Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/06/1991 • Pam" e4 3N 11L] • CITY CLERK 'S of CITY OF 111 UUM" PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA AUGUST 6, 1991 THE PXANNING C0MM17`TEE MEETING FOR AUGUST 6, 1991 75 SCHEDULED FOR d:d5 T'!M: AND WILI,IBE HEId3 INIIE C©IINCIL CHAMBERS ErS ROOM OF KENT CI7IYALE AT 22D F©URTH ACrENUE 5 Committee Members Jon Johnson, Chair Christi Houser - Leona Orr AGENDA 1. Domestic Violence Womens' Network (DAWN) ACTION ITEM Funding (L. Ball) 2. Soos Creek Resolution (L. Anderson) ACTION ITEM 3. Growth Management Update (L. Anderson) INFORMATION 4. Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (A. Watanabe) INFORMATION 5. Resolution for Notification Actions to ACTION ITEM Historical Signicant site (L. Anderson) 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3390 1 FAX#859-3334 CITY OF CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM JULY 30, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY UNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: LIN BALLENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: DAWN SHELTER ALLOCATION On June 4, 1991 the City Council allocated $10, 000 to DAWN to acquire a confidential safe shelter for battered women and their children. The Council ' s action was conditioned on the shelter being located within the City of Kent. On July 24 I received the attached letter from the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) regarding their search for a shelter site in the City of Kent. DAWN desired to locate its shelter in Kent, but has run into some difficulties which have caused them to look outside of the Kent city limits. DAWN requires a location within a single family neighborhood to ensure safety and anonymity of the shelter residents. The Kent Zoning Code limits the number of residents in a group home located in a single family neighborhood to 7 people including live in staff. The Dawn shelter will potentially house more than twice that many people. In their search for a suitable site, DAWN also explored the possibility of siting in a single family residence in a commercially zoned area where they would not be subject to the 7 person limit. However, they could not find a suitable site at a price that met their budget limitations. DAWN also cannot pursue any site for which a conditional use permit is required due to the necessity of a public hearing. DAWN has tried to find an appropriate site within the city limits but has found similar single family zoning code restrictions in Kent as in other south King County cities. While they will continue their search in Kent, they are expanding their search to unincorporated south King County where they can shelter more people in a single family zoned area. DAWN is asking the Council to reconsider its conditioning of the $10, 000 allocation on locating the shelter within the Kent City limits and continue to support the shelter. The shelter is a South King County shelter which will serve all of South King County including Kent residents. DAWN needs the City's $10,-000 in addition to funding from other South King County cities. Other cities are committing capital dollars to the project without siting limitations. JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE JULY 30, 1991 PAGE 2 Requested Action 1. Staff asks that the Planning Committee recommend amending the City Council Is June 4th action to remove the contingency that the DAWN confidential shelter must be located in the City of Kent in order to receive the City's $10,000 in capital funds. The motion would be amended to state that a minimum of $10, 000 be allocated to the Domestic Abuse Women' s Network (DAWN) to provide for the development of a confidential shelter in South King county. 2 . Forward this item to the full Council for action at its August 20th meeting. LB/slc: 73091mem.dwn Domestic Abuse July 24, 1991 2 4 FA Women's Network JUL I Serving South . .tly. AX FAF King County � K� Referral/Shelter L i n B a l l Advocacy City of Kent Counseling 220 4th Avenue South P.O. Box 1521 Kent, WA 98032 Kent,WA 98035 Office:852-5529 Dear Lin: DAWN' s search for a property to establish a confidential shelter for battered women and their children has been underway since June. We are working with a Kent real estate company and have looked at many properties. When DAWN began the search for a shelter site, our plan was to locate in Kent. However, the zoning restrictions for Group Homes, combined with our need for a large, single family home in good condition, that is within DAWN' s capital budget, has made finding a viable property within the Kent City limits an impossibility. Of necessity we have expanded our search to include unincorporated areas in south King County. The action taken by the Kent City Council on June 4, 1991 , authorizing $10, 000 for DAWN' s purchase and improvement of a shelter property, was contingent on the shelter being located within Kent' s City limits. The opportunity for DAWN to use Kent' s funds is in jeopardy, due to the lack of suitable property and zoning that would allow for operating a group home. DAWN cannot become involved in a site that would require a conditional use permit, due to the need for confidentiality of the location. 1 would like to request that the Kent City Council reconsider their limitation on the shelter ' s location. The shelter is intended to serve all of south King County and would serve Kent residents , as DAWN' s programs have done since 1981 . are@R0Vam JUL 2 4 PLANNING DEPARTM CM F K NT Lin Ball July 24, 1991 Page 2 To update you on our capital campaign, the City of Tukwila has allocated $15, 000 toward shelter capital , without siting limitations. The City of SeaTac has recommended, through its Community Development and Community Services committees, $15, 000 toward shelter capital ; also without siting limitations. (The final vote will be in August) . I would like to discuss Kent' s possible amendment of the action authorizing capital funds at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Linda Rasmussen Executive Director CITY Of CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM JULY 30, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE opt FROM: LAURI ANDERSON, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION At your meeting on July 2, you endorsed the attached resolution and requested that it be forwarded to the full City Council for action. In the meantime, the Planning Commission has reviewed the resolution and recommended a significant change: that adequate level of service be redefined to "D. " Prior to bringing the resolution forward to the full City Council, the Mayor has asked that the Planning Committee reconsider the resolution in light of the Planning Commission's recommendation. At your meeting on August 6, staff will present the Planning Commission's position on the resolution and answer any questions you may have. Action is requested only in the event the Planning Committee wishes to revise their original endorsement of the resolution. LA/slc:soosrev Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to urban growth and road adequacy in south King County. WHEREAS, the City of Kent is concerned about the current and projected rate of growth for the Soos Creek planning area; and WHEREAS, many of the residents who reside in the Soos Creek area now commute to the areas of employment using roadways through and around the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent wishes to support land use planning policies, and service/infrastructure development policies which will result in concurrency between such policies as required by the State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, such concurrency, as it relates to transportation planning, can only be defined as land use plans and roads development plans which, when implemented, will result in an "adequate" level of transportation service within the planning area; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent asserts that an "adequate" roads/transportation level of service is defined as level of service "E" or better; and WHEREAS, already approved development in the Soos Creek area will severely impact already congested roads to the extent that the level of service on major east/west arterials will be level of service "F" or worse; and WHEREAS, Kent traffic engineers have projected that unacceptable service levels stemming from the development patterns previously allowed in Soos Creek might not improve to level of service "E" even if the 277th/272nd corridor project is constructed; and WHEREAS, the Soos Creek Plan states that vacant and partly developed properties shall only be considered for urban density development when the County has adopted revised Road Adequacy Standards, but those standards have not been identified; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of new east/west arterials to serve already-approved development and alleviate current congestion. Section 2 . The City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "E" . 2 Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1991. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, 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 , 1991. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK sooscr.res 3 - WI-V 1. CITY OF L"L22� L1 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 8A&lt(C4� MEMORANDUM July 10, 1991 MEMO TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR pA FROM: LAURI ANDERSON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: DRAFT RESOLUTION RELATING TO URBAN GROWTH AND ROAD ADEQUACY IN SOUTH KING COUNTY The Planning Commission reviewed the draft resolution relating to urban growth and road adequacy in South King County at their workshop on July 8 . They generally supported the intent of the resolution and had only one concern: they were adamant that level of service "E" is not an adequate road service standard for the Soos Creek Planning Area. They suggested that the resolution be revised to state in Section 2 : Sec. 2 . The City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "D" . Although most Commissioners felt that even level of service D would not be adequate on a long term basis, they agreed that LOS D was better than LOS E and might even be achievable. Please give me a call at extension 3390 if you have any questions. LA/mp:a:resol cc: Planning Commission Members City Council Members James P. Harris, Planning Director Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director CITY OF n �11��5 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE July 2 , 1991 4 :45 PM Committee Members Present Guests Jon Johnson, Chair Emile Ghantons Christie Houser Sami Aoun Leona Orr Planning Staff Lauri Anderson Margaret Porter Lois Ricketts Fred Satterstrom PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Added Item--L. Orr) Councilmember Orr pointed out to the Committee the provision in the PUD ordinance that allows for multifamily housing to be built in single family zones with a Planned Unit Development permit. She did not feel that the City should encourage multifamily development in the little single family area that remains in the City. The PUD ordinance currently permits it. Councilmember Orr MOVED that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look at the section of the PUD ordinance which permits multifamily in single family zones and send their recommendation to Council on this issue. Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION (L. Anderson) Senior Planner Lauri Anderson presented the Mayor' s request for endorsement or nonendorsement of the Soos Creek Resolution which deals with the level of service for roads. The Soos Creek Plan as it is proposed suggests that growth be phased out on the East Hill, and that the phasing should be tied to road adequacy standards. King County is not going to consider rezoning or allowing potential !, zoning to actualize in the East Hill area until a certain level of service is achieved. The problem is that King County does not define that level of service. The County may feel it is important to tie the growth to something specific rather than the vague adequacy standard language that is stated in the plan. The Mayor is asking that the City of Kent request the King County Council to support the concept of the new east/west arterial, and that the KC Council support the concept of land use zoning in the Soos Creek Plan which precludes new urban development but which ties it until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to service Level E. Lauri quoted from the resolution I CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 2 , 1991 boundaries. These are areas that are not completely developed and where the County hopes to utilize the phasing concept. This is not downzoning, but if development has already been approved by King County, the zoning decision holds. The Growth Management Act states that the cities in conjunction with the County need to find an urban growth area. A line needs to be drawn, and beyond that line should be rural, low -density use. Within the line urban growth should occur. Kent is not ready to draw that line. Kent's land capacity analysis has not been completed. The Planning Department feels that this should be more of a county-wide effort, because if one city wants all the growth, no other city could have it. If a city did not want any growth, that would mean that another city, presumably, must take it. Staff thinks that this issue should be decided by King County as a whole. The Regional Technical Forum is working to come up with those lines. The County has proposed a tentative line which may be amended by this Forum. They have drawn the Urban/Rural Line at Big Soos Creek, which follows our planning area. It presumed that the City of Kent would annex and service out to this Urban/Rural Line (Kent's Urban Growth area) . The County does not want to see annexation unless the County and the City enter into an intergovernmental agreement that discusses how that transfer will take place. One of the County's criteria for annexation is to assume that the annexing city will zone to an urban density, 7-8 dwelling units per acre, which will accommodate transit. If Kent wishes to annex, it should expect urban density in the newly annexed area. The primary assumption is that the cities should be where primary growth will occur. Those cities will someday provide the services, and the County is tending to say it will go back to being a rural provider. In the meantime the County will try to limit the new growth through phasing until adequate transportation can be achieved. Councilmember Orr asked if 7-8 units per acre would be the overall density expectation, and that nodes of multifamily in the area would be counted to meet this density requirement. She felt the people in the County would fear being annexed if the quotas would be required for each parcel rather than an overall quota for the area. Ms. Anderson felt that the requirement would be overall density and would be stated in the interlocal agreement with the County. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the Soos Creek Interlocal agreement has never been signed. The County expects 116th Avenue SE, a collector street, to be developed into a minor arterial with three lanes. Residential densities in the Phase I area, north part of East Hill, should support transit which would require a higher density. The County' s 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 169 1991 PRESENT: Jim White May Miller Leona Orr Jerry Hayes Steve Dowell Jan Storment Don Wickstrom Johnie Nall Tom Brubaker Jack Spencer Gary Gill Neldon Hewitt Tony McCarthy Leland Fingerson Paul Scott Kathleen Pace Ed White Cliff Craig " Tim Heydon Priscilla Farris Bill Doolittle Don Wickstrom reviewed the 1992 budget cut proposals and proposed budget with the Committee. The Committee raised several questions concerning Equipment Rental. Six Year Transportation Plan Ed White addressed the "priority" array of the annual element projects and explained that the numbering system did not necessarily relate to the order in which the projects would be completed. Staff and funding availability would be determining factors. Jim White asked if James Street Safety Improvements could be moved up. Ed White stated that it could be moved up on the TIP but there probably would not be CIP funds committed for the project any sooner. Jim White stated that the City has made a significant commitment to the citizens that we would try to move it along. Ed White stated he would be meeting with the citizens later this month. Jim White asked about the status of the Crow Road Bypass. Wickstrom stated the developer is attempting to secure financing. They wanted to open the development in the spring of 1992 . Wickstrom clarified for the Committee that the Council action being sought is to pass a resolution adopting this Six Year Plan and another action is being requested to amend the SEPA ordinance which currently identifies the 1981 Six Year Plan. - We would be seeking to amend the SEPA ordinance to identify the latest Council-adopted version of the Six Year Plan. Urban Growth and Road Adeauacy Wickstrom stated this proposed resolution was presented by the Mayor at a recent Council meeting. Orr stated that the Planning Commission wanted the level of service to be "D" . There was CITY of CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 97yvrt- MEMORANDUM JULY 30, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: ANNE WATANABE, PLANNER a_ C�J SUBJECT: MILL CREEK BASIN SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP) The City of Kent, City of Auburn, King County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are currently in the early stages of developing a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for wetlands within the Mill Creek Basin. A SAMP is a comprehensive plan that identifies wetlands which may be appropriate for development and those which should be preserved, enhanced or restored. The goal is to avoid piecemeal, unpredictable decisions with regard to wetlands, and to instead adopt a comprehensive, basin-wide approach. (Please see the enclosed materials for more details on the SAMP. ) Staff from the sponsoring jurisdictions, as well as representatives from other state and federal agencies, have been conducting functional assessments of the Mill .Creek wetlands. , ,..The SAMP workgroup has also begun to set up a preliminary framework of goals and objectives (please see enclosed set of goals and objectives) . The Corps has scheduled a public workshop for late August, in order to present its findings thus far on the wetlands, and to solicit input on goals and objectives. Planning Department staff will present information on the SAMP to the Planning Committee at its August 6 meeting, so that the Committee will have this information prior to the .Corps public workshop. AW/slc:plcsamp Enclosures cc: James P. Harris Fred Satterstrom Lauri Anderson Don Wickstrom SAMP Alternatives committee - Minutes - June 11, 1991 Page 2 During the discussions of the SAMP goals and objectives other points were brought out. These include the need to keep an ecological perspective to the management of wetlands in the plan area, the importance of noncompensatory restoration of wetlands, and the complexity of developing a mitigation bank. SAMP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Draft: 6/14/91) SUB-GOAL ONE: Achieve "no net loss" of wetlands within the Plan area. in terms of both quantity (acreage) and quality (functions and values) . (Primary responsibility: Ken Brunner, Laura Kaye, John Marshall) Objective 1. 1: Determine existing acreages of wetlands.. Objective 1.2 : Determine existing functions and values of wetlands. Objective 1.3: Establish mitigation ratios and methodologies. SUB-GOAL TWO: Establish a simplified regional permit process for projects that involve wetlands. (Primary responsibility: Mike Scuderi) Objective 2. 1: Ensure that federal, state and local wetland regulations are consistent. Objective 2.2: Develop a one-stop-permitting process which will result in a single permit in place of local wetland/sensitive area permits, and state approvals. Objective 2.3: Establish a permit review procedure that will be consistently applied to permit applications; increase certainty in the development process. SUB-GOAL THREE: Prevent adverse impacts to wetlands and where adverse impacts are unavoidable, compensate for impacts . (Primary responsibility: Ken Brunner, Laura Kaye, and John Marshall) Objective 3. 1: Develop criteria/standards for avoidance of wetland impacts. Objective 3.2 : Designate certain wetlands for protection. Objective 3.3: Designate certain wetlands and uplands for mitigation sites. SAMP Alternatives committee - Minutes - June 11, 1991 Page 4 Objective 6.4: Reduce local assessments (LIDs) on properties which are designated for wetland protection and mitigation banks. Objective 6.5: Purchase properties which are designated for wetland protection. Objective 6.6: Purchase development rights of properties which are designated as mitigation sites. SUB-GOAL SEVEN: Increase current populations of and expand and improve habitats for species of local importance and rare, endangered, threatened, and monitor species. (Primary responsibility: Ken Brunner and Fred Weinmann) Objective '7.1: Establish an interconnected system of wetlands and adjacent transitional and upland wildlife habitat areas. Objective 7.2: Enhance wetland, transitional, and upland habitats. Objective 7.3: Establish wetland buffers to protect the wildlife habitat functions of wetlands from adjacent uses or developments. Objective 7.4: Reestablish habitats that were historically found within the Plan area. SUB-GOAL EIGHT: Development occurs in compliance with the Plan. (Primary responsibility: Ken Brunner, Laura Kaye, and John Marshall) Objective 8.1: Establish an entity that will be responsible for monitoring, maintaining and enforcing the requirements of the Plan. Objective 8.2 : Develop a monitoring program. Objective 8.3: Develop a maintenance program. Objective 8.4: Develop an enforcement program. SUB-GOAL NINE: Establish a set of financing strategies which will ensure long-term, consistent funding for the implementation of the Plan. (Primary responsibility: Anne Watanabe) objective 9. 1: Prioritize the fiscal needs of the Plan and spend monies consistent with these priorities. Informa ion Pa' per US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Date: AuSust 1990 SPECIAL AREA I•;AIIAGEtIEH1T PLAIT FOR THE 11ILL CREEK BASIN The Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is participating with King County, the city of Kent,. and the city of Auburn, as local sponsors, .in the development of a Special Area Management Plan (SAIiP) for the Hill Creek. ,,^.taiga e Basin, Kino County, IlashinZton. Seattle District has taken the role as the lead coordinator for the two year effort. Through its responsibilities as the administrator of the Clean Hater Act, the US Environmental Protection A3ercy (EPA) is working closely with the Corps. Other key players include the US Fish and 41ildlife Service, the State of tlashinZton, the Indian tribes, and the local development co,:.munity. t? at is a SAIiP? A SAIiP '*s a comprehensive plan providing for reasonable economic L;rowth and natural resource protection in a specific geographic area. The hill Creel% SAIiP is focusing on wetland resources and its goal is to develop a wetlands manserrent plan for the Bill Creek Draina&e Basin which results in iti;plementation of a Corps of En6ineers regional permit within two years. Through our regulatory responsibilities under the Clean I•later Act, the Corps ha: the authority to work with local governments in developing a SAIiP. What are the benefits of a SAIiP? One result of the SAIiP process is a re-ional Corps permit (or permits) which would authorize wetland fill activities meeting certain criteria in designated areas. The result would be accelerated review and increased predictability in the Corps regulatory process. for those activities or desinated areas. The SAIiP process would provide the basis for development of local land use plans and equivalent programmatic permits by local and state agencies. The SAIiP would increase consistency among the various permitting agencies regulating developments in wetlands. Additionally, the SAIiP would give environmental organizations greater certainty of wetlands protection in designated areas, would contribute to improved flood control and storage for the local communities, would assure that individual and cumulative impacts of wetland fill projects are analyzed in the context of broad ecosystem needs, and would contribute to consistency with the EPA Wetlands Priority Plan. Why a SAIiP and Regional Permit for the Hill Creek Basin? Mill Creel: is the main westside tributary to the lower Green River (see attached map), and encompasses approximately 20 square miles. It includes part of the cities of Auburn and Kent, and part of unincorporated King County. The Mill Creek basin is an environmentally sensitive area, with numerous quality wetland tracts remaining, and is under strong developmental pressure. Flooding in the lower hill Creel• basin occurs nearly every year. KinS County, Auburn, and Kent are • • i SPI:C_AL AREA MAIIAGE101:T PLAIT FOL THE BILL CREEK BASIN (cont'd. ) in the process of studying the flooding issues in the basin with one objective beinL wetlands protection and enhancement. The Soil Conservation Service is also studyinG flooding problems in the Rill Creek area. These efforts and the SAI4P are highly complimentary. The often confusing and con flicting .regulatory requirements placed by federal, state, and local levels of government on a development project in wetlands, the environmental concerns regarding the impacts of development in Wetlands, and the flood control issues make the Rill Creek basin a good candidate' for a SAI;P. What are the major tasks necessary to accomplish the SAMP? TASK 1. Development of a Plan of Study (POS), cost estimates, schedule, and sources, of fundin . STATUS: A final POS, cost estimates, schedule, and identity of fundini; souL'ces has beer. completed. The POS will be the vehicle which e:ili constitute the local sponsors' aGreerent with the Corps. Total cstiWated cc::t for the SA11P is 536,473, ; study duration .i-s estirjated to be 2 year... MI. 2. Procure funding. This is an on�oin effort. STATUS: To date, the Corps has funded appro:cinateiy ;:72,000 toward the effort. Tile EPA has provided 47,000 in FY 29 and +ill provide a coi.;parabie a;-oust next FY. Tne city of Auburn is conducten;; an updated wetland inventory of the Auburn area t: iich j_s a cortr: buted effort to the SOP. KinU County will be appiyir.z for fundin•: fro:a the State tiirouLh the Coastal Zone t anagerient Pro ran, which nu y be utilized for the SLI.F in F; 91. Other sources of fundin;; are bein;, explored. TASI. 3. Riesouree/wetland mappin , usinG the Corps/E.PA wetlands definition and the joint Federal uethodoloLy. STATUS: The Phase 1 report (identifyin,, what areas in the study area rec:ain to be inventoried and/or- refined to meet the criteria of the Federal c:ethodolo',y) and Phase 2 report (conduct and tional inventory priori: and mappin:,;) have been completed. Additional inventory uorl: is planned and is tar,;cted for completion it! early FY 91. TASI: 4. Determine functions and values of identified wetlands. STATUS: This task was begun in September 1989 through the initiation of a literature search of the resources of the study area, their history, and current status. The literature search, was completed in May 1990. Information gathered throu-'h the literature search and the wetland inventory will be used as a baseline for evaluating wetland functions and values. This task is scheduled for completion by the end of the first year (3rd Qtr FY 91). TASK 5. Summarize and categorize projected development in intensity according to desired uses. STATUS: This task will be conducted by the local sponsors, and is also due for comcpletion by the end of the fir.,t year (3rd Qtr FY 91) . SPI,r" 'I, AREA IiA110ri"'T PLAIT -;FOR TBE l:T_LL CP, "'", BASIII (cont'd. ) TASK 6. Develop criteria for areas to be developed, protected, enhanced, and for wetland mitigation/creation. STATUS: This task will overlap with tasks 4 and 5 and is targeted to begin in the 1st Quarter, FY 91. This task will culminate with the selection of areas to be designated. TASK 7. Conduct alternatives analysis using criteria developed in TASK 6. Evaluate the impacts of the various wetland management alternatives developed. Select a preferred alternative. STATUS: This task is targeted to begin in the 4th Quarter, FY 91. TASK G. Institutionalize the SAIIP through Corps regional permit(s) and equivalent local and state pernits. Prepare appropriate environmental docul tentation. CTA TUS: Thiz tzi1 ;', is targeted to begin in ti:U 1st (,'Darter, FY ?UEL1C TAS:S. ruu_ic involve: ent is on;;oin;c throughout the Si:I'P : Judy. ST ATTJU : To date, public involve,::ent has included coordinat;.on th the local —0:1--ors, the Erg; ��^ State o �Shin;;ton. fzdd,ti onail , and t.... Stc f 1* t'-e concept of t:lc Silo has been diacus:; d at meetin ;o With ti:e developoent co...i:unit'y' and ti,c environraentrl con::anity in the ;study area with po..itive re�persc and w'tin offers to a:.zt. ?, public worl:S op for- the SA'k P is tar; etec for ti:e 11ti, Quarter I'T G. Mote: The federal fiscal year (FY) runs from October to September. Lake ' Washingtoe \ SEATTLE 90 4m 900 RENTON 1s 169 ,I Yashon • Y ■ Island ., 1 13 • KENT i%''• AUBURN PROJECTS . 60 ,6c - E ►INGHAM TACOMA '. s, PUYALLUP `+ �?EVERETI' i6Z BAEMERTON; }� ORTING 7 so SEAT7IE 161 J• 'i � 410 . 7. - SITE 02 ` - TACOMA V PUYALLUP OLYMIDtA 706 FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP: MILL CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY AREA Not to Scale f - ��•y J '4j 1�cs MOMes'..� Y ; 1 l •\\\1Mi ..r r.e !:�.y�f.. •On trr d:uoi` 1• "' � d((!1(;JJ� •e .•� �+- �-�;-� rat:. •r .e♦ -I - IT .rll '' � T` 1 _ Y r r.✓' I I Y �T t 1. 'r WL •� I.''. I - - i ~ ` • ///�1 �ii'rrr�� �'�•1'e w�'Y•w.•tnt rwu6 A ! 1 ..1• �_�. /C�, •..� ... ::ice• �_ : �...? FIGURE 2 MILL CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN AS DEFINED BY THE SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN o 1 MILE APPROX. SHAPIRO& ASSQE=i ' CITY OF CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 VRC' M MEMORANDUM JULY 30, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: LAURI ANDERSON, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: HISTORIC PROPERTIES RESOLUTION At your meeting on July 16, you endorsed a resolution establishing standards for Planning Department notification of proposed actions to certain historically significant properties within the City. New information from the State Department of Ecology and Kent'Is Law Department has made it possible to expand the scope of this resolution to recognize the City's obligation to assess the impacts of actions to historically significant properties under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . At your meeting on August 6, staff will present a revised resolution, explain the modifications, and answer any questions you may have. Action requested is endorsement of the revised resolution and the forwarding of it to the full City Council for action. LA/slc:hp2 Attachment