HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/20/1996 (3) cisv OF MUM U
_ CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMltr
AGENDA Jim White, Mayor
AUGUST 20, 1996
THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMIE IS HOLDING A MEETING ON AUGUST
20, 1996 AT 4.00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST ROM OF KENT CITY
HALL AT 220 S. FOURTH AVENUE.'
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Proposed Kent Junk Ordinance - INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
(J. Harris)
2. 1997-1999 HOME Interlocal Cooperation ACTION ITEM - 15 Minutes
Agreement - (C. Sundvall)
3. 1997-1999 Community Development Block ACTION ITEM - 15 Minutes
Grant Interlocal Agreement - (C. Sundvall)
4. Discussion of the Manufacturing and R&D INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
Tax exemption - (L. Orr)
Added Items:
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:pco82096.agn
120 4th AVE SO /KENT W ASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE 1206)859 3300/PAX#859-3334
CITY OF !2L1V T
1
Jim White, Mayor
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Council Planning Committee Members: Leona Orr, Chair, Tim Clark and Jon
Johnson
From: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Date: August 13, 1996
Subject: Proposed amended Junk Vehicle Ordinance
As a result of the last Council Planning Committee, a draft junk vehicle ordinance, to replace
the current junk vehicle ordinance and to bring the ordinance into compliance with state law, is
being presented to the Committee for consideration. A representative from the Law office will
be present to review the proposed changes with the Committee.
220 4th AVF SO /KENT WASHINGTON 981132-5895 1 TELEPHONE 120G1859-3300/FAX K 959-3334
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 anya vehicle 5tib5tantially meeting -&4at least three of the
following requirements: (RCW 46.55.010(4))
1 . Is three (3) years old or older; aft4
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; an
3. Is apparently inoperable; art
-54. 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
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; ate
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; aftd
4. The street address of a description sufficient for identification of the property
where the vehicle is located; a+t
5. The required corrective action and a date and time by which the correction
must be completed; art$
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 00) days but no more than forty-five (45)
days from the date the notice is issued; arm
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; eftd
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 proper"- an owner 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 1996.
PUBLISHED day of 1996.
6
` CITY OF
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 20, 1996
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
FROM: LIN HOUSTON, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: 1997-1999 HOME INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA)
Background
The current three year HOME Interlocal Cooperative Agreement(ICA) expires at the end of 1996.
It is necessary for the City to enter into a new agreement for the King County HomE Consortium for
the years 1997-1999. (Copy is attached.)
The agreement governs the City's participation with the County and other King County cities in the
distribution of federal HOME funds. King County receives these funds under the federal HOME
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. These funds are available for distribution throughout the
County for projects which provide permanent affordable housing for low-income families and
individuals.
Since the HOME Program is administered by King County,with no separate funds for this Program
coming individually to the member cities,the ICA is very short and straight forward.
City of Kent Housing& Human Services staff are members of the HOME Working Committee and
participate in the drafting of policies, review of applications, and recommendations for HOME
funding. Our participation helps ensure that South King County captures its share of HOME dollars
for affordable housing.
The new ICA has only one major change from the current agreement and that is the inclusion of the
federally funded McKinney Homeless Assistance Program. In order to address the probability of
the King County Consortium receiving a direct "block grant" of the McKinney Homelessness
Assistance funds within the next three years, language has been added to the HOME agreement to
cover these funds. Adding these funds to the HOME Interlocal cooperation agreement means two
things: We avoid having to negotiate yet a third interlocal cooperation agreement, and we agree to
treat the McKinney funds more like the HOME dollars than the CDBG dollars. That is, the
interjurisdictional JRC will be the decision making body, allocating the funds on a regional or
Consortium-wide basis.
220 4th AVE.SO. /KENT,WASHINGTON M32-5995/TELEPHONE (206)809-33001 FAX#859-3334
Y
1997-99 HOME ICA
August 20, 1996
Page 2
The McKinney funds are not new funds coming into our region. These are funds that HUD has been
allocating directly to providers in our region and until recently with very little input from the
Consortium. That is changing and the JRC has now adopted the major portions of the Homeless
Continuum of Care plan, which is the HUD mandated document guiding the use of McKinney funds
in the King County Consortium.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Committee take the following action:
1. Recommend approval of the 1997-1999 HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.
2. Forward this item to the full City Council for consideration at its September 3, 1996, with
a recommendation that the Mayor be authorized to sign the 1997-1999 HOME Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement.
LH/mp:a:homeica.agr
Attachments
jfta:%home.wpd
1997-1999
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County, as an urban county
pursuant to 24 CFR Subpart 92.101 and Subpart 570.3, hereinafter referred to
as the "County," and the City of Kent hereinafter referred to as the "City,"
said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government of
the State of Washington.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, a unit of general local government that is included in an urban
county may be part of a consortium, only through the urban county; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan city or an urban county may be part of a
consortium; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent and King County agree that it is mutually
desirable and beneficial to enter into a consortium arrangement pursuant to
and authorized by 24 CFR Part 92 and 42 USC § 12746 for purposes of the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program, hereinafter referred to as "HOME Program";
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT:
1. This Agreement is made pursuant to the National Affordable Housing
Act of 1990, as amended, 42 USC § 12701 et. seq. (the "Act") and RCW 39.34,
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.
2. The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or assist in
undertaking HOME Program housing assistance activities which are eligible
under 24 CFR Part 92.
3. The County is hereby authorized to act as the representative member
on behalf of the Consortium for the purposes of the HOME Program. The County
agrees to assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's
HOME Program is carried out in compliance with federal requirements and the
housing objectives of the City and the County as adopted in the Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan (Consolidated H&CD Plan). The City
agrees to cooperate fully with the County in the development and preparation
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan, and to prepare and provide those elements
specifically pertaining to the City.
4. phis Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the period
necessary to plan and carry out all activities that will be funded from HOME
funds awarded for the 1997, 1998, 1999 federal fiscal years, which period
coincides with the Agreement for the Distribution and Administration of Commu-
nity Development Block Grant, or until the County's designation as a partici-
pating HOME jurisdiction is rescinded by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, or until such time as the County no longer
qualifies as an urban county, whichever is shorter.
5. During the term of this Agreement; neither the County nor the City
may withdraw from participation from their respective obligations under this
Agreement.
6. By executing the HOME Agreement, the City understands that it may not
participate in a HOME consortium except through the urban county, regardless
of whether the urban county receives a HOME formula allocation. .
1
7. This Agreement shall be executed in three counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, by the chief executive officers of the County and
the City, pursuant to the authority granted them by their respective governing
bodies. One of the signed counterparts, accompanied by copies of the
authorizing resolutions from the County and the City, shall be filed by
the County with the Region X office of HUD. A copy shall be filed with the
Secretary of State and the Clerk of the King County Council, the County
Auditor, and the City pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
B. The County and the City both hereby agree to affirmatively further
fair housing.
9. Joint Recommendations Committee Composition. The Committee shall be
composed of four County Department Directors or their designees: the Director
of the Department of Development and Environmental Services, the Director of
the Department of Community and Human Services, the Director of the Office of
Budget and Strategic Planning, and the Director of the Seattle-King County
Public Health Department. Department Director designees shall be specified in
writing and should, where possible, be the same person consistently from
meeting to meeting. Five participating city representatives and their al-
ternates will include city planning directors or comparable level staff, or
elected officials. Two city representatives and their alternates will be from
the north/east region of the County and two city representatives and their
alternates will be from the south region of the County. An additional
revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME-only
Cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting,
except on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal
housing-related funds (excluding Community Development Block Grant).
10. Appointments. The Suburban Cities Association will select ten
different jurisdictions, five to serve as members and five as alternates, who
in turn, will assign representatives to this Committee. Terms of office shall
be for two years. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small city
representative. The revolving position will be appointed annually by the
respective jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure
of their respective appointing authorities.
11. The Joint Recommendations Committee will adopt HOME program policies,
consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Plan, developed by the City and County
staff working group. The Joint Recommendations Committee will approve funding
decisions. All funding decisions must be in accord with adopted policies.
Once the policies are adopted, the City, as a representative member of the
Consortium, shall also have the right to comment on any program changes prior
to their implementation by the County.
12. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Joint Recommendations
Committee shall be chosen from among the members of the 'Committee by a ma-
jority vote of the members for a term of one year beginning the first meeting
of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will constitute a quorum.
13. The City shall participate jointly with the County in the development
of the Consortium's HOME Program by participating in development of a HOME
Program strategy sufficient to accommodate both the collective and individual
housing objectives contained within local comprehensive plans or other adopted
plans of both the City and the County.
14. Federal HOME funds, allocated to the Consortium, shall be used to
fund housing assistance activities that are the subject of this Agreement.
The City and the County shall cooperate in the establishment of budgets for
separate HOME activities. The County intends to enter into contractual agree-
ments with any city, nonprofit organization, or other entity that it selects
to implement HOME activities. The County's administrative costs will be paid
from the HOME grant, after review and approval by the Joint Recommendations
Committee.
2
15. This agreement applies to the Consortium's acceptance of other
federal housing-related funds which may be block granted to the Consortium.
Allocation decisions for these funds will be subject to policies and proce-
dures developed by the City and County staff working group and adopted by the
Joint Recommendations Committee.
This Agreement is legally binding and valid upon signature of all parties.
CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY
Jim White, Mayor Gary Locke, County Executive
Date: Date:
h603m
7/l5/96
3
CITY OF JCS ,-.SV
Jim White, Mayor
L27a11��'
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 20, 1996
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
FROM: LIN HOUSTON,HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: 1997-1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA)
Back round
The current, three year, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement (ICA) expires at the end of 1996. It is necessary for the City to enter into a new three
year Agreement for the years 1997-1999. (Copy is attached.)
The agreement governs the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant
Consortium, the vehicle by which Kent obtains its federal Block Grant funds. Mayor White must
sign this agreement in order for the City of Kent to participate as a partner in the King County
CDBG Consortium, and to be eligible to receive federal Community Development Block Grant
funds.
The new ICA includes only two major changes from the current agreement. Staff has spent
considerable time working with King County and other Consortium member cities on this new ICA
and negotiating wording that it feels is most beneficial to the City. We are confident that the new
ICA establishes an equitable process for fund distribution and involvement of all Consortium
members.
The major changes in the 1997 - 1999 CDBG ICA are:
1. In order to prevent loss of dollars to the Consortium as a whole, language has been added to
clarify and explicitly state that it is the responsibility of Pass-through cities to adopt
strategies and allocate funds in a timely manner. Furthermore, it has been made an explicit
responsibility of the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) to
recommend sanctions for cities which do not meet their responsibilities.
220 4th AVE.SO.. I KENT,WASHINGTON 99032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#959-3334
1997-1997 CDBG ICA
August 20, 1996
Page 2
2. In order to hip address the need to administer regional CDBG economic development
programs and other capital projects,there is new guidance on the Consortium's use of interest
income from Community Development Interim Loans (CDIL) and loans guaranteed under
the Section 108 Program.
Rather than this interest income being distributed back to local jurisdictions, (after the costs of
administering the CDIL\108 loan programs are taken out), the funds would instead be used for
regional capital projects or programs, including economic development programs, as reviewed and
recommended by the JRC. The immediate impacts of this change on local jurisdictions will be
negligible (in the past few years only about $12,500 in interest income has been available for
distribution back to the Pass-through cities and $12,500 to the County and Small Cities Fund), but
there is potential for more interest income in the future.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Committee take the following action:
1. Recommend approval of the 1997 - 1999 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement.
2. Forward this item to the full City Council for consideration at its September 3, 1996 meeting,
with a recommendation that the Mayor be authorized to sign the 1997 - 1999 CDBG
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement.
LH/mp:a:cdbgica.agr
Attachments
1997-1999
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT .
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1996
by and between King County and the City of Kent.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the federal government through adoption and administration of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the "Act"), will
make Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG"),• funds available to King
County, for expenditure during the 1997-1999 funding years; and
WHEREAS, the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any par-
ticipating cities, has been designated by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), as an urban county for the purpose of
receiving CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the
annual appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of
the urban county; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows joint participation of units of general govern-
ment within an urban county, and a distribution of CDBG funds to such govern-
mental units; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consolidated
housing and community development plan ("Consolidated H&CD Plan") by partici-
pating jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in partici-
pating incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by
granting funds to those jurisdictions to carry out such activities; and
WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all
activities undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances
and certifications King County is required to submit to HUD with the annual
Action Plan will be met; and
WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to
targeting CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low- and moderate-income persons as
defined by HUD; and
WHEREAS, King County and its consortium members recognize that the needs
of low- and moderate-income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and can
therefore be considered regional needs; and
WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions must submit an
Annual Action Plan to HUD which is a requirement to receive CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, which is
entered into pursuant to and in accordance with.the State Interlocal
Cooperation Act, RCW Chap. 39.34, is to form an urban county consortium,
("Consortium"), for planning the distribution and administration of CDBG and
other federal funds received on behalf of the Consortium from HUD, and for
execution of activities in accordance with and under authority of the Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT:
I. GENERAL AGREEMENT
King County and each participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to
undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income
housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly
assisted housing, funded from annual CDBG funds from federal Fiscal
Years' 1997, 1998 and 1999 appropriations, from recaptured funds allo-
cated in those years, and from any program income generated from the
expenditure of such funds.
II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The distribution within the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act
shall be governed by the following provisions, exclusive of the Cities of
Auburn, Bellevue, and Seattle.
A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and
other federal programs which benefit the Consortium shall be .reserved
by the County. This amount, hereinafter referred to as the adminis-
trative setaside, is contingent upon review by the Joint Recommenda-
tions Committee ("the Committee"), as provided in Section VIII(B)(1),
and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided by
Sections XI(A) and XI(B).
B. In addition to the administrative setaside referred to in Section
II(A), each year 26% of the public service funds available
(approximately $300,000 based on an entitlement of $6.85 million and
program income of $800,000) will be subtracted from the entitlement
and reserved for public service activities in support of the afford-
able housing requirements under the implementation of the state
Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service
setaside will be administered by the County with input from a working
group of the participating cities and county staff. This public
service setaside will be subject to the same percentage of decrease
as the annual public service funds if there are any reductions during
the year.
C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in
Sections II(A) and II(B) ("the Adjusted Grant Amount"), any city
which is a participant in this Agreement may be eligible to receive a
direct pass-through share ("the pass-through"), provided that:
1. The city's share of the Adjusted Grant Amount equals $50,000 or
more based upon the city's percentage of the Consortium's low- and
moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD;
2. The city may receive planning dollars from the County and Small
Cities Fund (defined in Section II below) the year prior to
accepting a Pass-through, the amount to be based on their percent-
age of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income persons, as
defined by HUD;
3. The city develops a strategic plan in accordance with Consolidated
H&CD Plan requirements;
4. The city council adopts the strategic plan, for the period covered
by the Consolidated H&CD Plan, which includes specific activities
the city will undertake with the pass-through funds and submits
the plan to the County by the end of September;
5. If the strategic plan meets HUD requirements, the city will be
offered Pass-through City status beginning the next January 1;
6. In the program year it becomes a Pass-through City, the city may
elect to allocate all their funds or to allocate only their public
services or capital funds, depending on which strategies they have
adopted to date and if a process for allocating those funds is in
place. In any case, the city will continue to receive its
planning allocation; and
2
7. The participating city agrees to abide by Consortium requirements
to receive a pass-through of CDBG funds or their ability to
receive a pass-through will be revoked. The responsibilities of
these pass-through jurisdictions are defined in Section X.
Participating cities may elect not to receive a direct pass-
through but may compete for County and Small Cities Funds, as
defined in Section II(D), below.
D. The funds remaining in the Adjusted Grant Amount after the distribu-
tion of the pass-through funds referred to in Section II(C) shall be
referred to as the County and Small Cities Fund, and shall be allo-
cated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities not qual-
ifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through, and/or
projects serving the unincorporated areas of the county.
E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agree-
ment exceed the actual cost of the project, or if the project is
later reduced or canceled, then the excess monies or recaptured
funds, will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed as
follows:
1. Administrative setaside funds, as defined in Section II(A) and
public service setaside as defined in Section II(B) which are
recaptured shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed
to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small Cities Funds based
on their percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income
persons, as defined by HUD.
2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-
through fund, as defined in Section II(E), shall be returned to
the city's pass-through fund, unless the city no longer qualifies
for a pass-through as provided in Section II(C)(3), in which case
the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and
Small Cities Fund, as defined in Section II(D), shall be returned
to the County and Small Cities Fund.
F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years (e.g.,
unallocated or recaptured "Population," "Needs," or "Joint" funds)
shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-
through Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds based on their
percentage of the Consortium's low- and moderate-income persons, as
defined by HUD.
G. Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from
the use of CDBG funds, hereinafter referred to as program income,
shall be returned to the fund which generated the program income as
follows, unless an exception is specifically recommended by the
Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County Council:
1. That portion of the program income which is interest or fee income
generated through Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) and
Section 108 loan guarantee projects (as provided in Section 108 of
the Act), both of which use all or a portion of the Consortium's
total available CDBG funds, shall be returned to the Consortium.
The funds shall be used for the direct costs (e.g., staff, attor-
ney, and bank fees, advertising costs, contract compliance costs),
necessary for the marketing, negotiation, and implementation of
the interim loan and 108 loan activities, and for other Consor-
tium-wide or subregional capital projects or programs, including
other Consortium-wide economic development projects or programs.
Use of the funds shall be recommended by the Committee each year
after review by an inter-jurisdictional staff group.
2. Program income generated from a project (including housing repair)
funded through a city's pass-through fund, as defined in Section
II(C), shall be returned to the city's pass-through fund, unless
the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in
Section II(C)(3), in which case the program income shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Program income generated from a project (including housing repair)
funded through the County and Small Cities Fund, as defined in
3
Section II(D), shall be returned to the County and Small Cities
Fund.
4. Program income generated from projects funded in 1987 (except for
housing repair) and prior years shall be returned to the Consor-
tium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County
and Small Cities Funds according to their share of the Consor-
tium's low- and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
Housing repair program income shall return to the housing repair
program.
III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activi-
ties and projects which it will undertake with the funds described in
Section II above.
B. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG
funds are targeted to activities which can document predominant (51%).
benefit. to low- and moderate-income people and that the overall
program meets or exceeds HUD's requirements for the percentage of
funds spent to benefit low- and moderate-income persons in King
County.
C. Pass-through Cities may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-
through Cities for general revenue funds. The use.of general revenue
funds obtained by a Pass-through City in this manner shall be consis-
tent with the general intent of the community development program,
but shall not be considered CDBG program income.
D. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the
appropriate citizen participation activities as required by HUD regu-
lations.
E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applica-
tions (proposals) to King County; approval of activities shall be
secured when the annual program is approved or amended.
F.. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be
paid for out of the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred
in administering specific projects may be included in project costs.
IV. USE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS
A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to
cover administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund plan-
ning projects, however, this amount must be reserved by spring of
each year and will be based upon the city's proportion of law- and
moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
B. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Section X., Pass-
through Cities may use additional pass-through funds to cover part of
their administrative costs if:
1. Planning ceiling (the maximum amount allowed by HUD for planning
and administration activities which cannot exceed 20% of the
annual entitlement plus program income) is available;
2. The city runs a competitive process for the distribution of the
CDBG funds; and
3. City staff participate in Consortium-wide planning processes such
as development of the Consolidated H&CD Plan and the HOME Consor-
tium Working Group.
C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning
ceiling, if available, to cover additional administrative costs will
take priority over requests for planning projects.
D. Pass-through City staff who are supported with administrative funds.
would also be expected to assist in preparing and/or presenting
information to the Committee.
4
V. USE OF PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS
A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to
cover public service activities, however, the amount must be reserved by
spring of each year and will be based upon the city's proportion of low-
and moderate-income persons, as defined by HUD.
VI. PROGRAM INCOME
A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income
generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the partici-
pating jurisdiction.
B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in
Section II(G) of this Agreement.
C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to
retain may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with
all applicable CDBG requirements.
D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to
HUD on the use of any such program income and thereby requires appro-
priate recordkeeping and reporting by the participating jurisdiction
as stated in the signed certification to receive "Pass-through City"
status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and
administration funds.
E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating
jurisdiction any program income that is on hand or received subse-
quent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to King
County Consortium.
VII. REAL PROPERTY
A. Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or
improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds must comply with change
of use restrictions as required by HUD and the policies adopted by
the Committee as found in the Consolidated H&CD Plan.
B. The participating jurisdiction must notify King County prior to any
modification or change in the use of real property acquired or
improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds. This includes any
modification or change in use from that planned at the time of the
acquisition or improvement, including disposition.
C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to
the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable
to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved
with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not
qualify under the CDBG regulations.
D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property
prior'to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status, or termi-
nation of the cooperation agreement between the county and the
participating jurisdiction shall be subject to the requirements set
forth in Section II(G) and Section VI.
VIII. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE
A Joint Recommendations Committee shall be established.
A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of four. County Depart-
ment Directors or their designees: the Director of the Department of
Development and Environmental Services, the Director of the Depart-
ment of Community and Human Services, the Director of the Office of
Budget and Strategic Planning, and the Director of the Seattle-King
County Public Health Department. Department Director designees shall
be specified in writing and should, where possible, be the same
person consistently from meeting to meeting. Five participating city
5
representatives and their alternates will include city planning
directors or comparable level staff, or elected officials. Two city
representatives and their alternates will be from the north/east
region of the County and two city representatives and their alter-
nates will be from the south region of the County. An additional
revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the
HOME-only shall be established. Cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The
revolving position will be non-voting, except on issues related to
the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-related
funds (excluding CDBG).
B. Appointments. The Suburban Cities Association will select ten
different jurisdictions, five to serve as members and five as alter-
nates, who in turn, will assign representatives to this Committee.
Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for one of the
positions will be for a small city representative. The revolving
position will be appointed annually by the respective jurisdiction.
Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of 'their respec-
tive appointing authorities.
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen
from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the
members for a term of one year beginning the first meeting of the
calendar year. Attendance of five members will constitute a quorum.
C. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy
matters on the Consortium's CDBG and HOME Program including the
amount of administrative setaside, priorities governing the use of
the public services setaside, and projects or programs to be
funded with the program income from community development interim
loans and Section 108 loan guarantees (as allowed in Section 108
of the Act).
2. Review, recommend, and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required
by HUD. The Consolidated H&CD Plan will be developed annually by
the Consortium to meet the HUD requirement and will include
Consortium-wide policies as well as local priorities governing
CDBG-funded projects.
3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and
participating jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King
County Executive.
4. Review and recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failure
to meet responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agree-
ment. Any recommended sanctions will ensure that the city's low-
and moderate-income residents continue to benefit from CDBG funds.
Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King County Consortium
from losing a share of its entitlement due to participating
cities' inability to meet federal requirements.
5. Review and recommend projects for funding under the Section 108
loan guarantee program (as allowed in Section 108 of the Act).
IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF
Those King County Housing and Community Development Program Staff posi-
tions which are funded through the administrative setaside, hereinafter
referred to as the Staff, serve as staff to all Consortium partners and
the Committee and provides liaison between the Consortium and HUD.
A. Responsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff
shall:
1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and
County policy guidelines, special conditions, and formal require-
ments related to the preparation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan,
and related to administration of the programs under these plans.'
6
2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the
Metropolitan King County Council as components of the Consolidated
H&CD plan to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including but
not limited to: collection and analysis of data; identification
of problems, needs and their locations; development of long and
short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies;
and preparation of the administrative budget.
3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or
recommendations, and any other material deemed necessary by the
Committee to help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties.
4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the
Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to
meet their responsibilities as contained in Section X and as
contained in specific annual agreements.
B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This
Agreement.
The County will develop strategic plans which will identify community
development and housing needs and strategies to address high priority
needs .in the balance of the County in accordance with the primary
objectives and requirements of the Act. The Consolidated H&CD Plan,
including the local program strategies will meet the HUD requirement
for a Community Development Plan. The strategies outlined within the
Consolidated H&CD Plan will be consistent with local comprehensive
plans being developed under the Growth Management Act. The Staff
shall:
1. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council mate-
rial necessary for the approval of the County and Small Cities
portion of the annual program.
2. Present to the Metropolitan King County Council the Consortium's
annual program for adoption.
3. Administer the Consortium's. CDBG Program:
• help to identify needs in communities;
• provide assistance in interpreting HUD regulations;
• provide technical assistance to cities as necessary to enable
them to meet their responsibilities as partners to the
Agreement;
• assist in the development of viable CDBG proposals;
• review all proposals for CDBG funding;
• develop contracts for funded projects;
• monitor subrecipient and city-funded projects;
• monitor and enforce compliance with the federal wage and relo-
cation requirements;
• reimburse all eligible costs;
• prepare and submit required•. documents and reports to HUD; and
• provide oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance
with all federal requirements.
4. Upon request by a Pass-through City, staff will develop, admin-
ister, and implement a city's CDBG-funded contract. Additionally,
multi-jurisdictional projects funded by King County and/or one or
more cities will be developed and implemented by Staff.
5. King County shall determine, with the advice of representatives
from small cities, the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in
a manner consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Plan including its
local program strategies.
7
X. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES
In order to receive a direct share of the entitlement, Pass-through
Cities participating in this Agreement shall have the following respon-
sibilities and powers:
A. Pass-through City Councils shall adopt local strategies which will
address community development and housing needs in coordination with
the Consortium's timeline for consolidated planning effort and which
will be consistent with local comprehensive plans being developed
under the Growth Management Act.
B. Notify the County of the citizen participation activities undertaken
by local jurisdictions as well as any changes made by the jurisdic-
tion to funded CDBG activities in a timely manner as referenced under
Section III(D).
C. Each Pass-through City shall exercise local discretion in determining
the use of its pass-through funds in a manner consistent with the
Consolidated H&CD Plan including the Pass-through City's local
program strategies and in accordance with the Consortium's schedule
for submission to HUD.
D. City legislative bodies shall approve or disapprove via motion or
resolution all CDBG activities; locations, and budgets submitted by
Pass-through City staff. Notice of these actions are to be forwarded
to the County in a timely manner.
E. Pass-through City staff shall review all project proposals for
consistency with federal threshold requirements and Consortium-wide
and other federal requirements prior to submission to the County.
F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the
Consortium-wide Consolidated H&CD Plan which includes housing and
other community development needs, resources, strategies, and adopted
projects.
G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within
the program year and submit both vouchers and required reports to the
County in a complete and timely manner.
H. Pass-through City staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide
Planning activities such as HOME policy development and monitoring
the Housing Stability Program.
I. Pass-through City staff shall collaborate with County staff working
group and present to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed
on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as contained in
this section and as contained in specific annual agreements.
J. Each Pass-through City shall continue to adopt a local program strat-
egy that commits the city to examining its role in recognizing and
addressing regional or Consortium-wide needs through a coordinated
funding approach with other jurisdictions and the County. The public
services setaside referenced under Section II(B) is one effort in
this direction.
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES
Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County
and Small Cities application process. The Small Cities shall: .
A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development
needs and strategies for addressing them.
B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs.
C, Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects.
D. Carry out funded projects in a timely manner.
8
XII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satis-
faction all relevant requirements of federal laws and regulations
which apply to King County as applicant, including assurances and
certifications described in Section XII(D).
B. Jurisdictions participating under this Agreement have certified that
they have adopted and are enforcing local policies which:
1. prohibit the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies
within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-
violent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. enforce applicable State and local laws against physically barring
entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the
subject of non-violent civil rights demonstrations within juris-
dictions.
C. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501(b), all participating units of local
government are subject to the same requirements applicable to subre-
cipients, excluding the County's Minority and Women Business Enter-
prises requirements. The applicable requirements include, but are
not limited to, a written agreement with the County which complies
with 24 CFR 570.503 and includes provisions pertaining to the follow-
ing items: statement of work; records and reports; program income;
uniform administrative items; other program requirements; conditions
for religious organizations; suspension and termination; and rever-
sion of assets.
D. All participating units of local government understand that they may
not apply for grants under the federal Small Cities or State CDBG
Programs which receive separate entitlements from HUD during the
period of participation in this Agreement. Consortium cities which
do not receive a direct pass-through of CDBG funds may apply for
grants under the County and Small Cities Fund.
XIII. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE CONSORTIUM
King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for
all policy matters, including the Consolidated H&CD Plan, upon review
and recommendation by the Committee.
B. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for
all fund allocation matters, including the approval of the annual
administrative setaside and the approval and adoption of the Consor-
tium's annual CDBG Program.
C. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility
to approve requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG Program in
the following circumstances:
1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the
adopted annual program, and the change is requested by the legis-
lative.body of the Pass-through City; or
2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of
the adopted annual program, and it is limited to a change of
project scope or change of project implementor in a specific
project, and it is requested by the subrecipient, and the change
is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district
the project is located.
D. The King County Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program,
shall have authority and responsibility for all administrative
requirements for which the County is responsible to the federal
government.
E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for
all fund control and disbursements.
9
F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the
County as the applicant for CDBG funds has responsibility for and
assumes all obligations as the applicant in the execution of this
CDBG Program, including final responsibility for selecting activities
and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD. . Nothing contained in
this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi-
bilities and obligations.
XIV. GENERAL TERMS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 1997, 1998 and 1999 program
years, or, if the federal government should end King County's CDBG
entitlement status before that time, through the completion of CDBG
activities in the participating city. King County, as the official
applicant, shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that
any property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or
used in accordance with federal regulations.
B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2), during the period of qualifi-
cation (1997-1999) no included unit of general local government may
withdraw from nor be removed from the urban county for HUD's grant
computation purposes. .
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions
shall agree to comply with the policies and implementation of the
Consolidated H&CD Plan.
D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to
assure compliance with King County's certification required by
Section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, (Title III of the Civil Rights Act), the Fair Housing Act,
Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and
other applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in, or in support of
any participating city that does not affirmatively further fair
housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County's
actions. to comply with its fair housing certification.
F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement
may become necessary, and such amendment shall take place when all
parties have executed a written addendum to this Agreement.
G. Calculations for determining the number'of low- and moderate-income
persons residing in the County and cities shall be based upon offi-
cial HUD approved 1990 Census data, and on the official annual esti-
mates of populations of cities, towns and communities published by
the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal
Management.
H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdic-
tions which have signed this Agreement.
I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds
distributed under this Agreement retain full civil and criminal
liability as though these funds were locally generated.
J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes
of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,
under which King County may require the local incorporated jurisdic-
tion or contractor to furnish data, information, and assistance for
King County's review and assessment in determining whether King
County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
10
K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of
the State Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review
responsibility only.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION
Gary Locke Jim White
King County Executive Mayor, City of Kent
Date Signed
C158 (6/28/96)
I1
CITY OFSV
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P.Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 20, 1996
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
FROM: LIN HOUSTON,HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: 1997-1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA)
Background
The current, three year, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement(ICA) expires at the end of 1996. It is necessary for the City to enter into a new three
year Agreement for the years 1997-1999. (Copy is attached.)
The agreement governs the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant
Consortium, the vehicle by which Kent obtains its federal Block Grant funds. Mayor White must
sign this agreement in order for the City of Kent to participate as a partner in the King County
CDBG Consortium, and to be eligible to receive federal Community Development Block Grant
funds.
The new ICA includes only two major changes from the current agreement. Staff has spent
considerable time working with King County and other Consortium member cities on this new ICA
and negotiating wording that it feels is most beneficial to the City. We are confident that the new
ICA establishes an equitable process for fund distribution and involvement of all Consortium
members.
The major changes in the 1997 - 1999 CDBG ICA are:
1. In order to prevent loss of dollars to the Consortium as a whole, language has been added to
clarify and explicitly state that it is the responsibility of Pass-through cities to adopt
strategies and allocate funds in a timely manner. Furthermore, it has been made an explicit
responsibility of the interjurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) to
recommend sanctions for cities which do not meet their responsibilities.
220 4[h AVE.SO.. I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#859-3334
1
1997-1997 CDBG ICA
August 20, 1996
Page 2
2. In order to Wp address the need to administer regional CDBG economic development
programs and other capital projects,there is new guidance on the Consortium's use of interest
income from Community Development Interim Loans (CDIL) and loans guaranteed under
the Section 108 Program.
Rather than this interest income being distributed back to local jurisdictions, (after the costs of
administering the CDIL1108 loan programs are taken out), the funds would instead be used for
regional capital projects or programs, including economic development programs, as reviewed and
recommended by the JRC. The immediate impacts of this change on local jurisdictions will be
negligible (in the past few years only about $12,500 in interest income has been available for
distribution back to the Pass-through cities and $12,500 to the County and Small Cities Fund), but
there is potential for more interest income in the future.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Committee take the following action:
1. Recommend approval of the 1997 - 1999 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement.
2. Forward this item to the full City Council for consideration at its September 3, 1996 meeting,
with a recommendation that the Mayor be authorized to sign the 1997 - 1999 CDBG
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement.
LH/mp:a:cdbgica.agr
Attachments
CITY OF ;21ZSV
Jim White, Mayor
UFr�^^gEa
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
July 16, 1996
Planning Committee Members City Attorneys Office
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich
Connie Epperly (standing in for Jon Johnson) Tom Brubaker
Tim Clark, absent
Planning Staff
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Brian Swanberg
Other
Paul Mann (former City Council member)
COMPARISON OF KENT'S JUNK AND JUNK VEHICLE REGULATIONS WITH
FEDERAL WAY AND WASHINGTON STATE (J. Harris)
Planning Director Jim Harris explained that Federal Way had recently revised their zoning code in
order to get a better handle on junk. Mr. Harris reviewed the pertinent code sections from
Washington state, Kent and Federal Way. He states that Kent's code is more comprehensive
referring to section 8.01 as an example of Kent's detail. Mr. Harris indicated that the state has the
ability to remove an "abandoned junk vehicle" after 15 days whereas Kent processes violations
through the Hearing Examiner with an unspecific timeframe.
Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker stated that the Kent's code was in compliance with the state's
statutes at the time the code was written. However, the State has since relaxed the standard for
defining a"junk vehicle." The state also eliminated the requirement that a vehicle had to be without
a valid, current registration plate in order to be considered a "junk vehicle."
Code Enforcement Officer Brian Swanberg explained the current process for identifying and
enforcing the City's code involving "junk vehicles." Swanberg stated that Kent's code does not
include a definition for"inoperable" vehicles. He also identified a need to add additional verbiage
to Kent's code to address issues involving commercial vehicles parked in residential areas,residential
tractor trailer parked in yards, and how long an inoperable vehicle can be stored.
Comparison of Kent's Junk and Junk (vehicle Regulations with Federal Way and Washington State
220 4th AVE.SO.. I KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-589.5/TELEPHONE '206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
July 16, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Paul Mann(former City Council member) encouraged the Committee to consider this issue and
recommend an amendment to bring Kent's code in compliance with the state regulations, as well as,
consider the language used in the Federal Way Ordinance. Mr. Mann also voiced his concern
regarding the clarity for the penalty invoked.
Chair Leona Orr questioned whether the City had the ability to actually confiscate these vehicles if
a problem arises. Swanberg explained that there could be an issue regarding inadequate staff to
comply with a shorter resolution.
Mr. Harris questioned whether this issue should be brought before the City Council Safety
Committee. Ms. Orr indicated that she would bring this item to their attention at the next safety
meeting.
Mr. Brubaker stated that under the State law the City has the right to impose the cost of reclaiming
the vehicle or towing the vehicle and storing or destroying it against either the registered owner or
the private property land owner that the vehicle was discovered or removed from. He explained that
this is not always possible when the violator doesn't have the means to pay.
Chair Leona Orr requested that the planning staff get the appropriate departments involved in this
issue and put together a proposal. She asked for the proposal to include recommended changes to
the code, any budgetary figures for any costs that would be incurred, and any recommendation for
additional staff to enforce the code changes.
Harris pointed out that the subject would be brought back, at least for the begining of action, on the
20th of August.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
C:\USERS\DOC\PCOM\MINUTES\PCO0716.MIN
Comparison of Kent's Junk and Junk Vehicle Regulations with Federal Way and Washington State
DRAFT8/20/96
AFC' ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of tb
Kent, Washington, extending
established by City Ordinance I 1
development standards in the N
V
WHEREAS on January 1 1996 the Cit.
unincorporated King County lying east of the ex,
the Meridian Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, three major tributaries to the Sot K drainage system, Soos
Creek, Big Soos Creek, and Little Soos Creek, lie within the City's annexation area; and
WHEREAS, these three tributaries constitute a significant part of a unique
regional drainage system, providing valuable habitat for salmon and other plant and
wildlife species; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan King County's development setbacks along these
tributaries, known as "buffers," establish more effective protection for these tributaries'
systems than would be established under Kent City Code development standards; and
WHEREAS, various parties who deem themselves affected by this potential
change in setback requirements have notified the City of their concerns for the
continued preservation of this important habitat area; and
Stream Buffer
WHEREAS, on December 19, 1995, after a public hearing on the matter, the
Kent City Council, by its Ordinance No. 3259, established interim zoning controls
relating to preservation of these stream buffers so that City staff could conduct further
study on the matter; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has studied this matter, and on May 29, 1996, the
City's Interim Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on a proposed zoning
map and text amendment that will permanently preserve these established stream
development standards on these tributaries in the Meridian Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the Interim Land Use and Planning Board determined, in principle,
to implement these setbacks and buffers, subject to review under the State
Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and also subject to final review and approval of the
implementing ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1996, the Kent City Council, by its Ordinance No. 3300,
extended the established interim zoning controls created by Ordinance No. 3259 to
preserve these stream development standards in the Meridian Annexation Area in order
to conduct SEPA review and to develop regulations pursuant to the direction of the
Interim Land Use and Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, SEPA review is now complete and the appropriate regulations have
been reviewed and accepted; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2
SECTION 1. Soos Creek Drainage Basin Stream Buffers Adopted. The City's
newly revised stream buffers within Soos Creek Basin are adopted as an overlay zoning
requirement within the City's Meridian Annexation Area, a map indicating the affected
basin within the annexation area is attached as Exhibit A. Accordingly, Kent City Code
Section 15.08.224 is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 15.08.224. Same—Classifications and restrictions.
A. Classification categories and restrictions on lot coverage. Classification
categories and restrictions on lot coverage relative to hazard areas, from least to most
restrictive, are as follows:
Classification Maximum
Amount of Im-
pervious Surfaces
Allowed
1. Low hazard areas. In low hazard areas, the maximum amount
of impervious surface allowed on each lot is thirty (30) percent.
Low hazard areas are defined as lands where the following
conditions exist:
a. Slopes fifteen (15) percent to twenty-five (25) percent
together with class 3 seismic hazard and class 2 erosion
hazard area; or 30%
b. Slopes fifteen (15) percent to twenty-five (25) percent
together with class 2 slide and slippage and class 3 erosion
hazard area; or 30%
C. Slopes fifteen (15) percent to twenty-five (25) percent
3
together with class 2 seismic and class 3 erosion hazard
area; or 30%
d. Seventy-five (75) to one hundred fifty (150) feet from the
top of a ravine in which a major.or minor stream passes
through; or 30%
e. Thirty (30) to fifty (50) feet from the ordinary high-water
mark of a lake. (See the following illustration.) 30%
2. Moderate hazard areas. In moderate hazard areas, the maximum
amount of impervious surface allowed on each lot is ten (10)
percent. Moderate hazard areas are defined as those lands where
the following conditions exist: zero to thirty (30) feet from the
ordinary high-water mark of a lake. (See illustration.) 10%
3. High hazard areas. In high hazard areas, the maximum impervious
surface allowed on each lot is two (2) percent. High hazard areas
are defined as those lands where the following conditions exist:
a. Slopes fifteen (15) percent to twenty-five (25) percent
together with class 2 slide and slippage and class 3
seismic hazard, and class 3 erosion hazard area; or 2%
b. Slopes fifteen (15) percent to twenty-five (25) percent
together with class 3 slide and slippage and class 3
erosion hazard area; or 2%
C. Slopes twenty-five (25) percent to forty (40) percent
together with class 3 seismic and class 3 erosion
hazard area; or 2%
d. Slopes twenty-five (25) percent to forty (40) percent
together with class 3 erosion hazard area. 2%
4. Severe hazard areas. In severe hazard areas, the maximum
amount of impervious surface allowed on each lot is zero
percent. Severe hazard areas are defined as those lands where
the following conditions exist:
4
a. Slopes forty (40) percent and over; or 0%
b. Slopes twenty-five (25) percent to forty (40) percent
together with class 3 slide and slippage, class 3 seismic
hazard, and class 3 erosion hazard area; or 0%
C. All ravines; or 0%
d. Seventy-five (75) foot setback from the top of any ravine.
The top of a ravine is where the slope is generally less
than fifteen (15) percent; or 0%
e. Fifty (50) foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark of
any major creek; or 0%
f. Twenty-five (25) foot setback from the ordinary high-water
mark of any minor creek; or 0%
g. Ten (10) foot setback from the top of any drainage ditch; or 0%
h. All wetlands as defined in the document Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of
Interior, a copy of which is filed with the city clerk. This
classification shall exclude all wetlands considered in the
Valley Floor Studies; or 0%
i. All unique and fragile areas defined in the revised Valley
Floor Studies, approved by city council on February 23,
1981, a copy of which is filed with the city clerk. 0%
5
B. Determination of precise location of hazard areas.
1. The hazard area development limitations map adopted by section 15.08.222
is based upon the most accurate data available at the time of preparation.
2. To more accurately determine the location of hazard areas, the city may
require additional information with development proposals, including but
not limited to a survey of the area. The hazard area map shall be corrected
by planning and public works departments based upon more recent and
accurate information accepted by such departments.
C. Relocation of major or minor creek.
1 . All major and minor creeks in the city, where they flow on or across
undeveloped land, shall be retained in their natural state and location.
2. Where retaining the major or minor creek in its natural state may interfere
with a proposed development, a site specific plan, referred to in this section
as a stream plan, drawn to scale, shall be prepared, which indicates how the
development will be constructed in relation to the stream and in relation to
required storm drainage regulations.
3. A stream plan shall be submitted to the city planning department for its
review prior to the issuance of any permit, including zoning, building,
grading, storm drainage or hydraulics.
4. The planning department shall review the stream plan in relation to the
proposed development plan and make a determination that the plan does
protect the integrity of the major or minor creek.
5. The planning department may cause a modification of the development plan
to ensure that the integrity of the major or minor creek is in fact retained.
6. Any authorization for changing the course of a major or minor creek or for
working in a major or minor creek shall follow the guidelines and
recommendations of the state department of fisheries and game (RCW
75.20.100).
6
7. Setbacks from a relocated major creek shall be fifty (50) feet or as
recommended by the state department of fisheries and game, whichever is
the greater.
8. Setbacks from a relocated minor creek shall be twenty-five (25) feet or as
recommended by the state department of fisheries and game, whichever is
the greater.
D. Soos Creek Basin Stream Buffers overla zone.
1. Streams constitute environmentally sensitive areas that are of special
concern to the City of Kent. The standards established in this ordinance
are intended to protect those environmentally sensitive features within the
City of Kent. By regulating development and alterations to these sensitive
areas, this ordinance seeks to:
a. Protect unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment
including wildlife and its habitat:
b. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to environmentally sensitive areas by
regulating alterations in and adjacent to sensitive areas:
C. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water
availability, water qualms, wetlands, and streams:
d. Protect the public trust as to navigable waters and aquatic
resources:
e. Alert members of the public including, but not limited to appraisers,
owners, potential buyers or lessees to the development limitations
of sensitive areas:
f. Provide City officials with sufficient information to protect sensitive
areas: and
a Implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act.
Chapter 43.21 C RCW, Kent City Code Chapter 11.05, Title 15, and
the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
7
2. Definitions.
In the interpretation of the Soos Creek Basin Stream Buffers overlay zone
regulations Kent City Code Section 15.08.224(D) the following words
terms, or pronouns in place of them, shall take precedent over other
conflicting definitions existing elsewhere in this code, and shall have the
following meanings:
Biologist-A person who has earned a four year degree in biological
sciences from an accredited college or university, or a person who has
equivalent educational training and who has experience as a practicing
biologist.
Buffer- The zone contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the
continued maintenance, function, and/or structural stability of the sensitive
area. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity
of the area being protected. The critical functions of the riparian buffer
(those associated with an aquatic system) include shading input of
organic debris and coarse sediments, uptake of nutrients, stabilization of
banks, interception of sediments, overflow during high water events
protection from disturbance by humans and domestic animals
maintenance of wild habitat, and room for variation of aquatic system
boundaries over time due to hydrological or climatic effects The critical
functions of terrestrial buffers include protection of slope stability,
attenuation of surface water flows from stormwater runoff and
precipitation, and erosion control.
Building Setback Area - A defined width of land between a sensitive area
buffer and development which establishes a definite point beyond which
clearing, trimming or removal of vegetation. fill, overhangs obstructions
impervious surfaces, and building foundations shall not extend
Critical Drainage Area -An area which has been determined by the
Department of Public Works to require more restrictive regulation than
City-wide standards afford, in order to mitigate water quality, severe
flooding, drainage, erosion or sedimentation problems which have
resulted or will result from the cumulative impacts of development and
urbanization.
8
Director- The Director of the City of Kent Planning Department or his/her
authorized designee.
Ditches - Irrigation ditches canals storm or surface water conveyance
channels or other entirely artificial watercourses not utilized by salmonids.
Ditches do not include reaches of streams that have been relocated. or
otherwise created to reroute flows around developments or public works
facilities but which carry flows from established creeks.
Enhancement- An action which increases the functions and values of a
stream, wetland, or other sensitive area.
Large Livestock- Larger livestock such as meat and dairy cattle, other
bovines, llamas. and horses.
Livestock- Animals of any kind kept or raised for use or pleasure.
Livestock Fencing- Fencing_constructed in such a way that it is at least
four feet in height and that livestock cannot push it over, step over it, or
walk around it Livestock fencing includes electric fences with at least two
parallel electrically charged wires, four strand barbed wire fences, and
other standard stock fences in common use by the livestock industry.
Line of Mean High Water- The margin of the area occupied by the water
for the greater portion of each average year• at this level a definite
escarQment in the soil will generally be traceable: where the edge of
vegetation exists along the bank in the same location from year to year,
the line of mean high water is the same as the line of ordinary high water
mark.
Mitigation - The use of any or all of the following actions that are listed in
descending order of preference: 1) avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action or parts of an action: 2) minimizing the impact by
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by
using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative actions to avoid or
reduce impacts: 3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or
restoring_the affected sensitive area: 4) reducing or eliminating the impact
over time by preservation or maintenance operations during the life of the
project proposal: 5) compensating for the impact by replacing enhancing
9
or providing substitute sensitive areas and environments: 6) monitoring
the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Monitoring- Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the
biological. hydrologic and geologic elements of sensitive areas and
systems and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures
through the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the
purposes of understanding and documenting changes in natural
ecosystems and features, and includes gathering baseline data.
Native Growth Protection Area - An area whose native growth is protected
from unauthorized removal, trimming, and planting for the purpose of
protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Native Vegetation - Vegetation comprised of plant species which are
indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which could have been
expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation does not
include noxious weeds, reed canary grass. cattails, purple loosestrife and
other highly invasive and undesirable plants.
Noxious Weed- Any plant which when established is highly destructive,
competitive, or difficult to control by natural or chemical practices (see
Chapter 17.10 RCE. The state noxious weed list in Chapter 16-750
WAC is the officially adopted list of noxious weeds by the state noxious
weed control board.
Ordinar�High Water Mark- The mark that will usually be found by
examining the bed and banks of a stream or river, and ascertaining where
the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long
maintained in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character
distinct from that of the abutting upland, with respect to vegetation. In any
area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found. the line of
mean high water shall substitute. In any area where neither can be found,
the top of the channel bank shall be substituted. In braided channels and
alluvial fans, the ordinary high water mark or substitute shall be measured
as to include the entire stream feature.
Public Agency- Any agency, political subdivision, or unit of local
government of this state including by not limited to municipal corporations
10
special purpose districts, and local service districts: any agency of the
State of Washington. the United States or state thereof: or any Indian
Tribe recognized as such by the Federal government.
Salmonid-A member of the fish family Salmodiae. In King County
salmonid species include Chinook. Coho, chum, sockeye and pink
salmon: cutthroat, rainbow, brown trout and steelhead: Dolly Varden,
brook trout, char, kokanee and white fish.
Sensitive Areas-Any of those areas in the City of Kent which are subject
to natural hazards, or those land features which support unique, fragile, or
valuable natural resources including fishes, wildlife and other organisms
and their habitat and such resources which, in their natural state carry.
hold or purify water. Sensitive areas include the following landform
features: erosion hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, land-slide hazard
areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, wetlands, flood
hazard areas, and the adjoining protective buffers necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare.
Sensitive Area Tract-A separate tract that is created to protect a
sensitive area and its buffer and whose ownership is transferred to the
City of Kent, or other approved entity.
Small Livestock- Smaller livestock such as pigs, goats, sheep, miniature
horses, and feeder calves.
Streams - Those areas of Kent where surface waters flow sufficiently to
produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area
which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes,
but is not limited to bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds and
defined channel swales. This definition is not intended to include irrigation
ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices or other entirely
artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to
convey streams occurring prior to construction of such watercourses, but
is intended to include creeks, sloughs. and rivers. The channel or bed of a
stream does not have to contain water all year long for the reach to be
considered a stream. Streams are further categorized as follows:
a. Class 1 Streams -those streams inventoried as "Shorelines of the
State" under the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program, Kent City
Code Chapter 11.04. pursuant to RCW Chapter 90.58.
b. Class 2 Streams - those streams smaller than Class 1 Streams that
flow year around during periods of normal rainfall, or those streams
that are used by salmonids.
C. Class 3 Streams - those streams that are intermittent or ephemeral
during years of normal rainfall and are not used by salmonids.
Top of Bank- That point along a slope, channel, or stream, where the
change in slope alongthe he highest elevations at top of the slope, channel,
or stream changes to a slope of less than 15 percent: this is usually a line
easily seen while observing the bank or slope.
Variance to Stream Buffer Standards -An adjustment in the application of
the standards contained in this ordinance to a particular piece of property
in a situation where the property is otherwise deprived of all reasonable
use of the property. A variance to stream buffer standards shall not be
used to convey special privileges not enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone which are subject to the same standards and code
restrictions. A variance to stream buffer standards must be authorized in
writing by the Director, and shall be the minimum remedy necessary to
permit reasonable use of the property.
Vegetation - Any and all organic plant life growing at, below, or above the
soil surface.
3. Stream Buffer Standards.
a. Stream Buffer Widths.
1. All buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water
mark as identified in the field or, if that cannot be
determined, from the top of the bank. In braided channels,
the ordinary high water mark or top of bank shall be
determined so as to include the entire stream feature.
12
2_ The following buffers on each side of the ordinary high water
mark are minimum requirements.
1 Class 1 Streams - 100 foot buffer.
ii Class 2 Streams used by salmonids - 100 foot buffer.
iiL Class 2 Streams - 50 foot buffer.
iv L Class 3 Streams - 25 foot buffer.
y) Ditches - 10 foot buffer.
vi When the ordinary high water mark of any stream is
within 25 feet of the toe of slopes greater to or equal
than percent, but less than percent, the
following minimum buffers shall be provided:
Where the horizontal length of the slope
includina small benches and terraces is within
the buffer for that stream class, the buffer shall
be the larger of:
a) the minimum buffer for that stream class: or
b) 25 feet beyond the top of the slope.
2) Where the horizontal length of the slope
extends beyond the minimum buffer for that
stream class, the buffer shall extend to a point
25 feet beyond the minimum buffer for that
stream class.
vii Any stream adjoined by riparian wetland or other
adjacent sensitive area shall have the buffer which
applies to the wetland or other adjacent sensitive
area unless the stream buffer requirements are more
expansive.
Any stream restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced
because of alterations should have at least the
minimum buffer required for the class of stream
involved.
3. The Director may authorize buffer averaging in instances where it
will provide additional resource protection, provided that the total
area on-site contained in the buffer remains the same or larger
after averaging.
13
4. The determination of salmonid use shall be made by the Director
based on the best available, past and present information gathered
by the City, its agents, and other entities with jurisdiction relating to
salmonid presence or absence during any life stage.
5_ Stream buffers shall be managed as Native Growth Protection
Areas and shall generally remain undisturbed except for
enhancement planting projects.
b_ Additional buffer requirements for streams.
The Planning Department may require increased stream buffer widths as
necessary to protect streams. The additional buffer widths and other
issues shall be determined by criteria set forth in administrative rules and
include, but are not limited to. critical drainage areas, location or
management of hazardous wastes, critical fish and wildlife habitat, and
the location of trail or utility corridors.
C. Sensitive Area Tracts
Sensitive Area Tracts shall be used to protect all streams and buffers in or
adjacent to proposals for developments, such as subdivisions, commercial
development, or binding site plans of all kinds, and shall be recorded on
all documents of title of record for all affected lots Any required Sensitive
Area Tract shall either be deeded or dedicated to the benefit of the City of
Kent. The width of the sensitive area tract shall depend on the stream
classification and buffer requirement.
d_ Building Setback Areas.
Sensitive Area Setback Areas shall delineate streams steep slopes
adjacent to streams, wetlands adJacent to streams and required buffers in
development proposals for building permits, short subdivisions
subdivisions binding site plans and grading permits The setback area
shall be identified on a recorded site plan or in recorded documents filed
as an a requirement of this section. Unless otherwise specified in this
section, a minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from
the edge of the stream buffer. Prohibitions on the use of hazardous or
14
toxic substances and pesticides or certain fertilizers in this area may be
imposed.
e. Allowed Alterations to Streams and Buffers.
1. The following stream crossings may be permitted only with
approved mitigation plans, and may be allowed only if they meet
the following requirements:
i - All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow
and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during
periods when use is critical to salmonids:
ii Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas
unless no other possible crossing site exists:
iii L Crossings shall not diminish the flood carrying capacity of
the stream:
iv Underground utility crossing shall be located at a minimum
depth of four feet below the maximum projected depth of
scour for the base flood as determined by professional civil
engineer licensed by the State of Washington: and
The applicant shall obtain approval from the Department of
Natural Resources and from the Department of Fish and
Game for all crossings of a Class 1 stream.
vi The applicant shall obtain an H P A or a
written waiver therefrom, from the State Department of Fish
and Wildlife for all crossings.
2. Construction of public and private trails may be allowed in stream
buffers only upon adoption of administrative rules and pursuant to
the following guidelines:
Trail surfaces shall not be of impervious materials. except
that impervious public multi-purpose trails like the Soos
Creek Trail may be allowed if they meet all other
requirements including water quality: and
ii Where trails are provided, buffers shall be expanded, where
possible.
15
3. Construction of utilities shall be permitted in stream buffers only
when no reasonable alternative location is available.
4_ Class 1 streams may not be relocated. but Class 2 and Class 3
stream relocations may be allowed providing mitigation is provided
for all impacts they meet all requirements and are approved by all
agencies with jurisdiction. For any stream relocation the applicant
must demonstrate, based on information provided by a civil
engineer and a qualified biologist, that:
j The equivalent base flood storage volume and function will
be maintained.
ii There will be no detrimental increase or decrease in stream
veloci .
iii There will be no interbasin transfer of water:
iv I Performance standards as set out in the mitigation plan are
vZ The relocation conforms to other applicable laws:
vi All work will be carried out under the direct supervision of a
qualified biologist.
4. Livestock restrictions adjacent to streams and wetlands.
The following standards apply to all parcels with streams flowing through
or adjacent to them and are intended to allow the raising of livestock in the
City of Kent while minimizing the adverse impacts on water quality and
salmonid fisheries habitat in City of Kent watersheds
a. Maximum Livestock Densities.
1_ A maximum of six large livestock per gross acre or the
equivalent of six large livestock per gross acre as defined in
the definitions section of this ordinance.
2_ No large livestock shall be permitted on any lot smaller than
20.000 square feet in area except that the portion of the lot
used for confinement or grazing may be less than 20 000
square feet providing that the portion of the lot used for
16
confinement or grazing meets the requirements of farm
management standards section of this ordinance
b. Farm Management Standards.
Property owners with livestock on farms adjacent to or containing
streams, shall meet the following minimum standards:
1_ Livestock Watering. Wetland and Stream Corridor
Management Options.
j Livestock fencing shall be used as necessary to
prevent livestock access to all streams wetlands and
their buffers.
ii The preferred watering option shall be a domestic
water supply, stock watering pond roof runoff
collection system, or an approved pump supply from
the stream so that livestock are not required to enter
streams for their water supply.
iii L Livestock access to all streams and their buffers shall
be limited to stream crossing and watering points
which prevent free access along the length of the
streams.
iv Livestock crossings of streams shall be limited to a
single point no wider than 25 feet
y— Livestock watering points shall be designed in such a
manner as to minimize adverse impacts to the
stream.
yjL Bridges designed to allow free flow of flood waters
may be used in lieu of stream crossings provided that
piers and abutments shall not be placed within the
ordinary high water mark or top of bank whichever is
greater.
vii Crossings of wetlands and their buffers is not
permitted.
2_ Grazing and Pasture. Confinement and Manure Management
17
j Livestock fencing shall be used to establish and maintain all
buffers.
ii Existing grazing and confinement areas shall maintain a
fenced veaetative buffer of at least 50 feet from any naturally
occurring pond, wetland edge, or the ordinary high water
mark of all streams.
iii I Existing grazing and confinement areas which do not meet
the minimum width of fenced vegetative buffers required by
this chapter shall be modified as necessary to provide the
buffers specified within five years of the effective date of this
ordinance.
iv Forested lands being cleared for grazing areas and new
grazing areas shall comply with the sensitive area setbacks
for Class 1, Class 2. and Class 3 streams, and wetlands
vL The grazing area buffer for Class 1 and Class 2 streams with
salmonids may be reduced to 50 feet where a 50 foot width
of diverse, mature vegetation already exists in the buffer
area. This buffer reduction may not be used when forested
lands are being cleared for grazing areas.
vi Fencing installed pursuant to King County's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, prior to the effective date of this ordinance at
setbacks other than those specified above, shall be deemed
to be in compliance to the requirements of this section
vViL Grazing areas may extend to the property line provided that
all streams or wetlands adjacent to the property line meet
the minimum buffers of this ordinance.
viii L Manure storage areas shall be managed as follows:
l Surface water flows shall be diverted away from
manure storage areas.
2L During the winter months of October 15 to April 15 all
manure stockpiled within 200 feet uphill from any
Class 1 or Class 2 stream, or wetland, shall be
covered in a manner that excludes precipitation and
allows free flow of air to minimize fire danger: OR
alternatively shall be placed in an uncovered concrete
bunker, or manure lagoon. or held for pickup in a
covered dumpster, vehicle or other facility designed to
prevent leachate from reaching any streams or
wetlands.
18
3� Manure shall be stored in a location that avoids
having runoff from manure enter streams or wetlands.
4Z Manure piles shall not be any closer than 50 feet
uphill from any wetland buffer, the ordinary high water
mark of any stream, or any ditch to which the
topography would generally direct runoff from the
manure, nor within any stream buffer.
5� Manure shall not be spread on frozen or saturated
fields.
C. Existing_Livestock Operations.
All existing livestock operations shall meet the farm management
standards of this ordinance within five years of the effective date of
this ordinance, except that existing buildings are exempt from this
provision. State standards for fecal coliform, turbidity, and nutrients
must be met within five years from the date of adoption of this
ordinance.
5. Exemptions.
The Planning Director may grant exemptions from the stream buffer
requirements of this chapter providing that the exemption is consistent
with the general purposes of this ordinance and the public interest. An
application for a sensitive areas reasonable use exemption shall be filed
with the Planning Department and the Planning Director shall issue a final
decision pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
a. Criteria.
The Planning_Director, in granting an exemption for reasonable
use, must determine that:
1_ Application of this ordinance would deny all reasonable use
of the property: and
2_ There is no other reasonable use with less impact on the
sensitive area: and
19
3. The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable
threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the
proposed development site: and.
4. Any alterations permitted to these sensitive areas shall be
the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the
property.
5_ Any authorized alteration of a sensitive area under this
section shall be subject to conditions established by the
Director, and shall require mitigation and or enhancement
under approved mitigation plans.
b. Public Works
The application of this ordinance shall not prohibit public works
within or adjacent to sensitive areas if the Planning Director
determines that the application of this ordinance would prohibit a
development by a public agency or public utility that is necessary to
the public health safety, or welfare. The Planning Director may
grant an exemption based on the following criteria:
1. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposed
development with less impact on the sensitive area: and
2_ The proposal minimizes the impact on sensitive areas and
the applicant provides restoration/enhancement of any and
all disturbed areas.
9E. Exceptions.
1. Low hazard areas. Development within seventy-five (75) to one hundred fifty
(150) feet of the top of a ravine through which a major or minor creek passes
may be permitted under the existing zoning requirements if it can be
demonstrated to the planning director that water quality and quantity will not
be impacted.
2. Severe hazard areas. A fifty-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark
of any major creek is required. Impervious surfaces may be allowed a
maximum of twenty (20) percent closer to the ordinary high-water mark of a
major creek, if shading vegetation is presently located.
20
3. All hazard areas. The planning director shall have the authority to waive
specific requirements or impose additional requirements in unique or special
circumstances to ensure the fulfillment of the stated purpose of this chapter
and to allow for flexibility and innovation of design. Special circumstances
or unique conditions shall be reviewed with the planning director prior to
submittal of the development plan. Examples of special conditions might
include:
a. Preservation of unique wildlife habitat.
b. Preservation of natural or native areas.
C. Compliance with special easements.
d. Unique site uses.
4. Vehicular and pedestrian access. In situations where vehicular or pedestrian
access cannot reasonably be provided by avoiding identified watercourses,
then such access shall be allowed in the form of a vehicular or pedestrian
bridge. Construction of any bridge shall be subject to the approval of the
public works department regarding storm drainage and hydraulics, and
guidelines and recommendations of the state department of fisheries and
game.
5. Enforcemenbintetpretation. The City's Planning Director is authorized
and directed to enforce all of the provisions of these stream buffer
standards. The Planning Director shall also have the power to render
interpretations and to adopt rules and regulations of these standards in
order to clarify the application of these provisions The Planning Director's
interpretations, rules and regulations however, shall be in conformance
with the intent and purpose of these stream buffer standards and shall be
in written form.
6. Amendment of Appendices. The City's Planning Director is authorized to
amend the appendices to the stream buffers from time to time to time as
he or she shall deem necessary. However, any amendments to the
appendices shall conform with the intent and the purpose of these stream
buffers.
21
,q y
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.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) 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 1996.
PUBLISHED day of 1996.
22
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOB ER, CITY CLERK
STREAM&ORD
23
City of Kent- Planning Department
Y •
1 +
Y "y •
1
1{
i
1
Y E
•
E E
Y
n
• E E
V�
APPLICATION NAME: Soos Creek Drainage Basin Stream Buffers
NUMBER: #ZCA 96-4 DATE: August 20, 1996
REQUEST: Zoning Code Amendment
LEGEND
Lakes
EXHIBIT A Boos Basin Boundary
mm� City Limits