up forty percent in King County since 2000 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the University, West Seattle and Columbia markets are the largest markets comprised of 105 farmers 40% of those farmers are from King County and collectively gross $100,000 in a 13 hour week She stated that these markets anticipate generating two million dollars to 2001, with an approximate daily income of $1,200 per farmer Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the farming income generated from the three markets is estimated at$10,000 to $40,000 per acre Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Kent's Comprehensive Plan first acknowledged agricultural lands in 1977 and Kent citizens supported and passed King County farmland bond ballot propositions in 1978 and 1979 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent implemented comprehensive plan and zoning designations in 1986 and in 1995, the City's Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the City's goals and policies to conserve and enhance productive agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent's A-1 and A-G zones consist of 144 parcels totaling 685 acres Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City's agricultural land soils are essentially Class Two, prime farm land soils based on the United States Department of Agricultural soil conservation maps Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the wetlands have been inventoried and considered by staff in their analysis of potential redevelopable land, Ms Gould-Wessen spoke of the habitat within and along the Green River and creeks in the agricultural areas Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that water is available to all three of the study areas, although it does not extend out to all the lands She stated that sewer is available to the outside of the study areas but could be extended into those areas Ms Gould-Wessen stated that Frager/River Road is sensitive in nature and intended for recreational use only She stated that the capacity to expand this road is limited as it runs parallel to the river Ms Gould- Wessen stated that it is staff s opinion that an industrial designation within the agricultural study area would not be compatible with nearby residential, recreational or agricultural land uses as many of the roads (besides Frager/River Road) would not be able to support the associated truck traffic Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staffs options are based on the GMA which requires the City to either purchase development rights or transfer development rights and place all the lands the City chooses under agricultural resource lands as a designation within the urban growth area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that in Options 2 and 3, it is staffs opinion that some Neighborhood Commercial development should accompany the residential development within the proposed TDR receiving area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff has based the following options on the City's history of protecting agricultural lands • Option Ia - Preservation of the Majority of the Agricultural Lands using a PDR Ms Gould-Wessen stated that if the existing recreational lands (within the agricultural land area) were designated as an agricultural resource, it would restrict the use of those lands for recreational purposes Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option would utilizes urban separators as a way to retain recreational lands and acknowledges the open space corridor that exists by these wetlands and farmlands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that all A-1 and A-G zoning would be designated as A-20,preserving large areas of this land Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the operation of Smith Farms would be a grandfathered use, as it does not meet the requirements for an A-20 zone She stated that this option requires that a councilmanic bond be brought before the public to raise the funds to accomplish this option Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24,2001 Page 4 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option preserves approximately 391 acres as agricultural resource lands She stated that staff has estimated a cost of 36 to 48 million dollars to implement this option and believes that the financial commitments of the City would prohibit this option • Option lb-Preservation of the Southern Study Area using PDR's Ms Gould-Wessen stated that only the Southern area would be preserved and designated as a resource land She stated that the Central and Northern area would be designated as urban separators (SR-1), one dwelling unit per acre Ms Gould- Wessen stated that units would be developed in clusters of eight, with adequate spans between clusters to ensure ample open space Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the urban separator designation acknowledges connection of open space while still allowing agricultural activities Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option would designate 197 acres as agricultural resource lands, approximately 28 8 percent of the total land area She stated that this option would require a Purchase of Development Rights program which staff has estimated could cost 8 to 17 million dollars Ms Gould- Wessen stated that the (SRI) Urban Separator designation potentially could allow development of 294 clustered dwelling units in the northern and central area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that development would probably be mcremental in nature and that it would probably not be economically viable to expand the sewer system into these areas She stated that the use of septic systems could potentially pollute ground water, which staff sees as a detriment with this option Ms Gould-Wessen stated that while this option preserves open space, it is unlikely that farming would be viable where people have used their land for single family homes This option would probably only preserve these lands as open space Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff does not favor this option • Option 2 -Preservation of the Central and Southern Study areas using a rDR Program and designating the Northern Study as a receiving area. Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option preserves the southern area, a portion of the central area, and removes a section of the golf course from preservation Ms Gould- Wessen stated that a large section of land owned by Seattle Utilities would be removed from the preservation area She stated that the Transfer of Development Rights would occur in the northern area, where there are numerous wetlands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial along with Medium Density Multifamily, which allows 36 dwelling units per acre Staff recommends developing only three acres with this designation Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that MRT-16 and SR-6 would be allowed in this area Ms Gould-Wessen stated the potential exists for 674 dwelling units (an approximate population of 1,571) and approximately 78,000 square feet of commercial development She stated that the intention of this option is to absorb the market value of the Central and Southern area into this Northern study area Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends that ten or more acres be used for a planned unit development, allowing flexibility during the development phase and aggregation of properties Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the carrying capacity of this land could vary based on inventoried wetlands She stated that staff has estimated that there are about 56 acres in the areas unencumbered by environmental constraints, which encompasses approximately 8%of the total agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the zoning in the TDR receiving area would not take affect until the time of development stating that this option preserves 265 acres of land or approximately 38 7 % of the total area as agricultural resource lands She stated that the 347 remaining acres would be converted to a TDR receiving area with 73 of those acres converted to SR-1 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff believes that a minimum of 56 acres of buildable land would be required to absorb the market value, with the potential to create approximately 156 new jobs and generate 2,185 new trips per day She stated that approximately 102 acres of actively farmed land would be lost by developing 56 of the available acres Ms Gould-Wessen stated that wetlands could be used for agricultural purposes • Option 3 - Preservation of Central & Southern Study Areas and Portion of Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR with Northern Study Area as Receiving Area. Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option is the same as Option 2 contained within a smaller area She stated that this site consists of approximately 32 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24,2001 Page 5 acres with three acres of buildable land not encumbered by wetlands or their buffers, about 5% of the total • agricultural lands to be converted and used for development Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the potential exists for a 78,000 square foot commercial development and 206 dwelling units using MRT-16 and SR-6 zoning designations She stated that the 206 dwelling units could potentially provide housing for 408 people, generate 156 jobs and 1,536 new trips She stated that this option designates 315 acres or 46% of the total land area as agricultural lands Ms Gould-Wessen stated that 281 acres would be designated as a receiving area of which 89 of those acres exist as parks and would be converted to SR-I Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this program would need a Purchase of Development Rights program to augment the small amount of absorption that could actually occur, at a potential cost of 18 to 24 million dollars She stated that that City would see a loss of 66 acres of actively farmed land to 35 acres of development with this option • Option 4 - Preservation of Central & Southern Study Areas and Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR with Midway Neighborhood as Receiving Area. Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends this option She stated that this program would need to have a TDR bank Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the Midway transfer area is in the vicinity of Kent Des Moines Road, Pacific Highway South and 240th Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option would require a counmlmanic bond and all of these options recommend a zoning designation of A-20 She stated that the extent of the receiving area would depend on a neighborhood planning process Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends a change in zoning from General Commercial and Mobile Home Park to Office, Office Mixed Use and Community Commercial Mixed Use Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the resulting density of housing potentially could shift from 140 units and provide employment for 1,254 people She stated that this option would preserve 57% of the total land area of 391 acres of which 294 of those acres would be converted to an urban separator of SR-1 Ms Gould-Wessen stated that 141 of the total land area is owned by utilities or existing and potential parks Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff sees the Midway area as an opportunity for a Transfer of Development Rights She stated that the City of Kent Public Works Department intends to enhance the highway strip with sidewalks, trees,median strips and lighting Ms Gould-Wessen stated that this option provides an opportunity to bring office to the area, which would provide the market for a successful TDR program and with the change in land use, the community would change considerably Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the TDR program would require a Councilmanic Bond at a cost of eight to 10 million dollars She stated that staff believes the preservation of the agricultural lands would be best served with this option Mr Dowell stated that a General Obligation Bond and not a Councilmanrc Bond goes before the public for a vote on whether or not they would want to tax their properties Ms Gould-Wessen thanked Mr Dowell for noting this correction Mr Harmon questioned that if the City were to annex the land south of their boundary, currently zoned Al or AG, would this land fall under the GMA's agricultural resource land requirements in order for the City to preserve that land Ms Gould-Wessen stated that staff has been required to look only at the agricultural lands within the City of Kent's boundaries and not the City's (PAA) Potential Annexation Area She stated that both King County and the (GMPC) Growth Management Planning Committee have been looking at the agricultural production district, which is part of the lower Green River north of 277th Ms Gould-Wessen stated that two years ago the King County Council and the GMPC decided to remove the agricultural production district from Kents potential annexation area and maintain this district as a rural area She stated that the GMPC will vote on this issue next week then this matter will return to King County Council Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24,2001 Page 6 as a recommendation to remove this area from both Kent's potential annexation area and from the City of Auburn, Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to open the Public Hearing Motion Carried Chair Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open Linda Hayes, 19229 SE 234th Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that she speaks on behalf of her mother and father, Casey and Lucille DelaCruz She stated that her parents have farmed in the Kent Valley between 216th and 144th Ave South and Frager Road since the early 1940's Ms Hayes stated that the farm consists of three parcels of land containing 20 acres located Just south of 216th, adjacent to the Kentview PUD and the northern study area Ms Hayes stated that today's conditions have made it economically unfeasible for her parents to continue farming She stated that her parents believe the City is attempting to force farmers into keeping their properties zoned agricultural when they would rather see these properties zoned differently Ms Hayes stated that her parents also voice concern as to what could happen to their rights to irrigate their land year after year, Ms Hayes stated that her parents would like the flexibility to use their land to the best advantage,whether that is to parcel out their land for their heirs or to have the option of selling their land for either commercial or residential development Ms Hayes stated that the GMA is a vehicle to provide for development of land within the City's boundaries and prevent urban sprawl. Ms Hayes stated that the City has a moral obligation to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act by providing homes for those working in the cities as close to the workplace as possible Ms Hayes stated hundreds of acres of wetland and nonbuildable areas are located immediate adjacent to her parents property so that open space is not an issue She stated that the City has substantial amounts of farmland already preserved in Kent with additional lands to the south proposed for preservation. Ms Hayes stated that her parents' land is destined for development, and it would compliment the existing adjacent residential development with sewer, water and roads located at its property line Ms Hayes stated that her family supports Option 2 which would provide for a mix of open space, Neighborhood Convenience, Medium Density Multifamily Townhouses and Condominiums and single family residential In response to Mr Harmon, Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the (PDR) Purchase of Development Rights and (TDR) Transfer of Development Rights essentially evaluates property market value Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the current zoning on the agricultural land is Al, one dwelling unit per acre, which is considered as the land value Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City would pay the market value of a one-acre, one single family dwelling unit to purchase or transfer property to another site Ms Gould-Wessen stated that the City has estimates that a one-acre lot would be valued from $60,000 to $75 000 based on a PDR She stated that if a person participated in a PDR or TDR program, the land would remain agricultural Ms Gould-Wessen said that allowing the City to purchase development rights is strictly voluntary stating that if the landowner does not choose to have their development rights purchased, they would be downzoned to A-20 Scott Hurter, 24157 145th Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98042 voiced his concern over how the final 850 acres of farmland in Kent's city limits will be used Mr Hurter stated that he represents KYSA, Kent Youth Soccer Association, which has a membership of 1500 children, and combined with the Kent Parks Program involves over 3500 kids in youth soccer within the City of Kent Mr Hurter stated that KYSA continues to lose children to other organizations due to the lack of field space and the inability to set adequate practice times to accommodate soccer teams Mr Hurter said that Kent lacks adequate sports facilities in Kent He stated that in his discussions with Gloria Gould-Wessen and John Hodgson, Director of Parks Recreation and Community Services, it was determined that the City has not designated any field space or made considerations for future facilities in order to accommodate soccer Mr Hurter stated that the ability to host tournaments within the KYSA could be a major fundraiser for Kent if field space were available Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24,2001 Page 7 • Mr Hurter stated that it is his understanding that Kent is the second or third largest school district within the state reiterating his concern that the City needs to consider the need for more field space and sport facilities Mr Hurter questioned if the definition of sports fields fell under recreational use and urged the Board to consider the need for sports fields and facilities Alice Watkins, 31621 West Lake Morton Drive Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that staffs report indicates that only 38% of the agricultural land in Kent are being used for agricultural purposes Ms Watkins stated that staffs report is misleading in how the amount of agricultural land was calculated She stated that the report lists other public lands within the agricultural area, which are not agricultural in nature, equating to 25% of all the land being evaluated as part of this study Ms Watkins voiced concern that by including these additional public lands, the percentages are skewed and if these public lands are removed from consideration, the percentages are drastically altered She stated that she believes that percentages were calculated to benefit those proposing that all the property be kept in the agricultural zone Ms Watkins stated that she did not consider Option lA or B to be viable options as they require a bond issue to go before the people for a vote, which would not be feasible in the current economic climate Ms Watkins stated that she would not favor Option 4 as she feels that this option is politically motivated and not in the interest of the property owner as this option would not allow them to sell their property She stated that staffs August 13 report acknowledged that there is little demand but lots of capacity allowed by the present zoning, which indicates to her that the City has no need for TDR's Ms Watkins stated that the densities in the Des Moines Pacific Ridge neighborhood could slow the market for additional housing in Midway She stated that the PDR program would need to be relatively large to ensure funding for interested property owners Ms Watkins stated that she supports Option 2 where no bond issues are involved allowing the control to remain in the City of Kent It allows property owners in the northern area to purchase development rights thereby benefiting owners in the southern district Dean Watkins,31621 West Lake Morton Drive Southeast, Kent,WA 98042 stated that he owns property in the northern study area Mr Watkins stated that he supports Option 2 or 3 conveying that he believes Option 2 to be the best choice He stated that Option 2 would generate revenue for the City and would allow landowners a fair market return on their investments Mr Watkins stated that Option 3 would allow for development of approximately 5% of the overall property while a majority of the protected area is in the southern study area Jeff McCann, 24826 247th Place SE, Maple Valley, WA 98038 stated that his family has owned property in the northern study area for 48 years He stated that he completed his master's degree at the University of Washington with his thesis on Transfer of Development Rights Programs He stated that he completed an in depth study of the King County TDR Program as well as other programs throughout the United States Mr McCann stated that TDR programs began in 1916 in New York and did not produce any transfers at that time He stated that in the 70's, two dozen more programs were created with only a few transfers occurring Mr McCann stated that despite the poor performance, many jurisdictions turned to TDR programs He stated that a study in 1987 showed that of 50 enacted programs only 12 of those programs had produced a single transfer, a 76%failure rate Mr McCann stated that in 1977, according to the Snohomish County TDC study,23 operating programs resulted in six transfers, a 74% failure rate Mr McCann stated that if transfers are a measure of success, more failures then successes could be counted in many TDR programs He stated that many legal issues surround the design of TDR programs Mr McCann questioned if the program the City of Kent is creating intends to regulate or compensate He stated that King County chose to create an incentive-based voluntary program while the City of Kent is choosing to propose a mandatory program Mr McCann stated that legal challenges and opposition have arisen when governments have mandated these programs rather than making them voluntary Mr McCann questioned if the City of Kent has a market for the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2001 Page 8 rights they are creating He stated that in the case of"French Investment Company versus City of New York" TDR programs were found to be vulnerable to legal action if there is no market for TDR rights Mr McCann stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with the TDR concept other than the failure in the TDR'sdesign and implementation of the projects Mr. McCann stated that one of the major criteria in designing a successful TDR program is to identify potential receiving areas and analyze the development opportunities and profits at various densities Mr McCann stated that if you do not have a viable receiving area, the program would be unsuccessful. Mr McCann stated that the City of Kent!s August 13 staff report indicates that Midway has little demand and lots of capacity already allowed by present zoning He stated that the incentives the City of Kent could provide would not contribute to the Transfer of Development Rights Mr McCann stated that unless the City commits to radically changing the development in Midway by allowing high rises, only a small amount of increase in density would be absorbed Mr McCann stated that the TDR program is an attractive tool because it attempts to balance protecting land from development and maintaining the monetary value of the land although evidence shows that most TDR programs created do not produce a single transfer Mr McCann stated that a TDR program could work in the City of Kent and a lot of agricultural lands can be preserved while respecting the rights of land owners Mr McCann stated that he believes Options 2 and 3 presents a win/win situation while Option 4 seems to create a win/lose opportunity. He stated that the City has not presented evidence through a market study indicating a demand for credits Mr McCann stated that if the City chooses Option 4 without evidence that it will work, the City is creating a program to fail and could potentially lead the City in to court with many of the Kent citizens Mr McCann stated that part of the TDR program is based on the purchase of credits He said that staff has testified that the value of a one acre parcel could potentially be worth $60,000 However, this is not an indicator of what people will pay for this credit Mr McCann stated that the value of a credit could be $10,000 explaining that a market study will show a variance throughout the United States from $2600 to $60,000 per credit Mr McCann stated that the TDR program needs further development before implementing this option Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 stated that the Carpinito Brothers have fanned in the Kent Valley 30 years, presently farming 275 acres in the Kent Valley He stated that the City of Kent is proposing to change the zoning on the 75 acres located within the southern study area of Kent from AG to A20 Mr Carpinito stated that the farming business is complex and foresees that the nature of the farming industry will change He stated that currently approximately 25% of their crop are sold at their own fruit and produce market and 80% goes to wholesale produce companies He stated that the ability to stay in business depends on the flexibility that AG zoning provides which includes produce-processing facilities,produce-handling facilities or retail facilities related to agriculture, Mr Carpinito states that if the zoning changes, they will no longer have a viable farm Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that she represents Carpmto Brothers, the largest remaining commercial farming operation in the City of Kent within the lower Green River Valley, consisting of 275 acres of which 75 acres is within Kent's southern study area Ms Spencer stated that Ms Gould-Wessen reported that the other farms in the Kent area are comprised of approximately 190 acres Ms Spencer stated that she believes the objective of the Growth Management Act is to preserve commercial agriculture,not lust preserve open space Ms Spencer stated that not much more than 1000 acres of agricultural land remain in the valley creating a challenge to fanning in this area as there are no processors and suppliers located here Ms Spencer stated that staffs proposal to downzone from AG to A20 (one dwelling unit per twenty acres) would curtail the processing and retail operations currently permitted She stated that zoning changes would destroy the flexibility to allow Carpinito Brothers to respond to changes in the agricultural market in the future Ms Spencer said that she does not favor a PDR or TDR program, stating that the Carpinito Brothers has no interest in selling or trading their development nghts Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2001 Page 9 Ms Spencer urged the Board to reject staffs recommendations for the southern study area, to designate the southern area as agricultural land of local significance and retain the current zoning Ms Spencer submitted a letter from Graham and Dunn, for the record as Exhibit #7 stating that the context of this letter outlines a proposal that she believes would best benefit the interests of Carpmito Brothers and the City Glenn Gray, 20866 102nd Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has inherited 10 acres located at 216th Avenue Southeast and 42nd Avenue South Mr Gray stated that the purpose of the Growth Management Act enacted in 1990 was to control and regulate land used for development Mr Gray voiced his disapproval of TDR and PDR programs, as it has been his observation that much of the land purchased through this manner sits undeveloped Mr Gray stated that he favors Option 2 Albert Dreisow, 5221 South 212th St., Kent, WA 98032 stated that he farms all the land in the northern study area with the exception of the DeLaCruz property He stated that he intends to retire from his 51 years of farming, which is no longer cost affective Mr Dreisow stated that he would like to see the land developed as residential or commercial as the nature of fanning has changed over the years Eric Bradfield, 17508 SE 238th St., Kent,WA 98042 stated that he serves on the Board of the KYSA, Kent Youth Soccer Association and schedules the fields for soccer use He stated that although more children are joining the program, new play space is not being acquired Mr Bradfield stated that KYSA leases a ten-acre parcel from King County, which is maxed out necessitating moving some of our teams to schools in the area He stated that from an administrative standpoint, it is difficult to conduct a program efficiently Mr Bradfield stated that Kent needs a complex on 10 to 20 acres to accommodate the soccer community, encouraging staff to consider the needs of children as part of the city's land development planning He stated that the City needs to retain the quality of life which Kent now enjoys or people will seek other areas to live and the community will suffer as a result of population reductions Jere Thornton, 2453 112 South 135th, SeaTac, WA 98168 stated that she supports Option 2, as she believes this option does not require taxpayer funding She stated that she owns a 10-acre parcel in the northern study area west of the Green River at Frager Road and 216th Ms Thornton stated that this land has been in her family for 75 years and she sees that the nature of farming in this area has changed so that it is not profitable to farm this land She stated that many of the farms in this area are too small to compete successfully with produce that comes from huge factory farms in other areas Ms Thornton voiced her concurrence with other speakers who stated that voters will not support options which will increase their taxes stating that Option 2 is the only option that will not require voter approved higher taxes She urged the Board to consider Option 2 as increasing development in this area will generate revenue for the City and allow land owners control over their property Craig Eckland, 24421 Frager Road S., Kent, WA stated that he owns four acres northwest of the Rrverbend Golf Course, which he does not farm nor mtendsto use for development or investment purposes He stated that this property consists of one acre of dry land and three acres of swamp He stated he supports most of the options although he would not desire that the DeLaCruzs, Dreisows or Carpito Brothers suffer as a result of the Board's decision John Green, 21839 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he has resided in the northern study area for 16 years and has enjoyed the agricultural nature of the property He commended staff for their thoroughness voicing his support of Option #4 He stated that it seems the potential exists to compensate agricultural landowners through the purchase of development rights Mr Green stated that he believes the Midway area could provide a good source of revenue through the purchase of development rights Laura Saunders, Vice President, Highline Community College, Past Office Box 9800, Des Moines, WA spoke to Kent's proposal to use the Midway area as a receiving place for transfer of development rights She stated that while using Midway as a receiving area is an interesting approach, she voiced her belief that it would Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24,2001 Page 10 be premature to pursue this avenue of development at this time Ms Saunders stated that the college has been engaged in a series of discussions concerning the future development of the Midway area, involving economic development directors from Des Moines and Kent . Ms Saunders stated that the college is engaged in a partnership with Central Washington who plans to build a major facility on the campus to open the summer of 2005 She stated that this facility would increase graduate education in this part of the county with programs oriented toward the needs of people who are unable to commute to Tacoma or Seattle for their education Ms Saunders stated that the college site does not front Highway 99, and sits on Kent and Des Moines land She stated that she agrees with staff that this area deserves attention Ms Saunders recommended that the Board consider sending a recommendation to City Council directing staff to engage in a collaborative planning process She stated that what the college envisions for this area will require this collaborative process between communities Tom Rehon, 21243 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he purchased 10 acres in the northern study area nine years ago from his father-m-law He stated that he has farmed this land and run his business (known as O'Brien Green House) for 20 years He stated that his nursery business has lost revenue over the past three to four years making it difficult to support his family Mr. Rehon stated that he favors Option 2 or any option that would allow him to do what he wishes with his property including selling to a developer if that were his desire Mr Rehon voiced his opposition to Option #4 stating that he does not favor TDR or PDR programs Brian Edmondson, 516 Summit Avenue North, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he moved to the Kent Valley after having lived in Chicago and Illinois most of his life He stated that one attribute that drew him to Kent is the wonderful school system Mr Edmondson emphasized that Kent needs to consider the need for play areas and sport facilities for children's activities when making consideration for land development He stated that if the Kent area were to experience massive development, ignore the need for open space, and recreational areas, families will be discouraged from residing in this area and traffic problems will be exacerbated Mr Edmondson commended staff for taking steps to preserve existing agricultural lands and voiced his belief that people who have toiled on their land for years deserve to be compensated fairly for their property, in balance with other decisions, laws and legalities He stated that staff has presented carefully thought out options but stated that he feels this issue should undergo further evaluation before any recommendations are made Alexis Koester, 26518 68th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is President of Smith Brothers Farms located at 277th and West Valley Highway She stated that her grandfather bought this property in the southern study area in 1925, and it is still owned and operated by family Ms Koester stated that Smith Brothers Farms produces, processes and distributes milk from their farm in Kent mdicatmg that their farm is the largest producer and handler of milk in the state She stated that Smith Brothers Farms employ 80 people and 50 independent distributors who work out of the West Valley Highway facility Ms Koester stated that they own 225 acres with 60 acres located inside Kent's boundaries currently zoned Al and recommended by the City for a change to A20, neither of which accurately applies to their business Ms Koester stated that although their property could be grandfathered at their current zoning of Al, their property should be zoned AG as they have a diary processing plant and distribution center She stated that she could foresee the need to add an ice cream or yogurt plant to keep up with the competition, which the AG zone would allow them to do Ms Koester said that they sold their development rights of 159 acres to King County in 1984 stating that she has no desire to sell any more development rights Ms Koester encouraged the Board to send a recommendation to the Council to exempt Smith Family Farms from these proposed options and to rezone their farm from Al to AG so that they may remain in the Kent Valley Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2001 Page 11 Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion carried Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to continue the Public Hearing to October 8, 2001 Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9 30 p in Respectfully Submitted, &L&.' Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Fla-tin-'mrManager Secretary S\Pemnt\Plan\LUPB\2001\nnnutes\010827nm doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom,Acting Community Dev Director PLANNING SERVICES Chadene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 WLSH,NOTos Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT September 24, 2001 TO: TERRY ZRVIMERMAN, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER SUBJ: #CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535) AGRICULTURAL LANDS INTRODUCTION Last year, during the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment process, the City of Kent received a request to change the land use map designation for a parcel of property from Agricultural (A-1) to Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre (Kentview Pod-H CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1) During the amendment process, the Land Use and Planning Board requested staff to review current land use policy related to the agricultural zones The issue was forwarded to the Planning Committee to initiate the policy discussion After two meetings, the Planning Committee directed staff to limit discussion to Agricultural lands on the valley floor, focusing on the Agricultural (A-1) and Agncultural/General (AG) zoning districts. The matter was referred to the Land Use and Planning Board, which held workshops on March 12', April 23'd, June 11'", July 9'", and August 13' Community Development held an Open House on March 28 where all property owners were mailed invitations and the public was encouraged to attend The State's Growth Management Act directs cities and counties that choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 to "designate where appropriate.. agricultural lands.. that have long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products" (RCW 3670A.170[la]) It further states that "Forest land and agricultural land located within urban growth areas shall not be designated by a county or city as forest land or agricultural land of long-term commercial significance under RCW 36 70A 170 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development nghts " (RCW 36.170A 060[4]). The efforts to date have been to understand the existing land uses, environmental conditions and infrastructure for the purpose of determining whether to designate agricultural resource lands, which lands would be designated, and which preservation program would be used HISTORY The City of Kent has a long history of protecting agricultural lands, beginning with the 1977 Comprehensive Plan Agricultural land preservation was included in the goals and objectives of the Valley Floor Plan Kent endorsed the King County Subregional Plan that contained an objective to retain areas for agricultural preservation Kent citizens supported familands preservation through the King County Farmlands Bond Ballot Propositions in 1979 and 1979, and City staff performed an Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001 —Page 2 extensive agricultural lands study in 1986 which resulted in the comprehensive plan and zoning designations that remain today. The 1995 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates as agricultural "land reserved for agricultural resource uses. Single-family residential uses may also be allowed,but at very low densities" Under the Natural Resources Goals and Policies section of the Land Use Element is stated,"Historically,the commercial agricultural lands in the valley have added to the City's economic support Protection and enhancement of these natural resources is vital to maintaining a sustainable community" This section also contains the following goal and policies: Goal LU-27 Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation, acquisition, or other methods. PolicyLU-271 Designate long-term, commercial-agricultural use districts which shall not be considered for urban development Policy LU-27 2 Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands Policy LU-27 3 Mitigate development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands PolicyLU-27.4 Coordinate with King County to provide for purchasing or transferring the development rights of agricultural land identified as having long-term commercial significance. The GMA requires that lands defined as Agricultural Land be ", land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticulture, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33 100 through 84 22.140, Wish in upland hatcheries, or livestock, and that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production " (RCW 37.70A.030[21). Kent's City Code (KCC) uses the same language as the GMA when defining Agricultural Use (KCC 15 02 010), The GMA further defines long-term commercial significance to include " the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the land" (RCW 37.70A 030[10]). There is further clarification of what are agricultural lands in WAC 365-190-050(l) where it states "In classifying agricultural lands of long-term significance for the production of food or other agricultural products, counties and cites shall use the land-capability classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as defined in agriculture handbook no. 210 " ZONING AND LAND USE HISTORY There are 144 parcels (totaling 685 acres) within the A-1 or AG zoning districts. The agricultural land use study area has been broken into Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas (See Attachment 1 "Agricultural Land Use Study Potential Midway Receiving Area"). There are several different land uses within the study area. Using the 1999 aerial photography to determine existing land use, the following information was determined Land Use Number of Parcels Approximate Area Percent Land Use Agriculture 34 272 38% Fallow 49 208 29% Single-Family 48 44 6% Public Lands 10 163 23% Altered Soils 3 23 3% Total Acres 40 (Note. * "Approximate Area" represents the parcel *710 area,not the areas lit between two zoning districts Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001 —Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS & CONSTRAINTS The agricultural lands of the study area are located on the valley floor of the Green-Duwamish River Basin. The following is a brief description of the environmental conditions and constraints. Soils Nearly the entire agricultural study area is Class II "Prime Farmland Soil" based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1972 maps (Sheet No. 10-Des Moines Quadrangle and Sheet No 16—Auburn Quadrangle) and the Agricultural Handbook No 210 "Land- Capability Classification" Tonoeranhv The entire agricultural study area is flat with a 2% or less slope. The exceptions are the river dikes and one property that contains a "grandfathered" soils manufacturing operation Because of years of flooding and sediment deposits, the land closest to the river is slightly higher in elevation than the land farther away from the river The Northern and Central Study Areas abut a steeply rising terminal moraine located on their western boundary The Southern Study Area is surrounded by valley floor. Water The Green River is a river of"State Wide Significance" and defines the eastern boundary of the Northern and Central Study Areas and the northern boundary of the Southern Study Area The Northern Study Area contains a seasonal creek called Johnson Creek that flows northeast into the Green River In the Northern Study Area there are extensive Class II wetlands (potentially Class I) north of S 212' St. and several other smaller wetlands south of S 212'" St Wetlands located at the southernmost portion of this study area are dedicated as environmental protection easements The Central Study Area contains Midway Creek that flows into wetlands located along the western boundary of the study area The Southern Study Area contains portions of Mill Creek Auburn, which flows north to the Green River There are wetlands inventoried within the southern portion of this study area. (See Attachment 2"Existing Wetlands and Major(Mmor Waterways"). Habitat: The riparian habitat of the Green River and adjoining creeks within the study area have been greatly altered from many years of agricultural ditching and cultivation, and development activities There are, however, hawks, heron, eagle, and numerous songbirds in and around the study area, as well as coyote. The Green River and Mill Creek in Auburn is a migration route for Coho, Chinook, and Chum Salmon, Steelhead, and CutThroat Trout The endangered Chinook Salmon reside in the Green River as does the Coho Salmon, a candidate species. Development in and around the Green River (i e. within 200' feet of less from the ordinary high water mark) will involve permits from the U S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, U S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Washington Department of Ecology and Department of Natural Resources to ensure protection of critical habitat for the endangered Chinook Salmon. INFRASTRUCTURE The study area is served by roads that provide varying carrying capacity Water is available, but not extended throughout the study area and sewers are available only at the edge of the study areas. The following details the infrastructure within the study area Roads- From North to South, the following road systems serve the agricultural study area • S 212'Street - 4 lane road (55' foot wide) on a 73' foot right-of-way; with intersection at 42nd Ave South • S 216'b Street - 2 lane road (18' foot wide) on 25' foot right-of-way • Frager Road - 2 lane road (18' foot wide) on 42' foot right-of-way; designated in Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent's Shoreline Master Plan as "scenic and recreational", limiting Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001—Page 4 direct access to new development; limited access to S 212`s St and left turn lane available at West Meeker St. • West Valley Highway (SR-181)—2 lane road (25' feet wide) on a 60' foot right-of-way, with intersection at Willis and SR-516 and South 277 s St. Sewer- The following sewer lines are available to the different study areas with the caveat that the availability of sewer is dependent on specific development studies • Northern Study Area- 27" KCMETRO interceptor east of Green River along S. 212t° St , 15" sewer main with pump station west of Green River at approximately S 221'St. • Central Study Area Kent Highlands Pump Station to a forced main "Leachate Line" for the closed City of Seattle land fill; and 24"KCMETRO interceptor along W. Meeker St • Southern Study Area 72"KCMETRO interceptor located east of Valley Freeway(SR 167). Water. The following are the locations of existing water mains within the different study areas • Northern Study Area 1,000 feet to west of the Green River along S. 212t, St, 1,200 feet to north of S. 212' St along Frager Road, and East of Green River along Russell Road. • Central Study Area: East of Green River off James St and Russell Road. • Southern Study Area 5,000 feet south down West Valley Hwy starting at Willis St ; under SR-167 along S 262 ' St and S 266' St ; and approximately 2,500 feet from West Valley Hwy to the east on S 277' St. OPTIONS The GMA requires either a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) preservation program in place when "Agricultural Resource Lands" are designated within an urban growth area Where the TDR Receiving Area is proposed in the agricultural study area, it is the professional opinion of staff that some neighborhood commercial development should accompany residential development It is also staffs professional opinion that an industrial designation within the agricultural study area would not be compatible with nearby residential, recreational, or agricultural land uses Many of the road systems are inadequate and would not support the associated truck traffic Using the City's history of protecting agricultural lands as stated in the goals and policies of Kent's Comprehensive Plan as a guide, staff proposes the following options for consideration by the Land Use and Planning Board. Option la- Preservation of Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using PDR: This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as "Agricultural Resource Lands" supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program. The properties owned by the City of Kent, and presently used or to be used for recreation, would be rezoned SR-1. The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to A-20 (one dwelling unit /20 acres) density and the AG zoning district would change to A-20. The single Property located in the Southern Study Area with the zoning designation of A-1 would also change to A-20. A Councilmamc Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program. (See Attachment 3 "Option IaMap') Option lb -Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR- This option designates only the Southern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Lands" supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program The Northern and Central Study Areas would be removed from an agricultural land use classification and changed to "Urban Separators" with the associated SR-1 zoning district applied. The two study areas meet the definition of"Urban Separators" with their existing open space corridors providing a visual link as Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001 —Page 5 fe11 as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, historic resources, and critical areas within and e=n urban growth areas The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20. A Councilmanic Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program. (See Attachment 4 "Option lb Map") Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This proposal would designate the Southern and Central Study Areas as primarily "Agricultural Resource Lands" supported by a "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) preservation program A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program. Because of existing recreational uses within the Central Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed from A-1 to SR-1. The Northern Study Area would be designated as a TDR receiving area with different types of land uses and densities applied (1 e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial - NCC, Medium Density Multifamily - MRM, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR- 6) adding approximately 674 dwelling units and 78,000 sq ft of commercial The intention of the proposed density is to absorb the bulk, if not all of the market value found in the Central and Southern Study Area Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Because large portions of the Northern Study Area have been inventoried with wetlands, densities would vary depending on the carrying capacity of the land (Using the City's GIS, it has been found that a minimum of 56 acres are unencumbered by environmental constraints, or 8% of the total agricultural lands) The majority of the Central Study Area's zoning would change from A-1 to A-20. The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would ofhange from AG and A-1 to A-20 (See Attachment 5 "Option 2 Map"). This option would affect the and capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarkmg analyses. Comprehensive Land Use changes in the TDR Receiving Area would be effective only at the time of development Option 3 - Preservation of the Southern, Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This proposal would designate the Southern, Central and a portion of the Northern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Lands" supported by PDR and TDR preservation programs A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program A Councilmamc Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program. The TDR Receiving Area is made up of 238 acres, of which approximately 32 acres located between S 212'b St and S 216ei St and 3 acres located north of S 212' St are unencumbered by environmental constraints (or 5% of the total agricultural lands) Different types of land uses and densities would be applied (i e Neighborhood Convenience Commercial - NCC, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR-6) adding approximately 206 dwelling units and 78,000 sq ft of commercial Only a portion of the market value would be absorbed in the TDR receiving area, requiring a PDR as a supplement Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Because of existing and potential recreational uses within the Northern Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed from A-1 to SR-I. The remaining lands within the Central Study Area would have their zoning changed from A-1 to A-20. The entire Southern Study Area zoning would be changed from AG and .A-1 to A-20 and designated as Agricultural Resource Lands (See Attachment 6 "Option 3 Map) This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses. Comprehensive Land Use changes would be effective only at the time of development Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001—Page 6 Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas: This option designates the Central and Southern Study Area, and nearly all the Northern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Lands" supported by a PDR and TDR preservation program North of S 212' St. would be designated Urban Separators with a SR-1 zoning district A TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program A Councrhnanic Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program Selected parcels within the Northern and Central Study Areas presently owned by the City of Kent and used for recreational purposes would be zoned SR-I. The remaining properties within the A-1 zorung district would change to an A-20 (one dwelling unit /20 acres) and the entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20. (See Attachment 7 "Option 4 Map"). The Midway Neighborhood would be designated as a TDR receiving area. The extent of the receiving area and the types of land uses would be determined through a Neighborhood Planning Process that will be completed in 2002 It will be proposed that the existing zoning districts would change from General Commercial (GC) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (0-MU), and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) when TDR's are purchased. The resulting density of housing and employment will depend on the Neighborhood Planning Process and market forces. At this time, it is projected that 140 dwelling units and 1,254 employees could be accommodated (See Attachment 8 "Midway TDR Receiving Area") This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's employment targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending Option 4 for the following reasons Option la—Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR- This option preserves all 685 acres as an "Agricultural Resource Lands". A conservative estimate of the potential cost ranges from $36 to $48 million dollars. Considering the City's other financial commitments,this option is cost prohibitive. Option lb — Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR This option designates 197 acres as "Agricultural Resource Lands" in the Southern Study Area (or 28 8% of total land area) A conservative estimate of cost ranges from $8 to $17 2 million dollars, and would need to be approved by the community. The Urban Separators/SR-1 designation has the potential for 294 dwelling units (d.u) being built in the North and Central Study Areas With the low density and potential incremental nature of development, sewer expansion probably would not occur, making ground water-polluting septic systems the only alternative While open space would be preserved, it is unlikely that farming would be viable The Urban Separators designation could be reviewed and changed only during the 20 year GMA planning cycle Option 2 —Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area- This option preserves 265 acres (or 38 7% of total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Lands", converting the rest to a TDR Receiving Area (347 acres) and SR-1 (73 acres of parks and utilities). There are a mimmum 56 acres in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental constraints and available to absorb the market value from the TDR Sending Areas The increased density is projected at 674 d u. (i.e. 1,571 in population) and 156 new jobs, generating 2,185 net new trips per day. This option does not fulfill Kent's Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 102 acres of actively farmed land to 56 acres of development. Option 3 — Preservation of the Southern. Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This Land Use and Planning Board September 24,2001 —Page 7 Othption designates 315 acres as "Agricultural Resource Lands" (or 46% of total land area), converting e rest to TDR Receiving Area (281 acres) and SR-1 (89 acres of parks and utilities). There are a minimum 35 acres in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental constraints and available to absorb a portion of the market value from the TDR Sending Areas The increased density is projected at 206 d u. (i a 480 in population) and 156 new jobs, generating 1,536 new trips per day A PDR program with an estimated cost that could range from $18 million to $24 million dollars would need to be approved by the community This option does not fulfill Kent's Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 66 acres of actively farmed land to 35 acres of development. Option 4 - Preservation of the Central. Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neigliborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas: Option 4 fulfills Kent's long term commitment to preserve agricultural lands by designating the Central, Southern and a portion of the Northern Study Area south of S 212' St. as "Agricultural Resource Lands" and changing the zoning districts from A-1 and AG to A-20 This option preserves 391 acres (57% of total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Lands", converting the remaining 294 acres into Urban Separators/SR-1 (of which 141 acres are owned by utilities, parks and potential parks) As its name implies, Midway is half way between Seattle and Tacoma, and it is anticipated in the near future there will be major improvements to that area The City of Kent plans to improve Pacific Highway South with sidewalks, street trees, lighting and planted medians. Highlme Community College will be partnering with Central Washington University, expanding the existing campus up along its eastern dge. The proximity to I-5 and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport makes the area desirable for locating business, providing hotel accommodations and housing Looking at the near future markets, office is very desirable for Midway. At present, the GC zoning allows a full range of retail uses including outdoor storage, lumberyards, drive through restaurants, convenience stores, taverns Facilitating the conversion from General Commercial (GC) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) through a TAR program could possibly add 1,394 employees, and 1,500 peak hour trips to the area The projected population would not change Care would need to be taken to address the dislocation of approximately 90 affordable housing units presently within three mobile home parks The city could help these residents through the use of Washington State "Housing Tax Credits" or by encouraging a non-profit housing developer to build some of the needed housing for the displaced home owners and renters Prior to designating the Midway Neighborhood as a TDR Receiving Area, a "Neighborhood Plan" needs to be completed with full participation of residents, property owners and businesses. A "Funding Feasibility Study" would need to be completed to ascertain how much market value exists in the "Agricultural Resource Lands". A Councilmanic bond would go before the public for approval with a conservative estimate of $8 to $10 million dollars to establish a TDR Bank and fund a "Purchase of Development Right" (PDR) preservation program (See Attachment 9 "TDR Preservation Program"). Because there is more market value in the "Agricultural Resource Lands" than can be absorbed in the Midway TDR Receiving Area or that could be purchased through a PDR program, all future land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be tied to the TDR program. Market value would be held by the TDR Bank and sold to developers interested in making changes to *theCity's Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning maps. the S IPermtiTianUUPB1100llStaffReports11004535-CPA-2000-3-092401 doc CC Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager Fred N Satterstrom,Acting Community Development Director Michael H Martin,Acting Chief Admin Officer Y in • L�l•' - Imllll mail 17 LYY- ::mutt a o p::•:�::..'.�y -'R � 1���� �1@@@ • a I WAS ffiffill • III .......:.__,,...:. .. i �1`ow= _ ,/ f�m�a.►� Allt� 1;._ __lac LK rill Mill �. ilRilllll��. r -- r guy � _ ��■ now w�- Pillalli my = 1• MUM rill�u � �� a ■ rpi a�n■ num . . -RMR Me VZ4Mil / QTN_ I WE 111�c.. 10, NO "III RL Ogg owl 311,."7 11111..�'IP .a-n; nmu.a • - - �_i�I ���,� _ SIR• _____ p. �_ I . I � PRO i���iil�.._e IJ� IF • „„ , - . . Arm - - - 1�.■ WE M :a�rmnio i/� r� II onus. - 1 •`jam � �m MIEN :amnvly I �Ufeat.�! m\C a'IP •aw, mnn::.� Ras ;, - s ao h_%' II l�•Imo■ I an = I' ■�. 000 so Mo —no Dan -sea I Oro '�� t is�l � a MIN FR .- • • ' v is C Ufa.. ME ,4an ��1 !!me �_ Wil !! In its �♦1 ���� 1�� G� �. u � ■ �ji� G� CHAPTER TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Section Purpose Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Sending Area Allocation of Transferable Development Rights Certification and Transfer of Transferable Development Rights Effect of Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)Receiving Area Reservation of Power, Damages Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to encourage the conservation of long- term commercially significant agricultural lands by allowing owners of such lands to realize the equity in the land's development potential without conversion to nonagricultural uses. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Sending Area There is created a TDR Sending Area, which applies to real property located within the Agricultural Resource District The underlying zoning regulations for these districts continue to apply Transferable development rights credited by the City to real property in this area can be transferred by landowners from the Agricultural Resource District for use in designated TDR receiving areas within the City; they may be purchased by the City Allocation of Transferable Development Rights Every parcel of land located in the TDR Sending Area shall have credited to it, upon certification by the City's Planning Services office, transferable development rights in the amount set forth below These transferable development rights allotted in accordance with this section may be used to obtain approval for established residential densities, commercial floor area ratio (FAR), or office (FAR) on lands located within TDR Receiving Area(s), in accordance with the zoning in the TDR Receiving Areas. 1. The number of transferable development rights credited to parcels located within the Agriculture Resource District shall be one (1) development right per one (1) developable acre. p� 2. One development right shall be subtracted for each residence or structure housing a legal nonconforming commercial use as defined in this Ordinance located on a parcel in the TDR Sending Area which exists as of the effective date of this provision. However, this reduction shall not apply to the single-family dwelling permitted in the Agricultural District. 3 No fractional development rights shall be created 4 After dividing gross acreage by one to determine the number of transferable development Draft Kent City Code—Transfer of Development Rights Chapter Z Land Use and Planning Board—September 24,2001 rights available for credit onto a Sending Area parcel, any remainder more than 0 75 acres in size shall be credited one additional transferable development right. 5. The use of a parcel from which development rights have been transferred remains subject to the density and other restrictions of the underlying zone If the number of development rights remaining on a parcel is less than that permitted by the underlying zone, the property may be developed only to the extent of the remaining development rights Certification and Transfer of Transferable Development Rights 1 Application for Certification of Number of Transferable Development Rights a. The City's Planning Services office shall issue a certification of the number of transferable development rights on the Sending Area parcel and serially numbered individual certificates for each transferable development right credited to that parcel upon satisfactory application for Certification of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) by the Sending Area parcel owner The issuance of TDR certificates shall be recorded in the chain of title for the subject property. b. An application shall contain such information as deemed necessary to verify parcel size and existing uses as a basis for certifying the number of development rights This information shall include: i A map of the proposed Sending Area parcel (based on a field survey) prepared by a registered land surveyor, n. Legal description and parcel numbers of the Sending Area parcel, lii A title report showing that the applicant is the owner of the subject Sending Area parcel, ry Number of dwelling units as defined in Title 15 of Kent City Code existing on the subject Sending Area parcel; V. Property size of a single-family parcel must be greater than 5 acres, or vacant land of any size, vi. Soil test verifying Class lI `Prime Farmland Soil" based on the U S Department of Agneulture Soil Conservation Service; and vii. A review fee as may be prescribed by the City Draft Kent City Code—Transfer of Development Rights Chapter 3 Land Use and Planning Board—September 24,2001 2. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Easement In order to validly convey the transferable development rights certified on a Sending Area parcel, a TDR easement shall be signed between the owner of the Sending Area parcel and the City and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. To validly retain the transferable development rights, which have been certified on a Sending Area parcel when an original owner sells such parcel, a TDR easement shall be signed by the purchaser of the subject parcel and the City and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office and appear in the chain of title of the parcel from which the development right(s) have been transferred The TDR Easement shall be on a form approved by the Kent City Council and shall contain the following provisions• a All of the serial numbers of the transferable development rights which have been certified by the City's Planning Services Office on the Sending Area parcel, which is the subject of the TDR easement; b A covenant on the Sending Area parcel that it may be developed or subdivided for residential purposes, including a farm residence, as authorized by the underlying zone, only if transferable development rights have been reserved for each dwelling to be constructed on the subject property prior to subdivision on the Sending Area parcel. If subdivision is not required, a transferable development right shall be reserved prior to construction of any single-family dwelling Subdivisions for all other agricultural uses per Title 12 04 are not affected by this transfer of development rights chapter. The covenant shall also state that any use of the parcel remains subject to the provisions of this title at the time the TDR easement is signed A reserved transferable development right must be attached to a legal lot of record in order for a single-family dwelling as defined in this title to be built These reserved transferable development rights can be used only on the original Sending Area parcel or its legal subdivisions; C. A covenant that all provisions of the TDR easement shall run with and bind the Sending Area parcel in perpetuity and shall be enforced by the Kent City Council; d A statement that nothing in the restrictions shall be construed to convey to the public a right of access or use of the property and that the owner of the property, his/her heirs, successors and assigns shall retain exclusive right to such access or use subject to the terms of the TDR easement 3 Deed of Transfer a The certified transferable development rights shall be sold or otherwise conveyed only by means of a Deed of Transfer, the form and content of which is prescribed by the City Council and approved by the City Attorney. This Deed must be recorded with the King County Assessor's Office and appear in the chain of title of the parcel from which the development right(s)have been transferred Draft Kent City Code—Transfer of Development Rights Chapter 4 Land Use and Plannmg Board—September 24, 2001 b The Deed of Transfer shall specify the number of transferable development rights sold or otherwise conveyed and shall be valid only when recorded along with the appropriate TDR Easement on the subject property, signed by the owner of the Sending Area parcel and the City, containing the provisions established by the City Council for such a document. C. Contents. A Deed of Transfer shall contain• i. A legal description and map of the Sending Area parcel(s), ii A covenant that all provisions of the deed of transfer shall run with and bind the Sending Area parcel and shall be enforced by the City Council, iii. The names of the Transferor and the Transferee, iv A covenant that the Transferor grants and assigns to the Transferee a specified number of development rights from the Sending Area parcel, V. Proof of ownership of the Sending Area parcel, vi If the transferor is not the owner of the Sending Area parcel, a statement that the transfer is (A) an original transfer, including a description of the reason for such (e.g , where an original owner sold the Sending Area parcel but retained the development rights), or (B) an intermediate transfer of development rights derived from a Sending Area parcel described in an original instrument of transfer, identified by its date, the names of the original transferor and transferee and the volume and page where it was recorded by the King County Assessor's Office; vn A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he/she has no further use or right of use with respect to the development rights being transferred; viii The certification of the number of transferable development rights on the Sending Area parcel and copies of the appropriate certificates of those rights issued by the City's Planning Services office as required by this chapter; ix. Payment of required excise tax and recording fees on the transaction, x Proof of the execution and recordation of a TDR easement on the subject Sending Area parcel; and xi The signature of the City's Planning Services office staff member who has reviewed the document for completeness. Draft Kent City Code-Transfer of Development Rights Chapter 5 Land Use and Planning Board-September 24,2001 d. Responsibility. The Transferor and the Transferee named in an instrument of transfer shall have the responsibility to supply the information required by this section, to provide a proper instrument of transfer and to pay all costs of its recordation, in addition to any other fees required by this section e. Intermediate Transfer Transferable development nghts may be transferred to an intermediate transferor or broker before they are used and held for a period of time before they are used on a Receiving Area parcel Effect of Transfer of Development Rights. After development rights have been transferred from a property in the Sending Area, the following shall apply. 1. The Sending Area parcel may be subdivided or used only for agricultural uses, as defined and permitted in Title 15 03. and 15.04, except that subdivision for residential purposes, including a farm residence, as authorized by the underlying zone shall be permitted only if transferable development rights have been reserved for each dwelling to be constructed on the subject property prior to subdivision. If subdivision is not required, a transferable development right shall be reserved prior to construction of any single-family dwelling. A reserved transferable development right may be used to construct a single-family dwelling only if it has been attached to a legal lot of record. These reserved transferable development rights may be used only on the original Sending Area parcel or its legal subdivisions 2 All certified transferable development rights and the value of such rights shall be deemed for all other purposes to be appurtenant to the Sending Area parcel until such rights are (a) transferred by a recorded Deed of Transfer, or, (b) separated from the Sending Area parcel when it is sold or otherwise conveyed without the TDRs which have been certified for that property. 3. Nothing in such restrictions shall be construed to convey to the public a right of access or use of the property; the owner of the property, his/her heirs, successors and assigns shall retain exclusive right to such access or use subject to the terms of the TDR Easement. Transfer of Development Riehts (TDR) Receiving Area 1 Required Instruments. Final approval for Planned Unit Developments (PUD), building permits, site plans or subdivision plats which involve the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) shall not be approved until evidence is provided to the City's Planning Services office that the following instruments have been approved by the Planning Manager and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office Draft Kent City Code—Transfer of Development Rights Chapter 6 Land Use and Planning Board—September 24,2001 a. Signed and recorded transferable development rights certificates for each unit of density on the receiving parcel(s), b 50% of the FAR's or residential density allowed in the TDR receiving area must be purchased from Kent's designated TDR sending areas; C. A minimum of 80% of total allowed FAR's or residential density in a TDR receiving area shall be built or subdivided; and d A signed and recorded document of attachment of the development rights to the subject parcel(s). 2 The following information shall be recorded on the face of any plat for property, which received a transfer of development rights under the provision of this chapter a. A statement that the development rights used in the plat have been transferred in accordance with the Deed of Transfer of Development Rights, prescribed by the City; b The recording number of the recordation of the Deed of Transfer of Development Rights between the owner and the applicant; C. The recording number of the recordation of the Transfer of Development Rights Easement between the original owner and the City; d The senal numbers issued by the City's Planning Services office of the TDRs used in the plat; and e The recording number of the document of attachment of the TDRs to the subject parcel(s). Reservation of Power Damages. Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit or affect the power of the City to amend, supplement or repeal all or any part of the provisions of this chapter at any time or to entitle any transferor or transferee to damages or compensation of any kind from the City as the result of any amendment, supplementation or repeal. S\Perna\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\TDROrdmance2AgncLds doe Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT STATION PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. designating "planned actions" as provided under SEPA and GMA for the Kent Station project. The Planned Action Ordinance for Kent Station describes types and amounts of land use development in a specific area of Downtown Kent for which environmental review has been completed. The Ordinance selects Alternative 2 from the environmental document as the Preferred Alternative. Future proposals for development that are consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance will not require a separate environmental evaluation nor be subject to procedural appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act. 3 EXHIBITS: Staff memorandum of 7/10/02 and Planned action ordinance with Exhibits A, B and C 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 6Q COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, CD Director • PLANNING SERVICES K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 9BO32-5895 July 10, 2002 TO MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIM CLARK AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE PROPOSED KENT STATION PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE On July 8, 2002 the City issued the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Kent Station Planned Action As provided for in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11-164 and -168, a GMA jurisdiction may designate planned actions that will benefit from a more simplified and consolidated SEPA review process The designation must be made via ordinance or resolution Designating planned actions provides for a streamlined permit process because the environmental review for development within a specified geographical area is contained within the EIS document and all of the SEPA mitigating measures are outlined in a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) When a development application is subsequently submitted and is deemed consistent with the PAO, no additional SEPA threshold determination is required and no opportunity for procedural SEPA appeal is provided A supplemental EIS was issued for Kent Station because the project builds upon previous environmental review that was completed under the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Integrated EIS as well as a number of other environmental plans and documents related to downtown All of those supporting documents are identified in the SEIS and are available for Council review in the Planning Services Office As part of the process to adopt a PAO, state regulations require that jurisdictions provide an opportunity for public notice and comment (WAC 197-11-168) After having provided public notice of the opportunity for comment, the Planning Committee accepted comments on the PAO at their July 9`1' meeting The Committee unanimously recommended forwarding the PAO to the full Council for approval The PAO, SEPA Mitigation Document (Exhibit A), and Exhibits "B" and "C" depict and describe the Planned Action area and provide a summary of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts, significant unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigating measures as outlined in the EIS documents The ordinance and supporting documents propose Alternative 2 in the SEIS as the preferred "build" alternative 10 CA\pm 5\Permit\Plan\kentsmtion\2002\PAO-ccmemo DOC ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a Planned Action for a site approximately 25 0 acres in size, bound by James and Hamson Streets, 41h Avenue and I" Avenue, as described in the adopted Kent Station Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform recommended changes to state law that would enable local governments to consolidate environmental review of plans prepared under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), and WHEREAS, both the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and Chapter 36 70B Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") provide for the integration of environmental review with project review through the establishment of "Planned Actions", and I WHEREAS, Planned Actions expedite the permitting process where substantial planning and environmental analysis have been done prospectively for specific geographic areas that are less extensive than the municipality's jurisdictional boundaries or that are for certain types of development, and 1 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS WHEREAS, RCW 43 21C 031 and Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow for and govern the application of a Planned Action designation, and WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance No 3222 adopted a Comprehensive Plan (April 1995), under the provisions of Chapter 36 70A RCW, that includes goals and policies for Kent's downtown area, and WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance No 3398 adopted the Downtown j Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in 1998 as an amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with the requirements of the GMA to direct growth into urban centers that provide a mix of residential, commercial, educational, and recreational land uses served by a multi- modal transportation system, and WHEREAS, the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan provides a basis for master planning and environmental analysis for the subsequent adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance for the Downtown Kent subarea, and its component districts, and WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance 3543, passed on February 20, 2001, rezoned lands previously designated as Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing (DLM) within Downtown Kent to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) and recognized the variety of functions Downtown Kent will be expected to provide as a designated Urban Center pursuant to King County county-wide planning policies for population, employment and services, and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2001, the City purchased the Borden Chemical site, and 2 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS WHEREAS, the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station began operation in the City of Kent on February 5, 2001, and the presence of this transit service is consistent with and would enhance mixed-use development on the Planned Action site, and WHEREAS, the City of Kent over the years has provided an ongoing opportunity for public participation and review process for preparation of its Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, and the Kent Station Planned Action Ordinance, and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002 the Kent City Council Planning Committee held a public meeting on this Planned Action Ordinance to allow an opportunity for public comment as required by WAC 197-11-168, and WHEREAS, the Kent Station Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (hereafter "SEIS") identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with the planned development, and WHEREAS, this Ordinance would designate certain land uses and I activities as Planned Actions" that would be consistent with the Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning district designations within Downtown Kent NOW, THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS I SECTION 1. - Purpose The City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to 3 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS A Combine environmental analysis with land use planning, and B Streamline and expedite the land use permit process by relying on completed and existing detailed environmental analysis for certain land uses allowed in Downtown Kent, and C Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Downtown Kent as Planned Actions consistent with RCW 43.2IC 031; and D Provide the public with an understanding of Planned Actions and how the City will process Planned Actions; and E Adopt the SEIS as a Planned Action document that provides a framework for encouraging development proposals within the Planned Action Area described in Section 3(A) ("Planned Action Projects") that are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the City of Kent i Downtown Strategic Action Plan, as they apply to a portion of the North Core District of Downtown Kent F. Apply the City's development codes together with the SEIS and mitigation framework described in Section 3 of this Ordinance to expedite and simplify processing Planned Action developments, consistent with RCW 43 21 C 240 and WAC 197-11-158 4 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS SECTION 2. -Findings The City Council finds that A The City of Kent selects Alternative 2, as set forth in the SEIS, as its preferred alternative, and B The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement, the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (together"DSAP"), and the SEIS adequately address all significant environmental impacts associated with the Planned Action described in the SEIS for Alternative 2, and C. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Document, Exhibit A of this Ordinance, together with the City's development standards and any future mitigation measures that may be imposed through the land use process, are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the Planned Action Projects addressed in the SEIS Additional voluntary mitigation measures may also be incorporated in a subsequent development agreement pursuant to RCW 36 70B 170, and D The SEIS Planned Actions, also referred to as "Planned Action Projects" (as described by Alternative 2 in the SEIS), as set forth in Section 3(D) of this Ordinance, will benefit the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development, and E The City has provided numerous opportunities for public involvement and review, has considered all comments received, and this public participation process has resulted in modifications to mitigation measures and Planned Action conceptual alternatives 5 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS F The Planned Action describes the location, types and quantities of uses + anticipated G Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action SECTION 3. - Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Determinin Prwects as Planned Actions A Planned Action Area The Planned Action designation shall apply to all parcels bound by Is` Avenue on the east between James and Smith Streets, 4"' Avenue on the west between James and Harrison Streets, James Street on the north between 151 and 4`h Avenues, and Harrison Street on the south between 2nd and 4"' Avenues, referred to in this Ordinance as the "Planned Action site" The property is illustrated in Exhibit B and legally described in Exhibit C Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed Planned Action development where the impacts of the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the SEIS B Environmental Document A Planned Action designation for a site-specific Planned Action Project permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the draft SEIS issued by the City on April 23, 2002, and the Final SEIS issued by the City on July 8, 2002, and those environmental documents incorporated by reference or adopted in the SEIS The Council's Mitigation Document, Exhibit A, is based upon the environmental analysis in the SEIS, and is incorporated into this Ordinance by this reference The Mitigation Document, together with existing City codes, ordinances, development regulations and standards and applicable county, state or federal requirements and standards, shall provide the framework for the decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project Other environmental 6 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS documents incorporated by reference in the SEIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures C Planned Action Designated Land uses and activities described in the SEIS, subject to the thresholds described in Section 3(D) and the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Document, Exhibit A, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43 21C 031 A land use permit application for a site-specific Planned Action Project within the Subarea shall be designated as a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in Section 3(D) of this Ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City D Planned Action Thresholds. 1 Land Use Subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A, the following land uses and development levels, together with the customary accessory uses and amenities described in the SEIS, are Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43 21C 031 a Land Uses The following uses are the primary uses analyzed in the SEIS i Office, it Retail commercial, rri Restaurant, IV Multifamily residential, v Cinema, vi Community College, I vu Hotel & Conference Center, vilr Surface parking, ix Structured parking, and x Street and infrastructure improvements 7 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS b Land Use Review Threshold The Planned Action designation applies to future development proposals that are comparable to or that are within the range established by SEIS Proposed Action Alternative 2, as shown in the Summary of Development table below- Kent Station Alternative—Summary of Development in Alternative 1 Alternative 2 — LAND USE Kent Station Proposal Commercial (square feet) 518,400 sf Retail 191,800 Restaurant 35,900 Grocery 47,700 Cinema (12-Screen, 2,800 seats) 55,000 Office 138,000 Community College 50,000 Hotel/Conference Center 169,400 sf Hotel Rooms 200 rooms Multi-family Residential (sq feet) 434,000 sf Housing Units 480 units ' Total Commerciat/Residential 1,121,800 sf Development Park/ Open Space 53,000 sf Civic Plaza (Alt 2)/Plaza Area (Alt 3) 23,000 Park Block (Alt 2)/Town Sq (Alt 3) 30,000 Borden Playfrelds 0 Parking (stalls) 2,932 stalls 8 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS A list of general uses available to the land use categories featured in the above Summary of Development table, with appropriate development standards, is described in Kent City Code 15 04 Surface parking includes on- street spaces within the site, and structured parking includes `stand-alone' parking garages as well as parking structured within and beneath mixed-use development If future development proposals in the Planned Action area exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the SEIS, further environmental review may be required under SEPA, as provided in WAC 197- 11-172 If proposed plans significantly change the location of uses in a manner that would alter the environmental determinations in the SEIS, additional SEPA review also would be required Shifting the total build-out of square footage between uses may be permitted so long as the total build-out does not exceed the aggregate amount of development, trip generation, and parking thresholds reviewed under the SEIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified and mitigated in the SEIS and the Mitigation Document 2 Building Heights and Thresholds The Planned Action Area is entirely located within the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning district Under Kent City Code 15 04 190, there is no height limitation in the DCE zoning district However, proposed building height is subject to Kent City Code 15 09 046 Downtown Design Review The building heights reviewed in the SEIS range from one story to six stones In comparison with the building heights reviewed in the SEIS, a proposed increase in height greater than one (1) additional story may require additional SEPA review to address aesthetic impacts 3 Building Setbacks Building setbacks shall be established by existing development regulations and Downtown and Multifamily Design Review 9 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS 4 Open Space Open space shall be established by existing development regulations and Downtown and Multifamily Design Review In no case shall the Civic Plaza and Park Block total less than 53,000 square feet, as analyzed in the SEIS Of this total, approximately 30,000 square feet will be developed by the City as a Park Block 5 Transportation a Trip Ranges- The range of trips reviewed in the SEIS are as follows Trip Generation Net New Trips Reviewed in SEIS Time Period Total Inbound Outbound Trips Weekday Daily 13,200 6,600 6,600 Total Weekday PM Peak 1,380 675 705 Hour b Trip Threshold Uses or activities that would exceed the maximum trip levels shown above will require additional SEPA review c Public Works Discretion The Public Works Director shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the ITE Trip Generation Manual (latest ed), for each Planned Action Project permit application proposed under this Planned Action d. Off-Site Mitigation As provided in the SEIS in order to mitigate transportation related impacts, an Environmental Mitigation Fee shall be paid to participate in and pay a proportionate share of the construction cost to fund the South 272"d/South 277`h Street Corridor, which supports an alternative vehicular route that does not require passing through Downtown Kent 10 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS e. Road Improvements The Planned Action would require off-site road Improvements as follows Phase I (0 to 690 net new PM peak hour trips) Subject to the Public Work's Director's discretion provided for in subsection 5(c) above, Phase I mitigation will be triggered by the first application and will apply to all developments until the point those developments generate up to a total of 690 net new PM peak hour trips For any of these proposals, all of the traffic improvements listed below must be constructed before the City will issue any Certificates of Occupancy At the discretion of the Public Works Director, the City may accept a fee in lieu of constructing these improvements Any fee shall be for the full cost to the City for l the construction of the improvements • 4`h Avenue N/S 228`h Street Construct a right-turn lane on eastbound S 228`h Street to southbound 4`h Avenue N Combined with protected phasing for this new right-turn lane, operations could be improved from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour • Central Avenue S/W Willis Street Construct a new nght-turn lane on southbound Central Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street The new right-turn lane would operate protected with east and westbound left- turn movements to establish a LOS D • 2"d Avenue S/W Willis Street This unsignalized intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F on the minor approaches of 2Id Avenue S in 2010 with either the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives Restrict 11 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS left-turn movements from W Willis Street onto 2nd Avenue S Phase I1 (690 to 1,460 net new PM peak hour trips) Subject to the Public Works Director's discretion provided for in subsection 5(c) above, Phase II mitigation will be triggered by any development that raises the total trip generation above 690 net new PM peak hour trips For any of these developments, all of the traffic improvements listed below must be constructed before the City will issue any Certificates of Occupancy At the discretion of the Public Works Director, the City may accept a fee in lieu of constructing these improvements Any fee shall be for the full cost to the City for the construction of the improvements • 4th Avenue S/W Willis Street Widen to create a second left-rum lane on eastbound W Willis Street to northbound 0' Avenue S and extend the right-turn lane on southbound 4`h Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street The intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour with these improvements • 4th Avenue N/W Harrison Street Create channehzed nght-turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches of Harrison Street Operations would improve for right-turning vehicles, by allowing right- turning vehicles to bypass vehicles that are waiting in the through/left-turn lane and enter the 4ch Avenue N traffic stream more quickly 12 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS i These road improvements have been analyzed in the SEIS. Significant changes to the road improvement plan proposed as part of any Planned Action Project that have the potential to significantly increase impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, noise levels or other factors beyond the levels analyzed in the SEIS may require additional SEPA review 6 Earth- A significant change from the base of information and significant impacts contained in the SEIS under Prior Planning and Environmental Review and from the soil and groundwater contamination identified under Earth/Environmental Health in Chapter III of the SEIS that have the potential to adversely affect water quality, fisheries resources or environmental health concerns shall require additional SEPA review, including possible MTCA compliance 7 Air Quality- A significant change in site layout or traffic generation from that identified and evaluated in the SEIS that could affect localized air quality would require additional SEPA review Construction related mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts, as outlined in the SEIS, shall be incorporated into the construction plans where appropriate, 8 Water A significant change from the base of information and significant impact analysis contained in the SEIS under Prior Planning and Environmental Review, and from the wetlands that were analyzed under Wetlands in Chapter III of the SEIS that have the potential to adversely affect water quality or fisheries resources in a material manner not identified in the SEIS will require additional SEPA review The City will rely on adopted local, state, and federal regulations to mitigate the significant impacts to water quality and quantity from the Planned Actions 13 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS 9 Public Services and Utilities A significant change from the base of information and significant impact analysts contained in the SEIS under Prior Planning and Environmental Review, and a significant increase in the number of square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum number reviewed in the SEIS, which has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts not previously identified in the SEIS in the development's provision of public services and utilities will require additional SEPA review i E Planned Action Review Criteria 1 The SEPA Official or designee is authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43 21C 031(2)(a), if the project application meets all of the following conditions a The project meets the description of a Planned Action Project as set forth in this Ordinance, and will implement any applicable mitigation measures identified in this Ordinance, and b The project is located within the Planned Action Area or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on the subject site, and c The project is consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Kent Action Plan, and d The project's significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately identified in the SEIS, and e The project falls within the Planned Action thresholds established in Section 3(D) of this Ordinance, and f The SEPA Official has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Mitigation Document in Exhibit A, as well as other applicable City, county, state and federal requirements and conditions, 14 PfannedAction Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS which together constitute sufficient mitigation for the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and g The proposed project complies with all applicable local, county, state, and federal regulations, and where appropriate, the proposed project complies with needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been identified, and It The proposed project is not an essential public facility F Effect of Planned Action 1 Upon designation by the SEPA Responsible Official that the development proposal within the Planned Action Area qualifies as a Planned Action pursuant to this Ordinance and WAC 197-11-172, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEPA 2 Being designated a Planned Action or Planned Action Project means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the SEIS, including its incorporated and adopted documents 3 Planned Action Projects will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA However, these projects will be subject to conditions as outlined in this document and the attached Exhibit A, which are designed to mitigate any environmental impacts resulting from the project proposal Additionally, projects will be subject to applicable City, state and federal regulatory requirements The Planned Action designation shalt not excuse a project from meeting the City's code and ordinance requirements apart from the SEPA process 15 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS G Planned Action Permit Process The Planning Manager or designee shall review projects and determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, codes and ordinances The review procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following 1 Development applications will meet the requirements of Kent City Code ("KCC") Titles 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist or such other environmental review forms provided by the Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application. 2 The Planning Manager will determine whether the application is complete as provided in KCC Chapter 12 01 3, If the project application is within the Planned Action Area, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in Section 3 of this Ordinance 4 After the City receives and reviews a complete application, the SEPA Official shall determine, utilizing the criteria and procedures contained in WAC 197-11-172, whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action If the project does qualify as a Planned Action, the Planning Manager shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS will be required 5 Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit and not to SEPA notice requirements If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that 16 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required 6 If a project is determined not to be a Planned Action, the Planning Manager shall notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action 7 Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the environmental review analysis in the SEIS prepared for the Planned Action, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements The SEPA Official may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the SEIS SECTION 4. - Time Period This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 1, 2010 by the Planning Manager to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the Planned Action Area and the vicinity and adequacy of Planned Action requirements and mitigation Based upon this review, this Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another review period may be specified SECTION 5. - Con ict In the event of a conflict between the ii II Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control EXCEPT that I provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede SECTION 6. - Severabilih) Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of 17 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation SECTION 7. - Third Party Liabihty. This Ordinance does not create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of these regulations No provision or term used in these regulations is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City or any of its officers, employees, or agents Notwithstanding any language used in this Ordinance, it is not the intent of this Ordinance to create a duty and/or cause of action running to any individual or identifiable person,but rather any duty is intended to run only to the general public. SECTION 8. - Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER CITY CLERK is Planned Action Ordinance— • Kent Station SEIS APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 12002 APPROVED day of 12002 PUBLISHED day of , 2002 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) �_. BRENDA 7ACOBER, CITY CLERK 19 Planned Action Ordinance— Kent Station SEIS Exhibit A DRAFT Mitigation Document DRAFT Kent Station Planned Action INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that may have sigrficant impacts upon the environment In order to meet SEPA requirements, the SEPA Official for the City of Kent issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kent Station Planned Action on April 23, 2002, and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on July 8, 2002 (collectively, the "SEIS") The SEIS has identified significant impacts that would occur with the future redevelopment of the subject site together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant impacts The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant impacts identified in the SEIS. The mitigation measures would apply to future development proposals that are deemed, pursuant to the City's Planned Action Ordinance and WAC 197-11-172, to constitute Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects that are comparable to the Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS, and that are located on the approximately 25 acre subject site (see Exhibit B) The mitigation measures may also apply to off-site improvements, if they were analyzed in the SEIS Pursuant to RCW 43 21C 240 and WAC 197-11-150, this mitigation is in addition to the mitigation required by other applicable City, county, state and federal regulations and requirements USE OF TERMS As several similar terms are utilized in this Mitigation Document, the following phrases or words are defined bnefly SEPA Terms "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by an Agency "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area "Non project' actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs (See WAC 197-11-704) "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographical area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project (See WAC 197-11-164) • Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 2 "Proposar, means a proposed action, which may be actions and regulatory decisions of an agency, or any actions proposed by applicants (See 197-11-784) Other Terms The subject site or Planned Action Area may be referenced as "Kent Station," "site," "subject site" or "Planned Action Area" in this document Mitigation measures may also apply to off-site improvements analyzed in the SEIS This document includes mitigation measures that are tied to the approval of site plans, construction plans, civil plans, plats, planned unit developments, and design review Regulations are found in Kent City Code Titles 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will" the requirement is mandatory Where "should" or "would" appear the words convey the City's expectation and desires given circumstances presently known, with recognition that pertinent alternate or equivalent requirements may be imposed as more detailed design or reports are conducted consistent with the mitigation measures Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measure requirements to prepare plans, conduct studies, construct improvements, conduct maintenance activities, etc , are the responsibility of the future developer(s)to fund and/or carry out DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED UNDER PLANNED ACTION Proposed Action The Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS includes • Approval of a plan to redevelop the Planned Action Area within Kent's Downtown as a mixed-use urban village • Adoption of an ordinance designating the Kent Station Site as a Planned Action for purposes of SEPA compliance (per RCW 43 21C 031(2)(a), and WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168) The City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan identified the Subject Site ( "Site") as a key redevelopment opportunity and recommended preparing a master plan, The Planned Action designation reflects a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and that further environmental review, under SEPA, for each specific development phase would not be necessary if it is determined that any given Planned Action Project is consistent with the development levels specified in the Planned Action Ordinance and evaluated in the SEIS and/or applicable development regulations Exhibit A-Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 3 The Planned Action includes a combination of retail, commercial, educatronal/mstitutional, residential and mixed-use redevelopment projects through the year 2010 It also includes the City's approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD)/master plan, administrative design review, wetland mitigation plan, subdivision, civil construction drawings, and building permits A program of road, infrastructure, and streetscape improvements are integral to the redevelopment proposal The City and the Kent Station developer may also execute a development agreement, pursuant to RCW 36 70B 170 The agreement would set forth the development standards, mitigation requirements, review procedures, etc applicable to future development The SEIS provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other development features The intensity of site development would fall within the range of development represented in Alternative 2 of the SEIS (Reference Chapter II of the Draft SEIS) The proposed development thresholds consist of 518,400 square feet of commercial, 169,400 square feet (200 rooms) of hotel/conference center, and 480 units of housing (434,000 square feet) Also included are 2932 parking stalls and 53,000 square feet of park/open space Applicability of Mitigation Document This mitigation document applies to the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 analyzed in the SEIS For the mitigation document to apply to future development proposed in the Planned Action Area, that proposed development must be comparable to or within the range established by Alternative 2, as shown below Kent Station Alternative 2 —Summary of Development LAND USE Alternative 2—Kent Station Proposal Commercial(square feet) 518,400 sf Retail 191,800 Restaurant 35,900 Grocery 47,700 Cinema (12-Screen, 2,800 seats) 55,000 Office 138,000 Community College 50,000 HotellConference Center 169,400 sf Hotel Rooms 200 rooms Subtotal Multi-family Residential(square feet) 434,000 sf Housing Units 480 units Total Commercial/Residential Development 1,121,800 sf Park/Open Space 53,000 sf Civic Plaza(Alt 2)/Plaza Area(Alt 3) 23,000 Park Block(Alt 2)/Town Square (Alt 3) 30,000 Borden Playfields 0 Parking (stalls) 2,932 stalls Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 4 Building heights range from one to six stones (Reference Chapter II, Tables 4 and 5 in the SEIS) All of the alternatives would provide the same public street improvements to 1", 2nd and 41h Avenues N Two new public streets would also traverse the site 1) Temperance Street between 1" and 2nd Avenues N , and 2) 2"d Avenue N. would be extended from Smith Street to 4`h Avenue N (Reference Chapter II-14—11-16 of the SEIS) If future proposed plans exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed, supplemental environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172 and other applicable SEPA Rules MITIGATION DOCUMENT Based upon the SEIS, which is incorporated by this reference, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the development of the Proposed Action Mitigation measures are hereby established under SEPA Rules to address specific impacts identified in the SEIS, based upon the Proposed Action Additional consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action pursuant to WAC 197-11-172 Additional project conditions may be imposed on what are deemed to be Planned Action Projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of city, state or federal requirements or review criteria Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action Area may request modifications to these mitigation measures, if appropriate and as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow an equivalent substitute mitigation or removal of a mitigation requirement Such modifications would be evaluated by the City SEPA Responsible Official prior to any approvals by the City, based upon SEPA Rules As permitted under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660), it is recognized that there may be some adverse impacts that are unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation cannot be achieved for the Proposed Action Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the SEIS for the Proposed Action are (a) summary of and/or reference to SEIS analysis of significant environmental impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative), (b) summary of significant unavoidable adverse impacts, (c) mitigation measures established by this Mitigation Document, and (d) a list of federal and state laws and local policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 5 In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures imposed by this document will apply to and govern any Planned Action Project and will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts caused by the Proposed Action, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." 1. Earth/Environmental Health A Significant Impacts Chapter III of the SEIS addresses remediation of on-site soil and groundwater contamination Other potential environmental impacts to earth resources and environmental health (i e , noise) have been adequately addressed in previous environmental documents and are summarized in Chapter II of the SEIS A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix • Exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater on the site could pose potential health risks to the public Health risks are the basis of the applicable cleanup levels that are being implemented through a cleanup plan B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Provided that reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated C Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures established below address impacts identified in Chapter III of the SEIS • No mitigation measures beyond those already identified and being implemented in connection with cleanup of the Borden Chemical Facility, BNSF, Reiman Trust, Brutsche, Silvestri and adjacent sites are required Cleanup activities would be coordinated with redevelopment of the site and associated construction activities • Any required Clean up actions will occur as part of, and concurrent with, site preparation and construction activities for the 2nd Avenue extension and other proposed on-site development Consistent with the recommended monitoring program, any monitoring wells displaced by redevelopment shall be relocated • Monitoring shall occur as recommended in the Phase II site assessment reports • Earthwork should be accomplished during the dry season from May to September whenever possible, when soils are likely to be compacted and when erosion and sedimentation activity are at a seasonal low • Erosion control methods in the short term can include channeling surface water runoff, erosion preventing slope cover (e g, straw), channel liners, and sedimentation control ponds Long term methods include minimizing the concentration of runoff onto fill, cut or natural slopes, and minimizing disturbances to natural drainage courses and existing vegetation Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 6 2. Air Quality A Significant Impacts Chapter II of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to air quality in terms of construction activities, generated traffic, and indirect air emissions In general, reduced emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides would be associated with concentrating growth in a mixed-use pattern at higher densities in pedestrian-oriented areas Localized dust and exhaust emissions would be generated from construction activities An Air Quality Conformity Analysis was conducted in conjunction with the FSEIS No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures related to conformity are required B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Provided that reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated C Mitigation Measures The following construction related mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the construction plans where appropriate • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition • Require all off road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment (i e , require participation in Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions by project sponsors and contractors) • Use bio diesel or other lower-emission fuels for vehicles and equipment • Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction • Implement construction curbs on hot days when region is at risk for exceeding the ozone NAAQS, and work at night instead • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e g , limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes) • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations • Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions won't be noticeable to the public or near sensitive populations such as the elderly and the young • Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM10 and deposition of particulate matter • Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long penods • Cover all trucks transporting materials, wetting materials in trucks, or providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to reduce PM10 emissions and deposition during transport Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 7 • Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carved off-site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways • Remove particulate matter deposited on paved, public roads, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust, sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions • Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris • Route and schedule construction trucks to reduce delays to traffic during peak travel times to reduce air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds 3. Noise A Significant Impacts Increased noise and vibration would be associated with construction These impacts could be intensive in some locations for limited periods of time Some construction equipment and methods (e g , pile driving) can produce peak noise levels greater than 100dBA, as well as significant vibration B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Provided that reasonable mitigation measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. C Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for construction impacts may include enforcement of limits of the hours of construction activity, proper maintenance of equipment, use of mufflers and/or temporary sound barriers, alternative construction techniques (e g , pile auguring), contractor preparation of noise control plans, and active monitoring and enforcement of applicable standards 4. Wetlands A Significant Impacts Chapter III of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to wetlands A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter III of the SEIS • Three on-site wetlands would be filled to permit construction of planned buildings, roads and infrastructure B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The wetland functions, values and area would be lost, and are unavoidable in the context of the alternative site plans and the City's goals for Downtown development Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page S C Mitigation Measures • Mitigation, in the form of off-site compensation, would occur consistent with the City's adopted wetland standards and regulations and shall include the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan 5. Land Use A Significant Impacts Chapter III of the SEIS includes an examination of significant impacts to land use A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see Chapter III of the SEIS • Proposed development would be of higher density and intensity than the No Action alternative and therefore involve potentially greater impacts However, proposed development would be comparable to the density and intensity permitted under current zoning • A mix of uses would occur • The character of the site would change significantly from low-density, auto- oriented, suburban area with small buildings surrounded by large parking lots, to an urbanized, pedestrian-onented/transit-oriented district • Borden Playfields would be replaced by urban park space resulting in a net reduction of between 3 5 and 3 8 acres of park land in the City Demand could increase at other park facilities • Increased light, noise, and activity associated with an urban area may be noticeable from residential area to the north • Proposal would encourage new economic, civic and pedestrian activity in the area that indirectly could result in increased development pressure on surrounding properties to intensify • Some existing uses may be displaced and could relocate within the site or nearby commercial districts. As redevelopment occurs, potential land use conflicts between adjacent low intensity uses and new development could result B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Some displacement of existing land uses on the Kent Station Planned Action site would occur Some limited contrast in land use intensity, bulk and scale would occur, primarily where larger buildings are proposed adjacent to existing single family residences Impacts relating to lighting and noise may be mitigated but cannot be entirely avoided, they are considered to be an inherent characteristic of a mixed-use urban neighborhood C Mitigation Measures Kent's adopted Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations and Downtown Design Guidelines provide policies, processes, standards and development regulations that would mitigate most identified impacts • Utilize careful site planning,building design and buffering Utilize techniques such as lighting limits, full cut-off fixtures, ample landscaping to buffer Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 9 adjacent uses and ensure privacy, placement/onentation of some building . elements (e.g., deliveries, solid waste receptacles) to help control noise. • Locate taller buildings in the intenor of the site, set back upper stones of taller buildings from the street, or utilize additional screening or other design techniques to reduce the impact to existing single family neighborhoods • To minimize potential business and employment displacement impacts that would occur on-site, the City should provide technical assistance in relocation to other suitable sites • In mixed-use areas, the potential intrusion of noise from commercial, office and retail areas into residential areas should be minimized by limiting noisy activities (e g trash collection or composting) to hours outside of 11 pm to 7 am. 6. Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations A Significant Impacts Chapter III of the SEIS reviews the consistency of the Kent Station Planned Action alternatives to selected federal, state, regional and local plans, policies and/or regulations • The proposal is consistent with GMA planning goals to guide growth into an area with existing and planned infrastructure The proposal also is consistent with the City of Kent's land use designations, transportation, economic development, and community design policies and goal of redeveloping Downtown from a low-intensity suburban character to a higher intensity urban character B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None are anticipated C Mitigation Measures No specific mitigation measures are warranted beyond the application of City regulations, which in many cases contain mitigation features Future development or redevelopment within the Downtown is subject to existing federal and regional storm water management plan requirements, local development regulations, local concurrency regulations, and design standards 7. Aesthetics A Sienificant Impacts Chapter III of the SEIS includes examination of significant impacts to visual character, including intensity, bulk/scale/height, visual compatibility, streetscape continuity, and light and glare generated A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix • The proposal is likely to improve visual quality overall Proposed development would support the Historic District by improving streetscapes, pedestrian connections, and urban parks, resulting in a more unified Downtown core area • The proposal would provide mixed-use development in buildings ranging from one to six stones in height and lot coverage of up to 95 percent Most buildings would contain ground floor retail uses to encourage a lively Exlubit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 10 • pedestrian oriented environment On-street, surface and structured parking would be provided • Some negative impacts could result from differences in bulk and scale along the northern edges of the site, where more intensive development would be near single family residential uses. The proposed development also would be larger in bulk and scale than the structures in the adjacent Historic Core District • Light, glare and shadowing likely will increase B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The expected significant visual and aesthetic change is generally considered to be positive and are consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Mitigation measures below, together with the City's adopted development regulations and design standards are adequate to mitigate the anticipated significant adverse impacts C Mitigation Measures • Utilize careful site planning, building design and buffering Utilize techniques such as lighting limits, full cut-off fixtures, low hanging street lamps, and ample landscaping to buffer adjacent uses and ensure privacy • Locate taller buildings in the interior of the site, set back upper stones of taller buildings from the street, or utilize additional screening or other design alternatives to reduce the impact to existing single family neighborhoods • Prohibit reflective building materials 8. Transportation A Significant Impacts Chapter III and Appendix C of the SEIS examines significant impacts to parking and the transportation system A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix • Trip Generation New Weekday trip generation ranges from a total of 13,200 daily and 1,380 PM peak hour trips • Levels of Service Intersection levels of service are expected to generally remain the same as 2010 Baseline for more than half of the study area intersections At these intersections a slight increase in delay is expected but increase in total intersection volume is insufficient to cause a noticeable change in LOS Between 14 and 16 study intersections are anticipated to operate at or over capacity with or without the Proposed Action In comparison to 2010 Baseline, 5 additional intersections would operate at or over capacity with Alternative 2 • Valley Freeway SB Ramps/W Willis Street • Valley Freeway NB Ramps/W Willis Street • 4`h Avenue S/W Willis Street • 41h Avenue N/W Harrison Street • lsi Avenue N/W James Street • Site Access, With or without the Proposed Action, intersections around the perimeter of the site, those providing a connection between the site and the Exhibit A-Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 11 external street system, are expected to operate at between LOS A and F Unsignalized access points intersecting with W James and W Smith Streets are anticipated to operate at LOS F, while the signalized access points on these arterials are expected to operate at LOS A and LOS B The unsignalized access points on the more minor roads are anticipated to operate between LOS B and C and intersections internal to the site are expected to operate at LOS B or better • The Proposed Action provides 2,932 parking stalls, with 995 shared stalls in the Sound Transit Garage and surface parking lot Proposed supply falls within the minimum and maximum range depending on time of day and day of week Anticipated demand, separate from commuter demand, also falls within the minimum and maximum code requirements Adopted code requirements are sufficient to satisfy anticipated parking impacts • With or without the Proposed Action, construction would generate some truck and vehicle traffic associated with excavation and hauling, delivery of materials, and similar types of activity While construction may cause inconveniences directly adjacent to the site, the impacts would be temporary and are not expected to extend to the surrounding study area • The City has identified the S 277'b Street Corridor improvements (both constructed and portions planned for construction), as providing significant relief on the existing east/west corridor system, including SR 516 This corridor and associated improvements will provide a necessary commuter alternate route from I-5 to Kent's East Hill which bypasses the Downtown Core Environmental Mitigation Assessments charged to the developer will be assessed at the LID rate for the S 272nd/S 277`h Corridor and will proportionately pay toward improvements along that corridor that are identified on the City's 6-Year Transportation Capital Improvement Plan B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Traffic will increase as a result of forecast growth, with or without implementation of the alternatives Congestion will increase and levels of service will decrease at nearby intersections C Mitigation Measures • Construction Traffic The City will provide project specifications that will dictate the route used by construction traffic to enter and exit the construction site, stipulate the hours of work, and stipulate maximum permitted noise levels The contractor shall provide traffic control when construction traffic would disrupt the normal traffic flow This traffic control will be in the form of flaggers, variable message signs, light and other traffic control devices The hours of work shall minimize the impact at heavy traffic times The contractor shall maintain City roads used by construction traffic by keeping them clean at all times The contractor shall control dust by watering the site frequently or by other means acceptable and approved by the City • Transportation Management Program The developer and the City shall develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for employment and Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 12 residential components of Kent Station The TMP shall support a goal of reducing employee and residential Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel along with the potential increase in transit and rail service over time • Off-Site Mitigation The Kent Station developer shall pay an Environmental Mitigation Fee to participate in and pay a proportionate share of the construction costs to the City's South 272nd/South 2771h Street Corridor project to support an alternative vehicular through-route that bypasses Downtown Kent The fee shall be at a rate of$1,068 per PM Peak hour trip (in 1986 dollars to be adjusted for inflation based upon the Consumer Price Index, US City Average for all Urban Consumers, or the substituted index as prepared by the US Department of Labor) Additionally, the following improvements to the local transportation system shall be provided for Phase I Mitigation (0 to 690 net new PM peak hour trips) • 4th Avenue N/S 228`h Street Construct a nght-turn lane on eastbound S 2281h Street to southbound 4`h Avenue N Combined with protected phasing for this new right-turn lane, operations could be improved from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour • Central Avenue S/W Willis Street Construct a new tight-tuia lane on southbound Central Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street The new tight-turn lane would operate protected with east and westbound left-turn movements to establish a LOS D • 2"d Avenue S/W Willis Street This unsignahzcd intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F on the minor approaches of 2nd Avenue S in 2010 with either the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives Restrict left-turn movements from W Willis Street onto Yd Avenue S The following improvements to the local transportation system shall be provided for Phase II Mitigation ( 690 to 1,460 net new PM peak hour trips) • 41h Avenue S/W Willis Street Widen to create a second left-turn lane on eastbound W Willis Street to northbound 4`h Avenue S and extend the tight-turn lane on southbound 4`h Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street, The intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour with these improvements • 4`h Avenue N/W Harrison Street Create channehzed tight-turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches of Harrison Street Operations would improve for right-turning vehicles, by allowing tight-turning vehicles to bypass vehicles that are waiting in the through/]eft-tum lane and enter the 41h Avenue N traffic stream more quickly 0 Exhibit A—Mitigation Document Kent Station Planned Action Page 13 9. Nexus It is appropriate, as per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43 21C 060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal, consistent with the City's substantive SEPA authority, Kent City Code section 1103 510 EXHIBIT "B" North Core District - Commom Fbybelds r"p r' f ` ^ -�° � _� fi- r Kent Commons} Kent Statron Planned AcUon — Regional 4 Site -- 1Justite _ — `--� (Center Sow J Library Crux - —i Parts �J HARRiS )N ST r -- EXHIBIT C Legal Description Those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M , and of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter in Section 24, Township 22, Range 4 East, W M , including platted properties therein lying South of the North right-of-way margin of James Street, lying West of the East ght-of-way margin of Ist Avenue North, lying East of the West right-of-way margin of 4` Avenue North, and lying North of the South right-of-way margin of West Hamson Street, together with that portion lying East of the West nght-of-way margin of 2nd Avenue North and lying North of the South right- of-way margin of West Harrison Street Situate in King County, State of Washington, W.M • Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1 SUBJECT: NEW YEARS 2002 FIREWORKS PROHIBITION ORDINANCE— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. , which amends Ch. 13.05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale,purchase,possession or use of consumer fireworks during the 2002/2003 New Years period, from December 27 through December 31, and replaces the term, "common fireworks," with the term, "consumer fireworks," in accordance with a newly enacted state law. The city must enact the ordinance within 60 days from June 13, 2002, the effective date of the new law. By passing this ordinance at this time, the City will successfully prohibit the sale or use of consumer fireworks during the 2002 New Year's period. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and copy of SSSB 6080 4 RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee (7/9/02) (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 6R PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE July 9, 2002 1, SUBJECT Fireworks - Ordinance amending Ch 13 05 of the Kent City Code and prohibiting the sale, purchase, possession, or use of consumer fireworks from December 27,2002 through December 31, 2002 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: If passed, this ordinance would prohibit the sale, purchase, possession or use of consumer fireworks during the 2002/2003 New Years period, from December 27 through December 31 In addition, the ordinance replaces the term, "common fireworks," throughout chapter 13 05 KCC with the term, "consumer fireworks," in accordance with a newly enacted state law, SSSB 6080. A copy of this new law is attached for your review This new law authorizes the sale and use of consumer fireworks throughout the state during the 2002/2003 New Year's period (as well as the existing July 4 period), unless a city passes an ordinance prohibiting fireworks sale and use during that New Year's period Additionally, the city must enact the ordinance within 60 days from June 13, 2002, the effective date of the new law By passing this ordinance at this time, the city will successfully prohibit the sale or use of consumer fireworks during the next New Year's period 3 MOTION: To recommend Council adoption of an ordinance to amend Ch 13 05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession or use of consumer fireworks during the 2002/2003 New Years period, from December 27 through December 31, and to replace the term, "common fireworks," with the term, "consumer fireworks," in accordance with a newly enacted state law 4 SPEAKERITIME: Pat Fitzpatrick/ 10 minutes M CnI Wum61s4suJnvv{ Wbl+Cmm4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 13 05 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Fireworks," and prohibiting the sale, purchase, possession, or use of consumer fireworks from December 27, 2002 through December 31, 2002 WHEREAS, the Legislature recently enacted new legislation, SSSB 6080, effective June 13, 2002, regarding the sale, purchase, possession, and discharge of consumer fireworks, and WHEREAS, the new legislation redefines the statutory definition of "common" fireworks as "consumer" fireworks, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to make the City's local fireworks ordinance consistent with the new law by referencing "consumer" fireworks instead of "common" fireworks, and WHEREAS, the new legislation also allows the sale, purchase, possession or use of consumer fireworks from December 27, 2002, through December 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, the new legislation requires that if a city elects to limit or prohibit the sale, purchase, possession or use of consumer fireworks from December 1 Fireworks—13.05 Decem ber 27—December 31,2002 27, 2002, through December 31, 2002, it must enact an ordinance within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the legislation, and WHEREAS, the City's existing local ordinance currently permits the sale, purchase or possession of consumer fireworks only between 12 00 p in to 11 00 p in on June 28ih and from 9 00 a in to 11 00 p in on each day from June 29`h through July 41h of each year, and WHEREAS, the City's existing local ordinance currently allows the use or discharge of consumer fireworks from 9 00 a in to 11 00 p in on July 4 only, and WHEREAS, the City intends to declare it illegal to sell, purchase, possess or use consumer fireworks from December 27 to December 31 of each year, or t any time other than that described above, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. Amendment Chapter 13 05 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Fireworks," is amended as follows. CHAPTER 13.05. FIREWORKS Sec. 13.05.010. Sale and discharge of fireworks. A Except as may be provided in RCW 70 77 311, no eemman—consumer fireworks shall be sold within the municipal limits of the city except from 12 00 noon on the twenty-eighth day of June to 11 00 p m on the fourth day of July between the hours of 9 00 a in and 11 00 p in No eeinf»en onsumer fireworks may be discharged at any time except between the hours of 9 00 a in and 11 00 p in on the fourth day of July 2 Fireworks—13.05 December 27—December 31,2002 7 eee,„,1.er 91 of any given year- and on L,..amy 1 of the subsequent . It shall not be legal to sell, purchase, possess or use consumer fireworks on December 27, 2002, through December 31, 2002 The only legal period for the sale and discharge of common fireworks are the dates and tunes permitted in subsection (A) of this section Sec. 13.05.020. Local fireworks permits. Application for all local fireworks permits required by the state fireworks law, Chapter 70 77 RCW, shall be made to the fire marshal The fee for such permit shall be established by city council resolution, which amount covers the city's administrative costs for permit processing, issuance, and inspection Pursuant to RCW 70 77 555, this permit fee and the costs for all needed permits and local licenses from application to and through processing, issuance and inspection shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for any one (1) year Sec. 13.05.030. Public display of fireworks. The fire marshal is authorized, pursuant to RCW 70 77 280, to issue a permit for a public display of fireworks After review and investigation of an application for a permit, the fire marshal may grant, deny or grant with reasonable conditions a permit for a public display of fireworks, provided, however, that any such permit shall only be issued for the discharge of fireworks (1) on the fourth of July for fourth of July ceremonies, or (2) for high school homecoming games. The issuance of a permit for a public display of fireworks for a time or purpose different than stated herein is not permitted unless approved by the city council following consideration of the review, investigation and recommendation of the fire marshal For purposes of this section, "school" means a state-certified public or private high school Sec. 13.05.040. Reckless discharge or use of fireworks. It is unlawful for any person to discharge or use fireworks in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another 3 Fireworks—13 05 December 27—December 31, 2002 See. 13.05.050. Penalty. Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13 05 010, 13 05 020, and 13 05 030 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days and a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13 05 040 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed one (1) year and a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) A person is guilty of a separate offense for each day during which he or she commits, continues or permits a violation of the provisions of this chapter SECTION 2. Severability If anyone 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. SECTIONS. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage as provided by law JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY it 4 Fireworks—13 05 December 27—December 31,2002 PASSED day of 2002 APPROVED day of 2002 PUBLISHED day of 2002 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK \iPA\USA\LAW\PUBLIC\CrnpOrdmance\Fneworks 13 05 NmY=Prohtbnion 070202 doc I 5 Fireworks—13 05 December 27—December 31, 2002 1 WASHINGTON 2002 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 57th Legislature,2002 Regular Session Copr © West Group 2002 All rights reserved Additions are indicated by<<+Text+>>,deletions by <<-Text->> Changes in tables are made but not highlighted Vetoed provisions within tabular material are not displayed CHAPTER 370 S S B No 6080 FIREWORKS AN ACT Relating to updating and harmonizing fireworks and explosives laws, amending RCW 70 74 010, 7074 191, 70 74,400, 70,77 126, 70 77 131, 70 77 136, 70 77 141, 70 77 160, 70 77 170, 70 77 175, 70 77 180, 70 77 205, 70 77,210, 70,77 215, 70 77 230, 70 77 236, 70 77 250, 70 77 255, 70 77 270, 70 77 305, 70 77 311, 70 77 315 70 77,330, 70,77 335, 70 77 340, 70 77 343, 70 77 381, 70 77 395, 70 77 401, 70 77 405, 70 77 420, 70 77 425, 70 77 435, 70 77 440, 70 77 495, 70 77 510, 70 77 515, 70 77 517, 70 77 520, 70 77 535, 70 77 555, 70 77 575, and 70 77 580, adding new sections to chapter 70 77 RCW, and prescribing penalties BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Sec.1.RCW 70 74 010 and 1993 c 293 s 1 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 74 010>> As used in this chapter,unless a different meaning is plainly required by the context (1) The terms "authorized", "approved" or "approval' shall be held to mean authorized, approved, or approval by the department of labor and industries (2) The term "blasting agent" shall be held to mean and include any material or mixture consisting of a fuel and oxidizer,<<-intended for blasting, not otherwise classified as an explosive, and in which none of the ingredients are classified as an explosive, provided that the finished product, as mixed and packaged for use or shipment, cannot be detonated when unconfined by means of a No 8 test blasting cap->> <<+that is intended for blasting and not otherwise defined as an explosive, if the finished product, as mixed for use or shipment, cannot be detonated by means of a number 8 test blasting cap when unconfined A number 8 test blasting cap is one containing two grams of a rruxture of eighty percent mercury fulminate and twenty percent potassium chlorate, or a blasting cap of equivalent strength An equivalent strength cap comprises 0 40-0 45 grams of PETN base charge pressed in an aluminum shell with bottom thickness not to exceed 0 03 of an inch, to a specific gravity of not less than 14 g/cc, and primed with standard weights of primer depending on the manufacturer+>> (3) The term "explosive" or "explosives" whenever used in this chapter, shall be held to mean and include any cherr cal compound or mechanical mixture that is commonly used or intended for the purpose of producing an explosion, that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities or packing, that an ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion or by detonation of any part of the compound or mixture may cause such a sudden generation of highly heated gases that the resultant gaseous pressures are capable of producing destructive effects on contiguous objects or of destroying life or limb In addition, the term "explosives" shall include all material which is classified as <<-class A, class B, and class C->> <<+division 1 1, 12, 13, 1 4, 15, or 1 6+>>explosives by the <<-federal->><<+Unites States+>> department of transportation For the purposes of this chapter small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless powder not exceeding fifty pounds, and black powder not exceeding five pounds shall not be defined as explosives, unless possessed or used for a purpose inconsistent with small arms use or other lawful purpose Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 2 (4) Classification of explosives shall include but not be limited to the following (a) <<-CLASS A->> <<+DIVISION 1 1 and 12+>> EXPLOSIVES <<- (Possessing->> <<+Possess mass explosion or+>> detonating hazard<<+>> <<+and include+>> dynamite, nitroglycerin, picric acid, lead azide, fulminate of mercury, black powder exceeding five pounds, blasting caps in quantities of 1001 or more, and detonating primers (b) <<-CLASS B->><<+DIVISION 1 3+>>EXPLOSIVES <<-(Possessing->><<+Possess a minor blast hazard, a minor projection hazard, or a+>> flammable hazard<<+>><<+and include+>> propellant explosives, including smokeless<<-propellants->><<+powder+>>exceeding fifty pounds (c) <<-CLASS C->> <<+DIVISION 14, 15, and 1 6+>> EXPLOSIVES <<- (Including->> <<+Include+>> certain types of manufactured articles which contain <<-class A or class B->> <<+division 1 1, 12, or 1 3+>> explosives, or <<-both->> <<+all+>>, as components<<+,+>> but in restricted quantities<<+>><<+, and also include+>>blasting caps in quantities of 1000 or less (5)The term"explosive-actuated power devices" shall be held to mean any tool or special mechanized device which is actuated by explosives,but not to include propellant-actuated power devices (6) The term"magazine", shall be held to mean and include any building or other structure, other than<<-a factory- »<<+an explosives manufacturing+>>building,used for the storage of explosives (7) The term "improvised device" means a device which is fabricated with explosives or destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and which is designed<<+, or has the capacity,+>> to disfigure, destroy, distract, or harass (8)The term"inhabited building", shall be held to mean and include only a building regularly occupied in whole or in part as a habitation for human beings, or any church, schoolhouse, railroad station, store, or other building where people are accustomed to assemble, other than any building or structure occupied in connection with the manufacture, transportation, storage, or use of explosives (9) The term "explosives manufacturing plant' shall be held to mean and include all lands, with the buildings situated thereon, used in connection with the manufacturing or processing of explosives or in which any process involving explosives is carried on, or the storage of explosives thereat, as well as any premises where explosives are used as a component part or ingredient in the manufacture of any article or device (10) The term "explosives manufacturing budding", shall be held to mean and include any budding or other structure (excepting magazines) containing explosives, in which the manufacture of explosives, or any processing involving explosives, is carried on, and any building where explosives are used as a component part or ingredient in the manufacture of any article or device (11) The term "railroad" shall be held to mean and include any steam, electric, or other railroad which carries passengers for hire (12) The term "highway" shall be held to mean and include any public street, public alley, or public road<<+, including a privately financed, constructed, or maintained road that is regularly and openly traveled by the general public+>> (13) The term "efficient artificial barricade" shall be held to mean an artificial mound or properly reverted wall of earth of a rr nimum thickness of not less than three feet or such other artificial barricade as approved by the department of labor and industries (14) The term "person" shall be held to mean and include any individual, firms, <<-copartnership->> <<+parmershrp+>>, corporation, company, association, <<+society, joint stock company,+>> joint stock Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong US Govt Works 3 association,and including any trustee,receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof (15) The term "dealer" shall be held to mean and include any person who purchases explosives or blasting agents for the sole purpose of resale,and not for use or consumption (16) The term "forbidden or not acceptable explosives" shall be held to mean and include explosives which are forbidden or not acceptable for transportation by common carriers by rail freight, rail express, highway, or water in accordance with the regulations of the federal department of transportation (17) The term "handloader" shall be held to mean and include any person who engages in the noncommercial assembling of small arms ammunition for his own use, specifically the operation of installing new primers, powder, and projectiles into cartridge cases (18)The term"handloader components"means small arms ammunition,small arms ammunition primers,smokeless powder not exceeding fifty pounds, and black powder as used in muzzle loading firearms not exceeding five pounds (19) The term "fuel" shall be held to mean and include a substance which may react with the oxygen in the air or with the oxygen yielded by an oxidizer to produce combustion (20) The term "motor velucle" shall be held to mean and include any self- propelled automobile, truck, tractor, semi-trailer or full trailer,or other conveyance used for the transportation of freight (21) The term "natural barricade" shall be held to mean and include any natural hill, mound, wall, or bamer composed of earth or rock or other solid material of a minimum thickness of not less than three feet (22)The term"oxidizer" shall be held to mean a substance that yields oxygen readily to stimulate the combustion of organic matter or other fuel (23)The term"propellant-actuated power device"shall be held to mean and include any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge (24) The term"public conveyance" shall be held to mean and include any railroad car, streetcar, ferry, cab, bus, airplane, or other vehicle which is carrying passengers for hue (25) The term "public utility transmission system' shall mean power transmission lines over 10 KV, telephone cables,or i ncrowave transimssion systems or buried or exposed pipelines carrying water,natural gas,petroleum,or crude oil, or refined products and chemicals, whose services are regulated by the utilities and transportation commission, municipal, or other publicly owned systems (26) The term "purchaser" shall be held to mean any person who buys, accepts, or receives any explosives or blasting agents (27) The term "pyrotechnic" shall be held to mean and include any combustible or explosive compositions or manufactured articles designed and prepared for the purpose of producing audible or visible effects which are commonly referred to as fireworks<<+as defined in chapter 70 77 RCW+>> (28) The term "small arms ammunition" shall be held to mean and include any shotgun, rifle, pistol, or revolver cartridge, and carmdges for propellant- actuated power devices and industrial guns Military-type ammunition containing explosive bursting charges, incendiary tracer, spottmg, or pyrotechnic projectiles is excluded from this definition (29)The term "small arms ammunition primers" shall be held to mean small percussion-sensitive explosive charges encased in a cup,used to ignite propellant powder and shall include percussion caps as used in muzzle loaders Copr G West 2002 No Claun to Ong U S Govt Works 4 (30)The term"smokeless<<-propellants->> <<+powder+»" shall be held to mean and include solid chemicals or solid chemical mixtures in excess of fifty pounds which function by rapid combustion (31) The term "user" shall be held to mean and include any natural person, manufacturer, or blaster who acquires, purchases, or uses explosives as an ultimate consumer or who supervises such use Words used in the singular number shall include the plural,and the plural the singular See.2,RCW 70 74 191 and 1998 c 40 s 1 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 74 191 >> The laws contained in this chapter and regulations prescribed by the department of labor and industries pursuant to this chapter shall not apply to (1) Explosives or blasting agents in the course of transportation by way of railroad, water,highway, or air under the jurisdiction of, and in conformity with, regulations adopted by the federal department of transportation the Washington state utilities and transportation commission,and the Washington state patrol, (2)The laboratories of schools,colleges,and sirmlar institutions if confined to the purpose of instruction or research and if not exceeding the quantity of one pound, (3)Explosives in the forms prescribed by the official United States Phamtacopoeia, (4) The transportation, storage, and use of explosives or blasting agents in the normal and emergency operations of «federal->> <<+United States+>> agencies and departments including the regular United States military departments on military reservations«-->><<+, arsenals, navy yards, depots, or other establishments owned by, operated by, or on behalf of, the United States,+>> or the duly authorized militia of any state <<-or temtory,- >><<+,+>> or to emergency operations of any state department or agency, any police, or any muncipality or county, (5) A hazardous devices technician when carrying out normal and emergency operations, handling evidence, and operating and maintaining a specially designed emergency response vehicle that carries no more than ten pounds of explosive material or when conducting training and whose employer possesses the mimmum safety equipment prescribed by the federal bureau of investigation for hazardous devices work For purposes of this section, a hazardous devices technician is a person who is a graduate of the federal bureau of investigation hazardous devices school and who is employed by a state, county, or municipality, (6) The importation, sale, possession, and use of fireworks <<+as defined in chapter 70 77 RCW+>>, signaling devices, flares, fuses, and torpedoes, (7) The transportation, storage, and use of explosives or blasting agents in the normal and emergency avalanche control procedures as conducted by trained and licensed ski area operator personnel However, the storage, transportation, and use of explosives and blasting agents for such use shall meet the requirements of regulations adopted by the director of labor and industries, <<-and->> (8) <<+The storage of consumer fireworks as defined in chapter 70 77 RCW pursuant to a forfeiture or seizure under chapter 70 77 RCW by the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, or his or her deputy, or by state agencies or local governments having general law enforcement authority, and+>> <<+(9)+» Any violation under this chapter if any existing ordinance of any city, municipality, or county is more stringent than this chapter Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 5 See.3.RCW 70 74 400 and 1993 c 293 s 8 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 74 400>> (1) Explosives, improvised devices, and components of explosives and improvised devices that are possessed, manufactured, <<+delivered, imported, exported,+>>stored, sold,purchased, transported, abandoned, detonated, or used<<+,or intended to be used,+>>in violation of a provision of this chapter are subject to seizure and forfeiture by a law enforcement agency and no property right exists in them (2) <<+The law enforcement agency making theseizure shall notify the Washington state department of labor and industries of the seizure+>> <<+(3)+>> Seizure of explosives, improvised devices,and components of explosives and improvised devices under subsection(1)of this section may be made if (a)The seizure is incident to arrest or a search under a search warrant, (b)The explosives, improvised devices, or components have been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the state in an injunction or forfeiture proceeding based upon this chapter, (c)A law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the explosives, improvised devices, or components are directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety, or (d) The law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the explosives, improvised devices, or components were used or were intended to be used in violation of this chapter <<-(3)-»«+(4)+>> A law enforcement agency shall destroy explosives seized under tlus chapter when it is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare When destruction is not necessary to protect the public safety and welfare, and the explosives are not being held for evidence, a seizure pursuant to this section commences proceedings for forfeiture <<-(4)-»«+(5)+>> The law enforcement agency under whose authority the seizure was trade shall issue a written notice of the seizure and commencement of the forfeiture proceedings to the person from whom the explosives were seized, to any known owner of the explosives, and to any person who has a known interest in the explosives The notice shall be issued within fifteen days of the seizure The nonce of seizure and commencement of the forfeiture proceedings shall be served in the same manner as provided in RCW 4 28 080 for service of a summons The law enforcement agency shall provide a form by which the person or persons may request a hearing before the law enforcement agency to contest the seizure <<-(5)-»«+(6)+>> If no person notifies the seizing law enforcement agency in writing of the person's claim of ownership or right to possession of the explosives, improvised devices, or components within thirty days of the date the notice was issued, the seized explosives,devices,or components shall be deemed forfeited <<-(6)->><<+(7)+>> If, within thirty days of the issuance of the notice, any person notifies the seizing law enforcement agency in writing of the person's claim of ownership or right to possession of items seized, the person or persons shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right The hearing shall be before the chief law enforcement or the officer's designee of the seizing agency, except that the person asserting the claim or right may remove the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction if the aggregate value of the items seized is more than five hundred dollars The hearing and any appeal shall be conducted according to chapter 34 05 RCW The seizing law enforcement agency shall bear the burden of proving that the person (a) has no lawful right of ownership or possession and (b) that the items seized were possessed, manufactured, stored, sold, purchased, transported, abandoned, detonated, or used in violation of a provision of this chapter with the person's knowledge or consent Copr Z West 2002 No Claim to Ong US Govt Works 6 <<-(7).>><<+(8)+>> The seizing law enforcement agency shall promptly return the items seized to the claimant upon a determination that the claimant is entitled to possession of the items seized <<-(8)->><<+(9)+>> If the items seized are forfeited under this statute, the <<+seizmg+>> agency shall <<- destroy->><<+dispose of+>>the explosives<<+by summary destruction+>> <<+However, w+>>hen explosives are destroyed either to protect public safety or because the explosives were forfeited, the person from whom the explosives were seized loses all tights of action against the law enforcement agency or its employees acting within the scope of their employment, or other governmental entity or employee involved with the seizure and destruction of explosives <<-(9)->><<+(10)+>>Tlns section is not intended to change the seizure and forfeiture powers, enforcement, and penalties available to the department of labor and industries pursuant to chapter 49 17 RCW as provided in RCW 70 74 390 Sec.4.RCW 70 77 126 and 1995 c 61 s 3 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 126>> "Fireworks" means any composition or device<<-, in a finished state, containing any combustible or explosive substance for the purpose of producing->> <<+designed to produce+>> a visible or audible effect by combustion<<-, explosion->>, deflagration, or detonation, and <<- classified as common->> <<+which meets the definition of articles pyrotechnic or consumer fireworks+>> or<<-special->> <<+display+>> fireworks <<-by the United States bureau of explosives or contained in the regulations of the United States department of transportation and designated as U N 0335 1 3G or U N 0336 1 4G as of April 17, 1995->> Sec.5.RCW 70 77 131 and 1995 c 61 s 4 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 131 >> "<<-Special->> <<+Display+>> fireworks' means <<-any fireworks designed primarily for exhibition display by producing visible or audible effects and classified as such by the United States bureau of explosives or in the regulations of the United States department of transportation and designated as UN 0335 1 3G as of April 17, 1995->><<+large fireworks designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, deflagration,or detonation and includes,but is not linuted to, salutes containing more than 2 grains (130 mg) of explosive materials, aerial shells containing more than 40 grams of pyrotechnic compositions, and other display pieces which exceed the linuts of explosive materials for classification as "consumer fireworks" and are classified as fireworks UN0333, UN0334, or UN0335 by the United States department of transportation at 49 C F R Sec 172 101 as of the effective date of this section,and including fused setpieces containing components which exceed 50 mg of salute powder+>> Sec.6.RCW 70 77 136 and 1995 c 61 s 5 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 136>> "<<-Common->>«+Consumer+>> fireworks' means <<-any fireworks which are designed primarily for retail sale to the public during prescribed dates and which produce visual or audible effects through combustion and are classified as common fireworks by the United States bureau of explosives or in the regulations of the United States department of transportation and designated as U N 0336 1 4G as of April 17, 1995->> <<+any small firework device designed to produce visible effects by combustion and which must comply with the construction, chemical composition, and labeling regulations of the United States consumer product safety commission, as set forth in 16 C F R Parts 1500 and 1507 and including some small devices designed to produce audible effects, such as whistling devices, ground devices containing 50 mg or less of explosive materials, and aerial devices containing 130 mg or less of explosive materials and classified as fireworks UN0336 by the United States department of transportation at 49 C F R Sec 172 101 as of the effective date of this section, and not including fused setpieces containing components which together exceed 50 mg of salute powder+>> Copr 0 West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 7 NEW SECTION Sec. 7.A new section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows "Articles pyrotechnic" means pyrotechnic devices for professional use similar to consumer fireworks in chemical composition and construction but not intended for consumer use which meet the weight limits for consumer fireworks but which are not labeled as such and which are classified as UN0431 or UN0432 by the United States department of transportation at 49 C F R Sec 172 101 as of the effective date of this section Sec.8.RCW 70 77 141 and 1982 c 230 s 4 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 141 >> "Agricultural and wildlife fireworks" includes fireworks devices distributed to farmers, ranchers, and growers through a wildlife management program administered by the United States department of the interior <<+or an equivalent state or local governmental agency+>> Sec.9.RCW 70 77 160 and 1997 c 182 s 1 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 160>> "Public display of fireworks" means an entertainment feature where the public is <<+or could be+>> admitted or allowed to view the display or discharge of<<-special->><<+display+>>fireworks Sec. 10 RCW 70 77 170 and 1995 c 369 s 44 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 170>> "License" means a nontransferable formal authorization which the chief of the Washington state patrol <<-and- »«+, through+>> the director of fire protection <<-are permitted->x<+, is authorized+>> to issue under this chapter to <<+allow a person to+>>engage in the act specifically designated therein Sec. 11.RCW 70 77 175 and 1961 c 228 s 12 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 175 >> "Licensee"means any person<<-holding->><<+issued+>>a fireworks license in conformance with this chapter Sec. 12.RCW 70 77 180 and 1995 c 61 s 9 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 180>> "Pernut" means the official <<-permission->> <<+authorizauon+>> granted by a <<-local public agency->> <<+city or county+>>for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a place within the jurisdiction of the<<-local agency->><<+city or county+>>where fireworks are manufactured, constructed, produced,packaged, stored, sold, or exchanged and the official<<-pemussion->> <<+authorization+>> granted by a«. local agency->><<+city or county+>>for a public display of fireworks NEW SECTION. Sec.13.A new section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows "Pemnttee" means any person issued a fireworks permit in conformance with this chapter Sec. 14.RCW 70 77 205 and 1995 c 61 s I 1 are each amended to read as follows Copr L West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 8 <<WA ST 70 77 205 >> "Manufacturer" includes any person who manufactures, makes, constructs, fabricates, or produces any fireworks article or device but does not include persons who assemble or fabricate sets or mechanical pieces in public displays of fireworks or persons who assemble <<-common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks items or sets or packages containing<<-common->><<+consumer+>>fireworks items Sec. 15.RCW 70 77 210 and 1992 c 230 s 9 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 210 >> "Wholesaler" includes any person who sells fireworks to a retailer or any other person for resale and any person who sells<<-special->><<+display+>>fireworks to public display licensees Sec. 16.RCW 70 77 215 and 1982 c 230 s 10 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 215 >> "Retailer" includes any person who, at a fixed location or place of business, <<+offers for sale,+>> sells<<-, transfers, or gives common->><<+, or exchanges for consideration consumer+»fireworks to a consumer or user Sec. 17 RCW 70 77 230 and 1982 c 230 s 11 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 230>> "Pyrotechnic operator" includes any individual who by experience and training has demonstrated the required skill and ability for safely setting up and discharging<<-public displays of special->><<+display+>>fireworks Sec. 18.RCW 70 77 236 and 1997 c 182 s 4 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 236>> (1) "New fireworks item" means any fireworks initially classified or reclassified as <<-special or common->> <<+articles pyrotechnic, display fireworks, or consumer+>> fireworks by <<-the United States bureau of explosives or in the regulations of->> the United States department of transportation after <<-April 17, 1995->> <<+the effective date of this section, and which comply with the construction, chemical composition, and labeling regulations of the United States consumer products safety commission, 16 C F R,Parts 1500 and 1507+>> (2) The chief of the Washington state patrol<<+,+>> through the director of fire protection<<+,+>> shall classify any new fireworks item in the same manner as the item is classified by<<-the United States bureau of explosives or in the regulations of->> the United States department of transportation<<-, unless->> <<+and the United States consumer product safety commission T+»he chief of the Washington state patrol<<+,+>> through the director of fire protection<<+,may+>>determine<<-s->>, stating reasonable grounds,that the item should not be so classified Sec. 19 RCW 70 77 250 and 1997 c 182 s 5 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70.77.250>> (1)The chief of the Washington state patrol,through the director of fire protection shall enforce and administer this chapter (2)The chief of the Washington state patrol,through the director of fire protection shall appoint such deputies and employees as may be necessary and required to carry out the provisions of this chapter Copr G(' West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 9 (3)The cluef of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall adopt those rules relating to fireworks as are necessary for the implementation of this chapter (4) The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall adopt those rules as are necessary to ensure statewide minimum standards for the enforcement of this chapter Counties<<-,->><<+and+>> cities<<-, and towns->> shall comply with these state rules Any <<-local rules->> <<+ordmances+>> adopted by «-local authorities->> <<+a county or city+>> that are more restrictive than state ]an shall have an effective date no sooner than one year after their adoption. (5) The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, may exercise the necessary police powers to enforce the criminal provisions of this chapter This grant of police powers does not prevent any other state agency<<+and city, county,+>> or local government agency having general law enforcement powers from enforcing tlus chapter within the jurisdiction of the agency<<+and city, county,+>>or local government <<+(6) The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall adopt rules necessary to enforce the civil penalty provisions for the violations of this chapter A civil penalty under this subsection may not exceed one thousand dollars per day for each violation and is subject to the procedural requirements under section 20 of this act+>> <<+(7) The chief of the Washington state patrol,through the director of fire protection, may investigate or cause to be investigated all fires resulting,or suspected of resulting, from the use of fireworks+>> NEW SECTION Sec.20.A new section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows (1) The penalty provided for in RCW 70 77 250(6) shall be imposed by a notice in writing to the person against whom the civil fine is assessed and shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity The notice shall be personally served in the manner of service of a summons in a civil action or in a manner which shows proof of receipt Any penalty imposed by RCW 70 77 250(6) shall become due and payable twenty-eight days after receipt of notice unless application for remission or mitigation is made as provided in subsection(2)of this section or unless application for an adjudicative proceeding is filed as provided in subsection(3) of this section (2) Within fourteen days after the notice is received, the person incurring the penalty may apply in writing to the cluef of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, for the remission or rmtigation of the penalty Upon receipt of the application, the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, may remit or rr tigate the penalty upon whatever teens the cluef of the Washington state patrol,through the director of fire protection, deems proper, giving consideration to the degree of hazard associated with the violation The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, may only grant a remission or mitigation that it deems to be in the best interests of carrying out the purposes of this chapter The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, may ascertain the facts regarding all such applications in a manner it deems proper When an application for remission or mitigation is made, any penalty incurred under RCW 70,77 250(6) becomes due and payable twenty-eight days after receipt of the notice setting forth the disposition of the application, unless an application for an adjudicative proceeding to contest the disposition is filed as provided in subsection(3)of this section (3) Within twenty-eight days after notice is received, the person incurring the penalty may file an application for an adjudicative proceeding and may pursue subsequent review as provided in chapter 34 05 RCW and applicable rules of the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection (4) Any penalty imposed by final order following an adjudicative proceeding becomes due and payable upon service of the final order (5) The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, in the superior court of Thurston county or of any county in which the violator may do business to collect any penalty imposed under this chapter Copr G West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 10 (6) All penalties imposed under this section shall be paid to the state treasury and credited to the fire services trust fund and used as follows At least fifty percent is for a statewide public education campaign developed by the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, and the licensed fireworks industry emphasizing the safe and responsible use of legal fireworks, and the remainder is for statewide efforts to enforce this chapter See.21.RCW 70 77 255 and 1997 c 182 s 6 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 255 >> (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person, without appropriate state licenses and city or county permits as required by this chapter may (a)Manufacture,import,possess,or sell any fireworks at wholesale or retail for any use, (b)Make a public display of fireworks, (c)Transport fireworks, except as<<+a licensee or as+>>a public carrier delivering to a licensee, or (d)Knowingly manufacture, import, transport, store, sell, or possess with intent to sell, as fireworks, explosives, as defined under RCW 70 74 010,that are not fireworks, as defined under this chapter (2) Except as authorized by a license and permit under subsection (1)(b) of this section or as provided in RCW 70 77 311, no person may discharge<<-special->><<+display+>>fireworks at any place (3)No person less than eighteen years of age may apply for or receive a license or permit under this chapter (4) No license or permit is required for the possession or use of<<- common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks lawfully purchased at retail Sec.22.RCW 70 77 270 and 1997 c 182 s 8 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 270>> (1) The governing body of a city or county, or a designee, shall grant an application for a permit under RCW 70 77 260(1) if the application meets the standards under this chapter, and the applicable ordinances of the city or county The permit shall be granted by June 10, or no less than thirty days after receipt of an application whichever date occurs first, for sales commencing on June 28 and on December 27, or by December 10, or no less than thirty days after receipt of an application whichever date occurs first,for sales commencing only on December 27 (2) The cluef of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall prescribe uniform, statewide standards for retail fireworks stands including, but not limited to, the location of the stands, setback requirements and siting of the stands, types of buildings and construction material that may be used for the stands, use of the stands and areas around the stands, cleanup of the area around the stands, transportation of fireworks to and from the stands, and temporary storage of fireworks associated with the retail fireworks stands All cities and counties which allow retail fireworks sales shall comply with these standards (3) No retail fireworks penrut may be issued to any applicant unless the retail fireworks stand is covered by a liability insurance policy with coverage of not less than fifty thousand dollars and five hundred thousand dollars for bodily injury liability for each person and occurrence, respectively, and not less than fifty thousand dollars for property damage liability for each occurrence, unless such insurance is not readily available from at least three approved insurance companies If insurance in this amount is not offered, each fireworks permit shall be covered by a liability insurance policy in the maximum amount offered by at least three different approved insurance companies Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 11 No wholesaler may knowingly sell or supply fireworks to any retail fireworks <<-stand->> <<+hcensee+>>unless the wholesaler determines that the retail fireworks<<-stand->>«+hcensee+>>is covered by liability insurance to the same<<+, or greater,+>>amount as provided in this subsection Sec.23.RCW 70 77 305 and 1995 c 369 s 46 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 305>> The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, has the power to issue licenses for the manufacture, importation, sale, and use of all fireworks in this state<<+, except as provided in RCW 70 77 311 and 70 77 395+>> A person may be licensed as a manufacturer,importer, or wholesaler under this chapter only if the person has a designated agent in this state who is registered with the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection Sec.24 RCW 70 77 311 and 1995 c 61 s 17 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 311 >> (1)No license is required for the purchase of agricultural and wildlife fireworks by government agencies if (a) The agricultural and wildlife fireworks are used for wildlife control or are distributed to farmers, ranchers, or growers through a wildlife management program administered by the United States department of the interior or an equivalent state or local governmental agency, (b)The distribution is in response to a written application describing the wildlife management problem that requires use of the devices, (c)It is of no greater quantity than necessary to control the described problem, and (d) It is hunted to situations where other means of control are unavailable or inadequate (2) No license is required for religious organizations or private organizations or persons to purchase or use <<- common->><<+consumer+>>fireworks and such audible ground devices as firecrackers, salutes,and chasers if (a)Purchased from a licensed manufacturer, importer,or wholesaler, (b)For use on prescribed dates and locations (c)For religious or specific purposes, and (d)A permit is obtained from the local fire official No fee maybe charged for this permit See 25.RCW 70 77 315 and 1997 c 192 s 10 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 315>> Any person who desires to engage in the manufacture, importation, sale, or use of fireworks,except use as provided in RCW 70 77 255(4) <<- and->x<+,+>> 70,77 311, <<+and 70 77 395,+>> shall make a written application to the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, on forms provided by him or her Such application shall be accompanied by the annual license fee as prescribed in this chapter Sec 26.RCW 70 77 330 and 1995 c 369 s 48 are each amended to read as follows Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 12 <<WA ST 70 77 330>> If the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, finds that the granting of such license <<-would->> <<+is+>> not<<-be->> contrary to public safety or welfare, he or she shall issue a license authorizing the applicant to engage in the particular act or acts upon the payment of the license fee specified in this chapter Licensees may transport the class of fireworks for which they hold a valid license See.27.RCW 70 77 335 and 1982 c 230 s 23 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 335>> The authorization to engage in the particular act or acts conferred by a license to a person shall extend to <<- salesmen->><<+sellers, authorized representatives+>>and other employees of such person See 28.RCW 70 77 340 and 1982 c 230 s 24 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 340>> The original and annual license fee shall be as follows Manufacturer $ 500 00 Importer 100 00 Wholesaler 1, 000 00 Retailer (for each separate retail outlet) 10 00 Public display for display fireworks 10 00 Pyrotechnic operator for display fireworks 5 00 Sec. 29.RCW 70 77 343 and 1997 c 182 s 12 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 343 >> (1)License fees, in addition to the fees in RCW 70 77 340,shall be charged as follows Manufacturer $1,500 00 Importer 900 00 Wholesaler 1, 000 00 Retailer (for each separate outlet) 30 00 Public display for display fireworks 40 00 Pyrotechnic operator for display fireworks 5 00 (2) All receipts from the license fees in this section shall be placed in the fire services trust fund and at least seventy-five percent of these receipts shall be used to fund a statewide public education campaign developed by the chief of the Washington state patrol and the licensed fireworks industry emphasizing the safe and responsible use of legal fireworks and the remaining receipts shall be used to fund statewide enforcement efforts against the sale and use of fireworks that are illegal under this chapter Sec.30 RCW 70 77 381 and 1995 c 61 s 27 are each amended to read as follows Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 13 <<WA ST 70 77 381 >> (1) Every wholesaler shall carry liability insurance for each wholesale and retail fireworks outlet it operates in the amount of not less than fifty thousand dollars and five hundred thousand dollars for bodily injury liability for each person and occurrence, respectively, and not less than fifty thousand dollars for property damage liability for each occurrence, unless such insurance is not available from at least three approved insurance companies If insurance in this amount is not offered, each wholesale and retail outlet shall be covered by a liability insurance policy in the maximum amount offered by at least three different approved insurance companies (2) No wholesaler may knowingly sell or supply fireworks to any retail <<- outlet->> <<+licensee+>>unless the wholesaler determines that the retail <<-outlet->> <<+licensee+>> carries liability insurance in the same<<+, or greater,+>>amount as provided in subsection(1)of this section See.31.RCW 70 77 395 and 1995 c 61 s 22 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 395 >> <<+(I)+>>It is legal to sell<<-->> <<+and+>> purchase<<-, use, and discharge common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks within this state from twelve o'clock noon <<+to eleven o'clock p in+>> on the twenty-eighth of June<<+,from nine o'clock a in to eleven o'clock p in on each day from the twenty-ninth of June through the fourth of July, from nine o'clock a in+>>to<<-twelve->>«+nine+>>o'clock<<-noon->><<+p in+>>on the<<-sixth- >><<+fifth+>>of July<<-of each year-»«+, from twelve o'clock noon to eleven o'clock p in on each day from the twenty-seventh of December through the thirty-first of December of each year,+>> and as provided in RCW 70 77 311 <<-However,no common->> <<+(2) Consumer+>> fireworks may be <<-sold->> <<+used+>> or discharged <<+each day+>> between the hours of<<+twelve o'clock noon and+>>eleven o'clock p in <<-and nine o'clock a in->><<+on the twenty-eighth of June and between the hours of nine o'clock a in and eleven o'clock p in on the twenty-ninth of June to the third of July+>>, <<- except->><<+and+>>on July 4th<<-from-»<<+between the hours of+>>nine o'clock a in <<- through->> <<+and+>>twelve o'clock midnight, <<+and between the hours of nine o'clock a in and eleven o'clock p in on July 5th,+>> and <<-except-» from six o'clock p in on December 31st until one o'clock a in on January 1st of the subsequent year- PROVIDED, That a city or county may prohibit the sale or discharge of common fireworks on December 31, 1995, by enacting an ordinance prohibiting such sale or discharge witlun sixty days of April 17, 1995->><<+,and as provided in RCW 70 77 311 +>> <<+(3)A city or county may enact an ordinance within sixty days of the effective date of this act to limit or prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, or use of consumer fireworks on December 27, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and thereafter as provided in RCW 70 77 250(4)+>> Sec 32.RCW 70 77 401 and 1995 c 61 s 7 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 401 >> No fireworks may be sold or offered for sale to the public as <<- common->><<+consumer+>> fireworks which are classified as sky rockets, or missile-type rockets, firecrackers, salutes, or chasers as defined by the United States department of transportation and the federal consumer products safety commission except as provided in RCW 70 77 311 Sec.33.RCW 70 77 405 and 1992 c 230 s 32 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 405 >> Toy paper caps containing not more than twenty-five hundredths grain of explosive compound for each cap and trick or novelty devices not classified as <<-common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks may be sold at all times Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 14 unless prohibited by local ordinance NEW SECTION Sec.34.A new section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows (1) "Permanent storage"means storage of display fireworks at any time and/or storage of consumer fireworks at any time other than the periods allowed under RCW 70 77 420(2)and 70 77 425 and which shall be in compliance with the requirements of chapter 70 74 RCW (2) "Temporary storage" means the storage of consumer fireworks during the periods allowed under RCW 70 77 420(2)and 70 77 425 Sec.35.RCW 70 77 420 and 1997 c 182 s 18 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 420>> (1) It is unlawful for any person to store <<+permanently+>> fireworks of any class without a permit for such <<+permanent+>>storage from the city or county in which the storage is to be made A person proposing to store <<+permanently+>> fireworks shall apply in writing to a city or county at least ten days prior to the date of the proposed«+permanent+>>storage The city or county receiving the application for a<<+permanent+>> storage permit shall investigate whether the character and location of the<<+permanent+>>storage as proposed<<-would- >> <<+ meets the requirements of the zoning, building, and fire codes or+>> constitute<<+s+>> a hazard to property or<<-be->><<+is+>> dangerous to any person Based on the investigation, the city or county may grant or deny the application The city or county may place reasonable conditions on any perut granted (2) For the purposes of this section the temporary storing or keeping of <<- common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks when in conjunction with a valid retail sales license and permit shall comply with RCW 70 77 425 and the standards adopted under RCW 70 77 270(2)and not this section See.36.RCW 70 77 425 and 1984 c 249 s 27 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 425>> It is unlawful for any person to store<<-unsold->><<+permanently+>>stocks of fireworks remaining unsold after the lawful period of sale as provided in the person's permit except in such places of<<+permanent+>> storage as the <<-local fire official->> <<+city or county+>> issuing the permit approves Unsold stocks of<<-common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks remaining after the authorized retail sales period from <<- twelve->> <<+rime+>> o'clock <<-noon-» <<+a m+>> on June 28th to twelve o'clock noon on July <<-6th->> <<+5th+>> shall be returned on or before July 31st of the same year<<+, or remaining after the authorized retail sales period from twelve o'clock noon on December 27th to eleven o'clock p m. on December 31st shall be returned on or before January loth of the subsequent year,+>> to the approved <<+permanent+>> storage facilities of a licensed fireworks wholesaler<<-,->><<+or+>>to a magazine or<<+permanent+>> storage place approved by a local fire official Sec 37.RCW 70 77 435 and 1997 c 182 s 20 are each amended to read as follows WA ST 70 77 435 >> Any fireworks which are illegally sold offered for sale, used, discharged, possessed<<+,+>> or transported in violation of the provisions of this chapter or the rules or regulations of the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, <<-shall be->><<+are+>> subject to seizure by the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, or his or her deputy, or by state agencies or local governments hav mg general law enforcement authority <<-Any fireworks seized by legal process anywhere in the state maybe disposed of by the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, or the agency conducting the seizure,by summary destruction at any time subsequent to thirty days from such seizure or ten days from the final tertrunation of proceedings under the provisions of RCW 70 77 440,whichever is later->> Copr 'C, West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 15 See.38.RCM 70 77 440 and 1997 c 182 s 21 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 440>> (1) In the event of seizure under RCW 70 77 435, proceedings for forfeiture shall be deemed commenced by the seizure The chief of the Waslungton state patrol or a designee, through the director of fire protection or the agency conducting the seizure, under whose authority the seizure was made shall cause notice to be served within fifteen days following the seizure on the owner of the fireworks seized and the person in charge thereof and any person having any known right or interest therein, of the seizure and intended forfeiture of the seized property The notice may be served by any method authorized by law or court rule including but not ]united to service by certified mail with return receipt requested Service by mail shall be deemed complete upon marling within the fifteen-day period following the seizure (2) If no person notifies the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection or the agency conducting the seizure, in writing of the person's claim of lawful ownership or right to lawful possession of seized fireworks within thirty days of the seizure,the seized fireworks shall be deemed forfeited (3) If any person notifies the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection or the agency conducting the seizure, in writing of the person's claim of lawful ownership or possession of the fireworks within thirty days of the seizure, the person or persons shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right The hearing shall be before an admimstrative law judge appointed under chapter 34 12 RCW, except that any person asserting a claim or Tight may remove the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction if the aggregate value of the seized fireworks is more than five hundred dollars The hearing before an administrative law judge and any appeal therefrom shall be under Title 34 RCW In a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved,the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees The burden of producing evidence shall be upon the person claiming to have the lawful right to possession of the seized fireworks The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection or the agency conducting the seizure, shall promptly return the fireworks to the claimant upon a determination by the administrative law judge or court that the claimant is lawfully entitled to possession of the fireworks (4) When fireworks are forfeited under this chapter the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection or the agency conducting the seizure,may (a)Dispose of the fireworks by summary destruction<<+at any time subsequent to thirty days from such seizure or ten days from the final temunation of proceedings under this section, whichever is later+>>, or (b) Sell the forfeited fireworks and chemicals used to make fireworks, that are legal for use and possession under this chapter, to wholesalers or manufacturers, authorized to possess and use such fireworks or cherr cals under a license issued by the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection Sale shall be by public auction after publishing a notice of the date, place, and time of the auction in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the auction is to be held, at least three days before the date of the auction The proceeds of the sale of the seized fireworks under this section may be retained by the agency conducting the seizure and used to offset the costs of seizure and/or storage costs of the seized fireworks The remaining proceeds, if any, shall be deposited in the fire services trust fund and shall be used <<-for the same purposes and in the same percentages as specified in RCW 70 77 343->> <<+as follows At least fifty percent is for a statewide public education campaign developed by the clue£of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, and the licensed fireworks industry emphasizing the safe and responsible use of legal fireworks, and the remainder is for statewide efforts to enforce this chapter+>> Sec.39.RCW 70 77 495 and 1988 c 128 s 11 are each amended to read as follows Copr C West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 16 <<WA ST 70 77 495>> <<-Nothing in tlus chapter shall be construed as pemutting->> <<+It is unlawful for+>> any person to set off fireworks of any kind in forest, fallows, grass or brush covered land, either on his own land or the property of another, between April 15th and December 1st of any year, unless it is done under a written permit from the <<+Washington state+>>department of natural resources or its duly authorized agent, and in strict accordance with the terms of the permit and any other applicable law Sec.40.RCW 70 77 510 and 1984 c 249 s 31 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 5 10>> It is unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, transfer, or agree to sell or transfer any <<-special->> <<+display+>> fireworks to any person who is not a fireworks licensee as provided for by this chapter A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor Sec.41.RCW 70 77 515 and 1984 c 249 s 32 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 515>> <<+(l)+>> It is unlawful for any person to <<+offer for sale,+>> sell <<-or transfer->><<+, or exchange for consideration,+>> any <<- common->> <<+consumer+>> fireworks to a consumer or user other than at a fixed place of business of a retailer for which a license and permit have been issued <<+(2)No licensee may sell any fireworks to any person under the age of sixteen+>> <<+(3)+>>A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor Sec.42.RCW 70 77 517 and 1984 c 249 s 34 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 517>> It is unlawful for any person, except in the course of continuous interstate transportation through any state, to transport fireworks from this state into any other state, or deliver them for transportation into any other state, or attempt so to do, knowing that such fireworks are to be delivered, possessed, stored, transshipped, distributed, sold, or otherwise dealt with in a manner or for a use prohibited by the laws of such other state specifically prolubnmg or regulating the use of fireworks A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor This section does not apply to a common or contract carrier or to international or domestic water carriers engaged in interstate commerce or to the transportation of fireworks into a state for the use of <<- federal->> <<+United States+>>agencies in the carrying out or the furtherance of their operations In the enforcement of this section,the definitions of fireworks contained in the laws of the respective states shall be applied As used in this section, the term"state" includes the several states, territories, and possessions of the United States, and the District of Columbia Sec.43.RCW 70 77 520 and 1984 c 249 s 33 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 520>> It is unlawful for any person to allow any <<-rubbish->> <<+ combustibles+>> to accumulate in any premises in which fireworks are stored or sold or <<+to+>> permit a fire nuisance to exist in such a premises A violation of Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 17 this section is a mrsdemeanor Sec.44.RCW 70 77 535 and 1994 c 133 s 14 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 535 >> <<-This chapter does not prohibrt->> <<+T+»he assembling, compounding, use, and display of <<+articles pyrotechnic or+>> special effects <<-by any person engaged->> in the production of motion pictures, radio or television productions, or live entertainment<<-when such use and display is an integral part of the production and such person->> <<+shall be under the direction and control of a pyrotechnic operator licensed by the state of Washington and who+>>possesses a valid pemut from the<<-local fire official->><<+city or county+>> See.45.RCW 70 77 555 and 1995 c 61 s 26 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 555>> <<+(1)+>> A <<-local public agency->> <<+city or county+>> may provide by ordinance for a fee in an amount sufficient to cover all legitimate costs for all needed permits <<-and local->><<+,+>> licenses<<+, and authorizations+>> from application to and through processing, issuance, and inspection, but in no case to exceed <<+a total of+>>one hundred dollars for any one<<-year->><<+retail sales pemut for any one selling season in a year, whether June 28th through July 5th or December 27th through December 31st, or a total of two hundred dollars for both selling seasons+>> <<+(2)A city or county may provide by ordinance for a fee in an amount sufficient to cover all legitimate costs for all display permits, licenses, and authorizations from application to and through processing, issuance, and inspection, not to exceed actual costs and in no case more than a total of five thousand dollars for any one display permit+>> See 46.RCW 70 77 575 and 1995 c 369 s 57 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 575 (1) The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall adopt by rule a list of the <<+consumer+>> fireworks that may be sold to the public in this state pursuant to this chapter The chief of the Washington state patrol,through the director of fire protection,shall file the list by October 1st of each year with the code reviser for publication,unless the previously published list has remained current (2) The cluef of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall provide the list adopted under subsection (1) of this section by November 1st of each year to all manufacturers, wholesalers, and importers licensed under this chapter,unless the previously distributed list has remained current Sec 47.RCW 70 77 580 and 1995 c 369 s 58 are each amended to read as follows <<WA ST 70 77 580>> Retailers required to be licensed under this chapter shall post prormnently at each retail <<-outlet-» <<+location+>>a list of the <<+consumer+>> fireworks that may be sold to the public in this state pursuant to this chapter The posted list shall be in a form approved by the cluef of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection The chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection, shall make <<+the list+>>available<<-the list->> NEW SECTION Sec 48 A new section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows Civil proceedings to enforce this chapter may be brought in the superior court of Thurston county or the county in which the violation occurred by the attorney general or the attorney of the city or county in which the violation Copr C West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works 18 occurred on his or her own motion or at the request of the chief of the Washington state patrol, through the director of fire protection NEW SECTION Sec.49.Anew section is added to chapter 70 77 RCW to read as follows In addition to criminal penalties, a person who violates this chapter is also liable for a civil penalty and for the costs incurred with enforcing this chapter and bringing the civil action, including court costs and reasonable investigative and attorneys'fees NEW SECTION Sec. 50. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected Approved April 5,2002 Effective June 13,2002 WA LEGIS 370(2002) END OF DOCUMENT Copr © West 2002 No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works • Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PERMANENT NEW YEARS FIREWORKS PROHIBITION ORDINANCE—ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. which amends Ch. 13.05 of the Kent City Code to permanently prohibit the sale,purchase, possession, use and discharge of consumer fireworks from December 27 through December 31 of each year. A recently enacted state law, SSSB 6080, allows fireworks sale and use during this New Year's time period. Cities can,however,prohibit the sale or use during that time period by ordinance. This ordinance clarifies and maintains the existing local law regarding sale and use of fireworks--sale from June 28 to July 4 and discharge on July 4 only--and prohibits either the sale or use during M New Year's period. It also states that it is illegal to sell or use fireworks at any other time of the year. By statute, the ordinance cannot become effective till one year from the date of passage. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and copy of SSSB 6080 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff& Public Safety Committee (7/9/02) (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. 6S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE July 9, 2002 1 SUBJECT Fireworks - Ordinance amending Ch 13 05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, use, or discharge of consumer fireworks from December 27 through December 31 of any year 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: If passed, this ordinance would amend the existing City of Kent fireworks ordinance for conformity with new state law, which permanently prohibits the sale, purchase, possession, use and discharge of consumer fireworks from December 27 through December 31 of each year A recently enacted state law allows fireworks sale and use during this New Year's time period Cities can, however, prohibit the sale or use during that time period by ordinance. This ordinance clarifies and maintains the existing local law regarding sale and use of fireworks--sale from June 28 to July 4 and discharge on July 4 only--and prohibits either the sale or use during any New Year's period It also states that it is illegal to sell or use fireworks at any other time of the year By statute, the ordinance cannot become effective till one year from the date of passage 3 MOTION: To recommend Council adoption of an ordinance to amend Ch 13 05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, use or discharge of consumer fireworks during any New Year's period or any other period other than that specified to the existing code for July 4 4 SPEAKER/TIME: Pat Fitzpatrick/ 10 minutes i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 13 05 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Fireworks," and prohibiting the sale, purchase, possession, use or discharge of consumer fireworks each year from December 27 through 100 a m , January 1, of the subsequent year WHEREAS, effective June 13, 2002, the Legislature enacted new legislation, SSSB 6080, that allows the sale, purchase or possession of consumer fireworks from 12 00 noon on December 27 of any year through December 31 of any year and also allows the use and discharge of consumer fireworks from 6 00 p in on December 31 of any year until 1 00 a in on January 1 of the subsequent year, and WHEREAS, the City's existing local ordinance currently permits the sale, purchase or possession of consumer fireworks only between 12 00 p in to 11 00 p in on June 28`h and from 9 00 a in to 11 00 p in on each day from June 29`h through July 41h of each year, and WHEREAS, the City's existing local ordinance currently allows the use or discharge of consumer fireworks from 9 00 a m to 11 00 p m on July 4 only, and WHEREAS, the City intends to permanently prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, use or discharge of consumer fireworks at any time other than the 1 Fireworks—13.05 Perpetual Decem ber 27—December 31 June 28 to July 4 period described above and specifically intends to clarify that it is rohibiting the sale, purchase or possession of consumer fireworks from 12 00 noon on December 27 through December 31 of each year and prohibiting the use or discharge of onsumer fireworks each year from 6.00 p in on December 31 until 1 00 am on anuary 1 of the subsequent year NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. Amendment Chapter 13 05 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Fireworks," is amended as follows CHAPTER 13.05. FIREWORKS Sec. 13.05.010. Sale and discharge of fireworks. A Sale, Purchase or Possession Except as may be p f&vided ,n RCIAI 70 77 311, o eaiisuRier fir-e ..erks shall be sold within the ......,,,.ipal hfat4s of the eaty e3teept -fFR4N 12 00 wien n the twenty e ,.Mh day of June to 1100 p Fn n the F ui4h day e Elis.i arged at any tifne a ept between the hE)u s of 9 00 a .,.1 11 nn p m n the fbui4h day of r.,,..It is legal to sell or purchase consumer fireworks within this city only during the following times and dates from 12 00 noon to 1100 p in on June 29, and, from 9 00 a in to 11 00 p in on each day from June 29 through July 4 It is legal to possess consumer fireworks within this city from 12 00 noon on June 28 through 11 00 p in on July 4 It shall not be legal to sell, purchase or possess consumer fireworks at any other time, specifically mcludm% without limitation, from December 27 through December 31 B Use and Discharge it shall net be legal to sell, purehase, possess, use a DeeembeF 31, 2002 It is legal to use or discharge consumer fireworks within this city only between the hours of 9 00 a in and 11 00 p in on July 4t1i It shall not be legal to • use or discharge consumer fireworks at any other time specifically including without 2 Fireworks—13 05 Perpetual December 27—December 31 limitation, from 6 00 o in on December 31 of any vear until 1-00 am of the subsequent year Sec. 13.05.020. Local fireworks permits. Application for all local fireworks permits required by the state fireworks law, Chapter 70 77 RCW, shall be made to the fire marshal The fee for such permit shall be established by city council resolution, which amount covers the city's administrative costs for permit processing, issuance, and inspection Pursuant to RCW 70 77 555, this permit fee and the costs for all needed permits and local licenses from application to and through processing, issuance and inspection shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for any one (1) year, except that the fees for display permits will not exceed five thousand ($5,000) for any one permit Sec. 13.05.030. Public display of fireworks. The fire marshal is authorized, pursuant to RCW 70 77 280, to issue a permit for a public display of fireworks After review and investigation of an application for a permit, the fire marshal may grant, deny or grant with reasonable conditions a permit for a public display of fireworks, provided, however, that any such permit shall only be issued for the discharge of fireworks (1) on the fourth of July for fourth of July ceremonies, or (2) for high school homecoming games The issuance of a permit for a public display of fireworks for a time or purpose different than stated herein is not permitted unless approved by the city council following consideration of the review, investigation and recommendation of the fire marshal For purposes of this section, "school" means a state-certified public or private high school Sec. 13.05.040. Reckless discharge or use of fireworks. It is unlawful for any person to discharge or use fireworks in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another 3 Fireworks—13.05 Perpetual December 27—December 31 See. 13.05.050. Penalty. Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13 05 010, 13 05 020, and 13 05 030 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed ninety(90) days and a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ,($1,000) Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13 05 040 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed one (1) year and a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) A person is guilty of a separate offense for each day during which he or she commits, continues or permits a violation of the provisions of this chapter 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. ffLective Date Pursuant to RCW 70 77 250(4), this ordinance is more restrictive than state law and must have an effective date no sooner than one year after its adoption Accordingly, this ordinance shall take effect and be in force one (1) year and one (1) day from and after its passage as provided by law JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 4 Fireworks—13 OS Perpetual December 27—December 31 PASSED: day of 12002 APPROVED day of 12002 PUBLISHED day of 2002 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) BRENDA 7ACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CroWl0,dmmc6FF.wrnks 13 05-Pc muffiNa Ye.Nhibm.070202 din 5 Fireworks—13.05 Perpetual December 27—December 31 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Jim White, Mayor Phone,253-856-5700 Fax 253-856-6700 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S KENT Kent,WA 98032-5895 WASHING70N TO TIM CLARK, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM JIM WHITE, MAYOli DATE JULY 10, 2002 RE APPOINTMENT TO KENT DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD I have appointed Mr Oleg Pynda to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board Mr Pynda is employed as Director of the Ukrainian community center He was born in Ukraine and has been a Kent resident for eleven years Mr Pynda hopes to serve as liaison between Ukrainian Community and the City of Kent He will replace Marya Goy, who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/04 I submit tlus for your confirmation Ib cc Jed Aldridge, Employment Manager i 1 /IWl- Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2002 ORDINANCE AND BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT—ADOPT AND AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council recommended approval of the 2002 (LTGO) Bond Ordinance and authorization for the Mayor's signature on the Bond Purchase Contract with Lehman Brothers. John Hillman, Assistant Finance Director, and Dick King of Lehman Brothers will briefly review the bond issue and interest rates. 3. EXHIBITS: Memos from Finance Director Miller; draft ordinance, and draft purchase contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Bond proceeds 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilm Q)A ember �` -W moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of 2002 (LTGO) Bond Ordinance No 3 land authorization for the Mayor to sign the Bond Purchase Contract with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION: ACTION: li Council Agenda Item No. 7A FINANCE DEPARTMENT May Miller, Director K Phone 253-856-5260 ENT WASHINGTON Fax 253-856-6255 DATE July 8, 2002 TO Mayor White and City Councilmembers FROM May Miller SUBJECT Councilmanic Bonds (LTGO) for 2002-Ordinance and Authorize Mayor to Sign Bond Purchase Contract During the last two months Council has authorized separate Councilmanic (LTGO) bonds for different capital projects for 2002 and authorized the consolidated issuance July 2, 2002 We are requesting approval of the ordinance for the 2002 (LTGO) for$13,600,000 plus debt issuance costs The interest rates remain low and we have combined uses into one issue to save on issuance costs The projects are ready to go and will provide transportation improvements, East Hill park development, technology, campus expansion and renovation, as well as moving the Kent Station Project forward for the public purpose infrastructure and public purpose land costs Bond proceeds are expected by July 30, 2002 Future debt service payments were already anticipated in the 2002 Budget and will come from existing revenue from sales tax set aside for capital and debt service, real estate excise tax, and street utility tax, depending on the capital use No new taxes are needed for the debt payments The technology bonds will be for ten years and the balance of the bonds will be for 20 years We are also requesting approval for the Mayor to sign the bond purchase with Lehman Brothers The city's bond credit rating will be reviewed by July 16 and the final interest rates set the morning of the July 16 Council Meeting Dick King of Lehman Brothers will be at the July 16 Council Meeting to review the bond credit rating and the bond interest rates COUNCIL ACTION Authorize Bond Ordinance for the issuance of$13,600,000, plus issuance costs, of Councimanic(LTGO) bonds for 2002 Authorize Mayor to sign Bond Purchase Contract with Lehman Brothers U\Lois's Fi1es\2002\Council\Councdmemc LTGO Bonds for 2002 doc EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Description Council Approval Tech Plan— 2002 Public Safety System, back bone replacement 5/21/2002 and other technology upgrades Campus City campus expansion/renovation and 6/4/2002 Expansion/Renovation earthquake building reinforcements East Hill Sports Youth Ball Fields and Sports Complex 6/4/2002 Complex Street Improvements Corridors/StreetslTransportation 6/18/2002 Improvements Kent Station Project Repayment to the Water Fund for public 12/12/2002 purpose land and other related costs Street improvements, wiring and other 6/18/2002 infrastructure costs U \Lois's Files\200MounctllCounalmanic LTGO EXHIBIT A doc ` City of Kent, Washington Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002 February 8, 2002 DimiBuTiw LIST Issur.R City of Kent Phone (253)859-3300 Finance Department Fax (253)850-2541 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent,Washington 98032-5895 May Miller,Finance Division Director- Phone (253)856-5260 Email mmiller@ci kent wa us Sohn Hillman,Assistant Finance Director* Phone (253)856-5261 Email Jhillman@ct kent wa us Jim Huntington Finance Department Phone (253)856-5262 Email Jhunhngton@ct kent waus Tom Brubaker,City Attorney Phone (253)856-3340 Email tbrubaker@ci kent wa us BOND COUNSEL Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC Phone (206)447-4400 11 1 1 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Fax (206)447-9700 Seattle,Washington 99101-3299 I,e�' es-£sq• Phone (206)447-8968 Email voorl@foster com Fax (206)749-2025 Tracy Becht Phone (206)447-8936 Email becht@fostcr com Fax (206)749-1905 UNDERWRITER Lehman Brothers Phone (206)344-5870 701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 7101 Fax (206)233-2817 Seattle,Washington 98104-7016 Richard B King- Phone (206)344-5838 Email rkmg@lehman com Sean Keatts Phone (206)344.5881 Email skeatts@lehman com UNDERWRITER'S COUNSEL Perkins Cote LLP Phone (509)624-2212 221 North Wall Street,Suite 600 Fax (509)458-3399 Spokane,Washington 99201-0826 Roy J Koegen,Esq • Phone (509)458-3370 E-mail koegr@perkmscoie com Debbi Yates Phone (509)624-2212 E-mail yated@perkinscoie com 'Send all documents to these individuals p` Chapter 35A 11 RCW LAWS GOVERNING NONCHARTER CODE CITIES AND CHARTER CODE CITIES—POWERS RCW 35A.11.030. Applicability of general law. Powers of ernment domain, borrowing, taxation, and the granting of franchises may be exercised by the legislative bodies of code cities in the manner provided in this title or by the general law of the state where not inconsistent with this title, and the duties to be performed and the procedure to be followed by such cities in regard to the keeping of accounts and records, official bonds, health and safety and other matters not specifically provided for in this title, shall be governed by the general law For the purposes of this title, "the general law" means any provision of state law, not inconsistent with this title, enacted before or after the passage of this title which is by its terms applicable or available to all cities or towns Chapter 35.22 RCW FIRST CLASS CITIES RCW 35.22 280. Specific powers enumerated. Any city of the first class shall have power (1)To provide for general and special elections, for questions to be voted upon,and for the electron of officers, (2)To provide for levying and collecting taxes on real and personal property for its corporate uses and purposes, and to provide for the payment of the debts and expenses of the corporation, (3)To control the finances and property of the corporation and to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, such lands and other property as may be necessary for any part of the corporate uses provided for by its charter, and to dispose of any such property as the interests of the corporation may, from time to time,require, (4)To borrow money for corporate purposes on the credit of the corporation, and to issue negotiable bonds therefor, on such conditions and in such manner as shall be prescribed in its charter; but no city shall,in any manner or for any purpose,become indebted to an amount in the aggregate to exceed the limitation of indebtedness prescribed by chapter 39 36 RCW as now or hereafter amended, (5)To issue bonds in place of or to supply means to meet maturing bonds or other indebtedness,or for the consolidation or funding of the same, (6)To purchase or appropriate private property within or without its corporate limits, for its corporate uses, upon making lust compensation to the owners thereof, and to institute and maintain such proceedings as may be authorized by the general laws of the state for the appropriation of private property for public use, (7)To lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, extend, grade,pave,plank, establish grades, or otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues sidewalks, wharves,parks, and other public grounds, and to regulate and control the use thereof, and to vacate the same, and to authorize or prolubit the use of electricity at, in, or upon any of said streets, or for other purposes,and to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the same may be so used,and to regulate the use thereof, (8)To change the grade of any street, highway, or alley within its corporate limits and to provide for the payment of damages to any abutting owner or owners who shall have built or made other improvements upon such street, highway, or alley at any point opposite to the point where such change shall be made with reference to the grade of such street highway, or alley as the same existed prior to such change, (9)To authorize or prohibit the locating and constructing of any railroad or street railroad in any street, alley, or public place in such city, and to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which any such railroad or street railroad shall be located or constructed,to provide for the alteration, change of grade, or removal thereof, to regulate the moving and operation of railroad and street railroad trams, cars, and locomotives within the corporate limits of said city, and to provide by ordinance for the protection of all persons and property against injury in the use of such railroads or street railroads (10)To provide for making local improvements,and to levy and collect special assessments on property benefited thereby, and for paying for the same or any portion thereof, (11)To acquire,by purchase or otherwise,lands for public parks within or without the hunts of such city, and to improve the same When the language of any instrument by which any property is so acquired limmts the use of said property to park purposes and contains a reservation of interest in favor of the grantor or any other person, and where it is found that the property so acquired is not needed for park purposes and that an exchange thereof for other property to be dedicated for park purposes is in the public interest, the city may, with the consent of the grantor or 1 such other person,his heirs, successors, or assigns, exchange such property for other property to be dedicated for park purposes,and may make,execute,and deliver proper conveyances to effect the exchange In any case where, owing to death or lapse of time, there is neither donor,heir, successor, or assignee to give consent,this consent may be executed by the city and filed for record with an affidavit setting forth all efforts made to locate people entitled to give such consent together with the facts which establish that no consent by such persons is attainable Title to property so conveyed by the city shall vest in the grantee free and clear of any trust in favor of the public arising out of any prior dedication for park purposes,but the right of the public shall be transferred and preserved with like force and effect to the property received by the city in such exchange, (12)To construct and keep in repair bridges, viaducts, and tunnels, and to regulate the use thereof, (13)To determine what work shall be done or improvements made at the expense, in whole or in part,of the owners of the adjoining contiguous, or proximate property, or others specially benefited thereby, and to provide for the manner of making and collecting assessments therefor, (14)To provide for erecting,purchasing, or otherwise acquiring waterworks, within or without the corporate limits of said city,to supply said city and its inhabitants with water, or authorize the construction of same by others when deemed for the best interests of such city and its inhabitants,and to regulate and control the use and price of the water so supplied, (15)To provide for lighting the streets and all public places, and for furnishing the inhabitants thereof with gas or other lights,and to erect, or otherwise acquire,and to maintain the same, or to authorize the erection and maintenance of such works as maybe necessary and convenient therefor, and to regulate and control the use thereof, (16)To establish and regulate markets, and to provide for the weighing,measuring,and inspection of all articles of food and drink offered for sale thereat, or at any other place within its hunts, by proper penalties and to enforce the keeping of proper legal weights and measures by all vendors in such city, and to provide for the inspection thereof Whenever the words "public markets" are used in this chapter,and the public market is managed in whole or in part by a public corporation created by a city the words shall be construed to include all real or personal property located in a district or area designated by a city as a public market and traditionally devoted to providing farmers, crafts vendors and other merchants with retail space to market then wares to the public Property located in such a district or area need not be exclusively or primarily used for such traditional public market retail activities and may include property used for other public purposes including,but not limited to,the provision of human services and low- income or moderate-income housing, (17)To erect and establish hospitals and pesthouses,and to control and regulate the same, (18)To provide for establishing and maintaining reform schools for luvemle offenders, (19)To provide for the establishment and maintenance of public libraries, and to appropriate, annually, such percent of all moneys collected for fines,penalties and licenses as shall be prescribed by its charter, for the support of a city library,which shall,under such regulations as shall be prescribed by ordinance,be open for use by the public, (20)To regulate the burial of the dead, and to establish and regulate cemeteries within or without the corporate hunts, and to acquire land therefor by purchase or otherwise, to cause cemeteries to be removed beyond the hunts of the corporation and to prohibit their establishment within two riles of the boundaries thereof, (21)To direct the location and construction of all buildings in which any trade or occupation offensive to the senses or deleterious to public health or safety shall be carried on,and to regulate the management thereof,and to prohibit the erection or maintenance of such buildings or structures, or the carrying on of such trade or occupation within the limits of such corporation or within the distance of two miles beyond the boundaries thereof, (22)To provide for the prevention and extinguishment of fires and to regulate or prohibit the transportation, keeping, or storage of all combustible or explosive materials within its corporate hauts, and to regulate and restrain the use of fireworks, (23)To establish fire limits and to make all such regulations for the erection and maintenance of buildings or other structures within its corporate Imnts as the safety of persons or property may require, and to cause all such buildings and places as may from any cause be in a dangerous state to be put in safe condition, (24)To regulate the manner in which stone, brick, and other buildings,party walls, and partition fences shall be constructed and maintained, (25)To deepen,widen,dock,cover,wall,alter,or change the channels of waterways and courses, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of all such works as may be required for the accommodation of commerce, including canals, slips,public landing places, wharves, docks, and levees, and to control and regulate the use thereof, (26)To control,regulate, or prohibit the anchorage, moorage, and landing of all watercrafts and their cargoes within the jurisdiction of the corporation, 2 (27)To fix the rates of wharfage and dockage, and to provide for the collection thereof, and to provide for the imposition and collection of such harbor fees as may be consistent with the laws of the United States, (28)To license,regulate,control,or restrain wharf boats,tugs,and other boats used about the harbor or within such jurisdiction, (29)To require the owners of public halls or other buildings to provide suitable means of exit, to provide for the prevention and abatement of nuisances, for the cleaning and purification of watercourses and canals, for the drainage and filling up of ponds on private property within its hunts, when the same shall be offensive to the senses or dangerous to health, to regulate and control, and to prevent and punish,the defilement or pollution of all streams running through or into its corporate limits and for the distance of five miles beyond its corporate limits and on any stream or lake from which the water supply of said city is taken,for a distance of five rniles beyond its source of supply, to provide for the cleaning of areas, vaults, and other places within its corporate limits which may be so kept as to become offensive to the senses or dangerous to health,and to make all such quarantine or other regulations as may be necessary for the preservation of the public health, and to remove all persons afflicted with any infectious or contagious disease to some suitable place to be provided for that purpose, (30)To declare what shall be a nuisance, and to abate the same, and to impose fines upon parties who may create, continue, or suffer nuisances to exist (31)To regulate the selling or giving away of intoxicating,malt,vinous,mixed, or fermented liquors as authorized by the general laws of the state PROVIDED,That no license shall be granted to any person or persons who shall not first comply with the general laws of the state in force at the time the same is granted, (32)To grant licenses for any lawful purpose, and to fix by ordinance the amount to be paid therefor, and to provide for revoking the same PROVIDED,That no license shall be granted to continue for longer than one year from the date thereof, (33)To regulate the carrying on within its corporate limits of all occupations which are of such a nature as to affect the public health or the good order of said city, or to disturb the public peace, and which are not prohibited by law, and to provide for the punishment of all persons violating such regulations, and of all persons who knowingly permit the same to be violated in any building or upon any premises owned or controlled by them, (34)To restrain and provide for the punishment of vagrants,mendicants,prostitutes, and other disorderly persons, (35)To provide for the punishment of all disorderly conduct,and of all practices dangerous to public health or safety, and to make all regulations necessary for the preservation of public morality,health,peace, and good order within its hunts, and to provide for the arrest,trial, and punishment of all persons charged with violating any of the ordinances of said city The punishment shall not exceed a fine of five thousand dollars or imprisonment in the city jail for one year, or both such fine and imprisonment The punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the punishment provided in state law for the same crime Such cities alternatively may provide that violations of ordinances constitute a civil violation subject to monetary penalties,but no act which is a state crime may be made a civil violation, (36)To project or extend its streets over and across any tidelands within its corporate limits,and along or across the harbor areas of such city,in such manner as will best promote the interests of commerce, (37)To provide in their respective charters for a method to propose and adopt amendments thereto [1993 c 83 §4, 1990 c 189 § 3, 1986 c 278 § 3, 1984 c 258 § 802, 1977 ex s c 316 § 20, 1971 ex s c 16 § 1, 1965 ex s c 116 §2, 1965 c 7 § 35 22 280 Prior 1890 p 218 § 5,RRS § 8966 ] Chapter 39.46 RCW BONDS--OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS--REGISTRATION RCW 39.46.010. Purposes--Liberal construction. The purposes of this chapter are to permit the state and local governments to conform with registration requirements of federal law which are necessary to exempt interest payments from federal income taxes when the state or local governments issue bonds or incur other obligations and to authorize the establishment and maintenance of differing systems of registering bonds and other obligations as these systems are developed and recognized, which may be instituted, discontinued, and reinstituted from time to time It is further the purpose of this chapter to grant local governments an alternative flexible authority to structure and sell their bond issues and to include a variety of features on their bonds This act shall be liberally construed to effect its purposes 3 RCW 39 46.020 Definitions Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter (1) 'Bond" means any agreement which may or may not be represented by a physical instrument, including notes, warrants, or certificates of indebtedness, that evidences an indebtedness of the state or a local government or a fund thereof, where the state or local government agrees to pay a specified amount of money, with or without interest,at a designated time or times to either registered owners or bearers,including debt issued under chapter 39 50 RCW (2) "Local government" means any county, city, town, special purpose distract, political subdivision, municipal corporation, or quasi municipal corporation, including any public corporation created by such an entity (3)"Obligation" means an agreement that evidences an indebtedness of the state or a local government, other than a bond,and includes,but is not limited to, conditional sales contracts, lease obligations, and prormssory notes (4) "State" includes the state, agencies of the state, and public corporations created by the state or agencies of the state (5) "Treasurer" means the state treasurer, county treasurer, city treasurer, or treasurer of any other municipal corporation [2001 c 299 § 15, 1995 c 38 § 6, 1994 c 301 § 10, 1983 c 167 § 2] RCW 39.46.030. Registration system authorized--Requirements—Fiscal agencies, agents (1)The state and local governments are authorized to establish a system of registering the ownership of their bonds or other obligations as to principal and interest, or principal only Registration may include, without limitation (a)A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond or other obligation whether or not a physical instrument is issued,or(b)recording the ownership of a bond or other obligation together with the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond or other obligation and either the reissuance of the old bond or other obligation or the issuance of a new bond or other obligation to the new owner (2) The system of registration shall define the method or methods by which transfer of the registered bonds or other obligations shall be effective, and by which payment of principal and any interest shall be made The system of registration may permit the issuance of bonds or other obligations in any denomination to represent several registered bonds or other obligations of smaller denominations The system of registration may also provide for any writing relating to a bond or other obligation that is not issued as a physical instrument, for identifying numbers or other designations, for a sufficient supply of certificates for subsequent transfers, for record and payment dates, for varying denominations, for communications to the owners of bonds or other obligations, for accounting, canceled certificate destruction, registration and release of securing interests, and for such other incidental matters pertauung to the registration of bonds or other obligations as the issuer may deem to be necessary or appropriate (3)(a) The state treasurer or a local treasurer may appoint(1) one or more of the fiscal agencies appointed from time to time by the state finance committee in accordance with chapter 43 80 RCW or (u) other fiscal agents to act with respect to an issue of its bonds or other obligations as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, and paying or other agent and specify the rights and duties and means of compensation of any such fiscal agency so acting The state treasurer or local treasurers may also enter into agreements with the fiscal agency or agencies in connection with the establishment and maintenance by such fiscal agency or agencies of a central depository system for the transfer or pledge of bonds or other obligations (b) The county treasurer as ex officio treasurer of a special district shall act as fiscal agent for such special district, unless the county treasurer appoints either one or more of the fiscal agencies appointed from time to time by the state finance committee in accordance with chapter 43 80 RCW or other fiscal agents selected in a manner consistent with RCW 43 80 120 to act with respect to an issue of its bonds or other obligations as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, and paying or other agent and specify the rights and duties and means of compensation of any such fiscal agency (4) Nothing in this section precludes the issuer, or a trustee appointed by the issuer pursuant to any other provision of law, from itself performing, either alone or jointly with other issuers, fiscal agencies, or trustees, any transfer, registration, authentication,payment, or other function described in this section [1995 c 38 § 7, 1994 c 301 § 11, 1985 c 84 § 1, 1983 c 167 § 3 ] RCW 39 46.040, Bonds--Issuer to determine amount, terms,conditions,interest,etc. A local government authorized to issue bonds shall determine for the bond issue its amount, date or dates, terms not in excess of the maximum term otherwise provided in law, conditions bond denonunations, interest rate or rates, which may be fixed or variable, interest payment dates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration 4 privileges, manner of execution, price, manner of sale, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer Registration may be as provided in RCW 39 46 030 RCW 39.46.050. Bonds—Issuer authorized to establish lines of credit. Each local government authorized to issue bonds is authorized to establish Imes of credit with any qualified public depository to be drawn upon in exchange for its bonds or other obligations, to delegate to its fiscal officer authority to determine the amount of credit extended, and to pay interest and other finance or service charges The interest rates on such bonds or other obligations may be a fixed rate or rates set periodically or a variable rate or rates determined by agreement of the parties RCW 39.46.060. Bonds--Reproduction of physical instrument. Where bonds are issued by the state or a local government as physical instruments, the bonds shall be printed, engraved, lithographed, typed, or reproduced and the manual or facsimile signatures of both a designated officer and chairperson of the governing body or chief executive shall be included on each bond RCW 39.46 070. Bonds--Payment of costs of issuance and sale. The proceeds of any bonds issued by the state or a local government may be used to pay incidental costs and costs related to the sale and issuance of the bonds Such costs include payments for fiscal and legal expenses, obtaining bond ratings, printing, engraving, advertising, establishing and funding reserve accounts and other accounts, an amount for working capital, capitalized interest for up to six months, necessary and related engineering, architectural,planning,and inspection costs,and other similar activities or purposes. RCW 39 46.100. RCW 39 46 010 through 39.46 070 constitutes alternative method. RCW 39 46 010 through 39 46 070 shall be deemed to provide a complete, additional, and alternative method for the performance of those subjects authorized by these sections and shall be regarded as supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other state laws Whenever bonds and other obligations are issued and sold in conformance with RCW 39 46 010 through 39 46 070, such issuance and sale need not comply with contrary requirements of other state laws applicable to the issuance and sale of bonds or other obligations [1983c167 § 8] RCW 39A6.110. Local government general obligation bonds— Indebtedness— Payment-- Notice by special district (1) General obligation bonds of local governments shall be subject to this section Unless otherwise stated in law, the maximum term of any general obligation bond issue shall be forty years (2) General obligation bonds constitute an indebtedness of the local government issuing the bonds that are subject to the indebtedness limitations provided in Article YIII, section 6 of the state Constitution and are payable from tax revenues of the local government and such other money lawfully available and pledged or provided by the governing body of the local government for that purpose Such governing body may pledge the full faith, credit and resources of the local government for the payment of general obligation bonds The payment of such bonds shall be enforceable in mandamus against the local government and its officials The officials now or hereafter charged by law,with the duty of levying taxes pledged for the payment of general obligation bonds and interest thereon shall, in the manner provided by law, make an annual levy of such taxes sufficient together with other moneys lawfully available and pledge [pledged] therefor to meet the payments of principal and interest on the bonds as they come due (3) General obligation bonds, whether or not issued as physical instruments, shall be executed in the manner determined by the governing body or legislative body of the issuer If the issuer is the county or a special district for which the county treasurer is the treasurer, the issuer shall notify the county treasurer at least thirty days in advance of authorizing the issuance of bonds or the incurrence of other certificates of indebtedness (4)Unless another stature specifically provides otherwise, the owner of a general obligation bond, or the owner of an interest coupon, issued by a local government shall not have any claim against the state arising from the general obligation bond or interest coupon (5) As used in this section, the term "local government" means every unit of local government, including municipal corporations, quasi municipal corporations, and political subdivisions, where property ownership is not a prerequisite to vote in the local government's elections [1998 c 106 § 7, 1995 c 38 § 8, 1994 c 301 § 12, 1984 c 186 § 2] 5 RCW 39 46.110. Local government general obligation bonds — Indebtedness — Payment — Notice by special district. (1) General obligation bonds of local governments shall be subject to this section Unless otherwise stated in law, the maximum term of any general obligation bond issue shall be forty years (2) General obligation bonds constitute an indebtedness of the local government issuing the bonds that are subject to the indebtedness limitations provided in Article VIII, section 6 of the state Constitution and are payable from tax revenues of the local government and such other money lawfully available and pledged or provided by the governing body of the local government for that purpose Such governing body may pledge the full faith, credit and resources of the local government for the payment of general obligation bonds The payment of such bonds shall be enforceable in mandamus against the local government and its officials The officials now or hereafter charged by law with the duty of levying taxes pledged for the payment of general obligation bonds and interest thereon shall, in the manner provided by law, make an annual levy of such taxes sufficient together with other moneys lawfully available and pledge [pledged] therefor to meet the payments of principal and interest on the bonds as they come due (3) General obligation bonds, whether or not issued as physical instruments, shall be executed in the manner determined by the governing body or legislative body of the issuer If the issuer is the county or a special district for which the county treasurer is the treasurer, the issuer shall notify the county treasurer at least thirty days in advance of authorizing the issuance of bonds or the incurrence of other certificates of indebtedness (4)Unless another statute specifically provides otherwise,the owner of a general obligation bond, or the owner of an interest coupon, issued by a local government shall not have any claim against the state arising from the general obligation bond or interest coupon (5)As used in this section, the term "local goverment" means every unit of local government, including municipal corporations, quasi municipal corporations, and political subdivisions, where property ownership is not a prerequisite to vote in the local government's electrons [1998c106 § 7, 1995c38 § 8, 1994c301 § 12, 1984c186 § 2 ] RCW 39.46.120. Notice of intent to sell general obligation bonds. Notice of intent to sell general obligation bonds at a public sale shall be provided in a reasonable manner as determined by the legislative authority or governing body of the issuer RCW 39.46.150. Revenue bonds--Alternative method of issuance--Limitations. (I)Any local government authorized to issue revenue bonds may issue revenue bonds under this section and RCW 39 46 160 If a local government chooses to issue revenue bonds under this section and RCW 39 46 160, the issue shall be subject to the limitations and restrictions of these sections The authority to issue revenue bonds under this section and RCW 39 46 160 is supplementary and in addition to any authority otherwise existing The maximum term of any revenue bonds shall be forty years unless another statute authorizing the local government to issue revenue bonds provides for a different maximum term, in which event the local government may issue revenue bonds only with terms not in excess of such different maximum term (2) The governing body of a local government issuing revenue bonds shall create a special fund or funds, or use an existing special fund or funds, exclusively from which, along with reserve funds which may be created by the governing body, the principal and interest on such revenue bonds shall be payable These reserve funds include those authorized to be created by RCW 39 46 160 Subject to the limitations contained in this section, the governing body of a local government may provide such covenants as it may deem necessary to secure the payment of the principal of and interest on revenue bonds, and premium on revenue bonds, if any Such covenants may include, but are not limited to, depositing certain revenues into a special fund or funds as provided in subsection (3) of this section, establishing, maintaining, and collecting fees, rates, charges, tariffs, or rentals, on facilities and services, the income of which is pledged for the payment of such bonds operating, maintaining, managing, accounting, and auditing the local government, appointing trustees, depositaries, and paying agents, and any and all matters of like or different character, which affect the security or protection of the revenue bonds (3) The governing body may obligate the local government to set aside and pay into a special fund or funds created under subsection (2) of this section a proportion or a fixed amount of the revenues from the following (a) The public improvements, projects, or facilities that are financed by the revenue bonds, or (b) the public utility or system, or an addition or extension to the public utility or system, where the improvements, projects, or facilities 6 financed by the revenue bonds are a portion of the public utility or system, or (c) all the revenues of the local government, or (d) any other money legally available for such purposes As used in tlus subsection, the term "revenues" includes the operating revenues of a local government that result from fees, rates, charges, tariffs, or rentals imposed upon the use or availability or benefit from projects, facilities, or utilities owned or operated by the local government and from related services provided by the local government and other revenues legally available to be pledged to secure the revenue bonds The proportion or fixed amount of revenue so obligated shall be a lien and charge against these revenues, subject only to maintenance and operating expenses The governing body shall have due regard for the cost of maintenance and operation of the public utility, system, improvement, project, facility, addition, or extension that generates revenues obligated to be placed into the special fund or funds from which the revenue bonds are payable, and shall not set aside into the special fund or funds a greater amount or proportion of the revenues that in its judgment will be available over and above such cost of maintenance and operation and the proportion or fixed amount, if any, of the revenue so previously pledged Other revenues, including tax revenues, lawfully available for maintenance or operation of revenue generating facilities may be used for maintenance and operation purposes even though the facilities are acquired, constructed, expanded, replaced, or repaired with moneys arising from the sale of revenue bonds However, the use of these other revenues for maintenance and operation purposes shall not be deemed to directly or indirectly guarantee the revenue bonds or create a general obligation The obligation to maintain and impose fees, rates, charges, tariffs, or rentals at levels sufficient to finance maintenance and operations shall remain if the other revenues available for such purposes diminish or cease The governing body may also provide that revenue bonds payable out of the same source or sources of revenue may later be issued on a parity with any revenue bonds being issued and sold (4) A revenue bond issued by a local government shall not constitute an obligation of the state, either general or special, nor a general obligation of the local government issuing the bond, but is a special obligation of the local government issuing the bond, and the interest and principal on the bond shall only be payable from the special fund or funds established pursuant to subsection(2) of this section,the revenues lawfully pledged to the special fund or funds, and any lawfully created reserve funds The owner of a revenue bond shall not have any claim for the payment thereof against the local government arising from the revenue bond except for payment from the special fund or funds, the revenues lawfully pledged to the special fund or funds, and any lawfully created reserve funds The owner of a revenue bond issued by a local government shall not have any claim against the state arising from the revenue bond Tax revenues shall not be used directly or indirectly to secure or guarantee the payment of the principal of or interest on revenue bonds [(5)3 The substance of the limitations included in this subsection shall be plainly printed, written, engraved, or reproduced on (a) Each revenue bond that is a physical instrument, (b) the official notice of sale, and (c) each official statement associated with the bonds (6)The authority to create a fund shall include the authority to create accounts within a fund (7) Local governments issuing revenue bonds payable from revenues derived from projects, facilities, or utilities, shall covenant to maintain and keep these projects,facilities, or utilities in proper operating condition for their useful life (1986 c 168 § 1 ] RCW 39.46.160 Revenue bonds--Alternative method of issuance--Bonds may include reserve funds. Any local government issuing revenue bonds under this section and RCW 39 46 150 may include in the amount of any such issue money for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, or increasing reserve funds to (1)Secure the payment of the principal of and interest on such revenue bonds,or (2)Provide for replacements or renewals of or repairs or betterments to revenue producing facilities, or (3)Provide for contingencies, including, but not limited to, loss of revenue caused by such contingencies [1986c168 § 2 ] 7 j l DRAFT DATED 6/24102 I I i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness, providing for the issuance of [S13,600,000] par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds,2002, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to finance a variety of capital projects and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds, fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds, [providing for bona insurance], establishing a bond redemption fund and a projects fund, and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Inc of Seattle, Washington PASSED NLY 16, 2002 This document prepared by Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 5032852602 LTGO Bonds, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION] Definitions 2 � SECTION Debt Capacity 2 SECTION 3 Authorization and Purposes of Bonds 3 SECTION Description of Bonds 4 SECTION 5 Registration and Transfer of Bonds 4 SECTION Payment of Bonds 6 SECTION 7 Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds 6 SECTION 8 Notice of Redemption 8 SECTION 9 Failure To Redeem Bonds 8 SECTION 10 Pledge of Taxes 9 SECTION 11 Form and Execution of Bonds 9 SECTION 12 Bond Registrar 10 SECTION 13 Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds 11 SECTION 14 Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds I SECTION 15 Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds 12 SECTION 16 Approval of Bond Purchase Contract 13 SECTION 17 Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final 14 SECTION 18 Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure 14 SECTION 19 Bond Insurance 17 SECTION 20 Severability 17 I SECTION21 Effective Date 18 5032952602 LTGO Bonds, 2002 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness, providing for the issuance of [$13,600,000] par value of I Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds,2002, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to finance a variety of capital projects and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds, fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds, [providing for bond insurance], establishing a bond redemption fund and a projects fund, and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington WHEREAS, the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), is in need of financing various capital projects which are more particularly described in Exhibit A to this ordinance, the estimated cost of which is [$13,600,000], and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the cost, and [WHEREAS, of (`Bond Insurer"),has made a commitment to issue an insurance policy(the"Municipal Bond Insurance Policy") insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as provided therein,and the City Council of the City deems that the purchase of the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy is in the best interest of the City, and] WHEREAS,Lehman Brothers Inc of Seattle, Washington, has offered to purchase the bonds authorized herein under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in the form of a bond purchase contract, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS 5032852602 1 LTGO Bonds, 2002 SECTION I -Definition As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings- "Bond Fund"means the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2002, created li by this ordinance for the payment of the Bonds "Bond Insurer"means of "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar contairung the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the pnncipal amount and number of Bonds held by each owner "Bond Registrar"means collectively,the fiscal agent and co-fiscal agent of the State of Waslungton, as the same maybe designated from time to time "Bonds"means the f S 13,600,000] par value Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002, of the City issued pursuant to and for the purposes provided in this ordinance "City"means the City of Kent,Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington "Code"means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder "DTC"means The Depository Trust Company,New York, New York "Finance Director"means the Finance Director of the City "Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated March 16, 1999,between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, "Municipal Bond Insurance Policy"means the policy issued by the Bond Insurer insuring the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds "Projects"means the capital projects as identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by tlus reference made a part hereof SECTION2 - Debt Capacity The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 2002 is $7,582,349,300, and the City as of Apnl 30, 2002, has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by limited tax general obligation bonds, loans, leases and conditional sales contracts in the pnncipal amount of$76,452,874 incurred ]0328526O] 2 LTGO Bonds, 2002 within the limit of up to 1-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of$8,940,000 incurred within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City for capital purposes only issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City, and the amount of indebtedness for which bonds are authorized herein to be issued is [$13,600,000] SECTIONS - Authorization and Purposes of Bonds The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing that indebtedness in the amount of [$13,600,000] for general City purposes to provide the funds to finance part of the costs of the Projects and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds(the"costs of issuance") The general indebtedness to be incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein The City shall issue the bonds in the manner described in this ordinance and spend the proceeds thereof to pay or reimburse costs of the Projects The costs of all necessary architectural, engineering, legal and other consulting services, inspection and testing, administrative and relocation expenses, interim interest expenses, site acquisition or improvement, demolition, on and off-site utilities, related improvements and all other costs incurred in connection with the making or acquiring of the improvements constituting the Projects shall be deemed a part thereof The Projects shall include all necessary furniture, equipment and appurtenances The City Council shall determine the application of available money between the various parts or elements of the Projects so as to accomplish, as near as may be, all improvements and acquisitions described The City Council also shall determine as appropriate the exact order, features, extent and specifications for the Projects, 5016516 02 3 LTGO Bonds, 2002 If the City Council shall determine in its discretion that it has become impractical to accomplish any of such improvements and acquisitions or portions thereof by reason of state or local circumstances, including, but not limited to, changed conditions III or needs, regulatory considerations, incompatible development or costs substantially in excess of those estimated, the City shall not be required to accomplish such improvements and acquisitions and may apply the bond proceeds or any portion thereof to other portions of the improvements and acquisitions, to other proper purposes as the City Council may I' direct, or to payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds SECTION 4 -Description ofBonds The Bonds shall be to the aggregate principal amount of [$13,600,000], shall be dated July 30, 2002; shall be in the denomination of$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity, shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification, shall bear interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months)payable semiannually on each June 1 and December 1, commencing December 1, 2002, to the maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds, and shall mature on December 1 in years and amounts and bear interest at the rates per annum as follows Maturity Interest Years Amounts Rates [insert schedule] The term of the Bonds allocated to the various Projects does not exceed the expected lives of the Projects to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds SECTION 5 - Registration and Transfer of Bonds The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on the Bond Register The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner 5032852602 4 LTGO Bonds, 2002 Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same I interest rate and maturity Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date The Bonds initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co , as the nominee of DTC The Bonds so registered shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC as depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to DTC participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees with respect to the Bonds regarding accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or DTC participants of any amount in respect of principal of or interest on the Bonds, or any notice which is permitted or required to be given to registered owners hereunder(except such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to DTC) For as long as any Bonds are held in fully immobilized form, DTC, its 'nominee or its successor depository shall be deemed to be the registered owner for all purposes hereunder and all references to registered owners,bondowners,bondholders or the like shall mean DTC or its nominee and shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interests in the Bonds Registered ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof,may not thereafter be transferred except (1) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, if that successor snall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, (n) to any substitute depository appointed by the City or such substitute depository's successor, or (ill) to any person if the Bonds are no longer held in immobilized form Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor(or any substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or a determination by the City that it no 5032852602 5 LTCO Bonds, 2002 longer wishes to continue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor • (or any substitute depository or its successor), the City may appomt a substitute depository Any such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the 'services proposed to be provided by it If(i)DTC or its successor(or substitute depository or its successor)resigns from its functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained, or(n) the City determines that the Bonds are to be in certificated form, the ownership of Bonds may be transferred to any person as provided herein and the Bonds no longer shall be held in fully immobilized form i SECTION 6. - Payment of Bonds Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15"day of the month preceding the interest payment date Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the registered owners Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be made in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations �I SECTION 7 - Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of ,bonds Bonds maturing in the years (2002] through 2012, inclusive, shall be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem those Bonds prior to their stated maturity dates The City reserves the right and option to redeem the Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2013,prior to their stated maturity dates at any time on or after December 1, i 2012, as a whole or in part (within one or more maturities selected by the City and randomly within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine), [at the following prices (expressed as a percentage of par),] [at par] plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption 5032852602 6 LTGO Bonds, 2002 Redemption Dates Redemption Prices [insert redemption schedule] Bonds maturing in are Term Bonds and, if not redeemed under Ithe optional redemption provisions set forth above or purchased in the open market under 'the provisions set forth below, shall be called for redemption randomly(in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine)at par plus accrued interest on December 1 in years ,and amounts as follows Mandatory Mandatory Redemption Redemption Years Amounts [insert schedule] If the City shall redeem Term Bonds under the optional redemption provisions set forth above or purchase Term Bonds in the open market as set forth below, the par amount of the Term Bonds so redeemed or purchased (irrespective of their actual redemption or purchase prices) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory 'redemption amounts for those Term Bonds (as allocated by the City)beginning not earlier than 60 days after the date of the optional redemption or purchase, and the City shall promptly notify the Bond Registrar in writing of the manner in which the credit for the Term Bonds so redeemed or purchased has been allocated Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, maybe redeemed If less than all of the principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered owner) of the same maturity and pnterest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed 50328526 02 7 LTGO Bonds, 2002 The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. I� All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be canceled Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name o£DTC or its nominee, selection of Bonds for redemption shall be in accordance with the Letter of Representations SECTION 8 -Notice of Redemption The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail,postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the registered owner of any Bond Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call In addition, the redemption notice shall be marled within the same period, postage prepaid, to Moody's Investors Service, hie , and Standard & Poor's at their offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to Lehman Brothers Inc at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, [to the Bond Insurer at its principal office in or its successor,] to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine,but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee,notice of redemption shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations SECTION 9 -Failure To Redeem Bonds If any Bond is not redeemed ! when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay 5052952602 p O LTGO Bonds, 2002 interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or fall date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the bond redemption fund hereinafter created and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds �I SECTION 10 - Pledze of Taxes For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to include in its budget and levy taxes annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a-,ote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and the full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest SECTION H -Form and Execution ofBonds The Bonds shall be printed or lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law and shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon Only Bonds hearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance 5032852602 9 LTGO Bonds, 2002 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002, described in the Bond Ordinance WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENT, Bond Registrar By Authorized Signer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds SECTION 12, -Bond Registrar The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds,which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City,to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations 5032B52602 10 LTGO Bonds, 2002 j The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners, SECTION 13 -Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes The City also covenants that it will,to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Code, is applicable to the Bonds,take all actions necessary to comply(or to be treated as having complied)with that requirement in connection with the Bonds,including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon SECTION 14. - Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or use money available from any other lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds,or any portion thereof included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then-outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the"defeased Bonds") and to pay the costs of the refunding or defeasance If money 1 and/or direct obligations of the United States of America maturing at a time or times and hearing interest in amounts(together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and 503295M 02 11 LTGO Bonds, 2002 retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside jin a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption, retirement or defeasance of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the"trust account'), then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this I ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account The City shall include in the refunding or defeasance plan such provisions as the City deems necessary for the random selection of any defeased Bonds that constitute less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds, for notice of the defeasance to be given to the owners of the defeased Bonds and to such other persons as the City shall determine, and for any required replacement of Bond certificates for defeased Bonds The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money to any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine I� If the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, notice of any defeasance of Bonds shall be given to DTC in the manner prescribed in the Letter of Representations for notices of redemption of Bonds Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, if the principal of and/or interest due on the Bonds is paid by the Bond Insurer pursuant to the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, the Bonds shall be treated as remaining outstanding for all purposes and shall not be considered paid by the City, and the covenants, agreements and other obligations of the City to the registered owners of the Bonds shall continue to exist, and the Bond Insurer shall be subrogated to the rights of the registered owners SECTION 15 - Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds The Bond Fund is created and established in the office of the Finance Director as a special fund designated as the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2002, for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on [and any redemption premium] on the Bonds Accrued 50]38526 @ 12 LTGO Bonds, 2002 interest on the Bonds, if any,received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Bond Fund All taxes and other funds collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund. There also is created and established in the office of the Finance Director f a special fund designated as the 2002 LTGO Projects Fund (the "Projects Fund") The I principal proceeds and net original issue premium, if any, received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Projects Fund and used to pay the costs of the Projects and costs of issuance of the Bonds. Until needed to pay those costs,the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings maybe retained in the Projects Fund and be spent for the purposes of that fund except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be withdrawn from the Projects Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes SECTION 16. -Approval of Bond Purchase Contract Lehman Brothers Inc of Seattle, Washington, has resented a purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase g P Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, ' Washington,regarding the Bonds The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof 50336526 01 13 LTGO Bonds, 2002 SECTION 17 -Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final The City Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated I 2002 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds For the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser's i I'compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), the City "deems final" that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters SECTION 18 - Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure To meet ,the requirements of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the "City makes the following written undertaking (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Bonds- (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice ofMatenal Events The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent (i) To each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") and to a state information depository, if any, established in the State of Washington(the"SID") annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection of this section ("annual financial information"), (n) To each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"),and to the SID, timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material (1)principal and interest payment delinquencies, (2)non- payment related defaults, (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties, (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties, (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform, (6)adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, (8) Bond calls 5032852602 14 LTGO Bonds, 2002 (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), (9) defeasances, (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, and (11)rating changes, and (ui) To each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID, timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date specified in subsection(b) of this section (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in subsection(a) of this section (1) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared(except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with applicable generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board ("GASB"), as such principles may be changed from time to time, wluch statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided, (2) a statement of the City's general obligation debt service requirements, and (3) an update of the information set forth in tables [1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 81 of the Official Statement for the Bonds, (11) Shall be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID,not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 and (ni) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a"final official statement"with respect to other obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB, (c) Amendment of Undertakine The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker,dealer,municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule 5C3295 b 02 15 LTGO Bonds, 2002 The City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided (d) Beneficiaries The Undertaking evidenced by this section shall inure to the benefit of the City and any holder of Bonds, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person (e) Termination of Undertaking The City's obligations under j this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds In addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination tc each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID i (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary,including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking The Finance Director (or such other officer of the City who may in the future perform the duties of that office) or his or her designee is authorized and directed in his or her discretion to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of the City in respect of the Bonds set forth in this section and in accordance with the Rule,including, without limitation, the following actions (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided, (u) Determining whether any event specified in subsection(a)has occurred, assessing its materiality with respect to 50328526 02 16 LTGO Bonds, 2002 the Bonds, and,if material,preparing and disseminating notice of its occurrence, (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an"obligated person"within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of material events for that person in accordance with the Rule, (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants,including but not Inrnted to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking, and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking SECTION 19 - Band Insurance The City Council finds that it is in the City's best interest to purchase, and that a savings will result from purchasing, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy for the Bonds [insert required insurance language when bond insurer is selected] I� SECTION 20 - 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 5032852602 17 LTGO Bonds, 2002 I SECTION 21- - Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five(5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law I JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST �I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM- TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 12002 APPROVED day of 12002 PUBLISHED _day of 2002. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the l City of Kent as hereon indicated (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 503284602 18 LTGO Bonds, 2002 EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pro ect Description Council A royal Tech Plan H Public Safety System, back bone 5/21/2002 replacement and other technology upgrades Campus City campus expansion/renovation 6/4l2002 Expansion/Renovation and earthquake building reinforcements East Hill Sports Complex Youth Ball Fields and Sports 6/4/2002 Complex Street Improvements Comdors/streets/transportation 6/18/2002 improvements Kent Station Project Repayment to the Water Fund for 12/12/2002 public purpose land and other related costs Street improvements, wiring and 6/18/2002 other infrastructure costs 1 j it it fl II I I� 5032852602 A-1 LTGO Bonds, 2000 FIRST DRAFT - 7/8/02 131 PM CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds $ Series 20002A (AMT) $ Series 20002B (NON-AMT) BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT City of Kent 12002 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Ladies and Gentlemen. The undersigned, Lehman Brothers Inc (the "Underwriter") hereby offers to enter into this Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") with the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), which upon the City's acceptance hereof will be binding upon the City and the Underwriter This offer is made subject to the City's acceptance by execution of this Bond Purchase Agreement and its delivery to the Underwriter on or before 5 00 P M , Seattle Time, on 2002, and, if not so accepted, will be subject to withdrawal by the Underwriter upon written notice delivered by the Underwriter to the City at any time prior to the acceptance hereof by the City All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be as defined in Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City on 2002 (the "Ordinance") and the Official Statement(as hereinafter defined) 1. Purchase and Sale Subject to the terms and conditions and upon the basis of the representations,warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth,the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the City for offering to the public, and the City hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter for such purpose, all (but not less than all) of the City's $ principal amount of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002A (AMT) (the "Series 2002A Bonds") and $ principal amount of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002B (NON-AMT) (the "Series 2002B Bonds" and, together with the Series 2002A Bonds, the "Bonds") The Bonds shall be dated their date of delivery, shall have the maturities, shall bear interest at the rates and shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, such interest being payable commencing December 1, 2002, and semiannually thereafter on each June 1 and December 1 to the date such Bonds mature or are redeemed The aggregate purchase price of the Bonds shall be the purchase price set forth in Exhibit A hereto, plus interest accrued (as described in Exhibit A) on the Bonds from their date to the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) 2. The Official Statement and Authorizing Instruments. The Bonds shall be otherwise as described in the Official Statement of the City, dated the date hereof, relating to the Bonds (together with all appendices thereto and with such changes therein and supplements thereto that are consented to in writing by the Underwriter, the "Official Statement") and shall be issued and secured under the Ordinance The City authorizes the use of the Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds The City also approves the use by the RJKUCA02]640006 DOC Underwriter, before the date hereof, of the preliminary Official Statement, dated 2002, relating to the Bonds (together with the appendices attached thereto, the "Preliminary Official Statement") in connection with the public offering of the Bonds The City hereby authorizes the Underwriter, and the Underwriter agrees at its own expense, to file one copy of the Official Statement, together with any supplement or amendment thereto, with at least one of the nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission(the "SEC") and two copies of the Official Statement (with any required forms) to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"), or its designee, pursuant to MSRB Rule G-36 no later than ten business days following the date hereof 3. Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all the Bonds initially at the public offering prices (or yields) set forth on the inside cover page of the Official Statement, provided, the initial public offering prices (or yields) may be changed, from time to time, by the Underwriter as it deems necessary in connection with the marketing of the Bonds 4. Representations, Covenants and Warranties The City represents, covenants and warrants to the Underwriter that (a) The Ordinance and this Bond Purchase Agreement are legal, valid and binding obligations of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with their terms except that enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights or contractual obligations generally and by the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and no authorization or approval is required for the execution and delivery of the Ordinance or this Bond Purchase Agreement by the City, except such authorizations or approvals as shall have been obtained at or prior to the Closing, copies of which shall be delivered to the Underwriter at the Closing (b) Except for the omission of such information that is dependent upon the final pricing of the Bonds for completion, all as permitted to be excluded by SEC Rule 15c2-12 ("Rule 15c2-12"), the Preliminary Official Statement was, as of its date, true and correct in all material respects and did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (c) The Official Statement is and at all times subsequent hereto up to and including the Closing Date will be, true and correct in all material respects and does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading 2 (d) The City has duly authorized and approved the execution of the Official Statement by the Mayor or his designee, including any amendments thereto under the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement (e) The City covenants and agrees to cause sufficient quantities of the Official Statement to be delivered to the Underwriter to enable the Underwriter to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 and of MSRB Rule G-32, without charge, within seven business days of the date hereof and, if the Closing Date is less than seven business days after the date hereof, upon request of the Underwriter, in sufficient time to accompany any confirmation requesting payment from any customers of the Underwriter (f) The City fiirtlier covenants and agrees that if, after the date hereof and until 25 days after the "end of the underwriting period" (as described below), any event shall occur as a result of which it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made when the Official Statement is delivered to a purchaser, not misleading, or if it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to comply with law, the City shall notify the Underwriter and provide the Underwriter with such information as it may from time to time request, and to forthwith prepare and furnish, at its own expense (in a form and manner approved by the Underwriter), a reasonable number of copies of either amendments or supplements to the Official Statement so that the statements in the Official Statement as so amended and supplemented will not, in light of the circumstances under which they were made when the Official Statement is delivered to a purchaser, be misleading or so that the Official Statement will comply with applicable law Unless otherwise notified in writing by the Underwriter, the City can assume that the "end of the underwriting period" for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 shall be the Closing Date If such notice is so given in writing by the Underwriter, the Underwriter agrees to notify the City in writing following the occurrence of the "end of the underwriting period" as defined in Rule 15c2-12 (g) The City will advise the Underwriter promptly of any proposal to amend or supplement the Official Statement and will not effect any such amendment without the consent of the Underwriter (h) The City will advise the Underwriter promptly of the institution of any proceedings known to it by any governmental agency prohibiting or otherwise affecting the use of the Official Statement in connection with the offering, sale or distribution of the Bonds (1) When delivered to The Depository Trust Company ("DTC') for the account of the Underwriter and paid for in full in accordance with the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Bonds (i) will have been duly authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the City, and (11) will constitute valid, legally binding obligations of the City except that enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights or contractual obligations 3 generally to the extent constitutionally applicable and by the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases 0) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the Closing, and except as disclosed in the Official Statement, to the knowledge of the City, no litigation is pending or is threatened in any court that (i) seeks to restrain or enjoin the issuance, sale or delivery of any of the Bonds, (u) contests or affects the validity of the Bonds, the Ordinance, this Bond Purchase Agreement or the pledge of the City's full faith and credit to the payment of the Bonds, (iii) contests in any way, the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statement, or (iv) in any material respect might affect adversely the transactions contemplated herein, in the Ordinance or in the Official Statement (k) The City has described to the Underwriter all matters known to the City that create a probability that litigation of the type described in the previous paragraph will be commenced against the City (1) The City will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter as it may reasonably request to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Underwriter may designate, except the City shall not be required in connection therewith or as a condition thereof to execute a general consent to service of process or to qualify to do business as a foreign corporation in any state (m) Except as may be set forth to the Official Statement, all approvals, consents, authorizations, certifications and other orders of any governmental authority, board, agency, instrumentality or commission having jurisdiction, or filings with any such entities, which are necessary for the acquisition, construction and operation of the projects to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds, other than permits that cannot reasonably be obtained prior to Closing, have been obtained or will be obtained prior to Closing (n) Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the City and delivered to the Underwriter pursuant hereto or in connection herewith shall be deemed a representation by the City to the Underwriter as to the truth of the statements made therein (o) The City will enter into a written agreement or contract, constituting an undertaking to provide ongoing disclosure about the City for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds on or before the Closing Date as required by Section (b)(5)(i) of Rule 15c2-12. which undertaking shall be part of the Ordinance and in the form and substance as summarized in the Preliminary Official Statement, with such changes as may be agreed to in writing by the Underwriter 5. The Closing At 8 00 A M , Seattle Time, on , 2002, or at such other time or on such earlier or later business day as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the City 4 and the Underwriter (the "Closing Date"), the City will deliver to the Underwriter the Bonds, duly executed and authenticated, through the facilities of DTC in New York, New York, or such other place to be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter, and shall deliver to the Underwriter the documents mentioned in Section 6 hereof, at such place in Seattle. Washington, as may be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter The Underwriter will accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto by certified check or by wire in immediately available federal funds The payment and delivery of the Bonds, together with the delivery of the aforementioned documents, is herein called the "Closing." The documents mentioned in Section 6 hereof shall be made available for inspection in Seattle, Washington, or at such other location as is mutually agreeable, by the Underwriter at least one full business day before the Closing The Bonds shall be made available to the Underwriter at the offices of DTC at least one business day before the Closing for purposes of inspection, and are to be left with DTC for safekeeping until release at Closing The Underwriter acknowledges that the City is to have no responsibility for such safekeeping of the Bonds 6. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Bond Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations and warranties herein and the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date The Underwriter's obligations under this Bond Purchase Agreement are and shall be subject to the performance by the City of its obligations to be performed hereunder and under the documents mentioned in this Section 6, at or prior to the Closing, and also shall be subject to Lne following conditions (a) The representations and warranties of the City contained herein shall be true, complete and correct in all material respects at the date hereof and on the Closing Date, as if made on and as of the Closing Date (b) At the time of Closing (i) the Ordinance shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, except as disclosed or contemplated by the Official Statement, (ii) the Official Statement shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, except in such manner as may have been agreed to in writing by the Underwriter, and (111) the City shall perform or shall have performed all of its obligations required under or specified in this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement, and the Ordinance to be performed at or before Closing (c) On the Closing Date, no event of default shall have occurred or be existing under the Ordinance, nor shall any event have occurred which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, shall constitute an event of default under the Ordinance, nor shall the City be in default in the payment of principal or interest on any of its obligations for borrowed money (d) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive three copies of the final Official Statement manually executed on behalf of the City by the Mayor, and as promptly as practicable after the Closing Date, such reasonable number of certified or conformed copies of the foregoing as the Underwriter may request 5 (e) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive the approving opmions of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, PLLC, Bond Counsel to the City, as to the Bonds, dated the Closing Date and substantially in the form included in the Official Statement as Appendix A, and an opinion, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter, of Perkins Cole LLP, counsel to the Underwriter, in a form acceptable to the Underwriter (0 At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive a municipal bond insurance policy issued by (" ") insuring the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, together with an opinion of counsel to regarding (1) the enforceability of the municipal bond insurance policy and (ii) the adequacy of the information regarding and the municipal bond insurance policy set forth in the Official Statement (g) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive evidence, satisfactory to the Underwriter, that the Bonds are rated "_" by Moody's Investors Service,Inc and"_"by Standard &Poor's (h) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive such additional certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may reasonably deem necessary to evidence the truth and accuracy as of the time of the Closing of the representations of the City and the due performance or satisfaction by the City at or prior to such time of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the City 7. Termination of Contract In recognition of the desire of the City and the Underwriter to effect a successful public offering of the Bonds, the Underwriter shall have the absolute right to terminate this Bond Purchase Agreement by notification to the City if at any time at or prior to the Closing an "event' (as defined below) occurs that, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, materially and adversely affects (i) the market price or marketability of the Bonds, or (u) the ability of the Underwriter to enforce contracts for sale of the Bonds If the City is unable to satisfy the conditions contained in this Bond Purchase Agreement or if the obligations of the Underwriter shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Bond Purchase Agreement, this Bond Purchase Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the City shall be under a further obligation hereunder, except as set forth in Section 8 hereof For purposes of this Section 7, an "event" shall mean any of the following legislation is introduced or enacted by a governmental body with authority over the City, a court decision is rendered, a local, national or international calamity or crisis occurs, a general banking moratorium is declared anywhere in the United States of America, trading is suspended or materially restricted on any national securities exchange, the ratings on any City obligations. including the Bonds, are lowered or the possibility of such action is publicly announced, the Official Statement is amended without the Underwriter's consent, a material misstatement or omission in the Official Statement is discovered after the Official Statement is distributed; or any other event of similar consequence or nature i 6 8. Expenses. The City shall pay or cause to be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City available to it, the expenses incident to the performance of its obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to (a) the fees and disbursements of the Bond Registrar in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, (b) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and any other experts or consultants retained by the City in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, (c) the cost of obtaining ratings on the Bonds, (d) the cost of obtaining bond insurance, and (e) the cost of printing the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement The Underwriter shall pay the cost of delivering the purchase price of the Bonds in immediately available federal funds and all other expenses it incurs in connection with their public offering and distribution of the Bonds, including the fees and disbursements of its counsel 9. Notice. Any notice or other communication to be given to the City under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to City of Kent, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032, Attention Finance Division Director with a copy to the City Attorney, and any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Richard B King, Senior Vice President, Lehman Brothers Inc , 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7101, Seattle, Washington 98104 10. Entire Agreement This Bond Purchase Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and the Underwriter and is made solely for the benefit of the City and the Underwriter (including the successors or assigns of the Underwriter) This Bond Purchase Agreement shall become effective when accepted by the City in writing as heretofore specified, shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and the Underwriter and may not be amended or modified except in writing No other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder by virtue hereof All the City's representations, warranties and agreements in this Bond Purchase Agreement shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of (a) any investigation made by or on behalf of the Underwriter, (b) delivery of and payment for the Bonds hereunder, and (c) any termination of this Bond Purchase Agreement LEHMAN BROTHERS INC Richard B King, Senior Vice President Accepted and agreed to as of the date first above written CITY OF KENT, King County, Washington Jim White, Mayor 7 ATTEST Brenda Jacober, Clerk ( SEAL ) 8 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN TERMS OF THE BONDS Series 2002A Bonds (AMT) Aggregate Principal Amount: $ plus aggregate original issue premium less aggregate underwriter's discount: ( ) Aggregate Purchase Price $ *plus accrued interest from , 2002 to the Closing Date Maturity Dates and Interest Rates Due Interest December I Principal Amount Rate Yield Price 2002 $ % % 2003 2004 2005 200 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2022 $ % Term Bonds due December 1, 20_ @ yield of_% Redemption Provisions: Optional Redemption. Mandatory Redemption. A-1 Series 2002B Bonds (NON-AMT) Aggregate Principal Amount: $ plus aggregate original issue premium less aggregate underwriter's discount ( ) Aggregate Purchase Price $ *plus accrued interest from 2002 to the Closing Date Maturity Dates and Interest Rates- Due Interest December 1 Prmcuml Amount Rate Yield Price 2002 $ % % 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2022 $ % Term Bonds due December 1, 20_@ yield of_% Redemption Provisions: Optional Redemption. Mandatory Redemption. A-2 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 16, 2002 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: 2002 TRAFFIC STRIPING— AWARD CONTRACT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on July 8th with three bids received The low bid was submitted by Stripe Rite, Inc. in the amount of$38,429.50 The Engineer's estimate was $45,961 40. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Stripe Rite, Inc. 3. EXHIBITS: 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commis si n, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSON EL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $/88A29.50 SOURCE OF FUNDS: R00025 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember QM/IL moves, Councilmember seconds that the 2002 Traffic Striping contract be awarded to Stripe Rite, Inc. for the low bid amount of$38,429 50. DISCUSSION: ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 8A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E Wickstrom, P E Public Works Director Phone 253-856-5500 Fax 253-856-6500 KEN T Address 220 Fourth Avenue S `9" .I' °T°" Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date July 16, 2002 To Mayor & City Council From Dori Wickstrom,Public Works Director Subject 2002 Traffic Striping Bid opening for this project was held on July 8th with three bids received The low bid was submitted by Stripe Rite, Inc in the amount of $38,429 50 The Engineer's estimate was $45,961 40 The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Stripe Rite, Inc Bid Summary Stripe Rite, Inc $38,429 50 Specialized Pavement Marking Inc $43,811 40 Apply-A-Line, Inc $56,927 10 Engineer's Estimate $45,961 40 MOTION Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the 2002 Traffic Striping contract be awarded to Stripe Rite, Inc , for the low bid amount of$38,429 50 Traffic Striping cc Woshrtnke • REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS E. PLANNING COMMITTEE Ste+ Of 7 F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES • OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 18, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Rico Yingling, Leona Orr, Judy Woods STAFF PRESENT May Miller, Mike Martin,Mary Ann Kern, Chuck Miller, Galen Hirschi, Stan Waldrop, Tom Brubaker, Brett Vinson, John Hodgson, Bob Cline, Julie Peterson,Bruce White, Tim Clark, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT Bob O'Brien, Ted Kogita, Hans Hechtman The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4 03 PM Two items were added to the agenda COPS in Schools Grant, and Transition VNET Task Force Manager to City of Kent Police Employee Approval of Minutes of June 4, 2002 Committee Member Leona Orr moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2002 The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods Rico Yingling commented that he specifically remembered in the last meeting's discussion on the water fund that Bob O'Brien had said that $30 million dollars should be bonded because S30 million dollars was peanuts, however that part wasn't recorded in the minutes Council Secretary Jackie Bicknell agreed to go back and listen to the tape and add those comments The motion then passed 3-0 Approval of Vouchers dated June 15, 2002 Judy Woods moved to approve the vouchers of June 15, 2002 The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0 Network Backbone Replacement Senior Network Specialist Galen Hirschi said that the first project in the Technology Plan Phase II was the replacement of the City's network backbone, which transfers all electronic data back and forth, from email, to class registration, to the web, etc Consultants reviewed and identified the backbone as strategic for replacement because of lack of support for the existing equipment due to mergers and companies being bought out An outside consultant was hired to review staff research and design, and to make a vendor recommendation The Cisco gigabit Ethernet solution was selected Staff then sent out a Request for Quotes for implementation assistance of the Cisco gigabit backbone Three vendors sent in quotes and NEC Business Network Solutions (who is a Cisco Gold partner which is a status met by specific qualifications) was selected as the recommended company. NEC Business Network Solutions have also been identified as a vendor on the Washington State contract, which will help facilitate the purchase of the Cisco equipment Operations Coninuttee, 6118/02 2 The budgetary breakdown is $278,127 for the actual physical hardware, $40,150 for professional services, $29,132 for maintenance (ongoing support from Cisco), and $32,000 for contingency, training, miscellaneous equipment, and any extra needs. The total for the first phase is $379,409 Both phases will cost about $625,000 Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council approve the City Network Backbone Replacement equipment and related services purchases, and that the Mayor, subject to the City Attorney's approval of final terms and conditions, be authorized to sign the agreements necessary to purchase Cisco equipment from the State DIS contract; to purchase implementation assistance from NEC Business Network Solutions; and to purchase ongoing annual maintenance directly from Cisco. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. AT&T/Comcast Merger Consent Assistant City Attorney Brett Vinson said that one of the conditions of AT&Ts franchise with the City to operate its cable system is that if there is a change or transfer of ownership, AT&T must come to the City and ask for consent to the transfer of ownership. Also, because of federal laws, AT&T is required to file a Form 394 application which includes information regarding the financial, technical, and legal abilities of the new entity AT&T presented the Form 394 application on March 4, 2002 asking for the City's consent to the merger/change of ownership Staff feels that it would be appropriate to present a resolution consenting to the merger of AT&T and Comcast Mr Vinson introduced Hans Hechtman from AT&T's Franchising Department Mr Hechtman said the merger transaction represents a change of control at the ultimate parent i level AT&T Broadband will merge with Comcast and become AT&T Comcast The actual company and legal entity that holds the franchise in the City of Kent, TCI Cablevision of Washington, will not change TCI Cablevision of Washington has had the franchise since 1993 When they merged with AT&T, the franchise remained intact, and all the terms, conditions, authority, rights, and privileges of the franchise will continue to remain intact after this current transaction The name will change,but legally, on paper, everything remains the same and the City's rights are protected The merger of the two companies is taking place because of a number of factors, but it all comes down to economics —the cable industry is suffering with the economy The merger will make AT&T Comcast the largest cable company in the country Each company, this year alone, will invest at least $1 3 billion to upgrade and maintain its networks, and by the end of this year, 87% of Comcast's networks and 70% of AT&T Broadband's networks will be at 750 megahertz two- way table, which will allow for increased channel capacity and two-way communications for the role of high speed internet access as well as local telephone Comcast has a stronger balance sheet than AT&T Broadband AT&T Broadband's debt ratio right now is 8 to 1, and merging with Comcast will improve that to a 5 to 1 margin with projections to get even better to a rate of 2 5 to 1 by 2004 AT&T Broadband has more expertise in local dial tone telephone type issues, and Comcast offers a stronger balance sheet Both companies have great expertise in the cable business, providing video and high speed internet i Operations Conumttee, 6/18/02 3 services The two companies coming together create a much more financially sound, investment grade company, Rico Yingling asked if any changes could be expected in service performance Mr Hechtman said Comcast was a very operationally intensive business with more resources, dollars, and decision making authority in the field—people in the market delivering service, going into homes, doing hook ups, and taking care of service problems AT&T has been more of a transaction oriented company that cut deals to get connectivity, so a result of the merger should be improved service Rico Yingling asked what was happening with the community TV franchise, Puget Sound Access Multimedia Manager Dea Drake said the $3 7 million from AT&T was in a trust fund, and representatives from four of the six involved cities make up the board for the Trust Fund, which is managed by Wells Fargo Bank Puget Sound Access has formed anon profit organization called Puget Sound Access. All seven of the members have representatives, and each of the cities is in the process of appointing a citizen representative When that is done, City staff will transition off the board and the board will be taken over by the citizen representatives The group is talking to Highlme Community College about a partnership and is also looking at Kent Station as a possible location in case HCC doesn't workout Two subcommittees have been formed a police subcommittee and a facility subcommittee, and six of the 13 board members are on one committee and seven on the other Meetings are held weekly and its hoped a decision can be made about the facility location within the next month, with broadcasting starting within six months Judy Woods moved to recommend that Council adopt the proposed resolution to consent to the merger of AT&T and Comeast. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Councilmanic Bonds (LTGO) for 2002 Finance Director May Miller said that staff has been bringing separate issues for approval for the last two months and the Councilmanic bonds rolls all the pieces together into one issue and saves on issuance costs, legal fees, and printing, etc The Councilmanic Bonds for 2002 'Aill include the money for the Technology Plan, the moves and campus renovation, East Hill Sports Complex ball fields,public works corridor and transportation projects, and the public piece of the Kent Station project The bonds in today's transaction total$13 6 million,plus issuance costs,which usually run around 1% and are based on the City's credit rating If the credit rating is really good, the issuance costs go down Staff will be working on the Official Statement of facts and information to give to the bond market for bidding purposes and the item will be brought back July 16`' with the actual price The money should be in the bank on July 30`h The legal debt capacity is 1 5% of assessed valuation, and the City will still have 51% capacity available after this issue (which is far more debt capacity than would ever be issued) The City does a bond issue about every other year Leona Orr clarified that these Councilmanic bonds were budgeted and paid for out of existing revenue and there would be no tax increase in the future Ms Miller concurred that Operations Committee,6/18/02 4 Councilmamc bond debt was paid out of existing revenue and the payment had already been budgeted Sales tax and real estate excise taxes are set aside to pay for the debt in capital, the . park issue piece will come out of the second quarter real estate excise tax, and the street pieces will come out of the street utility tax Rico Yingling asked for an explanation of the difference in the proposed and recommended numbers. Ms Miller said the difference came about because the East Hill Sports Complex number was put in the budget last summer before the final costs came in, and those ended up being quite a bit higher She noted that some of the projects were actually reduced Leona Orr moved to recommend that Council authorize issuance of$13,600,000 plus issuance costs, of Councilmanic(LTGO) bonds for 2002. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. COPS in Schools Grant Deputy Police Chief Chuck Miller said the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in Schools Grant is a federal grant similar to the ones that the Police Department has received in the past which offset the cost of hiring additional personnel with monies from the federal government. This particular grant is designed to place another officer in elementary andjunior high schools. The City has one officer now serving six elementary schools and would like to be able to reach more schools A deadline of August 6ih has to be met in order to receive the grant One of the requirements of the grant is that there must be shown a decrease in dependence on the grant each year of the three years that it lasts, so the costs have been front-loaded to reduce costs to the City by asking for approximately$70,000 the first year, $50,000 the second, and then approximately$5,000 in the third year. The program runs for three years and would actually start when the officer was hired Leona Orr moved to recommend authorization to accept a COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) in Schools grant in the amount of$125,000. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Transition VNET Task Force Office Manager to Citv of Kent Police Emplovee Chief Miller said the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team was made up of officers from Kent, Auburn, Renton,Tukwila, sometimes the State Patrol, and also some people from the county that have become involved in the team because of cutbacks Sheridan McClure has been the Office Manager for a number of years and has been paid through the City of Kent with the City being reimbursed from the other cities involved in VNET Kent has been handling all of the finances, and now it's another city's turn Tukwila will be doing it next (Kent took over from Renton) The problem is that if Ms McClure moves to Tukwila's payroll, she loses all the benefits that she has gained while working under the City of Kent which means she'd be starting over on the vacation schedules, lose all of her sick leave that's accrued,etc If the City makes her an actual employee of the Police Department, it won't cost the City any money because it will be reimbursed through either grant monies or monies from the other cities There would be 100% coverage of employee expenses She would be treated as a shared person the same as the detective that's assigned to the Narcotics Enforcement Team Operations Committee, 6/18/02 5 A line item would be established for an additional employee and then a line item would be established for the reimbursement The real benefit is for Sheridan McClure and, Chief Miller added, it's the right thing to do for a valued employee In this particular case, Kent will direct bill the other cities May Miller said the accounting part would be done by Tukwila Judy Woods moved to transition the Office Manager position from VNET Grant Budget (N00101) to Police Drug Task Force budget(N00045) and retain as Kent Police Employee when the Financial Management of VNET Grant goes to Tukwila. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 4 39 PM Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary 0 0 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 143 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Connie Epperly, Julie Peterson, Rico Yingling STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Schneider, Ed Crawford, Charlene Anderson, Mary Aim Kem, Jim Miller, Pat Fitzpatrick, Tom Brubaker, Mike Painter, Glen Woods, Glen Phillips, Bob McSeveney, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT Bob O'Brien, Don Shaffer The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5 15 PM Approval of Minutes of April 9, 2002 Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of April 9, 2002 The motion was seconded by Committee Member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0 Kent Municipal Court Additional Judge—Ordinance Deputy City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick said the Kent Municipal Court Additional Judge Ordinance would amend the City code relating to the Municipal Court by adding an additional Judicial position The code was originally written in a manner which contemplated only one Judicial position and mirrored the Revised Code of Washington section which specifically addresses the manner in which a Judicial position can be created in the municipal court The ordinance would create an additional Judicial positron Judicial positions are initially filled by appointment of the Mayor and then once the Judicial election cycle comes around the position is filled by election The next Judicial electron cycle is 2006 The Municipal Court currently employs one full time Judge as contemplated by the ordinance The court also employs a full time Court Commissioner which position was established within weeks of the creation of the Municipal Court System in Kent Judge Robert McSeveney and Commissioner Glen Phillips have both been Judge and commissioner, respectively, of the Kent Municipal Court, essentially since its inception The Court Commissioner position initially began as a part-time position but as time went on and violence increased in the court, the position turned into a full-time position In addition to the commission and Judicial position, the court also employs magistrates and pro tem Judges when necessary to meet the needs of the caseloads The additional Judicial position would replace the commissioner position so an entirely new position is not being created—it is, essentially, being retitled The new Judge position would have full authority of the Judge The Court Commissioner has the full authority to hear cases that come before the Municipal Court, however the commissioner position does not permit the commissioner to act for the presiding Judge when the presiding Judge is absent It also has some limitations on the commissioner's ability to set policy within the court, which rests within the presiding Judge Public Safety Committee, 5/14/02 2 Rico Yingling moved to recommend to Council approval of the ordinance which amends Section 2.34.040 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Judges —Appointment—Qualifications", by adding an additional judicial position. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Judge Robert McSeveney introduced Commissioner Glen Phillips and said he had known him since the mid 80's, when they worked together in the Bellevue District Court Mr Phillips was the main magistrate there and they became good fiiends and associates When Judge McSeveney left the Bellevue Court, he asked Magistrate Phillips to manage his Public Defense office Judge McSeveney said Mr Phillips has been a great person to work with, is very detail oriented, conscientious, and gets along with others, he's well respected in the District Municipal Judge's Association, is on a lot of committees, and teaches at a judicial college Kent is very well represented throughout the state judiciary, and the community has been well served by Commissioner Phillips Criminal Conduct at Public Facilities Pat Fitzpatrick said that the Disruption of Public Facilities Ordinance repeals and replaces two separate code sections The first section is 9 02 56 of the Kent Code entitled, "Public Facility- Criminal Activity—Prohibition of Entry" This is a code that's been with the City for a number of years, and upon review, it was determined that it could use some clean up The clean up is intended to provide more process to offenders The code permits police officers to issue what are commonly referred to as trespass warnings to people who commit crimes or drink in a public place as long as that police officer has probable cause to believe that the person has either committed a crime or is drinking in a public place, which is an infraction The police officer, upon viewing somebody committing the crime, will at their discretion issue a trespass warning or a prohibition on entry, serve that offender with that prohibition on entry and the prohibition will prohibit the person from entering that particular public facility for 45 days Or, if the person is charged with a crime associated with that conduct, the order can be extended by a judge after a review by the judge The standard for issuing the order is probable cause (reasonable grounds to believe that criminal conduct has been committed or an infraction of drinking in public) and is required for a police officer to file criminal charges The purpose of the ordinance is to allow quiet enjoyment for the law abiding citizens in the City People committing crimes within the City parks can prevent other people from going there who want to use the park in a lawful manner This code is a tool that will allow police officers to remove those people from the park and prohibit them from corning back for some time The intent is to provide a place for the public to abide by the laws and to be able to feel safe about using the City parks Procedurally, if a person is prohibited from entering the park for 45 days and they are not charged with a crime (which is at the option of the police officer), they have the opportunity to challenge that order with the municipal court and have a full hearing before a judge If a police officer were to issue an order for drinking in public that expired in 45 days, before the expiration of that 45ih day, the person could file a request for a full hearing before a court in an attempt to Public Safety Committee, 5/14/02 3 have the prohibition removed In addition, if they are prohibited from entering a specific park, that does not mean they can't enter another public facility or public park If a criminal charge is filed, the order can last as long as the court has jurisdiction over the person If it is a gross misdemeanor and the court retains two years of jurisdiction, the court may retain that prohibition of entry for two years and that person is allowed to have a hearing before the court to address that matter individually The acts that qualify for issuance of the prohibition of entry are gross misdemeanors or any felony crime (excluding certain traffic offenses) such as possession or sale of controlled substances, major assaults, stealing vehicles, etc , and misdemeanors which are the more minor criminal offenses such as drinking in public The intent is to provide an avenue for police to ensure that City parks stay open and free for the use of law abiding citizens and to deter people from committing criminal acts within the parks and other public facilities Section 4 of the ordinance repeals and rewrites a current City code,Disruption of Government Offices, which is being changed to Disruption of Public Facilities to include parks, libraries, Kent Commons, the Senior Facility, etc That section would make it a crime for a person to interfere with the proper functioning of the facility by causing a substantial disruption, and also makes it a crime for a person to use the facility in a manner in which it was not intended which interferes with the quiet enjoyment of somebody who is law abiding and using the facility for its proper purpose The City already has an ordinance to this affect that has not been enforced in the past and is somewhat vague This new ordinance more particularly defines the conduct which is prohibited Rico Yingling asked if citizens should call 911 and report someone breaking the law or interfering with others' peaceful enjoyment of a park Mr Fitzpatrick said a police officer would have to view the criminal conductor the infraction of drinking in a park It would not be permissible for the officer to simply rely on a person's statement that someone was committing criminal conduct,they would actually have to see it Procedurally, the officer would have to issue written notice that states the offense and explains the type of conduct, as the court would rely on that document to make their judgement to determine whether or not probable cause was committed The notice would explain the offense and would address the offender's ability to come into court and challenge the process In response to Mr Yingling's question about a criminal record and what would happen to somebody if they were contacted, Police Captain Mike Painter said Police has a formal warning document in place that was developed in 1998 When an officer responds to a park or public facility and observes cnmrnal behavior that falls within the purview of the ordinance, a warning can be provided in a written form or action taken on the criminal behavior The form is multiple copy and is signed by the officer The person can then go to municipal court and contest the fact of probable cause if they want They would not have a criminal record,through the state per se, but they would have a record within the Kent Police Agency Typically, the way many of the trespass incidents are handled now, is that if a person is contacted in a park or on a private property business, then police records is contacted to find out if that person has a record There would be a specific document that outlined what the cnme was that was committed in a public facility The person could then be arrested for that, but it's officer discretion as to whether or not Public Safety Committee,5/14/02 4 they want to take action on the actual violation that they have observed in a park Most importantly, the ordinance provides the officers with a tool to prohibit offenders from staying in the park so other people can enjoy what the park is really intended for Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council approve the ordinance which repeals the current Sections 9.02.19 and 9.02.56 of the Kent City Code and creates new Sections 9.02.19 and 9.02.56. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Springwood HUD Grant Police Support Administrative Assistant Mary Ann Kern said the Springwood HUD Grant was a housecleaning issue, as the grant was anticipated and planned for during last year's budget process. The actual grant came in for$2,533 more than the application and will decrease the amount that the City has to fund Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council accept the increased funding of$2,533 for the Springwood HUD Grant and to amend the budget accordingly. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant Police Lieutenant Glenn Woods said the money from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant was coming through a program called "Click It or Ticket" which will run from May 201h through the 29°i and whose emphasis will be seat belt and child restraint enforcement The seat belt law will change the middle of June, and the emphasis right now is to make the public aware of the perils of not buckling up In the past, officers were not allowed to stop a motorist for seat belt violation because it was considered a secondary violation, but during May 20-29, the officers will be enforcing traffic laws and also looking for seat belt safety violations There will be zero tolerance for anyone not wearing their seat belt for those days The grant for $5,000 will help cover the cost of additional officers for that time period A person can't be stopped for seat belt violation before June 15"', but after the law changes, it becomes a primary offense and anyone can be stopped by the police for not wearing a seat belt or not having a child in a car seat Julie Peterson moved to recommend that the Council accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant in the amount of$5,000. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Grant Award Fire Safe Families Program Fire Chief Jim Schneider said the Kent Fire Department had applied for grant money from the State of Washington Department of Health, Injury, and Prevention Program and had received a S5,000 grant and 350 smoke detectors, along withl0-year lithium batteries Three hundred of the smoke detectors are being provided through the State of Washington and 50 are being provided through the King County Fire and Life Safety Association for the total of 350 The $5,000 will be used for public education programs, with the target group to receive the smoke detectors the low income population residents, senior citizens, and mobile home park residents because of the high incidence of fires occurring in those residences The City is working in a coordinated effort between the Fire Department and community housing services, and a list of people has already been identified There are no state statutes related to the grant Public Safety Comm uee, 5114/02 5 Rico Yingling moved to recommend to Council that grant funds in the amount of$5,000 and the in-kind grant of 350 smoke detectors with 10-year lithium batteries be accepted. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Purchase of Replacement Defibrillator Units Chief Schneider said the Fire Department's current defibrillators were purchased in 1995 and have had reoccurring breakdowns, and staff is having a hard time getting the parts or accessories to keep them in service Some of the department instructors that work on the defibrillator program evaluated various defibnllators from various vendors, and an RFP was put together Two vendors came back with a proposal The first was Medtromcs (Physio-Control) out of Redmond, Washington with an RFP quote of$145,180 54 cost to purchase the 12 defibrillators Zoll Medical of Burlington, Massachusetts quoted$121,737 34 After reviewing both RFPs, the committee determined that the proposal from Medtromcs meets the criteria as identified by the King County Medical Association and the RFP The Zoll Medical RFP did not meet the RFP requirements or the requirements of the King County Medical Services. The RFPs were reviewed by the City Attorney Staff is requesting the purchase of 12 Bi-phasic defibrillators, along with their associated hardware and software There is a potential of getting S 12,098 back from King County Fire District#37, as one of the defibnllators will go to Fire Station 77,and that money would go back to the City of Kent as part replacement of the original purchase cost Julie Peterson asked what would be done with the old defibnllators Chief Schneider said they would be turned back in for their return value Medtromcs will give the City a bigger return than Zoll Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council authorize the Fire Department to purchase 12 Bi-phasic replacement defibrillator units and associated hardware/software from Medtromcs as per RFP. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Surplusm2 of Two 1986 Pierce Engine/Aid Units Fire Chief Jim Schneider said one sealed bid of$37,005 was received from the Black Diamond Fire Department for apparatus number 713, one of the two 1986 Pierce Engine/Aid Units that had previously been approved for surplussmg No bid was received for apparatus 712 An offer was received after the bidding had closed from the Washington State Fire Academy and they are still considering whether they want to buy it or not, so there is a potential of selling the second vehicle If not, staff would like to go back out in a couple of months and try to sell that vehicle The money for the sale will be put into the Facilities Capital Fund to finish a drafting pit for the shop so the pump tests can be done there That work will be coordinated through the City Facilities shop Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council accept the sealed bid received from the Black Diamond Fire Department in the amount of$37,005 for the purchase of one (1) 1986 Pierce Engine/Aid Unit(VIN#40121), and direct that funds from the transaction be placed into a Facilities Maintenance Capital account. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Public Safety Comnuttee,5/14/02 6 Acceptance of Bid for 3'/:Inch Fire Hose Chief Schneider said the Department had received approval from Council on February 19`h to have an advertised bid sale for fire hose One sealed bid in the amount of$2,232 was received from Mr Michael Hammes That money would be placed back into the current budget to replace new fire hose for the current year Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council accept the sealed bid received from Michael Hammes for the purchase of the surplus fire hose and direct that funds from the transaction be placed into the Fire Department's current year budget to assist with the purchase of new hose. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Secure Community Transition Facilities Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said that the Growth Management Act in 1990 required that the City provide a process for identifying and siting what are called Essential Public Facilities such as airports, the Regional Justice Center, group homes, etc , and the City provided in its Comp Plan and Zoning Code a mechanism to site those facilities However, hz 2001, Secure Community Transition Facilities was added to the list, and according to the Growth Management Act, along with adding those facilities to the list of Essential Public Facilities, the legislature required cities to establish a process for siting the facilities by September 1, 2002 Secure Community Transition Facilities provide living arrangements for sexual offenders who are ready for conditional release from a total confinement facility, such as is located on McNeil Island They are less restrictive than total confinement, however they do provide supervision and security and a means for some sort of treatment services Kent's existing regulations, established in 1998 and based on the Fair Housing Amendments Act,provide for various categories of group homes One could argue that the Secure Community Transition Facilities would be included in the Class 3 Group Home category defined as residential facilities for adults who have committed a crime with a sexual motivation or who have been convicted or charged as a sexual predator The Class 3 Group Homes are allowed only in the City's commercial districts (MCC, CCD, EGQ and only with a conditional use permit The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is charged with locating a Secure Community Transition Facility and they have many criteria for siting, among them equitable distribution They look to see how many other residential facilities are in a certain area/jurisdiction to avoid a disproportionate grouping of similar facilities in any one area/junsdiction They look at the number and location of existing residential facilities operated by the Department of Corrections or the Mental Health Division of DSHS, the number of registered sex offenders in a city that are classified as Level 2 or 3, and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless in the city They look at what's called a line of sight—the facilities can't be located in the line of sight of risk potential facilities Line of sight is not defined as certain distance in linear feet but as a line where it's possible to visually distinguish and recognize individuals The risk potential activities or facilities are such things as public and private schools, school bus stops,public libraries, publicly dedicated trails, playgrounds, sports fields, licensed day care centers, etc DSHS also looks at balancing the average response time of emergency services against the proximity of the sight to these risk potential activities and facilities Public Safety Committee, 5/14/02 7 Any designation by the City of a zone or a site for locating these facilities must have within it a vacant area that's buildable or an existing facility that's available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market price The State DSHS decides how large a facility should be and what is needed in the area they're looking at Data shows that King County would need to sight between five and 15 beds by 2007, but not necessarily in Kent The cost would be home by the DSHS as it wouldn't be a City of Kent facility Kent has to provide a process for identifying and siting the facility and the DSHS would actually choose the site and would be responsible for building construction, getting the permits, and doing all the infrastructure work Size requirements for a three bed facility(which is a minimum size for a secure community transition facility) are approximately two acres with a septic system or a well, (less if it's city served), and a 2,100 square foot building A 12 bed facility with a well and septic would require three acres and approximately 7,500 square feet in either one or two buildings Staff is recommending that a comprehensive look be taken at the state criteria and what is already available in City code, and then follow the process through the Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council Staff is also looking at amending the location cntena for group homes facilities to take out some of the commercial areas and add some industrial areas where appropriate Right now, the Class 3 Group Homes can be located in DCE, which is pretty much in the downtown area The existing adult use regulations would be applied to such a facility, These regulations provide for a 1,000 foot separation of adult uses from churches, public libraries, public schools, etc Adult uses are allowed in commercial zones as well Looking at equitable distribution, the RJC is located in Kent and one of the cntena that the DSHS has is to group facilities in the same area A state grant would help with that but would take a while to get, so the work would actually be done first and then the grant used to reimburse those efforts later Ms Anderson said there was no penalty for doing nothing as far as fiscal sanctions or appeals to the Growth Management Hearing Board or private cause of action is concerned However, the state, especially in King County, can preempt local codes and ordinances and choose to site a facility where they want, so it's important for the City to look at its existing codes Again, the state would have to site it according to their criteria and couldn'tjust site it anywhere Connie Epperly said she would be interested in getting an inventory of what was available and to know how the sites were currently used Ms Anderson said that information would be provided in the analysis Rico Yingling remarked that with the line of sight versus proximity regulation, a facility could actually be out of the line of sight, but around the comer or very close to a school or day care center Ms Anderson said that was conceivable and would be something to look at Mr Yingling recommended waiting until the state gave a deadline for doing something Connie Epperly concurred and noted that Kent already has quite a few DSHS type facilities, but not necessarily sex predator facilities, and said she would like to know how many there actually are before doing any rezoning Mr Yingling added that he didn't have a problem with research,but wouldn't want Kent to be at the forefront of siting facilities Mental Health Crisis in Kent Police Captain Mike Painter said the number of contacts the police have had with people suffering from mental illness has really gone up in the last four years There used to be only Public Safety Commuttee, 5/14/02 8 periodic contacts with people that were mentally ill, and in the 12 year period from 1981 to 1992 . when Captain Painter was assigned to patrol, only four or five people were committed He said the police department usually becomes involved with people that are mentally ill because other people are afraid,but people can't be committed either voluntarily or involuntarily unless they are a threat to themselves or a threat to somebody else Captain Painter noted that when he returned to patrol in 1999, he was struck by how frequently the officers were contacting people who were mentally ill, and in looking at the data, the Chief and the Captains felt it was important to let the Council know about the increase in contacts that had taken place over the last 5-6 years (Research has shown that the numbers have remained relatively flat for the last four years) There has been an increase at the jail as well Kent's officers are being provided training tools to better prepare them to deal with mentally ill people (who may be just standard citizens or may be very dangerous), and a supervisor for mental health has been invited to facilitate a three hour training block for all of the patrol officers Because of all the funding cuts that the state, counties, and municipalities have been experiencing related to health and human services, the picture is kind of bleak At the state level large facilities are being closed, including wings of Western State Hospital That means the incidents of contacts with people suffering from mental illness is likely to increase, perhaps significantly m the next few years The impacts of the cuts should be known probably around the first part of July in terms of how the county and state are going to be dealing with the shortfalls they are anticipating It's important that Kent do whatever it can to try to in."uence those at the state level who are making the decisions relating to the closure of state facilities— whether they are halfway houses or hospital facilities like Eastern State or Western State Corrections Facility Captain Jim Miller said the numbers Captain Painter had put together primarily deal with patrol contacts relating to either involuntary or voluntary commitment On any given day, at any given time, a number of mentally ill people will come into contact with the police department for such things as a traffic stop where a warrant is involved, shoplifting, a trespass, or a misdemeanor assault where a person is not displaying significant enough behavior to trigger an involuntary commitment,but is instead taken to the jail Once they get m thejail environment, their behavior may get to be such that it's recognizable that an individual is mentally ill They are booked and a court date set In some cases they make it to court and there is no problem Other times the court will call for a competency hearing, which interrupts the court process, and the person is perhaps transported to Western State Hospital for an evaluation If they are deemed competent to stand trial, they come back to Kent and go through the court process If they are deemed not competent, then a medical restoration attempt period is made Captain Miller said the numbers are very valid, but there are an increasing number of people that never make it to the numbers based on their ability to deal in short term spurts with non significant mental health behavior Once they are in the jail system, it is significant and ties up the facility considerably More times than not, in any given week, the majority of the six holding cells at the Corrections Facility are taken up by people in various stages of the "significant" category Captain Painter added that there are many more contacts than are actually documented where the officer contacts somebody because someone is afraid or a person is acting bizarre and there's no Public Safety Committee,5/14/02 9 reason to take them into custody as they aren't doing anything wrong other than acting bizarre Those types of experiences are significant because they alarm folks and diminish their sense of safety in the community, but the actual documented contacts with somebody that's mentally ill are relatively low In response to Rico Yingling's question about repeat offenders, Captain Miller said it was kind of a 50-50 answer The Corrections Facility sees a number of repeat customers but there are also a lot of individual first time faces that have just made their way to the Kent community Captain Painter added that from the patrols officer's perspective there are occasional repeat contacts but by and large they are new contacts The meeting adjourned at 6 15 PM Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS VV"" ' EXECUTIVE SESSION