Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/27/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 27, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. January 27, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Senior Planner Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary KENT CITY STAFF PRESENT: Carol Morris, Law Department APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 25 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the November 25, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT - ZCA-91-2 Carol Proud of the Planning Department presented the staff report. The Zoning Code currently has abbreviated procedures for enforcement of violations. At present the violations are a criminal offense and the section provides for criminal penalties. Other cities who have adopted civil penalties for Zoning Code violations have found that the imposition of monetary fees allows recovery of administration costs for enforcement and is an incentive to prompt compliance. A change to civil penalties from criminal penalties would make prosecution of Zoning Code violations more effective. Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 The proposal is in the process of going through environmental review which should be complete before the public hearing with the City Council. Planning Department staff is recommending approval. Carol Morris of the Law Department stated they have had problems getting judges in district court to be serious about code enforcement. In her opinion, this is because we have criminal penalties. The best way to counter this problem is to have civil penalties which are more amenable to the type of problem. The proposed amendment is modeled after the code enforcement section of the Seattle Land Use Code. An inspector would visit a piece of property, determine if there was a violation and, if so, write a Notice of Violation. The information is then entered into a computer and the inspector sets a date for compliance which would be a reasonable length of time in which the violation could be rectified. After the date for compliance has passed, penalties start to accrue per day. The violation could also be recorded against the property with the Department of Records and Elections. This would prevent the property from being transferred without notice of the violation and enforcement action. After someone receives a Notice of Violation, they can bring the property into compliance, work with the Planning Department or ask for an informal appeal hearing. After a hearing is held, the Planning Director or his representative can extend the date for compliance, affirm the order or take other appropriate action. If no hearing is requested, the Notice of Violation would be final. Once the date for compliance is reached, the Planning Department can notify the owner that they must comply or can turn it over to the City Attorney's office which would start a civil action to collect the penalties. We would also retain the option of imposing criminal penalties for more malicious violations. Commissioner Martinez asked for clarification of the section which says the Director may choose not to file a copy of the notice. Ms. Morris said there are circumstances which would take less time to bring into compliance than it would take for the process of recording. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. 2 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Commissioner Martinez MOVED to approve the ordinance for forwarding to City Council. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. CERTIFICATES OF REAPPOINTMENT Chair Antley presented Certificates of Reappointment to Commissioners Martinez and Grant. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Fred Satterstrom explained that the State of Washington Growth Management Act requires that all cities and counties adopt development regulations for critical areas which include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas that preclude land uses or development that is incompatible with their conservation or preservation. The following are some of the goals spelled out by the Act: 1. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the state and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services and public facilities. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. Property rights of land owners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory action. 3 . Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities. Conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water and develop parks. 4. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life including air and water quality and the availability of water. A lot of the planning mandated by this Act will have to conform to and further the goals specified in the Act itself. That includes the development of critical area regulations and the proposed wetland ordinance. Balancing economic development goals with those of private property rights and the environmental issues is not going to be an easy task. 3 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 The process of getting to our present position started about a year ago with the adoption in the Planning Department of interim wetland guidelines to help provide some uniform guidance while the ordinance was being developed. In March, 1991, a consultant, Wilsey & Ham Pacific, was hired to develop the framework to a proposed ordinance. Five public workshops were held from April through September. In June, a Mayor's Citizen Advisory Committee began to review the proposal from the consultant. The work of the Citizen Advisory Committee was submitted to the Law Department, Administration and the Mayor's office for input and guidance on resolving some of the issues upon which this diverse group could not reach a consensus. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department explained that there are two portions to the proposal. The first portion deals with proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan to plug some gaps which should be filled in order to fulfill the critical area requirements of the Growth Management Act. One tells the City to look at new developments during the environmental review process for their potential impacts to aquifer recharge areas which serve as a source of potable water for the City. The second would require the City to look at new development during the environmental review process to insure it does not pose potential hazards as a result of landslides, erosion, volcanic hazard area, seismic hazard or abandoned coal mines. The second part of the proposal is the wetlands management strategy. The Citizen Advisory Committee did achieve consensus on the following goals: 1. An interim goal of no net loss of wetland area with a long term goal of net gain in wetland functions, values and area. 2 . Assess the fiscal impacts of a no net loss goal and provide for an equitable balance between public and private benefits as a result of wetland regulations. 3 . Complete, maintain and update the City's wetland inventory which serves as a general information source for planning and development review. 4. Prepare a comprehensive wetlands resource management plan which would designate certain wetlands for preservation, development or enhancement or restoration. The ordinance would apply to all wetlands within the City of Kent. It relies on the 1989 federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. It uses the following three 4 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 tier rating system based on King County's wetlands rating system which also incorporates the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system: Class 1 Most diverse and typically largest in size. They provide significant wildlife habitat values. Class 2 Somewhat diverse, relatively large, but not quite at the scale of Class 1. Class 3 Less than an acre with only one or two wetland classes and, therefore, less diverse. Regulated activities will require a wetland permit and include anything that will negatively affect a wetland or wetland buffer. There are allowed activities such as maintenance and repair, recreation and ongoing agricultural activities which would require no permit. There are also provisions for emergency activities where there is a threat to health, safety or the environment. The buffers required by the ordinance are: Class 1 - 100 foot minimum Class 2 - 50 feet or 25 feet if the wetland is isolated and 2, 500 square feet or less in size. Class 3 - 50 feet or 25 feet if the wetland is isolated and 10, 000 square feet or less in size. The ordinance also provides for buffer width averaging and there are provisions for increasing or decreasing the size of the buffer depending on circumstances. The ordinance requires that avoidance or minimization of impacts to wetlands occur first. If those impacts cannot be avoided, compensation for wetland impacts will be required at the ratio of 1-1/2 acres of created or restored wetland for every acre of wetland filled or altered. A ration of 3 : 1 is required if the applicant is proposing to enhance an existing wetland in exchange for altering a wetland on the applicant's site. There is also a reasonable use exception provision to be used where the application of the ordinance standards would deny all reasonable economic uses of that property. The ordinance sets out a process and a series of findings that the Planning Department must make before they can grant exceptions. 5 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 The ordinance also requires the creation of sensitive area tracts as a condition of a wetland permit. As another condition of the permit, the owner would be required to record the presence of the wetland or wetland buffers on the title. Ms. Watanabe pointed out that the reason this is being done is because we know wetlands have important functions and values such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, water quality and recreation functions and economic benefits. We allowed a lot of wetlands to be filled without any kind of regulation and now most of them are gone. Those that are left become more important in terms of the functions and values they provide. We have created an expectation by landowners and the development community, based on the City's past behavior, that historic patterns of development will be able to continue. Uncontrolled sprawl is something we cannot continue to allow and still have the quality of life that many people here enjoy. Commissioner Dahle asked if there is a wetlands area map. Ms. Watanabe said there is a large map, but it is only an information source. The regulations are not tied to the map. Commissioner Heineman wondered if the 2, 500 and 10, 000 square foot figures for buffer zones of Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands, respectively, were reversed. Ms. Watanabe answered that the figures are correct as stated because Class 2 wetlands are a higher value than Class 3 and that' s why there is a smaller threshold for the Class 2. Chair Antley asked for an example of Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands. Ms. Watanabe stated that a Class 3 wetland is a typical wet meadow which is less than an acre. If that same wet meadow is over an acre, it becomes a Class 2. or if you have a small wetland that is forested, it would be considered Class 2 because it has a forested class which is broadly viewed as being of higher value than a wet meadow type of wetland. Commissioner Ward asked if the forested class has more value because it is a possible habitat for a greater number of animals, insects, etc. Ms. Watanabe agreed that that is the assumption that's built into the higher value. James Oberto, P. O. Box 429, Kent, WA 98035 has had an opportunity to go to all the workshops. He feels the City should stay up to date and have the ordinance flexible with whatever the federal manual is for wetlands at the time. The ordinance is currently 6 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 based on the 1989 guidelines, which may be overturned by the state, leaving the City of Kent out on its own. Ted Knapp of Birtcher Frank Properties, 6414 S. 228th Street, Kent, WA 98032 stated he will be wearing several hats throughout this process. He was a member of the Mayor's Citizen Advisory Committee and has also headed up a task force for the Kent Chamber of Commerce. He will be making comments on behalf of Birtcher Frank Properties and also for the Washington chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks of which he is president. He presented a position paper from the Kent Chamber of Commerce which made the following comments on the proposed draft of the Kent Wetlands Management Strategy and the Critical Areas ordinance: 1. "GMA Goals. The proposal should discuss its relationship to all eleven goals of the State's Growth Management Act, including environmental protection, protection of property rights, encouragement of affordable housing and economic development, efficient use of infrastructure, and a timely and fair permit process. " The Wetland Advisory Committee and the Chamber of Commerce feel that this issue has a tremendous economic impact on the City and there should be an economic impact analysis. 2. "Delineation Process. The City's Ordinance should rely upon the currently adopted version of the federal methodology for delineating wetlands. The City should not rely on outdated or superseded regulations. " The ordinance proposes using a 1989 manual versus the 1987 manual which is currently being used by the Corps of Engineers. They feel Kent's ordinance should be flexible to be consistent with whatever the federal agency is using at a given time. 3 . "Ratina System. The City should adopt an understandable, rational rating system for wetlands. The City's approach could be modeled after other jurisdictions, such as King County, although any rating system should be designed to reflect the specific characteristics of Kent' wetlands and the goals of the Ordinance. Most wetlands on the valley floor, for example, should be classified as Class III wetlands. 4. Permit Process. A separate permit process should not be created under the Ordinance; wetland review should occur in concert with existing permit applications. The review process under the Ordinance should be streamlined, and application procedures should be minimized for smaller projects on lower- 7 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 quality wetlands. The City should rely on wetlands delineations approved by the Corps of Engineers for a site. 5. Regulated Activities. Regulated activities should not include such vague, all-encompassing items as "alteration of the water table" or "shading" since nearly any activity -- even the planting of trees -- will produce both such effects. The standards for permitting regulated activities in wetlands should be established according to the rating of the wetland involved. Activities may generally be prohibited in Class I wetlands, allowed in some cases in Class II wetlands, and generally permitted in Class III wetlands if appropriate mitigation is provided. 6. Exemptions. The City's Ordinance should base its exemptions upon the area affected by the regulated activity and the rating of the wetlands, not on whether it is "isolated. " Exemption thresholds should be set so as to preclude exempt activities in Class I wetlands, allow them only in some circumstances on Class II if the activity affects, for example, less than one-half acre of wetland. 7. Buffers. Wetland buffers should be determined with respect to the quality of the wetland involved. Different standard buffer widths should be established for Class I (1001 ) , Class II (501 ) , and Class III (251 ) wetlands. Provision should be made for buffer modification and averaging where it can be demonstrated that buffer functions will be preserved as, for example, through a professionally-prepared buffer planting plan. Buffers should be available for uses compatible with the adjacent wetlands, such as landscaping and surface water management. Additional landscaping requirements should not be imposed outside of the buffer. 8. Mitigation. Standard mitigation goals should be established based upon the quality of the wetland involved and the functional value of the newly-created wetland (not just upon acreage ratios) , with provisions made for modification of these standards in cases where functional values will be restored or enhanced. " Commissioner Ward asked why the Chamber considers most wetlands in Kent Class 3. Mr. Knapp answered there are three parameters which make up a wetland: soil type, hydrology and vegetation. Most of what's in the valley is low quality wetland. In most, the soil parameter is present, there is very high ground water and it's flat. Generally, just adding water creates a wetland. 8 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Commissioner Martinez suggested that since the Chamber formulated its position paper six weeks ago, it would have been very helpful to the Planning Commissioners to have received copies for review. Gary Volchok, 1600 Park Place, Seattle, WA 98101 wondered what will happen if this is not adopted by the March 1 deadline. He pointed out that there are about 830 zoned acres of industrial land in Kent. Of that, 385 can be developed because of the wetland ordinance. In the entire valley from Renton to the South King County line, there are about 4,000 industrial zoned acres and only 600-700 acres that can be developed. There are probably an additional 6,000 acres in the valley that will never be developed either because they are wetlands, ag properties, in the farmland bond preservation issue, etc. If this goes through, we will end up with close to 10, 000 acres that will never be developed. There are people whose property is 100% classified as wetlands. He would like to know what these people can do with their property. Starting next year the taxes are going to go up on all developed property in the Kent valley because the assessed value has been reduced by 2-1/2 million dollars, but all of that assessed value still goes on over everybody else's property. This is all due to wetlands. It's difficult to balance the private rights with what the public wants. Any wetlands on a piece of property, prevent you from using that property. There have only been 3 to 5 wetland permits granted in the entire state of Washington since January 1, 1987 when this went into effect. His suggestion to the City of Kent is to use the same manual that the Corps of Engineers is using. They are the lead agency in the state. He strongly suggested that the buffer zone be limited to 25' on Class 3 wetlands. He feels that, in reality, buffer zones can't be used for anything. He is very adamant against having to record an easement for the protection of wetlands in perpetuity. What happens if the wetlands dry up and change? He feels that the ordinance is too wide open to interpretation and must be tied down a lot more in detail. Mr. Volchok pointed out that a wetland permit application which has been denied can be resubmitted no earlier than 180 days following action on the original application. The applicant has a lot of 9 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 money invested in the project and doesn't want to wait 180 days before he can resubmit. He figures that going from 830 acres to 385 in Kent alone will cost the City of Kent 5,000 jobs, at a minimum, because of the loss of developable land. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Volchok why he was recommending use of the 1987 manual. He wondered if all the agencies involved hadn't learned anything in the two years between the 1987 and the 1989 versions and if the 1987 version is much more lenient. Mr. Volchok said he doesn't have precise knowledge of the different manuals, but that every other agency has to submit their information into the Corps of Engineers and they have the final word so we should use the same manual that the Corps uses. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Volchok what his definition of a wetland is. Mr. Volchok said he is not a botanist, but he sees pasture land which, because of something that happened offsite, has become a wetland. Commissioner Ward asked if Mr. Volchok felt water had to be present to be a wetland. Mr. Volchok said soil, plants and water must be present to constitute a wetland. If you're missing any of the three, it is not wetlands. Commissioner Dahle asked if Mr. Volchok was suggesting that the Planning Commission is wasting its time and should just take the Corps of Engineers' manual and go with that. Mr. Volchok said they should do that rather than listen to DOE and the manual they're recommending. John Veblen, 3600 One Union Square, Seattle, WA 98101 is an attorney representing Mr. Brooks, who has owned a four acre parcel at 202nd Street and 76th Avenue S. for about 20 years. It's zoned industrial and is not developed now. Mr. Brooks supports the Chamber of Commerce and is greatly concerned that these regulations, if applied to his property, would have a very unfair effect. Those of his neighbors who rushed to develop their property will have benefitted and he will be greatly hindered and penalized. If he can develop his property at all, the cost will be prohibitive. Another layer of burden, regulation, cost, confusion, inefficiency and, ultimately, litigation should not be added to the process. Wayne Pozzi, 23035 94th S. , Kent, WA wanted to know why the Army Engineers and the state of Washington were not at the meeting. He felt their input would be very useful. 10 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Greg Wingard, 18848 SE 269th, Kent, WA 98042 chaired the public advisory committee on wetlands at the request of the Mayor. There was a wide diversity of people on the committee. There were disagreements on such things as buffers and some of the practicalities of various portions of the ordinance. The one thing they did reach consensus on was that the ordinance has to be based on science. It cannot be based on individual agendas or personal profits. From 1980 to 1990, over 50% of Kent's wetland base was destroyed. Historically, industry has been allowed to develop wetlands. A lot of the corporate interests who are into developing property want the City to use the 1987 manual because it allows much more property to be developed irrespective of the fact that it's a wetland. The 1989 manual was the result of four federal agencies putting specific people who had expertise together and working out something that scientifically made sense. It resulted from the state of the art of understanding at that point in time. The same four agencies worked on the 1991 manual and were close to reaching a consensus when changes were made through the interference of Dan Quayle. All the agencies involved objected directly to the president. The changes made were not scientific, but based on agendas of parties that were not part of the public process. The damage resulting from development of wetlands has not only included loss of wildlife habitat, but has also caused water quality impacts and flooding. Those impacts cost the City money. In spite of the dam that was put in on the Green River, the valley is having increasing problems with flooding. In order to control this part of the problem, we're going to have to preserve wetlands. The issue of property rights gets to be a very emotional issue. People do not believe that the federal government or anyone else can tell them what to do with private property. Mr. Wingard believes that private property rights do not equate with the right to destroy property and ecosystems. Mr. Wingard disagreed with Mr. Volchok's statement that 5, 000 jobs would be lost because Kent is approaching build out. He feels that the industry of which Mr. Volchok is a part has taken as much as they can take. Barbara Conner, loll E. Laurel Street, Kent, WA 98031 supports the ordinance. Even pasture land has a purpose. The water must go somewhere. She wondered if this is an enforceable law and who is going to enforce it. She urged the Commission to look at whichever manual is the most scientific and not the one that is being manipulated by politics. 11 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Art Oberto, P. O. Box 429, Kent, WA 98035 has been running Oberto Sausage Company for 49 years. He decided to get 15 acres of land. His bankers told him he was crazy. He came to the Kent valley and bought a plant which had been empty for seven years. He met with all departments of the City of Kent to find out what they could do and couldn't do. The zoning was marginal, so they had it changed to heavy industry so there wouldn't be any problems. They tried to be as meticulous as possible in making sure they did not make any mistakes. Now they're trying to make plans for additional expansion and find out the property is probably all wetlands and they can't build on it. Mr. Oberto feels it is not right or fair to take the property away from him. Evelyn Crandall, 4011 Beach Drive SW, Seattle, WA 98116 has owned 4. 3 acres on the Benson Highway for the past 40 years. Her property is zoned Office, is taxed very highly and has an LID for the road. The property is usually pasture, but about half an acre of it becomes a wetland when it rains. She would like to sell her property, but if you take an acre or an acre and a half away from 4 . 3 acres you're taking quite a lot of money. Donald Marcy, 701 5th Avenue, Suite 7000, Seattle, WA 98104 was representing Glacier Park Company which owns property within the City of Kent. He pointed out that the Growth Management Act has a number of different goals besides the protection of critical areas which must be balanced. He feels that the proposed ordinance does a very good job of protecting and regulating critical areas, but does not do a very good job of achieving the other goals such as economic development, affordable housing and adequate infrastructure. He feels that the ordinance should reference the 1987 manual or subsequent amendments to that manual. It adds more confusion and expense to the process when state and local governments utilize a different methodology for delineating wetlands. He feels that the 1989 manual was the result of a trade-off between the four agencies that are involved in regulating wetlands. Mr. Marcy pointed out that it costs in excess of $100, 000 for someone to show that there are no "practicable alternatives" to placing fill in the wetland. He feels that is unreasonable and the City should find a different system to utilize. Section 4 deals with "Lands to Which this Chapter Applies" . He feels there should be a grandfathering provision for lands that have already received certain development approval, such as subdivisions, and for lands that have paid for LID's. Those property owners are not being fairly treated. 12 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Section 7 deals with allowed activities. He suggested an addition to this section which would cover minor fills of isolated wetlands up to .99 acres. The federal government has a nationwide permit that they issue for this purpose. The state of Washington has approved that nationwide permit. He feels the City should also follow this standard. The ordinance establishes very high standards for obtaining a wetland permit. It must be proved that the fill of the wetland is unavoidable and necessary. Those are very subjective standards that can vary from person to person. Mr. Marcy feels the standard for reducing the required buffer width is too stringent. The applicant has to prove that there is no direct or indirect short term or long term adverse impact due to the regulated activity. You are asking someone to prove a negative. Another section deals with whether or not stormwater management facilities are permitted in a buffer. The applicant has to prove that there is no reasonable on-site alternative to placing them in a wetland buffer. Mr. Marcy feels this is too high a standard and a buffer would be a perfectly appropriate place for this type of activity. In regard to Section 12 which relates to avoiding wetland impacts, if there is another parcel that might accommodate your use that wouldn't require the placement of fill, you must make a reasonable attempt at removing the zoning constraint on the property. This is a very difficult standard to meet. The ordinance requires that sensitive area tracts have a deed restriction that prohibits disturbance of the sensitive area in perpetuity. There are a lot of things that can happen to change the wetland area and perpetuity is a long time. Mr. Marcy feels it would be better to say "until the City and property owner agree otherwise". Mr. Marcy's final comment concerns the cost of the ordinance. It will require a great deal of time by the staff and administrative and enforcement functions will exact a high cost from the City. Another cost is the lost opportunities for economic development. The land base in the City is diminishing, but there are still parcels that can be developed if some fill is allowed and appropriate mitigation is required. This ordinance makes it very difficult for that to happen. He would like some revisions to be made so this becomes an ordinance that addresses and balances all of the goals of the Growth Management Act. 13 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Commissioner Martinez pointed out that in most issues that come before the Planning Commission, they are asked by the development community to be as specific as possible so there will be no surprises. She felt the staff has attempted to give very specific direction and they are now being asked to use a less specific approach. She feels this would lead to more possibility for misunderstanding. Mr. Marcy agreed that specificity is very important and felt his comments were aimed at some of the non-specific language in the ordinance such as "unavoidable" and "necessary" . He is not suggesting that people shouldn't work toward the goal of no net loss of wetland functions, values and acreage. He just feels the standards should be more easily understood and achievable. Rich O'Connell, 20431 Frager Road, Kent, WA lives on property that was homesteaded by his great grandfather. He asked the Planning Commission to use a common sense approach. The City has an opportunity to develop a "can do" attitude. What can the City of Kent do to help the landowners? What can the City of Kent do to help those that have wetlands that don't mind having wetlands? There are many businesses that can work together with wetlands, but many times there are too many bureaucracies that say "no, you can't do it" . There are some very good farmers in this valley, if they could be given the opportunity. He urged the Commissioners to remember the "can do" attitude and maybe Kent will be a model for showing the rest of the country what we can do. Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue SE, Kent, WA has seen the change in the valley since the 601s. He commended the task force and the staff for putting together the ordinance. He supports the 1989 federal manual because it is most appropriate for Kent in terms of the wetlands that are being protected by this delineation method and the wetlands that we want to protect. The ordinance does allow for filling of wetlands in some areas, but it is important that we focus on the no net loss concept. Mr. Miles feels that the issue is speculation on property. The predictability of an ordinance allows speculators to know ahead of time what they're getting into. If the ordinance is adopted, the rules will be in place so we won't have situations where people didn't know. He recommended adoption of the ordinance. Satia Goff, 9522 1st Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115 represents a group of people who own land in Kent. They feel that every foot of wetland on their property costs them $700. Many of these investors are retired and the payments on the land are an extreme hardship. Each foot they lose the use of is a foot they cannot sell. People 14 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 are beginning to protect their land from becoming wetland. An owner she knows grades his property twice a year to make sure there aren't any plants growing on it and there are no wetlands developing. Developers in the past have managed the land according to the law that was existing at the time. If they harmed the land, it does not mean that current property owners must be the ones to bear the cost of replacing wetlands that disappeared in the past. If the preservation of wetlands is determined to be a public good, then the public must pay for that preservation. It's easy for environmentalists to say these public lands belong to all of us, but they don't belong to all of us until all of us pay for them. Protecting those wetlands should not be the responsibility of a relatively small segment of property owners. Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, WA 98031 wanted to stress that the City follow the 1987 federal guidelines. He feels that the 1989 guidelines are a vast overkill of what a true wetland really is. We're talking about acres of wet pasture. When you have to irrigate land intensely in the summer to farm it, you're indicating that something's not really a wetland. People have been paying high taxes and high LID assessments on much of the land in the valley based on development at a later date for the highest and best use. They don't want someone to tell them it's a wetland and they're stuck with the problem. The loss of farmland in the valley should not be confused with the issue of wetlands. Farmlands have been gone for many years for various reasons and are not coming back. The two issues should not be confused. Don Bogard, 922 N. Central Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 has been an architect in Kent for 33 years and considers himself an environmentalist. He feels that if the Commissioners really believe the things that are in the proposed ordinance are important, they should recommend that the City Council come up with an affirmative action program. They should clean up some of the things the City has done. Oil separators are required for parking lots, but not for streets. The City sprays oil on the parking lot of the City park. New developments must put in storm sewers and sidewalks, but the City doesn't believe in doing it themselves. There should be at least an equal amount of effort, money and rehabilitation accomplished by the City as there is to save the small amount of wetlands that are left. 15 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Commissioner Ward agreed that the City needs an affirmative action type of ordinance. He wanted to know if Mr. Bogard meant that the City should do repair or reconstruction on many of the things that it has done to wetlands at the same time that property owners are asked to make contributions in the sense of some portion of their property. Mr. Bogard said he is proposing that the City take some affirmative action. The City cleaned out wetlands to make parks. Maybe there should be a buffer put in. The golf course was put on the river with no buffer. It seems there are two sets of rules, one for developers and another for the City. Paul Seely, P. O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA 98124 works for Boeing and submitted a letter that deals mostly with buffers. DOE has just come out with a report that says you really can't arbitrarily fix 25, 50 or 100 feet as a buffer and assume that it will be in the best interest of a certain category of wetland. In some instances where there were 50 foot buffers, the wetland has grown to a point where the buffer disappears and it's debatable whether or not you have to create another 50 foot buffer. As far as the delineation manual, Mr. Seely feels politics is not absent from any manual created by a government body. You have to try to understand what you're fundamentally trying to protect and for what reason and try to find balance. Things must be valued in terms of what we have today, how they apply and what we're trying to gain. He feels it would be useful for staff to take the Commissioners through a moderately complex project to see what a developer faces. In the best of circumstances, people are looking at 12-14 months. More likely it will be 19 months to 2 years depending on the complexity. Government needs to provide people with some sense of what they can do, how much it will cost and what will be involved. They shouldn't have to put thousands of dollars into a project and find out it can be mitigated, but the cost of that mitigation doesn't allow the project to be penciled out. You need to have some greater assurance in the front end. Staff can be fairly reliable if they stay in place. What typically happens is they get burned out. If staff changes, you start all over again. He feels there should be some flexibility within the ordinance or we' ll be back here in a few years. Steve Burpee, 1048 W. James, Suite 104, Kent spoke on behalf of the Kent Chamber. Their Commerce and Industry Council has a goal called SSEE which stands for Sensible Solutions for our Environment 16 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 and our Economy. He hopes the Planning Commission shares this goal. Real wetlands are important, but we should not get caught up in the emotion of those and let it be carried over to things that are very marginal, if wetlands at all. He feels the most important thing is the cost factor. Have we measured the cost of this ordinance? What about the loss of income to the City? What about the loss of income to families through jobs? What about a possible heavy financial loss of a class action lawsuit based on the taking of property? Mr. Burpee doesn't feel that development is all that bad. The ground that used to be productive for food now produces jobs. The welfare of families depends on jobs. Bill Wolinski works for the City of Kent and is in charge of the water quality programs. Regarding Mr. Bogard's comments, Mr. Wolinski has found that the City is very much committed to addressing environmental water pollution problems. They have over $10,000, 000 in water pollution control projects that are earmarked for the next five years. They are directing their cleanup activities to a lot of the City's operations. Commissioner Ward asked about Mr. Bogard's accusation that the City is the biggest violator of what we're trying to accomplish with this ordinance. Mr. Wolinski said he has only been on the job four months, but the City is obligated to follow the same regulations as the private sector with regard to the wetland ordinances and the environmental laws and regulations. The City does not exempt itself from the requirements that it' s promoting for the private sector. Brent Carson with the law firm of Buck & Gordon, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 , Seattle, WA 98104 is representing Union Pacific Realty and presented a letter to the Commission. Linda Boomer, who is an employee of Union Pacific, was on the Citizen Advisory Committee. He feels that the draft ordinance ignores many of the questions that Ms. Boomer raised, both at the Committee level and individually. What we have is a guard dog approach to wetland regulation; it doesn't have balance. With the proposed ordinance, if you have wetlands, you will not be able to develop. He feels this ordinance is not about wetlands. Wetlands is the euphemism that's being used. We're talking about storm water management, flood control and open space protection. If we want to protect open space, we should look at open space ordinances. We're 17 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 using a wetlands approach as a back door way of trying to control these things. There is an intense federal regulatory program for wetlands. It has prohibited development of wetlands throughout the state for the last five years. He urged the Commissioners to think twice before they adopt an ordinance that really may only say you can't do anything with wetlands, when you already have a federal program in place that essentially already says that. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Carson if he is saying we don't need an ordinance because one already exists. Mr. Carson said we will have to do something because the Growth Management Act mandates it, but it should be the same as the federal program. Joe Jainga with Washington Natural Gas referred to a paragraph that apparently allows the maintenance, repair and operation of existing utility facilities in wetlands or wetland buffers. WNG feels it is important that this section specifically include utility facilities. In addition, a definition of "utility facilities" could be added which would clarify the applicability of the exemption language. It is also important to WNG that certain other routine utility activities be exempted from coverage under Kent's wetland management strategy. For example, the following utility activities have been exempted in ordinances adopted by King County and the City of Seattle: 1. Relocation of natural gas, cable communications, and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances only when required by a local governmental agency which approves the new location of the facilities. 2. Installation or construction in improved city road right-of- way, and replacement, operation, repair or alteration of all natural gas, cable communications and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances. Their concern is that they retain the ability to effectively service their present and future customers in Kent. They feel that effective utility exemption language will minimize the disruption of wetlands by ensuring that existing utilities may be operated in place and by promoting the installation of new facilities in existing rights-of-way. Also, there is no language in the current draft that addresses relocation work. 18 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Kirk Johnson is with Trammell Crow Company which is an industrial developer and also a landlord, owning and managing approximately four million square feet of buildings in the valley floor. The development community's business is responding to market demand for industrial uses. Trammell Crow has developed about a million and a half square feet in the City of Kent in the past few years because Kent has been such a great place to work. City staff has been predictable, efficient and has accommodated growth. He feels that if the ordinance is passed, you will see permit applications drop significantly because people will choose to locate in surrounding cities which are using the 1987 manual. Howard Hagar, 4403 SW 100th, Seattle, WA 98146 owns property in Kent. He requested that the Commission give serious consideration to allowing the public to speak at the next hearing so people will have time to review the ordinance more fully. Joyce Barnier owns property in Kent which has been in her family for approximately 120 years. The City has put roads, LID's and drainage ditches through the property and contaminated it, all because of progress. She is completely surrounded by industry. She asked the Commission to put a grandfather clause in the ordinance to exempt her from the wetlands issue. Her property is only a wetland when it rains. Commissioner Ward asked if she felt she her property contained wetlands only because of drainage from City improvements. Ms. Barnier said she is completely surrounded by industry and except for normal rain, would not be a wetland without the development. Ted Knapp of Birtcher Frank Properties, who spoke earlier, said he has developed a letter which goes through the draft ordinance section by section and points out clarifications and suggestions. He presented the letter to the Commission so they can review it before the next public hearing. Gary Volchok asked what is going to happen. After the next public hearing, will the Commission work with staff to make changes to the document, give it back to the public to look at or just pass it on to the City Council when another round of hearings starts. He also asked what's going to happen with the deadline of March 1. Chair Antley said they obviously are not going to make the March 1 deadline. There will be another public hearing in March at which time the original document plus the additional comments from the public will be considered. Whether there will be a new document after that remains to be seen. 19 Kent Planning Commission January 27, 1992 Commissioner Dahle asked if there would be another workshop on critical areas. Fred Satterstrom said another workshop might be more advantageous after all the public testimony has been heard. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to continue the hearing until March 9, 1992 . Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C7Jas P. Harris, Secretary 20