HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/17/1996 • ,CITY OF �JULE!y
a
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Jim White, Mayor
SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING 'COMMITTEE IS HOLDING A MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 17,: 1996.AT 4.00 P.M.>IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST ROOM OF
KENT CITY HALL AT 220 S. FOURTH AVENUE.
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Kent Junk Ordinance - (F. Satterstrom) ACTION ITEM - 20 Minutes
2. Potential Zoning Code Amendment - to amend ACTION ITEM - 20 Minutes
the Code to expand the uses exempt from the
the home occupation development and performance
standards - (L. Orr)
3. Potential Amendment to Countywide Planning ACTION ITEM - 20 Minutes
Policies/ratification - (F. Satterstrom)
Added Items: h p
\��C' �(V" �Ur 1'�5c�a�-v.a,.71_..— r3
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN
ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993
OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)854-6587.
mp:c:pco91796.agn
220 4th AVE.SO., f KENT,WASHING"rON 980325895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/PAX k 859-3334
a
KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT
k
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Planning Committee
Members of the Public Safety Committee
FROM: �d Crawford
DATE: September 9, 1996
RE: Amendment to Chapter 8.08 of the Kent City Code relating to Junk Vehicles
Following review of the proposed amendment to Chapter 8.08 of the Kent City Code relating to
Junk Vehicles, staff has determined that there should be no significant impact to the police
department related to towing and storage fees. Following authorization by the police department
for the tow of a junk vehicle, the police department is out of the loop. The tow company would
then take all the appropriate steps to contact the registered owner, who would then be
responsible for those fees or the vehicle is sent to auction by the tow company. We may,
however, experience some minor manpower increases related to the running plates, etc.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.
EC:klr
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 8.08. of the Kent City
Code relating to junk vehicles.
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.08 of the Kent City Code provides for the abatement of
junk vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend this code to be consistent with
state law; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.08 of the Kent City Code entitled "Junk Vehicles" is
hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 8.08. JUNK VEHICLES
Sec. 8.08.010. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the character and safety of the city's
neighborhoods by eliminating as nuisances, junk vehicles from private property, and to
provide procedures for the removal of junk vehicles as authorized by RCW 46.55.240.
Sec. 8.08.020. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the following
meaning: .
Director means the director of the department in charge of code enforcement or his
or her designee or any designated alternate who is empowered by ordinance or by the
mayor to enforce this chapter including assigned code enforcement officials.
Junk vehicle means ftnya vehicle 5tibstamtially meeting a4at least three of the
following requirements: (RCW 46.55.010(4))
1. Is three (3) years old or older; at4
2. Is extensively damaged, such damage including, but not limited to any of the
following: aA broken window or windshield or missing wheels, tires, motor
or transmission; arm
3. Is apparently inoperable; and
74. Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of
the scrap in it.
Landowner means an owner of private property, or a person in possession or control
of private property.
Sec. 8.08.030. Public nuisance declared.
All junk vehicles certified as such by a law enforcement officer or code enforcement
officer designated by the director according to RCW 46.55.230 and found on private
property are declared to constitute a public nuisance subject to removal, impoundment
and disposal. It is unlawful for any individual firm, entity or corporation to allow, cause to
allow or place a junk vehicle on any premises.
Sec. 8.08.040. Exemptions.
A. A vehicle or part thereof which is completely enclosed within a building in a
lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property; or
B. A vehicle or part thereof which is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private
property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed vehicle
dealer and is fenced according to the provisions of RCW 46.80.130.
2
1
Sec. 8.08.050. Abatement and removal of junk vehicles on private property.
A. Voluntary correction. Whenever the code enforcement officer determines that a
vehicle is a public nuisance and in violation of this chapter, a reasonable attempt shall be
made to secure voluntary correction from the landowner and the vehicle's registered
owner.
B. Issuance of notice of civil violation. If the code compliance officer does not
obtain voluntary correction of the public nuisance, the officer may issue a notice of civil
violation to the landowner of record and the vehicle's last registered owner of record in
accordance with the provisions of Kent City Code 1.04.040.
C. Content. For violations of this chapter the notice of civil violation shall contain
the following information:
1. The name and address of the landowner of record upon whose property the
vehicle is located; &td
2. The name and address of the vehicle's last registered owner of record
provided license or vehicle identification numbers are available; and
3.. The vehicle description including: the license plate number and/or the
vehicle identification number; the model year; the make; and the factors
which render the vehicle a public nuisance; aft4
4. The street address of a description sufficient for identification of the property
where the vehicle is located; z-tftd
5. The required corrective action and a date and time by which the correction
must be completed;
6. The-date, time and location of a hearing before the hearing examiner on the
question of abatement and removal of the vehicle or part thereof as a public
nuisance which will be at least ten (10) days but no more than forty-five (45)
days from the date the notice is issued; zm4
7. A statement indicating that the hearing will be canceled and no monetary
penalty will be assessed if the required corrective action is completed at least
forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled hearing; aftd
3
8. A statement indicating that the city may remove, impound and dispose of the
Vehicle, and assess all costs and expenses of administration, removing,
impounding and disposing of the vehicle against the landowner or the
registered owner as ordered by the hearing examiner; and
9. A statement that a monetary penalty pursuant to section 1.04.040 E. in an
amount per day for each violation shall be assessed against the landowner
and/or the vehicle's registered owner as specified and ordered by the hearing
examiner in accordance with section 1.04.040.
D. Service of notice. The notice shall be mailed by certified mail, with a five-day
return receipt requested, to the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized
assessment roll and to the last registered and legal owner of record unless the vehicle is in
such condition that identification numbers are not available to determine ownership.
E. Landowner responsibility disclaimer. The landowner may appear in person at the
hearing or present a written statement prior to the hearing, to deny responsibility for the
vehicle's presence on the property. If the hearing examiner determines that the vehicle was
placed on the property without the landowner's consent and that the landowner has not
subsequently acquiesced in its presence, then the costs and expenses of administration,
removing., impounding and disposing of the vehicle shall not be assessed against the
landowner or otherwise attempted to be collected from said landowner.
F. Removal by the city. Pursuant to the hearing examiner's orders, the vehicle or
part thereof may be removed at the request of a law enforcement officer, the city may use
any lawful means to cause the vehicle to be removed from the private property and
disposed of to a licensed motor vehicle wrecker or hulk hauler or scrap processor, with
notice to the Washington State Patrol and the Washington Department of Licensing that the
vehicle has been wrecked.
G. Recovery of costs and expenses.
1. The costs of removal and disposal shall be assessed against the last registered
owner if the identity of the owner can be determined unless the owner
in-.—the transfer.of ownership complied with RCW 46.12.101, or against the
landowner of record of the property on which the vehicle is stored, or both.
If both the owner of the vehicle and the property landowner are assessed the
costs of removal, then liability for the costs shall be their joint and separate
obligation.
4
2. The costs of administration and of removal and disposal of the vehicle may
be recovered pursuant to Kent City Code 1 .04.060 D.
H. Conflict of provisions. The notice and related requirements of this section, Kent
City Code 8.08.050, are intended to supplement those of Kent City Code 1.04.040,
however, should a conflict exist, the provisions of Kent City Code 8.08.050 shall prevail.
Sec. 8.08.060. Violation; penalty.
A. Any violation of any provision of this chapter is a civil violation as provided for
in Kent City Code, Chapter 1.04, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and
abatement may be required as provided therein.
B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this
chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1.01.140 of the Kent
City Code.
Sec. 8.08.070. Rules and procedures.
The applicable department director in charge of enforcement of this chapter may
adopt such rules as may be necessary to effectively implement and administer this chapter.
SECTION 2. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, 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.
5
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 1996.
APPROVED day of 11996.
PUBLISHED day of 11996.
6
_ ZONING § 15.08.650
2. Public facilities. Includes firehouses, police 3. A home occupation shall not occupy more
stations, libraries and administrative of- than three hundred (300) square feet.
(ices of governmental agencies,primary and 4. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall
secondary schools, vocational schools and apply.
colleges.
D. Performance standards. All home occupa-
3. Open space uses.Includes cemeteries,parks, tions must meet the following minimum perfor-
playgrounds, golf courses and other recre- mane standards:
ation facilities,including buildings or struc-
tures associated therewith. 1. Employees.A home occupation may not em-
ploy on the premises more than one (1)
4. Drive-in churches,welfare facilities. Drive-in person who is not a resident of the dwelling
churches, retirement homes, convalescent unit.
homes and other welfare facilities (exclud-
ing group homes class I, II and III as de- 2. Traffic. The traffic generated by a home
fined in section 15.02.173), whether pri- occupation shall be limited to four (4)
vately or publicly operated, facilities for two-way client-related trips per day and
rehabilitation or correction, private clubs, shall not create a need for additional onsite
fraternal lodges, etc. or offsite parking spaces.
(Ord. No. 2958, § 19, 1-2-91) 3. Sale of goods and services. The sale of goods
and services from a home occupation shall
Sec. 15.08.040. Home occupations. be to one(1)customer at a time,by appoint-
ment only, between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
outline general conditions in which home occupa- only.
tions may be permitted in all zoning districts.
These conditions have been designed to help pre- 4. Electrical or mechanical equipment usage.
serve the residential character of the city's neigh- The use of electrical or mechanical equip-
borhoods from commercial encroachment while ment that would change the fire rating of
recognizing,that certain selected business activi- the structure or create visual or audible in-
ties are compatible with residential uses. terference in radio or television receivers
or electronic equipment or cause fluctua-
B. Home occupations permitted. Home occupa- tions in line voltage outside the dwelling
tions which meet the requirements of this section unit is prohibited.
are permitted in every zone where a dwelling unit 5. Utility demand. Utility demand for sewer,
was lawfully established.The requirements of this water, electricity, garbage or natural gas
section shall not apply to the following home oc- shall not exceed normal residential levels.
cupations
1. Home child care. 6. Other criteria. There shall be no noise, vi-
bration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare or
2. The sale of agricultural products produced other conditions produced as a result of the
on the premises. home occupation which would exceed that
normally produced by a single residence, or
C. Development standards. All dwelling units which would create a disturbing or objec-
in which a home occupation is located must meet tionable condition in the neighborhood.
the following minimum development standards:
E. Permit required.A zoning permit is required
1. The residential character of the exterior of as provided in section 15.09.020.
the building shall be maintained.
2. The outdoor storage or display of mate-
rials, goods, products or equipment is pro- A. Performance standards def ned.Performance
hibited. standards deal with the operational aspects of land
1245
RECEIVED Office of the Mayor
\' �E? 0 6 1996 SEP 3 1996
King County CITY OF KENT RECEIVED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 26, 1996
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor te:�
o
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the
King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies.
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)met on November 15, 1995 and voted to
pass an amendment to the Phase II Countywide Planning Policies, Step 8b of Framework Policy
FW-1 to extend the deadline for resolving North Bend's Joint Planning Area from December 31,
1995 to December 31, 1996. The King County Council approved and ratified this amendment
on behalf of the population of the unincorporated King County on August 19, 1996. We
apologize for the delay. King County Ordinance No. 12421 is attached to assist you in your
review of this amendment.
If you have any,questions, please feel free to contact Tom Koney, Legislative Analyst to the
King County Council's Growth Management Committee at 296-0330, or Ikuno Masterson of the
Office of Budget and Strategic Planning at 205-0700. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Y,• p
ane Hague, Chair Gary Lbcke
King County Council King County Executive
Chris Vance, Chair
Growth Management,Housing and Environment Committee
Enclosures
C
Amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies as approved by the Growth Management
Planning Council on November 15, 1995 and adopted by the Metropolitan King County
Council on August 19, 1996:
Add the underlined text to FRAMEWORK POLICY 1,STEP 8b as folloms:
b. The Urban Growth Areas of the following cities which are in dispute as of May 25.
1994 and illustrated on the attached maps, are now acknowledged as Joint Planning Areas
(See Appendix 1). By December 31, 1995, King County, the cities , citizens and property
owners will have completed a planning process to determine land uses and the Urban
Growth Area for each city, except that the planning process &adline for North Bend shall
be December 31. 1996. The King County Executive will recommend amendments to the
Urban Growth Area for each city for adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council.
The Urban Growth Area for each city will be amended in a separate Council ordinance.
These amendments are not subject to ratification under this policy.
Redmond (map 41) - 15 acres
Issaquah (map #2) - 100 acres
Renton (map #3) - 238 acres
North Bend (map #4) - 480 acres
Black Diamond (map #5 titled: Black Diamond Urban Growth Area/Open Space) -
maximum 3,000 acres
Snoqualmie(map #6 area labeled Joint Planning Area; the time frame for completion of
joint planning shall be that identified in the agreement between City of Snoqualmic. King
County and Snoqualmie Ridge Associates regarding Snoqualmie's future annexation of
property on the Lake Alice Plateau.)
July 29, 1996 Introduced By:
CHRISTOPHER VANCE t
Proposed No.: 9 6 - 6 5 5
1 ORDINANCE NO.1 2A2
2 AN ORDINANCE adopting an amendment to the Countywide
3 Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210;ratifying the
4 amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
5 King County;amending Ordinance 10450,Sections 3 and 4,
6 as amended,and amending K.C.C.20.10.030 and K.C.C.
7 20.10.040.
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
9 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The council makes the following findings.
10 A. The Metropolitan King County Council adopted and ratified the GMPC
12. recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies[5125/94] on August 15,
12 1994 pursuant to Ordinance 11446.
13 B. The GMPC met on November 15, 1995 and voted to pass an amendment to the
14 King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies[5/25/94],page 7,FW-1 Step 8b.to
15 extend the deadline for the joint planning process between the county and the City of North
16 Bend from December 31, 1995 until December 31, 1996.
17 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
18 each hereby amended to read as follows:
19 A. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
20 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
21 B. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
22 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment to this Ordinance 12027.
23 C The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
24 Policies are amended.as shown by Attachment 1 to this Ordinance
25 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
26 each hereby amended to read as follows:
_ 1 _
'12421
1 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by
2 Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
3 unincorporated King County.
4 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
5 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
6 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
7 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
8 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies
g adopted by Ordinance 11446 arehereby ratified on behalf of the population of
10 unincorporated King County.
11 E. The amendments to the King County-2012 Countywide Planning Policies,as
12 shown by Attachment I to this Ordinance 12027,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
13 population of unincorporated King County.
14
2
12421
1 E The amendments to the King County-2012 Countywide Planning Policies as shown by
2 Attachment I to this Ordinance.are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
3 unincoroorated King County,
4 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this PZ Q U day of
5 19 Y*2
6 / PASSED by a vote of(L- to this_C ay of
7 199Y.
g KING COUNTY COUNCIL
9 KING CO TY,WASHINGTON
10
11 Ci it/
i
12 ATTEST: /
13 �L
14 Clerk of the Council
15 APPROVED this 2-09\ day of 119 7 f.
17 may---�-King County Executive
18 Attachments: Attachment 1: Amendment to the King County-2012 Countywide
19 Planning Policies FW-1,Step 8b.
3
12421
July 26, 1996 Attachment 1
96-655
1 AMFNDMj;hJ'T to the King CoUUM-2012 Countwide Planning Polices 112/31/951
2 Pzge 7,FW-I,STEP 8b.is hereby amended:
3
4 b. The Urban Growth Areas of the following cities which are in dispute as of May 25.
5 1994 and illustrated on the attached maps,are now acknowledged as Joint Planning Areas
6 (See Appendix 1). By December 31, 1995,King County,the cities,citizens and property
7 owners will have completed a planning process to determine land uses and the Urban
8 Growth Area for each city t t n except that the planning process deadline for North Bend shall
9 be December 31. 1996. The King County Executive will recommend amendments to the
3-0 Urban Growth Area for each city for adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council.
11- The Urban Growth Area for each city will be amended in a separate Council ordinance.
12 These amendments are not subject to ratification under this policy.
13 Redmond(map#1)- 15 acres
14 Issaquah(map 92)- 100 acres
15 Renton(map#3)-238 acres
16 North Bend(map#4)-480 acres
17 Black Diamond(map 45 titled: Black Diamond Urban Growth Area/Open Space)-
18 maximum 3,000 acres
19 Snoqualmie(map 46 area Iabeled Joint Planning Area;the time frame for completion of
20 joint planning shall be that identified in the agreement between City of Snoqualmie. King
21 County and Snoqualmie Ridge Associates regarding Snoqualmie's future annexation of
22 property on the Lake Alice Plateau.)
,
23 Effect;. A motion to extend the timeline for the County and the City of North Bend to
24 complete the joint planning process until December 31. 1996 was approved by a voice-vote
25 of the GMPC on November 15, 1996. This amendment actualizes that action.
0:\cpp1F W I Bb.doc. 7129196 9:27 AM
CITY OF ��
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
September 17, 1996
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: MARGARET PORTER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III
SUBJECT: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER MITIGATION AGREEMENT
Staff will make a presentation on this item at the City Council Planning Committee meeting on
September 17, 1996. The action needed is as follows:
Motion: To establish a budget of$200,000 that was negotiated as part of the Regional Justice
Center Mitigation Agreement. We also request approval to expend these funds in the
amount $200,000 and to forward this item to the City Council on October 1, 1996.
MJP/mp:c:rjcbud.chg
cc: Jim Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lin Houston, Human Services Manager
Carolyn Sundvall, Planner
120 aih AVE So., l Klin f.AA':AiI11VG'TON 9RUl'_-SR95/"f4:L1 PI ION l'-o018') 1 i001 I':AX A ti59-33J-1 ___
CITY OF )4AL22LS� ,
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
December 22 , 1994
MEMO TO: ARTHUR MARTIN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
FROM: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
LIN BALL, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
BETSY CZARK, PLANNER
SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES MITIGATION FOR REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER
This is our response to the County's proposal as outlined in your
November 28, 1994 memo to us.
One concern we have with the proposal is that it appears the County
is shifting its responsibility for mitigation of SEPA to the City.
The County has to be responsible for complying with the SEPA
conditions.
The County's main proposal is to give the City $200, 000 to address
SEPA conditions #1 and #2 , and $38, 000 to address condition #3 as
listed in the City's Declaration of Significance dated October 14,
1994 .
We feel that the $200 , 000 figure should be adequate to do the data
collection and judicial tracking systems called for in #1 and #2 ,
but we feel it is critical that the County be involved in these
studies, so that they have an ownership and on-going commitment to
maintaining the systems. We feel that it should be the County, not
the City that administers these studies. This is a regional
justice center, not a Kent justice center. It happens to be
located in Kent, but the operation of the center will be the
responsibility of the County not the City of Kent. In the same
manner, these studies required in SEPA conditions #1 and #2 and the
on-going monitoring and maintenance of these systems must be done
by the County. Ideally, the City of Kent and the County would work
as a team. It will be a collaborative effort, with the County's
Department of Human Services (or some other County Executive
selected department) taking the lead and administering the
contracts for the necessary studies. The County should then be
responsible for the on-going monitoring of the data collection and
tracking systems. We feel that the $200, 000 should be set aside in
a separate fund to be held by the County to be used to pay for
conducting these studies . This fund should be established on or
1
before the date of issuance of the Building Permit.
We feel that the annual figure of $38 , 000 proposed by the County to
mitigate impacts to agencies delivering services is inadequate to
meet the potential impact of the RJC. The Ad-Hoc Task Force on
Human Services, in the report it presented to the County, came up
with a potential impact figure of $300, 000 per year. The $38, 000
figure proposed by the County is far removed from this $300, 000
figure. Although $300, 000 may truly represent the potential
impact, we also realize that $300, 000 may be an unrealistic number
to expect from the County We feel that initially a minimum of
$50, 000 should be allocated annually for this purpose. These
dollars will be used to mitigate the RJC's likely impact on a full
range of services. At a minimum we believe these services are:
mental health, alcohol and substance abuse, family and domestic
violence (including anger management services) , child care, food,
clothing, shelter, and legal advocacy services. This figure could
be reevaluated after two or three years when the true impacts of
the RJC are more fully assessed. In addition, this annual funding
should be available when the RJC opens; waiting one year after the
RJC opens (as proposed by the County) will place an undue burden on
the agencies providing services to those using the RJC.
Having said in the above that we agree that the $200, 000 is a good
offer and that the $38 , 000 should be increased to $50, 000,
following is our proposal of how we feel the County's proposal, as
outlined in your November 28th memo, should be modified to reflect
this .
Under the section of the memo titled "BLOCK GRANT"
We would propose the following wording:
A. We feel that King County should set aside $200; 000 in a
special fund to be held by the County to be used .to pay for
standardized data collection and assessment and for tracking
services mandated by the judicial function of the RJC. The
City of Kent and County will work together as a team on these
studies. It should be a collaborative effort, with the
County's Department of Human Services (or other designated
County Department) taking the lead and administering the
contracts for the studies. The City's involvement in these
studies does not relieve the County from its responsibility to
fulfill the SEPA requirements. This fund should be
established on or before the date of issuance of the Building
Permit. We see that these funds will be used as follows:
1. (response to "a" under "Block Grant" section of your memo)
Develop and implement a data collection and assessment
process to determine the human service impacts of the RJC
2
3 . (response to "c & d" under "Annual RFP Request Fund" section
of your memo)
The County should be in charge of administering and allocating
the $50, 000 to the eligible agencies. Agency claims for
reimbursement for services delivered to those using the RJC
will be made to the King County Department of Human Services
using either the same process currently in place to allocate
County human services dollars, or some other process developed
specifically for this money.
cc: Jim White, Mayor
Brent McFall, Director of Operations
C:LB/artmemo.rjc
4
2. TR MC/CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION AGREE'VLENT - Appendix B
The Traffic/Construction Mitigation Agreement (Appendix B) to this MOU represents resolution
of such issues as LID participation, specific road improvements, street expansions, parking, CTR
Plan (Commute Trip Reduction), turn lanes, signalization, on-site vehicle turnaround, deceleration
lanes and payment of fees etc.
The traffic/construction mitigation agreement also has six (6) graphic attachments,which depict
specific City and County responsibilities associated with the execution of some portions of this
agreement.
3. HUMAN SERVICES MMGATTON AGREEMENT-Appendix C
The Human Services Nfiitigation Agreement (Appendix C) to this MOU represents final
agreements and resolution of issues such as the establishment of a RJC Citizens Advisory
Committee; release times for sentenced prisoners; provision of clothing, bus passes and home
community referral information to released inmates.
Appendix C further includes a listing of RJC staff positions who duties specifically include linking
up released inmates with social, medical and human service agencies prior to release.
Also included within Appendix C is a provision of a one time block grant, and a process for
accessing annual funding to augment social/human services within the City of Kent, as the City
deems appropriate.
4. ENVIRONIMENTAL MITIGATION CONDITIONS - Appendix D
A list of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the
Regional Justice Center (RJC) were identified in the project's Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
documents.
Appendix D is a chart which restates the EIS's list of potential impacts, identifies probable
mitigation measures and reflects appropriate actions already taken or to be taken to mitigate each
impact.
Mitigation actions may include documentation of conditions which have been applied to permits
for demolition, remediation and site preparations already completed on this project. In addition,
mitigation conditions to be applied to upcoming permits may be listed or a referral to the
construction or human services mitigation agreements may be noted.
This MOU, including it's appendices and attachments, represents the total and final entire
mitigation package associated with the Regional Justice Center.
MOU-2
APPENDIX C
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT
Human Services Mitigation Agreement
3/10/95
The City and the County agree that the following represents the final resolution and formal mitigation
agreement on all potential social, human service, emergency and other related services which may be
impacted by the construction and operation of the Regional Justice Center in Kent.
This agreement is based upon considerable input from the public, elected officials, CBAG and the
City and County's collective analysis, research and discussions during an intensive five-month issue
clarification and resolution process.
Items' 11 and 12 specifically respond to, fully address and represent final resolution to the following
three addenda matters, forth in the City of Kent'sK 1/23/94 "Determination of,Sianificance and
Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents."
1. The framework, timelines, and potential funding for standardization of data collection,
review and assessments regarding potential impacts of the RJC on human service
agencies;
2. The framework, timelines, and potential funding for tracking services mandated by the
judicial function of the Regional Justice Center facility;
3. Development of a framework and mechanism for setting aside funds for potential
human service impacts, including potential funding for legal advocacy for domestic
violence-victims.
HUMAN SERVICE ISSUE AGREEMENTS
1. The County agrees to provide interview spaces for use by human service agency professionals,
volunteers, and ministerial visitation within the detention facility. The County has stated that
89 spaces will be provided within the RJC detention facility upon completed construction.
Use of these spaces is subject to security clearance, scheduling, and attendance at a facility
orientation.
2. The County will employ a full-time Volunteer Coordinator at the RJC to be funded from the
inmate benefit fund. This position will generally have the same scope of work as currently
performed at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle. Ofnce space will be provided
in the detention facility.
3. Support staff for the Volunteer Coordinator will be provided at the same level as currently
provided at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle.
APPNC - 1
9. The County will develop human services material for use by RJC staffmmembers. Outreach
materials pertinent to their home community will be provided to inmates upon their release.
10. The County agrees that outreach services for inmates will be provided by the County. The
following is an explanation of how these services will work within the RJC's "Direct
Supervision" detention facility which is a significantly different operation and environment
than any other King County Correctional Facility..
This explanation is immediately followed by a listing of RJC detention staff positions who will
carry out these responsibilities.
To efficiently and actively link RJGrelated individuals with needed or mandated
human services in appropriate referrals will be completed by various professional
and/or certified staff throughout the different departments within the Regional Jusrice
Center.
Anger management classes, community service activities, and alcohol treatment may
be conditions imposed upon a defendant by the judiciary. It is often incumbent upon
the defendant to return to the court and show proof of attendance or completion of a
program. Staff from the Superior Court or the prosecutor's office may give defendants
literature indicating where the service may be obtained, but it is the obligation of the
defendant to seek the service provider. As is the typical current practice, defendants
select a service provider close to their residence or place of employment. The majority
of these*services are paid for by the defendant themselves.
While a prisoner is in the custody of the detention facility, the King County
Department of Adult Detention staff conducts initial screening, makes assessments,
counsels,.and provide referral services as required. Inmates released during the first
eight hours of incarceration receive "release assessments" by the Release Officer.
In-custody detention programs consist of alcohol and substance abuse, education,
religious, and several volunteer coordinated activities. As these programs are for in-
custody inmates, they are not available once the inmate is released. However, mental
health, and medical outpatient referrals are made routinely by mental and medical
professional staff within the department based upon individual needs of the inmate.
During incarceration, ministerial and program volunteers identify inmates with needs
that can be met by church or program assistance. Other confidential information may
be referred to the Volunteer Coordinator for further follow-up based on the individual
needs of the inmate.
During the release procedures inmates are assessed regarding clothing and transport-
action needs, and are then issued a bus pass or clothing when deemed appropriate.
They are also provided with information on programs from the inmate's home
community.
11. King County agrees to provide a one time block grant of$200,000 (Two hundred thousand
dollars) to the City of Kent, upon the County's receipt of the RJC Construction Permit, to use
at its discretion for purposes of:
a) Augmenting existing social, emergency, or other service program in the City of Kent,
and/or;
Establishing a framework for and initiating baseline and standardized annual data
nD
a
collection of City of Kent social, emergency, or other service programs, and/or;
c) Investment for future augmentation of social, emergency, or other any other service
programs within the City of Kent. .
i
12. King County agrees to make available to the City of Kent, starting one year after RJC
opening, a fund totaling up to a minimum of$38,000 for the City's distribution on an annual
RFP basis.
a. These funds will be made available from the inmate welfare fund and shall be re-
assessed each year based on the annual RJC Average Daily Population (ADP) at a
rate of$63.00 per ADP up to a maximum of 1,200 ADP for a maximum amount of
$75,600 (seventy five-thousand six-hundred dollars).
b. All allocations of this fund (from the inmate welfare funds) by the City of Kent shall be
only on an annual RFP (application) basis.
C. Submission dates for all RFP's (applications) each year will be established jointly by
the City of Kent and King County, with funding to run from January through
X\4, December of the following year. An RFP (application) City/County Award Review
Committee shall be appointed by the Mayor and the County Executive: Two thirds of
, .this committee shall be appointed by the Mayor. Funds will be awarded by this
City/County Review Committee subject to the following:
1. Any individual RFP (application) request for funding shall not exceed $10,000
(ten thousand dollars). No single agency shall receive funds for more than one
RFP (application) request in the same year.
2. RFP (application) funding requests will be limited to one year, and must
provide services specifically related to the RJC detention population.
3. A new RFP (application) must be submitted each year.
4. Prioritization, endorsement, and granting funds from this annual RFP account
�( by the City of Kent shall be subject to the review and auditing processes of
0� King County and the State of Washington.
y Cdri�j APPNC-4
f
9/17/96
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
NAME
SECTION I
Sec. 15.08.040. Home occupations.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to outline general conditions in which
home occupations may be permitted in all zoning districts. These conditions have been
designed to help preserve the residential character of the city's neighborhoods from
commercial encroachment while recognizing that certain selected business activities are
compatible with residential uses.
B. Home occupations permitted. Home occupations which meet the requirements
of this section are permitted in every zone where a dwelling unit was lawfully established.
The requirements of this section shall not apply to the following home occupations:
1. Home child care.
2. The sale of agricultural products produced on the premises.
3, Music lessons and academic tutoring.
C. Development standards. All dwelling units in which a home occupation is
located must meet the following minimum development standards:
1. The residential character of the exterior of the building shall be maintained.
2. The outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, products or equipment is
prohibited.
3. A home occupation shall not occupy more than three hundred (300) square
feet.
4. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply.
D. Performance standards. All home occupations must meet the following
minimum performance standards:
1. Employees. A home occupation may not employ on the premises more than
one (1) person who is not a resident of the dwelling unit.
2
2. Traffic. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall be limited to four
(4) two-way client-related trips per day and shall not create a need for
additional onsite or offsite parking spaces.
3. Sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services from a home
occupation shall be to one (1) customer at a time, by appointment only,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
only.
4. Electrical or mechanical equipment usage. The use of electrical or
mechanical equipment that would change the fire rating of the structure or
create visual or audible interference in radio or television receivers or
electronic equipment or cause fluctuations in line voltage outside the
dwelling unit is prohibited.
5. Utility demand. Utility demand for sewer, water, electricity, garbage or
natural gas shall not exceed normal residential levels.
6. Other criteria. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat,
glare or other conditions produced as a result of the home occupation which
would exceed that normally produced by a single residence, or which
would create a disturbing or objectionable condition in the neighborhood.
E. Permit required. A zoning permit is required as provided in section 15.09.020.
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, 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 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
3
T M
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of . 1996.
APPROVED day of . 1996.
PUBLISHED day of 1996.
1 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.
(S EA L)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4