HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 02/09/1998 (3) PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998
PRESENT: Tim Clark Gary Gill
Judy Woods Tom Brubaker
Tom Brotherton
Transportation Service Provider Agreement
Gary Gill, City Engineer stated this is an agreement provided by the State of
Washington Oil Rebate Competitive Grant Program. Thru that program, money is
available for the city to conduct a demonstration project to expand our Shopper Shuttle
services during the commute hours. Ed White, Transportation Engineer noted that the
City made application in 1996 for ISTEA grant funds in order to look at expanding the
existing shuttle service that is currently operating in the city. We have hired a temporary
staff person to manage the project. We are presently finalizing a contract with
Ryder/ATE as the service provider.
Tom Brotherton asked what criteria is being used to determine the success or failure of
this project. White explained the criteria will be based on ridership, the same as the
Shopper Shuttle program. He said we will be getting weekly totals of people riding
during the commute hours. We will, to a certain degree, incorporate the existing routes
into the system. Essentially,we will be keeping track of those riders during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours and summarizing that on a weekly basis. With the Shopper Shuttle, it
was very easy to gage the success; the numbers continued to increase. We are expecting
to get the same type of information in terms of an increased ridership over a period of
time.
Brotherton stated that he would encourage White to conduct a more detailed study to
determine why people would or would not use the shuttle service and how to incorporate
their suggestions over the 14 month trial period of the service. White agreed that he
would do more analysis in order to evaluate the program more closely.
Referring to the contract, under Accident/Incident reports 'unacceptable behavior', Clark
• asked what the process was for dealing with this. White stated if an incident occurs,
the bus driver would ask the individuals to leave. Now we are working under the
METRO guidelines. Clark asked if incidents could require police support. White noted
those types of situations have never occurred. Clark noted that in METRO there is
1
• heavy police support -- he requested that the Police Dept be informed of incidents.
Clark asked how Public Works Dept intends to advertise this service. White said the
temporary staff person has been doing considerable research in contacting employers;
finding out where the majority of the employees live and working with the employers
informing them that this service is forthcoming. In response to Clark, White stated that
he isn't sure if special signing will be posted. Clark recommended that some physical
evidence of this program be posted. Gill noted that our CTR Coordinator is working
with some of the area's largest employers so they are already actively working together
on other commute trip reduction types of programs. He stated that this will be
advertised thru other businesses and the routes will be well advertised.
Committee unanimously recommended Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the
Transportation Service Provider Agreement, subject to final review and approval thereof
by the City Attorney.
Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
Bill Wolinski explained the SAMP program as follows. The Mill Creek Watershed is
about 22 square miles. The City's boundary in the southern area of the watershed is S.
277th St; it borders along the Green River for a portion of the area; it encompasses
portions of Lake Fenwick, Mullen Slough and Midway Creek. The portion which lies
within the City of Kent is 20% of the entire watershed. About 75% of the watershed lies
within the City of Auburn with small portions in Algona, Pacific and Federal Way and
unincorporated King County. The City of Kent has been working with the Corps of
Engineers, the City of Auburn and the Environmental Protection Agency to address
several of the conflicts in permitting on wetlands as they affect economic development
throughout the watershed. The Army Corps of Engineers wetland permitting process is
very lengthy. In 1988 the Corps of Engineers, working with the local governments tried
to identify a special process where the entire Watershed could be reviewed and the
conditions of the wetlands throughout the Watershed could be studied and some
rational plan of allowing for some limited fill of wetlands be developed in cooperation
with all the affected parties to enable a certain amount of economic development to take
place and yet the health of the water resource and the natural resources throughout the
watershed be maintained. There is approximately 2,400 acres of remaining wetlands
throughout this entire watershed - about 115 acres within the portion of the City of
Kent. The agencies have been working together to find out the relative value of the
various wetlands and come up with a plan for allowing limited development streamlining
the permitting process and protecting and restoring the other wetlands to maintain a
healthy watershed. This is a very productive watershed; it supports salmon use; there
• has been discussion about the Endangered Species Act and this particular Special Area
Management Plan, provides for restoration of the entire Watershed in allowing a limited
amount of development. About 288 acres of low quality wetlands will be allowed to be
filled in exchange for mitigation.
2
• The Memorandum of Understanding Management Plan was developed in 1997 and the
Memorandum of Agreement that we're processing basically calls for the participating
jurisdiction to agree to implement this Special Area Management Plan. It talks in terms
of a timetable wherein the local jurisdictions identified changes to their regulations, their
policies and procedures to adopt the provisions of the plan. The Memorandum of
Agreement has been signed by all the participating agencies with the exception of the
Cities of Kent and Auburn.
Brotherton asked if the Dept of Ecology will reduce their existing regulations in order to
accommodate some of these changes or are we simply trying to fit our regulations into
theirs. Wolinski explained that the entire watershed will be systematically studied.
There is a common understanding of which wetlands would be allowable for filling. This
will streamline the entire permit process. In response to Brotherton, Wolinski explained
that SAMP's watershed analysis has been completed. The City has been actively
participating since 1988 as part of a technical advisory group which has been critiquing
all the work.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the Mill
Creek Special Area Management Plan Memorandum of Agreement.
42nd Avenue South Street Vacation
Gill stated that the Public Works Dept has received a valid petition from Mr. Donofrio
to vacate a portion of 42nd Avenue South which is in the vicinity of S. 216th Street.
He noted that this item is simply a matter of adopting a resolution setting a hearing date
to consider this vacation.
Committee unanimously recommended Council adoption of a resolution setting a
hearing date for the 42nd Avenue South Street Vacation.
King County Grant Agreement - Special Re , cling Events
Gill stated that this item involves two portions of the grant from King County -- one is
to provide funding for a recycling event and the other element is a business recycling
program. We have had these recycling events in the past; they are held twice yearly and
enable the citizens to bring in items that are not collected as part of our normal recycling
program. The other portion of this grant is a business recycling program which will
provide onsite visits, technical assistance and community outreach for the businesses in
this area. The recycling event is approximately $12,004 of the $37,553 grant. The
• remaining portion ($25,549) is for business recycling-- it is 100% King County funded.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant
agreement and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for $37,553.00.
3
S. 277th/SE274th Wav '97 Grade &Fill - Acceptance
Gill explained that this is a contract for constructing a portion of the S. 277th Street
Corridor. It was a major earthmoving portion of the project which was under
construction most of last summer. He stated that since the final contract amount
exceeded the 10% (11.21% over) we are bringing this before the Committee for approval
to take it to the full Council. Gill noted one of the major issues creating the overage was
dealing with some of the active erosion problems onsite, even during construction. There
were some severe storm events during construction which brought alot of the material
down into our siltation ponds.
Clark requested that bid applications include, at City expense, power-washing of those
homes nearest to the projects being constructed. Gill stated that we have done this on
other projects where we have had similar problems. On the Upper Garrison Creek
project we did clean several homes. Gill added that we will incorporate this into the
project specifications.
Committee unanimously recommended that the S. 277th St/SE274th Way '97 Grade
&Fill project be accepted as complete.
S. 196th Street Corridor ondemnation Ordinance
Gill explained that we are trying to move forward with construction of the west leg of
the 196th Street Corridor. One of the elements of that project involves the filling of
about one acre of wetland. In order to mitigate for that wetland loss, we need to acquire
property to compensate in a ratio of about 3 to 1. We are looking for 3 acres for wetland
mitigation. Gill explained that we contacted several property owners; we narrowed it
down to two sites; conducted environmental investigation on those sites and one is most
suitable for this wetland mitigation effort. Gill stated that we did an appraisal and it
appears our appraisal is somewhat below what the owners might be expecting however,
we will be continuing to negotiate with the property owners on reaching a mutually
acceptable sale price. However, we don't want to slow the project down and this merely
gives us a date in court if for some reason we cannot reach a settlement out of court
which will allow us to get public use and necessity and continue with the construction
of the project. Gill said at this time, we would like to move forward on the
condemnation process realizing that we continue negotiations.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to adopt the respective
condemnation ordinance for the acquisition of the wetland mitigation site for the 196th
• Street Corridor project.
Clark noted that he is hesitant in terms of the timeline. Tim LaPorte explained that the
critical path for the 196th Street Corridor west leg, which is from West Valley Highway
4
to Orillia Rd is the acquisition of the Corps of Engineer's 404 Permit and that's why this
particular piece of property is being acquired. Until we actually have a site and have
developed a plan for it, the Corps won't even acknowledge us. We need to move ahead
with this acquisition in order to move ahead with the project.
School Impact Fees Ordinance and Authorization
Brubaker explained that there are a number of house-keeping measures that need to be
addressed for the existing school impact fees that the City imposes upon certain new
construction. The primary issue at this time is consideration of whether or not to extend
these impact fees. They expire March 31 st of this year unless extended by the
Committee. Brubaker said he has drafted an Ordinance to extend them for another year
although it is at the Committee's option to extend it for 30 days or more. Brubaker
further stated, there is a need to include the Federal Wav and Kent School District's
Capital Facilities Plan to our own Capital Facilities Plan as part of our Comprehensive
Plan and to provide the basis from which to impose the impact fees. Brubaker said we
referenced the school's plans but we did not specifically attach them to our Capital
Facilities Plan. The first item of business is to determine the extension of the impact fees
and secondly, a motion to refer this matter to the Land Use and Planning Board, have
a hearing and attach the School District's Capital Facilities Plan to our own Capital
Facilities Plan.
Committee unanimously recommended that this matter be referred to the Land Use and
Planning Board, hold a hearing and attach the School District's Capital Facilities Plan
to our own Capital Facilities Plan.
Judy Woods noted that at some point we should consider extending the school impact
fees in perpetuity or 5 years or whatever date seems appropriate. Clark asked if there
would be a problem putting these fees into a two year cycle renewal. Brubaker stated
that would be strictly Council's preference. Brotherton stated that two years would
probably be more palatable for some people and it does create certainty. Woods stated
she would be receptive to changing the Motion to consider the language to March 31,
2000.
The Committee unanimously recommended an amended Motion of extending the school
impact fees to March 31, 2000 and, to refer this matter to the Land Use and Planning
Board.
Fred Satterstrom asked the Committee if this Motion has within it a declaration of
• emergency. Judy Woods explained that the language would be that the Land Use and
Planning Board consider adoption of an emergency comprehensive plan amendment to
adopt the Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts of an
element of the City of Kent's Capital Facilities Plan for 1998.
5
• Added items:
Star Lake Parking Lot - (Information Item Only.-)
Lt. Bob Holt of the Police Dept stated there is concern regarding the Star Lake parking
lot overflow and the surrounding parkin;specifically the area along 26th Avenue South
and S. 270th which winds around to 28th Avenue. Some of this area is available for
parking however there is some "No Parking" signage along this area and some is left open
to interpretation. Many of the neighbors are concerned about the parking in front of
their driveways and mailboxes. Lt. Holt explained that by eliminating parking on the
eastside of that entire roadway and signing "No Parking" along that roadway and better
defining parking on the west side of the roadway, we can solve some of the problems.
In addition, painting slash marks and"No Parking" on the street in front of the driveways
and mailboxes would alleviate parking problems in those areas.
Clark requested that City personnel leave a large sign indicating a change so people are
aware of what's going on.
Jim Harris noted there is a new sub-division being constructed in the immediate area.
He also said that this parking area is really "maxed" out.
• Ed White stated that Sound Transit (aka RTA) is looking at the Star Lake site in terms
of improvements to this area to improve HOV access however this will merely aggravate
the problem. This is a problem which is difficult to solve over the short-term and the
hope is that something can be done by Sound Transit to either free up some funds for
expansion, if in fact they can find an area to expand for expansion.
Proposed Billboard Ordinance
Laurie Evezich stated that the Legal Dept was requested to review the legality of
regulating and prohibiting "off premises" billboard signs along specific corridors to be
constructed with the combination of State, Federal and City of Kent funds in the near
future. As we discussed, the purpose of that regulation is to diminish any traffic hazards
any new commercial billboard signs are creating. She noted that in addition to the traffic
impacts, some of the concerns articulated by Committee were negative impacts in general
associated with the visual blight of off premises billboards as well as the preservation of
the aesthetic views of Mt. Rainier and the Valley Floor, the Green River, etc. She said
the question was raised that, if this is the intention of the regulation, can we take it
• further and preserve, protect and restrict for the same purpose over a greater geographical
area. The legal research that was conducted concluded that recent Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals decision has determined that as a matter of law, a local jurisdiction can
regulate to the point of prohibiting absolutely, billboards in their jurisdiction. Taking
6
into consideration that Kent does have existing billboards that have permits, those would
be grandfathered; they could certainly be subject to amortization but as far as regulating
any new billboards, the City of Kent could certainly regulate them to the point of
prohibiting them. Evezich said the current discussion was, could the City of Kent
regulate the 'off-premises" billboard signs by prohibiting them across the Valley floor
from 196th Street Corridor south, to the Kent City limits. Constitutionally, yes we can.
Evezich said, at this point we have all the constitutional and legal questions answered
and research is in support of an ordinance of this nature but now we need to inventory
the existing signs in the City to work with the Land Use and Planning Board to come up
with a definition consistent with the current definition of defining regulations in the
zoning code that would define billboards as they may be constructed. Also,
understanding the exact parameters of the roadways that might be impacted by this
regulation is something that staff would also have to research. Evezich said the legal
department would be happy to draft an ordinance but we need to work with other
departments.
Evezich requested at this time that Committee request that Administration direct the
Land Use and Planning Board to consider amendments to Sign Regulations consistent
with the representations made at this time prohibiting new"off-premises" billboards.
• Committee unanimously moved to request that the Mayor assign appropriate staff to
conduct the necessary research to support an ordinance amending the Sign Regulations
of Chapter 15.06 of the Kent City Code to include a prohibition against locating any
new billboards across the Valley floor from 196th Street South to the Kent City limits.
Clark noted that for the record, this motion does include both sides of the 196th Street
Corridor.
Jim Harris explained this is a very difficult project. It requires an extensive staff to
analyze what is already legally existing. All of the billboards in the valley are permitted.
Harris stated that the Committee should know that the Planning Dept has a "full plate".
Harris felt the Motion should be amended to reflect from 180th Avenue South through
all the Zoning Districts.
Evezich asked how far of a setback from the roadway of the 196th Street Corridor do we
want for 'off-premises" billboards. In addition, whenever a regulation is imposed on
something that is characterized as free speech right, it has to be done in accordance with
an articulated legitimate governmental purpose. The standard for the legitimate
governmental purpose imposing regulation on billboards has been recently articulated
• by two cases: Ackerly Communications vs. City of Seattle decided in March 1997 and
the METRO Media vs City of San Diego which was decided 5 years ago. The
importance of those two cases in contrast to what Harris was saying regarding this being
such a big undertaking is now both the US Supreme Court and METRO Media and the
7
Circuit Court of Appeals has said, as a matter of law, a local jurisdiction can regulate or
prohibit billboards within its jurisdictional boundary on the basis of traffic safety and
aesthetics. With that as the intention of the Planning Committee in September 1997,
the City Attorneys office started working with the Council Committee representatives
to determine what area would protect the view and traffic safety interests of Kent. That
may be articulated as a larger area over a period of time; that's the sort of thing that
needs to be worked out with staff.
Harris asked if there was anything written on this subject that the Planning Dept can
present to the Land Use Planning Board and the Mayor.
Evezich stated that most of her communications were conducted with the Council
representative from the Planning Committee, after the authorization of the Committee
by Motion on the 16th of September, mainly in the form of a memorandum that
outlines the legal and constitutional support of an ordinance of this kind. We do have
two sample ordinances from the City of Seattle outlining the ordinances that were
upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Washington State Supreme Court in the
initial litigation on these first amendment issues. Using those as samples, we are
prepared to present those as ordinances, but the one thing missing is the existing permit,
secondly, to look at an area map of the Kent City limits from the initially identified area
of the 196th St Corridor.
Brubaker stated that the Motion is really a Motion made to the City's Administration
and the Mayor and that's the staff liaison that Jim Harris needs. It will give the Mayor
and the Citys Director of Operation an opportunity to speak with Jim Hams and come
forward with a plan that works for him and we can set some parameters. Brubaker also
stated that starting at S. 180th makes sense.
Water Quality Issue
Brotherton noted that there was an article in the Seattle Times regarding research by
Wondergoo Co. on removing silt and particles from water in construction projects during
the winter. He felt we should consider looking into this and see if it is reasonable to
permit this sort of substance to be used.
Meeting adjourned: 5:00 p.m.
8