HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/02/2001 •
KENT
WAS�'�GToN PLANNING COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY
DEVSLOPMENT
Mike W.Marl'",Deputy July 2, 2001
Chief Administrative Officer
PLANNING SEflU10ES
Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP
Manager_
The City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East, Kent
MeitingAddress: City Hall, 220 41h Avenue South, at 4:00 PM on Monday, July 2, 2001.
220 Fourth Ave_S.
Kent,WA'`98032-5895
Location Address Committee Members: Tom Brotherton, Chair Judy Woods Tim Clark
400 West Gowe
Kent.,WA W032
Phone:253-856.5454
Fax:253-856-6454 Action Speaker Time
1. Approval of Minutes of June 4, 2001 YES
2. Code Enforcement Update—Discussion #2 NO Brian Swanberg 10 min
3. Code Enforcement Ordinance YES Roger Lubovich 10 min
4. SEPA Strategy to Address ESA YES Kim Marousek 10 min
5. Auto Repair & Manufacturing Uses YES Kim Marousek 10 min
As Home Occupations
6. Noise Exemptions for Roads NO Charlene Anderson 10 min
7. King County Growth Management Planning NO Charlene Anderson 10 min
Council: A) Urban Separators
B) Agricultural Lands
The Planning Committee meets the first Monday of each month at 4:00 PM in Chambers
East, Kent City Hall, 220 4'Ave. South, unless otherwise noted. For agenda
information please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT(253)856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE CALL
THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
S.I Permi t l Pl an iRBPORTS12 001 10 702 01 pcAgenda.doc
9
7/2/01
Planning Committee
Item#1
i
CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE
DISCUSSION #2
FORMATION ITEM
Staff will discuss the status update of Kent's existing code
enforcement program.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mike H. Martin, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
Robert D. Hutchinson, CBO, Building Official
Phone:253-856-5401
Fax: 253-856-6454
KENT
W A 5„,„G r o„ Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
May 25, 2001
TO: CHAIRJOM BROTHERTON AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: BOB HUTCHINSON, BUILDING OFFICIAL
RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE - DISCUSSION #2
Meeting Date: 7/2//01 Planning Committee
Introduction
Effective enforcement of municipal codes is an essential element in maintaining the general health
of a city and its neighborhoods. In turn, a high level of general health attracts new investment and
encourages maintenance of existing properties. Based on the Council's interest, we are offering
this report as a status update of Kent's existing code enforcement program.
Background
• Prior to 1993, Kent had no staff positions dedicated to code enforcement, leaving such work to
staff with other primary responsibilities. Moreover, the City's codes were enforceable only as
criminal violations, requiring the City to meet a higher standard of evidence to successfully
prosecute cases. Most code enforcement work was actually accomplished indirectly through the
permit approval process or by persuasion; therefore, significant needs went unmet.
In 1993, the City enacted a code enforcement process utilizing civil penalties (fines) as the primary
means of compelling code compliance. The next year, Kent hired its first (and only, to date) Code
Enforcement Officer in what is now the Building Services Division. From 1994 through 2000, over
1200 code enforcement cases were resolved, primarily through the efforts of this one staff position.
Recent Improvements
In December 2000, the City implemented a newly acquired module of the KIVA software system to
track and document code enforcement cases. In the first quarter of 2001, Planning Services'
administrative staff assumed responsibility for primary public contact, data entry, creation and
mailing of notices and record keeping. This allowed the Code Enforcement Officer to spend more
time in the field, which has resulted in a significant increase in code enforcement activity. In
addition, the Law Office has assumed responsibility for preparation of cases for hearings and for
their presentation to the Hearing Examiner.
Recent statistics are as follows:
Janua February March April May
Code Enforcement cases opened: 21 23 13 50 49
Code Enforcement cases resolved: 12 10 3 55 41
• Number of Code Enforcement hearings: 1 0 1 2 1
% of cases resolved without a hearing: 92% 100% 67% 96% 98%
The Future
Code enforcement staff have been working with the Law Office to review and update forms,
processes and procedures to enhance the effectiveness of our code enforcement program. The
Law Office is bringing a proposed ordinance to the Planning Committee for this purpose. Proposed
changes will more nearly align our actions with state legislation and case law, provide the potential
for criminal prosecution for certain cases, provide a predictable mechanism for collection of civil
penalties, and create more consistency by linking all appropriate City codes to one set of
enforcement processes. While most code enforcement actions will still commence in the City
department or division with primary responsibility for the discipline involved (i.e.-building codes),
the need for expertise in obtaining code compliance will require continuation and enhancement of
the core code enforcement program. Possible longer-term enhancements may involve adding
and/or consolidating staff into one code enforcement team.
RDH\pm S:1Permit\Shared\07-22001 Planning Committee Code Enforcement.doc
cc: Mike H. Martin,Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting Community Development Director
Planning Committee Notebook
Planning Committee Mtg.of 7/2/01
Code Enforcement Update
Page 2 of 2
r i
7/2/01
Planning Committee
Item#2
S
CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE
ACTION ITEM :
gaff is recommending consideration and implementation of
a Code Enforcement Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. SUBJECT: Code Enforcement - Ordinance
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: -In 1993 the City Council enacted Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City
Code to provide for enforcement of civil violations of City codes. The proposed Ordinance updates
these code enforcement provisions by repealing Chapter 1.04 and enacting a new Chapter 1.04
entitled "Code Enforcement". The purpose of this update is to provide a more efficient and effective
tool for enforcement of the City's codes.
The Legal Department is currently drafting a second ordinance relating to code enforcement
which will be submitted to the Council at a later date. The second ordinance will amend
enforcement provisions of various chapters of the Kent City Code to refer back to Chapter 1.04 for
unified code enforcement process.
3. MOTION: To recommend adoption by the full Council of the proposed ordinance relating to
code enforcement.
SUMMARY MINUTES
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 3 , 2001
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF - Announcement of
Councilmember Amodt' s resignation
B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Robert O'Brien (Item 11A)
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month - Police Officer Jeff Cobb and
Rookie
B . Proclamation - Parks and Recreation Month - Presented by
John Hodgson
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes - Approved
B . Bills - Approved
C. Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Grant -
Accepted
• D. Service Club Ballfield Donations - Accepted and Budget
Amended
E. Fee in Lieu Budget Transfers - Approved
F. Surplus Haak House - Approved
G. King County Work Training Grant - Accepted and Budget
Amended
H. Washington Economic Development Finance Authority Non-
Recourse Revenue Bonds - Resolution 1597 passed
I . Code Enforcement, Chapter 1 . 04 - Ordinance (Moved to other
Business)
J. Excused Absence, Councilmembers Orr and Woods - Approved
K. Sound Transit Artwork Change - Approved
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Council Meeting Time Change - National Night Out Ordinance
3564 adopted
B. Code Enforcement Chapter 1. 04 - Ordinance 3565 adopted as
modified
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A. Council Rules and Procedures
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Property Acquisition - Burlington Northern Spur Site
B. Boise Mobile Equipment Fire Trucks
13 . ADJOURNMENT - 7 :30 p.m.
AFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, updating code provisions for
enforcement of civil violations of City codes by
repealing Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code in its
entirety and enacting a new Chapter 1.04 entitled "Code
Enforcement."
WHEREAS, in 1993 the City Council enacted Chapter 1.04 of the Kent
City Code to provide provisions for enforcement of civil violations of City codes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update these enforcement
provisions for code violations to provide for more effective and efficient code
enforcement; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code entitled "Civil
Violations, Enforcement, and Abatement" is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. A new chapter, Chapter 1.04, entitled "Code
Enforcement," is hereby added to the Kent City Code to read as follows:
1 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
CHAPTER 1.04.
CODE ENFORCEMENT.
Sec. 1.04.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish an
efficient system to enforce regulations of the city, providing an opportunity for a
prompt hearing and decision on alleged violations and establishing penalties for
violations. This chapter shall apply to all regulations as defined in KCC 1.04.020(J);
provided that a regulation that provides for criminal penalties in addition to or as an
alternative to enforcement under this chapter may, at the discretion of the City, be
prosecuted as a criminal violation.
Sec. 1.04.020. Dermitions. As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning
is plainly required:
A. Abate means to repair, replace, remove, destroy or otherwise remedy a
condition that constitutes a civil violation by such means, in such manner, and to such
an extent as the code enforcement officer or the hearing examiner determines is
necessary in the interest of the general health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. Act means doing or performing something.
C. City means City of Kent.
D. Civil violation or violation means an act or omission contrary to a regulation as
defined in subsection (J) of this section. A violation continues to exist until abated.
E. Code enforcement officer means the City's code enforcement officers; building
officials; building inspectors; construction inspectors; the fire chief, or his or her
designee; fire inspectors; the public works director, or his or her designee; or any other
person or persons assigned or directed by the Mayor, or his or her designee, to enforce
the regulations subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions of this chapter.
F. Hearing examiner means the Kent hearing examiner and the office thereof
established pursuant to Chapter 2.32 KCC.
G. Omission means a failure to act.
H. Person means any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation or any
entity, public or private.
•
2 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
. I. Person responsible for the violation means any person who has titled
ownership of the property or structure which is subject to the regulation, an occupant
in control of the property or structure which is subject to the regulation, a developer,
builder, or business operator or owner who is developing, building, or operating a
business on the property or in a structure which is subject to the regulation and/or any
person who created or is responsible for the violation.
J. Regulation means and includes the following, as now enacted or hereafter
amended:
1. All Kent city code provisions making reference to this chapter;
2. All standards, regulations and procedures adopted by the city that make
reference to this chapter; and
3. The terms and conditions of any permit or approval issued by the city,
or any concomitant agreement with the city pursuant to code provisions that make
reference to this chapter.
K. Repeat violation means two or more violations of the same regulation in any
location by the same person for which voluntary compliance previously has been
sought within two (2) years or for which a notice of civil violation has been issued
within two (2) years.
Sec. 1.04.030. Voluntary correction.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section may be utilized whenever the
code enforcement officer or hearing examiner determines that a violation of a
regulation has occurred or is occurring.
B. General. Prior to the issuance of a notice of violation, the code enforcement
officer may, at his or her discretion, attempt to secure the voluntary correction of a
violation of a regulation by contacting the person responsible for the violation,
explaining the violation, and requesting correction. The failure of the code
enforcement officer to seek voluntary correction shall not invalidate any code
enforcement action taken by the code enforcement officer or the City of Kent.
C. Issuance of voluntary correction agreement. A voluntary correction agreement
may be entered into between the person responsible for the violation and the city,
. acting through the code enforcement officer.
3 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
D. Content of Agreement. The voluntary correction agreement is a contract
between the city and the person responsible for the violation under which that person
agrees to abate the violation within a specified time and according to specified
conditions. The voluntary correction agreement shall include the following:
1. The name and address of the person responsible for the
violation; and
2. The street address or a description sufficient for identification of
the building, structure, premises, or land upon or within which the violation has
occurred or is occurring; and
3. A description of the violation and a reference to the regulations
which have been violated; and
4. An acknowledgement by the person responsible for the
violation that the violation described in the correction agreement exists.
5. The necessary corrective action to be taken, the date or time by
which correction must be completed, and an acknowledgement by the person
responsible for the violation that he or she will correct the violation within the time
specified in the voluntary correction agreement; and
6. Acknowledgement by the person responsible for the violation
that the city may inspect the premises as may be necessary to determine compliance
with the voluntary correction agreement; and
7. Acknowledgement by the person responsible for the violation that
the city may abate the violation and recover its costs and expenses and/or a monetary
penalty pursuant to this chapter from the person responsible for the violation if the terms
of the voluntary correction agreement are not met; and
8. The time and place for a hearing before the hearing examiner in
the event that the alleged violation is not abated by the person responsible for the
violation.
E. Extension; modification. An extension of the time limit for correction or a
modification of the required corrective action may be granted by the code enforcement
officer if the person responsible for the violation has shown due diligence and/or
substantial progress in correcting the violation but unforeseen circumstances render
icorrection under the original conditions unattainable.
4 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
F. Abatement by the city. In addition to any other remedy provided for in this
Chapter, the City may seek abatement of the violation in accordance with KCC
1.04.110 if the terms of the voluntary correction agreement are not met.
G. Penalties and costs. If the terms of the voluntary correction agreement are not
met, the person responsible for the violation may be assessed a monetary penalty in
accordance with KCC 1.04.090, plus all costs and expenses of abatement, as set forth
in KCC 1.04.110.
Sec. 1.04.040. Notice of civil violation.
A. Issuance of Notice of Violation. When the code enforcement officer
determines that a violation has occurred or is occurring, and does not secure voluntary
correction pursuant to KCC 1.04.030, the code enforcement officer may issue a notice
of civil violation to the person responsible for the violation.
B. Content of Notice. The notice of civil violation shall include the following:
1. The name and address of the person responsible for the violation; and
• 2. The street address or description sufficient for identification of the
building, structure, premises, or land upon or within which the violation has occurred
or is occurring; and
3. A description of the violation and a reference to the code provisions
and regulations that have been violated; and
4. The required corrective action and the date and time by which the
corrective action must be completed; and
5. The date, time and location of a hearing before the hearing examiner;
and
6. A statement indicating that the hearing will be canceled and no
monetary penalty will be assessed if the code enforcement officer approves the
completed, required corrective action at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the
hearing; and
7. A statement that the costs and expenses of abatement incurred by the
city pursuant to KCC 1.04.110 and a monetary penalty in an amount per day for each
violation as specified in KCC 1.04.090 may be assessed against the person to whom
5 Code Enforcement—Ch. I.04
. the notice of civil violation is directed as specified and ordered by the hearing
examiner.
8. A statement that the failure to attend the hearing before the hearing
examiner may result in a default judgement against the person responsible for the
violation, whereby the hearing examiner may enter judgement in favor of the city,
assess fines, penalties and costs against the person responsible for the violation, and
order the abatement of the violation at the expense of the person responsible for the
violation.
C. Extension. Extensions of the time specified in the notice of civil violation for
correction of the violation may be granted at the discretion of the code enforcement
officer; the city attorney, or his or her designee; or by order of the hearing examiner.
D. Service of notice. The code enforcement officer shall serve or cause to be
served the notice of civil violation upon the person responsible for the violation by
personal service pursuant to KCC 1.04.040(E)1, or, in the event the person responsible
for the violation cannot be personally served after reasonable attempt(s) to do so, by
mail pursuant to KCC 1.04.040(E)2. If the person responsible for the violation cannot
be personally served within King County and if an address for mailed service cannot
be ascertained, notice shall be served by posting a copy of the notice of civil violation
conspicuously on the affected property or structure pursuant to KCC 1.04.040(E)3
and/or publication pursuant to KCC 1.04.040(E)4.
E. Methods of Service Defined. The methods of service of notice as used in this
Chapter are defined as follows:
1. Personal Service. Personal service on the person responsible for the
violation shall mean handing the notice to the person responsible for the violation or
leaving it at his or her dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of
suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or leaving it at his or her office or
place of employment with a person in charge thereof; or
2. Mailing. Mailing shall mean mailing notice to the last known address
of the person responsible for the violation shall be accomplished by placing one (1)
copy of the notice of violation in the mails of the United States by ordinary first class
mail, directed to the last known address of the person responsible for the violation, and
• by placing another copy in the mails of the United States in a form requiring a signed
Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
receipt showing when and to whom it was delivered and directed to the last known
address of the person responsible for the violation. The last known address shall
include the address appearing on the last equalized tax assessment roll of the county
assessor; or
3. Posting. Posting shall mean posting a copy of the notice in a
conspicuous place on the property, with at least one (1) copy of such notice placed at
the entry-way to the property or structure if an entry-way exists; or
4. Publication. Publication of notice shall mean publication as set forth in
RCW 4.28.100.
F. Proof of Service. Proof of service shall be made by a written declaration under
penalty of perjury executed by the person effecting the service, declaring the time and
date of service, the manner by which the service was made, and if by posting and/or
publication in lieu of personal service or mail, the facts showing that due diligence
was used in attempting to serve the person personally or by mail.
Sec. 1.04.050. Stop work order. In addition to any remedy provided for in
this chapter, the code enforcement officer may issue a stop work order whenever a
continuing violation of a regulation will materially impair the code enforcement
officer's ability to secure compliance, or when a continuing violation of the regulation
threatens the health, safety, or welfare of any member of the public. The stop work
order shall contain substantially the same information as required by KCC 1.04.040(B)
and may be appended to, or incorporate by reference in, a notice of violation. Notice
of the stop work order shall be deemed served upon posting of the notice as required
by KCC 1.04.040(E)3, and shall be effective upon service. The violation of a stop
work order shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a
maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine in an
amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both
such imprisonment and fine.
Sec. 1.04.060. Stop use order. In addition to any remedy provided for in this
chapter, the code enforcement officer may issue a stop use order whenever a
continuing violation of a regulation threatens the health, safety, or welfare of any
7 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
member of the public. The stop use order shall contain substantially the same
information as required by KCC 1.04.040(B), and may be appended to, or incorporate
by reference in, a notice of violation. Notice of the stop use order shall be deemed
served upon posting of the notice as required by KCC 1.04.040(E)3, and shall be
effective upon service. The violation of a stop use order shall constitute a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by the
court of not more than ninety(90) days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of
not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine.
Sec. 1.04.070. Removal of stop work or stop use order - misdemeanor.
The removal of a stop work order or stop use order posted in conformity with the
requirements of KCC 1.04.050 or KCC 1.04.060, without the authorization of the code
enforcement officer or hearing examiner, shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety (90)
days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine.
Sec. 1.04.080. Hearing before the hearing examiner.
A. Notice. A person to whom a notice of civil violation is issued will be
scheduled to appear before the hearing examiner not less than ten (10) calendar days
from the date of service of the notice of violation or entrance into a voluntary
correction agreement. In the event that the hearing is held after the person responsible
for the violation enters a voluntary correction agreement, the date of the hearing shall
be the date specified in the voluntary correction agreement. An extension for the time
for compliance with the correction requirements of a notice of violation or a voluntary
correction agreement, as well as the date and time for a hearing before the hearing
examiner, may be granted at the discretion of the code enforcement officer; the city
attorney, or his or her designee; or the hearing examiner.
B. Prior correction of violation. The hearing will be canceled and no monetary
penalty will be assessed if the code enforcement officer or the city attorney, or his or
her designee, approves the completed corrective action at least forty-eight (48) hours
prior to the scheduled hearing.
8 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
• C. Procedure. Except as otherwise provided for herein, the hearing examiner
shall conduct a hearing on the civil violation pursuant to ch. 2.32 KCC. The city and
the person to whom the notice of civil violation was directed may participate in the
hearing and each party, or its legal representatives, may call witnesses and present
evidence. The city shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that a violation has occurred and that the corrective action required by the
code enforcement officer is reasonably calculated to correct the violation. Formal
rules of evidence shall not apply to any such hearing.
D. Decision of the hearing examiner.
1. In the event that the hearing examiner determines that a violation
occurred or is occurring, the hearing examiner shall issue an order to the person
responsible for the violation which contains the following information:
a. The decision regarding the alleged violation including findings
of fact and conclusions based thereon in support of the decision;
b. The required corrective action;
C. The date and time by which the correction must be completed;
id. The monetary penalties and costs, if any, assessed pursuant to
KCC 1.04.090;
e. The date and time after which the city may proceed with
abatement of the unlawful condition if the required correction is
not completed.
E. Notice of decision. The hearing examiner shall mail a copy of the decision by
first class regular mail to the person to whom the notice of a civil violation was issued
and to the code enforcement officer within ten (10) working days of the hearing,
unless the hearing examiner determines that more time is necessary.
F. Failure to appear. If the person to whom the notice of civil violation was
issued fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the hearing examiner may issue at the
City's request, or upon his or her own ruling, an order of default, assess the
appropriate penalty pursuant to KCC 1.04.090, and serve notice of the default and
penalty assessment on the person responsible for the violation. The city may enforce
the hearing examiner's order and recover all related expenses, plus the cost of the
• hearing and any monetary penalty from that person. Within seven (7) days after
9 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
• service of the default order, the party against whom it was entered may file a written
motion requesting that the order be vacated. The Hearing examiner may, at his or her
discretion, based upon a showing of good cause, vacate the order of default, and
remand the matter for hearing. In the event that the default order is vacated, the
person against whom it was entered shall pay all costs attributable to his or her failure
to appear prior to the hearing examiner remanding the matter for hearing.
G. Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner
must be filed with the Superior Court within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the
issuance of the decision.
See. 1.04.090. Violations—Monetary penalty.
A. Assessment of monetary penalty. The hearing examiner shall, upon finding
that a violation of a regulation has occurred, assess a monetary penalty in an amount
of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, per day, or a portion thereof.
The monetary penalty shall, at the discretion of the hearing examiner, be assessed as
of.
1. The date of the issuance of the notice of civil violation; or
2. The date on which the matter was heard by the hearing examiner; or
3. The date upon which the person responsible for the violation is or was
to have corrected the violation.
B. Costs. In addition, the hearing examiner may assess costs incurred related to
enforcement under this chapter, including, but not limited to costs of service of notice,
and such costs shall have the same meaning as the terns "penalties" or "monetary
penalties" in this section and may be assessed and collected in the same manner as
"penalties" or "monetary penalties" are assessed and collected in this section.
C. Modification of monetary penalty. Upon a finding that the person responsible
for the violation will correct the violation within a reasonable time of the hearing, the
hearing examiner may postpone the assessment of the monetary penalty for a
reasonable period. If, prior to the expiration of the period of postponement the code
enforcement officer or the city attorney or his or her designee is satisfied that the
violation has been corrected, the hearing examiner or the city attorney may relieve the
person responsible for the violation of the duty to pay the monetary penalty. If, after
10 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
the period of postponement, the violation has not been corrected, the penalties
assessed against the person responsible for the violation shall be assessed from the
date of the violation, and payment shall be due.
D. Monetary penalty for repeat violations. The hearing examiner may, at his or
her discretion, double the monetary penalty set forth in subsection (A) herein, if the
violation is a repeat violation.
E. Collection of monetary penalty. The monetary penalties assessed pursuant to
KCC 1.04.090 constitute a personal obligation of the person to whom the notice of
civil violation is directed or the person responsible for the violation. In addition, the
monetary penalties assessed pursuant to this subsection may be assessed against the
property that is the subject of the enforcement action. Any monetary penalty assessed
must be paid to the city within ten (10) calendar days from the date of mailing of the
hearing examiner's decision or a notice from the city that penalties are due. The city
attorney, or his or her designee, is authorized to take legal action to collect the
monetary penalty.
F. Use of collection agency. The city, at its discretion, may, pursuant to Chapter
. 19.16 RCW, use a collection agency for the purposes of collecting penalties assessed
pursuant to this chapter. The City shall add a reasonable fee, payable by the person
responsible for the debt, to the outstanding debt for the collection agency fee incurred
or to be incurred as a result of the use of the collection agency. No debt may be
assigned to a collection agency until at least thirty (30) days have elapsed from the
time that the City attempts to notify the person responsible for the debt of the
existence of the debt and that the debt may be assigned to a collection agency for
collection if the debt is not paid.
G. Continued duty to correct. Payment of a monetary penalty pursuant to this
chapter does not relieve the person responsible for the violation of the duty to correct
the violation.
Sec. 1.04.100. Third or subsequent repeat violation; failure to abate -
misdemeanor. The commission of a third or subsequent violation or the failure or
refusal to abate a violation pursuant to an order of the hearing examiner after receipt of
40 written notice of such order shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment
11 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
• in jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety (90) days or by a
fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
both such imprisonment and fine. The city attorney, or his or her designee, shall, at his
or her discretion, have authority to file a third or subsequent violation as either a civil
violation pursuant to this chapter or a misdemeanor. All misdemeanor charges filed
under this section shall be filed with the Kent Municipal Court and shall bear the
signature of the Kent city attorney or his or her designee. When the city files a criminal
offense pursuant to this subsection, it shall have the burden of proving, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the violation occurred.
See . 1.04.110. Abatement.
A. In general. At the hearing before the hearing examiner, the code enforcement
officer or the city attorney or his or her designee may request that an order of
abatement issue in the event that the hearing examiner determines that a violation of a
regulation exists. The order of abatement shall require the person responsible for the
violation to abate the violation and permit the City to abate the violation in the event
that the person responsible for the violation fails so to do. The City may seek such
judicial process as it deems necessary to effect the removal or correction of such
condition causing the violation.
B. Costs of abatement in general. The costs of any abatement action taken by the
City shall become a charge to the person responsible for the violation. These charges
may be assessed against the person responsible for the violation or the property upon
which the violation occurred. The City may use any lawful means to collect charges,
including but not limited to those set forth in KCC 1.04.090(E) and KCC 1.04.090 (F).
C. Other abatement proceedings not precluded. Nothing in this section shall
prohibit the City from pursuing abatement pursuant to any other laws of the State of
Washington or the City of Kent.
Sec. 1.04.120. Additional enforcement procedures. The provisions of this
chapter are not exclusive, and may be used in addition to other enforcement and
penalty provisions authorized by the Kent City Code or state law.
12 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
• Sec. 1.04.130. Conflicting code provisions. In the event a conflict exists
between the enforcement provisions of this chapter and the enforcement provisions of
any uniform code, statute, or regulation that is adopted in the Kent City Code that are
subject to the enforcement provisions of this chapter, the enforcement provisions of
this chapter will prevail, unless the enforcement provisions of this chapter are
preempted or specifically modified by said code, statute, or regulation.
Sec. 1.04.140. Duty not creating liability. No provision or term used in this
title is intended to impose any duty upon the city or any of its officers or employees
which would subject them to damages in a civil action.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, 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 5. Effective Date. 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 LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
13 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
• f
• PASSED: day of , 2001.
APPROVED: day of , 2001.
PUBLISHED: day of 12001.
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 JACOBER, CITY CLERK
PACMBOrdinance.CodeEnforcemenl-1.04.doc
•
14 Code Enforcement—Ch. 1.04
7/2101
Planning Committee
Item#3
•
SEPA STRATEGY TO ADDRESS ESA
ACTION ITEM :
staff is requesting Council to consider a
recommendation to incorporate new development
standards as a mechanism for staff to require
additional analysis and supply alternatives and
mitigation in cases where current development
standards may not fully protect listed species such
as the ESA listing of Chinook salmon and Bull
Trout.
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
• Fax: 253-856-6454
KEN T Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
WASHINGTON
Kent,WA 98032-5895
June 25,2001
MEMO TO: ` --CHAIR, TOM BROTHERTON&PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
/ '
FROM: M MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: ESA RESPONSE UNDER SEPA
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 2, 2001
As discussed during the June 19u' Council workshop, staff is developing a multi-tiered response to the
listing of Chinook salmon and Bull Trout as Endangered Species. In analyzing existing development
standards relative to stream setbacks, staff has identified the potential inadequacy of buffers to salmonid-
bearing systems within the Valley floor. In an effort to ensure compliance with Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), staff proposes to utilize the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
review process to obtain additional studies and possibly require greater mitigation to development in the
• Valley where impacts to salmon have been identified.
If potential impacts to listed species are identified prior to or during environmental review, the applicant
will submit to the City for review and approval a Fisheries Study or Biological Assessment prepared by a
qualified scientist. This assessment generally will analyze all probable impacts to ESA listed species, and
offer mitigation or site re-design alternatives. These mitigation measures then will be incorporated into
the SEPA decision, thereby becoming conditions of permit approval. Types of mitigation may include
stream buffer vegetative plantings, special practices to reduce construction and built impacts, and/or
increased buffer widths.
This process will provide a mechanism for staff to require additional analysis and supply alternatives and
mitigation in cases where current development standards may not fully protect listed species. Enclosed in
the committee packet are copies of similar programs from the Cities of Everett and Seattle. This interim
process will be in place until new stream standards, developed through best available science, are
implemented. These new development standards will be developed as staff works toward a total review
and update of sensitive areas as required by the Growth Management Act.
Because this interim SEPA process may impose greater mitigation for development along valley creeks,
staff intends to provide a vehicle for public information and involvement prior to beginning the interim
measures. This may include focus groups,posting information on our web-site and providing information
to area newspapers.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to develop interim SEPA strategy in response to the ESA listing of Chinook salmon and Bull
is Trout*
CH1KM1pm S:\PernutlPlan\ESA memo(1).doc
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting CD Director
Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager
Page 1 of 3
hie
[DIE &hie
City of Seattle Legislative Information Service
Information updated as of June 25, 2001 12:11 PM
Council Bill Number: 112679
Ordinance Number: 119481
AN ORDINANCE amending Seattle's SERA ordinance, SMC 25.05.675, to provide for additional
environmental review of proposed development within Seattle's shoreline zones, and declaring an
emergency requiring a 3/4 vote of the Seattle City Council so that the Ordinance may take effect
immediately.
Date introduced/referred: May 10, 1999
Date passed: May 24, 1999
Status: PASSED AS AMENDED
Vote: 9-0
Date of Mayor's signature: Jun 1, 1999
Committee: Full Council
&ponsor: DONALDSON
Index Terms: SHORELANDS, LAND-USE-PERMITS, ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION,FISH
Text
Note to users: {- indicates start of text that has been amended out
-} indicates end of text that has been amended out
(+ indicates start of text that has been amended in
+) indicates end of text that has been amended in
AN ORDINANCE amending Seattle's SEPA ordinance, SMC 25.05.675, to
provide for additional environmental review of proposed
development within Seattle's shoreline zones, and declaring an
emergency requiring a vote of the Seattle City Council so that
the Ordinance may take effect immediately.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby makes the following
legislative findings of fact and declarations:
1. Seattle's existing SEPA ordinance applies the City's
"Overview Policy" to proposed development within the City' s
shoreline zones, thereby limiting the extent to which the City's
SEPA policies for the protection of "Plants and Animals" may be
pplied to proposed development within the shoreline.
2. In 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service listed
Chinook salmon as a threatened species pursuant to the
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=&s2=&s3=112679&s4=119481&s5=&Sect 6/25/01
Page 2 of 3
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
In light of that listing, and in order to enhance the
Or-otection of plant and animal life within the City's shorelines,
the Council intends to provide for full application of the City's
SEPA policies within the shorelines, unrestricted by the
limitations contained in the Overview Policy.
4. If the repeal of the Overview Policy as it pertains to the
City's SEPA policies for "Plants and Animals" does not become
effective for several months, due to the standard procedures
applicable to ordinance adoption, development projects may become
vested, thereby thwarting the Council 's intent to fully apply the
City's authority to protect threatened species and other
important animals and plants.
5. If development projects become vested, uses may be
permanently established which are inimical to the public health,
safety, and welfare. Because the acquisition of vested rights
may be imminent, an emergency exists which requires the adoption
of this interim ordinance.
10. The City has legal authority to adopt this interim
ordinance pursuant to the authority granted by Article 11,
Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the Growth Management
Act, RCW 36.70A.390, and Matson v. Clark County, 79 Wn. App. 641
(1995) .
Section 2 . SMC 25.05.675 (N) is hereby amended to read as
Section
N. Plants and Animals.
1. Policy Background.
a. Many species of birds, mammals, fish, and other classes
of animals and plants living in the urban environments are of
aesthetic, educational, ecological and in some cases economic
value.
b. Local wildlife populations are threatened by habitat
loss through destruction and fragmentation of living and breeding
areas and travelways, and by the reduction of habitat diversity.
C. Substantial protection of wildlife habitats and travel
corridors within the City is provided by the Seattle Shoreline
Master Program.
2. Policies.
a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent the loss
of wildlife habitat and other vegetation which have substantial
aesthetic, educational, ecological, and/or economic value. A
high priority shall be given to the preservation and protection
of special habitat types. Special habitat types include, but are
•not limited to, wetlands and associated areas (such as upland
nesting areas) , and spawning, feeding, or nesting sites. A high
priority shall also be given to meeting the needs of state and
federal threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of both
plants and animals.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=&s2=&s3=1 12679&s4=1 1948 1&s5=&Sc... 6/25101
Page 3 of 3
b. For projects which are proposed within an identified
lalant or wildlife habitat or travelway, the decisionmaker shall
ssess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation.
C. When the decisionmaker finds that a proposed project
would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional
plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat
diversity for species (plants or animals) of substantial
aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, the
decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate its
adverse impacts. Such conditioning or denial is permitted whether
or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set
forth in SMC Section 25.05.665(- . -H-
-? d. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited
to:
i. Relocation of the project on the site;
ii. Reducing the size or scale of the project;
iii. Preservation of specific on-site habitats, such as trees or
vegetated areas;
iv. Limitations on the uses allowed on the site;
V. Limitations on times of operation during periods significant
to the affected species (i.e. , spawning season, mating season,
to
and
vi. Landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation.
section 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon the approval or signing of the ordinance by the Mayor or
passage over his veto, as provided by the Charter of the City.
Passed by a three-fourths vote of all the members of the City
Council the day of 1999, and signed by me in
open session in authentication of its passage this day of
1999.
President of the City Council
Approved by me this day of 1999.
Mayor
Filed by me this day of 1999.
City Clerk
May 5, 1999
(Ver. 2) I-E ry
• ` jhieEBIE
hie ' ®® �'
http://clerk.ci.scattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=&s2=&s3=1 12679&s4=1 19481&s5=&Se... 6/25/01
S33IANEIS JNINNYid
1N3>I AO &L13
�ooz 0 � Nnr
PLANNING DIRECTOR INTERPRETATION 1
Interim Procedures Q I� I ►'1 a ►a u
Endangered Species Act(ESA)Listing for Chinook a mon and Bull Trout
PDI NUMBER: 2-2000
SUBJECT: This rule is issued in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
listing of Chinook Salmon as a threatened species and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) listing of Bull Trout as a threatened species. The purpose of this administrative rule is
to implement and enforce the provisions of the City's environmentally sensitive areas
regulations, EMC 19.37. This rule will provide an interim procedure for the review of proposed
activities, both private and public, when Chinook Salmon or Bull Trout habitat will be impacted
by a development proposal.
Authority: Section 41.040 of the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance provides for the Planning
Director to "promulgate administrative rules, procedures, and interpretations consistent with the
terms of this Ordinance."
Background:
• Chinook Salmon was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) on Marchl6, 1999. Bull Trout was listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in November 1999.
• The City's environmentally sensitive areas regulation, EMC 19.37, includes a number of
regulations that provide for the protection of salmon or any State or Federal listed species.
• EMC 19.37.170 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas, provides for the protection and
enhancement of"Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas"through sound habitat management
practices.
• EMC 19.37.170.A, requires an evaluation of any development proposed "on or adjacent to a
habitat of primary association." This section requires that"When a development is proposed
on or adjacent to a habitat of primary association, the applicant shall prepare a HMP."
• EMC 19.04.020 (the zoning ordinance)defines Habitats of Primary Association as "the
critical component(s) of the habitats of federally or state listed endangered, threatened,
candidate, sensitive, priority, and monitored wildlife or plant species." Since Chinook
Salmon and Bull Trout have been listed, any activity potentially impacting a critical
component of Chinook Salmon or Bull Trout habitat would be included under this definition.
Since Chinook Salmon are listed as a threatened species by NMFS and Bull Trout are listed as a
threatened species by USFWS, any project that potentially impacts a habitat of primary
association of either species would be subject to the requirements of Section 37.170.
APPLICABILITY/SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULE
• The waters within the City's jurisdiction that are identified to provide Chinook Salmon
habitat include the Snohomish River and Snohomish River Estuary; North Creek, Swamp
Creek, and shoreline nearshore habitat areas. The habitat for Bull Trout within the City is the
PDI#2-2000 November 28,2000 Pg.2
Interim-ESA Procedures
• lower Snohomish River, the Snohomish River Estuary and shoreline nearshore marine
environments. Development proposals within the City's jurisdiction which are located in
areas that potentially impact these Chinook Salmon or Bull Trout bearing waters are subject
to EMC 19.37.170, and this interim procedure. The 4d Rule was issued by NMFS on June
22, 2000. In the 4d Rule, "NMFS proposes a mechanism whereby entities can be assured
that an activity they are conducting or permitting is consistent with ESA requirements and
avoids or minimizes the risk of take of listed threatened salmonids. When such a program
provides sufficient conservation for listed salmonids,NMFS does not find it necessary and
advisable to apply ESA section 9(a)(1)take prohibitions to activities governed by those
programs." This interim administrative rule will remain in effect until NMFS adopts a
mechanism addressing the ESA program requirements applicable to the City of Everett. This
administrative rule addresses both procedural and substantive requirements of development
proposals until NMFS develops program requirements under section 4(d) of the Endangered
Species Act that are applicable to the City of Everett.
• EMC 19.37.170.A requires an evaluation of any development proposed on or"within a
distance which could impact fish and wildlife conservation areas,"but does not include the
specific distance(or proximity)within which a proposed development would require
preparation of an Habitat Management Plan.
• The standard buffer for a Category I stream is 100 feet on each side of the stream (EMC
19.37.140.A.1). When a stream corridor is used by endangered or threatened species, the
City may under certain circumstances require an increased buffer(EMC 19.37.140.C.2).
• The Shoreline Management Act requires an analysis of impacts of all substantial
development proposals within 200 feet of the shoreline or its associated wetlands.
• A 200-foot "Management Zone"would provide for the analysis of projects within a distance
which could impact fish and wildlife conservation areas.
• The management zone defines a management or catchment area within which projects are
subject to a more intensive review. The purpose of this review is to screen out those projects
that are not likely to impact Chinook Salmon or Bull Trout from those that could impact
Chinook Salmon or Bull Trout. Those projects that may impact Chinook Salmon or Bull
Trout are subject to additional biological assessment. The fish management zone will apply
to all areas under shoreline jurisdiction(and their associated wetlands), plus Category 1
streams with listed fish species and their associated wetlands, together with tributaries with
direct confluence to those streams and the associated wetlands to those tributary streams.
The fish management zone is to be measured from the ordinary high water mark or where not
able to be determined, top of bank. When a wetland is associated with these areas, the fish
management zone is measured from wetland edge as delineated in accordance with state
guidelines and EMC 19.37. Any proposed development activities within the fish
PDI#2-2000 November 28,2000 Pg.3 -
Interim,ESA Procedures
( management zone would trigger further evaluation of the biological impacts to Chinook
Salmon or Bull Trout.
• The City's stormwater management requirements including the Surfacewater Ordinance
(EMC 14.28.120) and Stormwater Manual include technical standards equivalent to the DOE
Stormwater Manual. Compliance with these standards provides sufficient stormwater and
surfacewater controls during this interim period.
• This administrative rule applies to the Snohomish River and the Snohomish River Estuary,
North Creek and Swamp Creek. This rule also applies to all developments within 200-feet of
the shoreline and their associated wetlands. This rule will apply to any proposed
development located on any stretch of these stream corridors, the Snohomish River or
Estuary; including the headwaters and tributaries with direct confluence to these streams or
waterbodies.
• This interim administrative rule applies to all projects for which land use decisions have not
previously been issued and which are not vested projects under EMC 19.44.010.E
• The language in EMC 19.37.170 provides broad authority for requiring an analysis or HMP
for any development that "could impact fish and wildlife conservation areas" (emphasis
added).
If a development is proposed on or within a distance that could impact fish and
wildlife conservation areas as described in this section, the applicant shall
provide a habitat management plan (HMP)prepared by a qualified expert for
evaluation by the City, State and Federal agencies. The HMP shall be based on
sound habitat management practices and designed to achieve specific habitat
objectives. The City shall ask the appropriate resource agencies to review and
comment on the development impacts and provisions of the HMP.
EMC 19.37 does not define a specific "management zone" or distance from fish and wildlife
conservation areas within which an HMP is required.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND RULE. Pursuant to the authority granted to the
Planning Director by section 41.040 of the zoning code, the following interim policy and
administrative rule is made:
1. Any development proposal located within 200 feet of the following listed areas are
considered to be within "A distance that could impact fish and wildlife conservation areas"
and shall be subject to these additional evaluations:
EMC 19.44.010 contains the City's vesting provisions for land use actions. Please note however,that many
applications of the Endangered Species Act are not barred by statute of limitation or vesting rules. See T.V.A vs.
Hill,437 US 153,57L.Ed.2d 117,98 S.Ct.2279(1978)
PDI#2-2000 November 2k 2000 PS 4
Interim ESA Procedures
�, . a) Any Category 1 river or stream used by Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout(Snohomish
River and Snohomish River Estuary;North Creek; and Swamp Creek; together with
tributaries with direct confluence to those streams and the associated wetlands).
b) All areas under shoreline jurisdiction(and their associated wetlands).
c) The 200-foot area is to be measured from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) or
where not able to be determined, top of bank. When a wetland is associated with these areas,
the distance is measured from the wetland edge as delineated in accordance with State
guidelines and EMC 19.37.
2. The biological assessment shall focus on the potential impacts of the proposal on Chinook
Salmon and Chinook Salmon habitat and that of Bull Trout. The analysis shall include:
a) An assessment of potential impacts of all proposed development activities on Chinook
Salmon and Bull Trout, and Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout habitat;
b) An evaluation of mitigation requirements included in existing regulations and an
evaluation of additional mitigation measures included in the proposal to mitigate impacts on
Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout, and Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout habitat; and
c) A determination as to whether impacts will occur to Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout
habitat after implementation of the required and proposed mitigation measures.
3. If the proposed development or action would result in potential unmitigated impacts to fish
and wildlife conservation areas, the applicant shall provide a Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) prepared by a qualified expert. The HMP shall contain the information as required in
Appendix A. The HMP shall be evaluated by the City, State and Federal agencies as
required by EMC 19.37.170.
4. The biological assessment and/or habitat management plan shall be prepared by a qualified
engineer, hydrologist, biologist or geomorphologist who understands the requirements for
properly functioning conditions for Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout. The consultant must
demonstrate such expertise to the satisfaction of the City of Everett Planning Director who
may require resumes, work examples or other information demonstrating professional
expertise on relevant fisheries issues. The City will meet with the consultant and direct
preparation of the biological assessment and/or habitat management plan. The City must
review and approve the biological assessment/habitat management plan. In the event of a
dispute regarding appropriate content in the assessment, the City may require additional
studies or additional supporting information as provided for in EMC 37.070.B.
5. At a minimum, all requirements and mitigation measures required in EMC 19.37 shall be
met. Additional impacts identified in the HMP shall be mitigated based upon
recommendations contained in the HMP.
a) Section 37.130.A classifies any"streams used by salmonids"as Category I streams, and
• under Section 37.140 "Category I streams shall have a minimum buffer of 100 feet on each
side of the stream, except that properties under the jurisdiction of the shoreline master
PDI#2-2000 November 28,2000 Pg.5 -
Interim ESA Procedures
program which abut category I streams may have a minimum buffer of less than one hundred
feet when shoreline public access improvements may otherwise be permitted or required
during the shoreline permit review process;or when a water-dependent or water-related use
which requires a lesser buffer standard is approved during the shoreline permit review
process." When a wetland is adjacent to a stream,the required buffer is the greater of the
required stream buffer or the buffer for the riparian wetland.
b) 37.100(4)provides that"When the minimum buffer for a wetland extends into an area
with a slope of greater than 25%, the buffer shall be the greater of: a) the minimum buffer
for that particular wetland; or b)25 feet beyond the point where the slope becomes 25%or
less."
c) Section 37.140.D provides for standard stream buffer width reduction and subsection F
provides for buffer width averaging. Buffer width reduction may be approved`only when
there has previously been substantial legal alteration of the stream and/or buffer on the
subject lot or adjoining lots, the Planning Director shall require buffer width averaging rather
than allowing a buffer width reduction even when the proposal includes a stream and buffer
enhancement plan that improves the functional value of the buffer and the stream. An
enhanced buffer shall not result in more than a fifty percent reduction in buffer width, and the
reduced buffer shall not be less than the minimum dimension allowed by buffer width
averaging."
d) Section 37.140.17 provides that"Averaging shall not adversely impact the functions and
values of the stream system. In either case,the adjusted minimum buffer width shall not be
less than fifty percent of the standard buffer width."
6. All development proposals located within any of these areas or drainage basins described by
Section 1 above must at a minimum comply with the City's Surfacewater Ordinance(EMC
14.28.120) and Stormwater Manual. Additional impacts identified in an HMP shall be
mitigated based upon recommendations contained in the HMP.
7. If an applicant obtains, after a Section 7 consultation with the Corps of Engineers, a
determination that the proposal will not harm Chinook Salmon and/or Bull Trout or an
incidental take statement for Chinook Salmon and/or Bull Trout, the City may accept such as
fulfilling the requirements of this interim policy and rule.
8. When development is proposed on a lot with a disturbed riparian corridor, the City may
require that the habitat be enhanced by creating more diversity and eliminating any source of
degradation as provided for under EMC 19.37.170.B, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas.
Signed:, ib lzc,iz*c. Dated:
Paul A. Roberts, Director
i
PDI#2-2000 November 28,2000 Pg. 6
Interim ESA Procedures
APPENDIX A
I. Habitat Management Plan (HMP)Defmition
An activity proposed by a public agency orprivate entity, and approved by the Planning
Director, within an area which may impact a fish and wildlife conservation area to
preserve,protector enhance the fish and wildlife conservation area. (EMC 19.4.020)
II. Content of Habitat Management Plan
A. The Director may require that all or a portion of the following is included in a habitat
management plan:
a) A map drawn to scale or survey showing the following information:
• All lakes, ponds, streams,wetlands and tidal waters on or adjacent to the
subject property, including the name (if named), and ordinary high water mark
of each, and the stream or wetland category consistent with EMC 19.37.090
and 19.37.130.
• The location and description of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
on the subject property, as well as any potential fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area within 200 feet of the subject property; and
• The location of any observed evidence of use by a listed species.
• b) An analysis of how the proposed development activities will affect the fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area and any listed species.
c) Provisions to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the proposed development
activities on any fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and listed species.
d) The HMP shall identify the specific habitat objectives. The HMP is designed to
achieve and include recommendations regarding all actions taken to be necessary
to avoid reducing the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over
the long term.
B. A biological assessment which meets the requirements of the NMFS "A Guide to
Biological Assessments" (revised March 23, 1999)will meet these requirements.
pdi22000ESA.doc
•
7/2101
Planning Committee
Item#4
AUTO REPAIR AND MAN FACTU RI N G
USES AS HOME OCCUPATIONS
ACTION ITEM
Staff recommends that the Committee forward a
zonng code amendment to the Land Use and
Planning board if warranted concerning
automobile repair and manufacturing land uses
lative to the purpose and performance standards
f the Home Occupation requirements.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager
400 Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
KENT
W A 5 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
June 25,2001
MEMO TO: CHAIR, TOM BROTHERTON&PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: AUTO REPAIR&MANUFACTURING AS HOME OCCUPATIONS
Date: 7/2/01 Planning Committee Meeting
It is the purpose of the home occupation regulations to provide general conditions that ensure the
preservation of the residential character of the City's neighborhoods from commercial encroachment
while recognizing that certain select businesses are compatible with residential uses. Home Occupations
are generally not limited by use, rather, acceptable home businesses must meet an array of performance
standards. In response to a recent complaint to Council over automobile repair in a residential zoning
district, staff re-evaluated some types of home occupations, specifically automobile repair and general
manufacturing uses.
As general uses, both auto repair and manufacturing uses are limited to specific zoning districts. For
example, automobile repair is allowed outright only in the commercial-manufacturing zoning districts and
in the broadest commercial zoning district, General Commercial. It may be allowed via a conditional use
in the Community Commercial zoning district but is not permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial district (the lightest commercial zone). Similarly, manufacturing uses are permitted only in
industrial and commercial-manufacturing zones.
Home occupations are restricted by a number of performance standards which limit the number of
employees, traffic, hours of operation and utility demand, and prohibit other emissions such as noise,
vibration, smoke, odors and glare. The general nature of both automobile repair and manufacturing uses
creates the potential to exceed these performance standards and therefore, warrants further review to
assess their consideration as home occupations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to review automobile repair and manufacturing land uses relative to the purpose and
performance standards of the Home Occupation requirements and forward a zoning code amendment to
the Land Use and Planning Board if warranted.
FS\KM\pm S:\Permit\Plan\home occ(1).doc
encl: KCC 15.08.040 Home Occupations
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting CD Director
Charlene Anderson,Acting Planning Manager
File Folder
7/2/01
Planning Committee
Item#5
•
NOISE EXEMPTIONS FOR ROADS
•
INFORMATION ITEM
Staff will discuss the impacts of roadway noise.
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager
WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
June 25, 2001
TO: CHAIR TOM BROTHERTON AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, ACTING PLANNING MANAGERn
RE: ROADWAY NOISE—INFORMATION ONLY Uri
Date: 7/2/01 Planning Committee Meeting
In response to a request by Chair Tom Brotherton, staff researched state regulations and
contacted neighboring jurisdictions regarding impacts of roadway noise. The State of
Washington under WAC 173-60-050(4)(a) exempts from the provisions of WAC 173-60-040
(Maximum permissible environmental noise levels) "Sounds created by motor vehicles when
regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC." Chapter 173-62 provides noise emissions standards for new
• motor vehicles and for the operation of motor vehicles on public highways. The chapter does not
address cumulative impact of motor vehicles operating properly upon public roadways.
Kent City Code Chapter 8.05.140(1) exempts "Sound created by the normal operation of motor
vehicles upon a public right-of-way." As addressed by the 228th Street Corridor EIS, SEPA
authority can be used to mitigate impacts of noise. The Cities of Auburn and Federal Way
appear to adopt the State regulations, and the contact person with the City of SeaTac referred to
the State regarding regulation of roadway noise. The City of Renton does not regulate roadway
noise.
Staff will be available at the July 2nd meeting to further discuss this issue. The staff proposes no
action at this time.
CA\pm\S:\Permit\Plan\noise-pc.DOC
Attachment—WAC 173-60-050 Exemptions
cc: Mike H.Martin,Interim Chief Admin Officer
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Acting Community Development Director
File
•
, ' . Page 1 of 2
WAC 173-60-050 Exemptions. (1) The following shall be exempt from
• the provisions of WAC 173-60-040 between the hours of 7 : 00 a.m. and
10 : 00 p.m. :
(a) Sounds originating from residential property relating to
temporary projects for the maintenance or repair of homes, grounds
and appurtenances .
(b) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized
shooting ranges .
(c) Sounds created by blasting.
(d) Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not
related to flight operations : Provided, That aircraft testing and
maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible .
(e) Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential
utility services .
(2) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173-
60-040 (2) (b) :
(a) Noise from electrical substations and existing stationary
equipment used in the conveyance of water, waste water, and natural
gas by a utility.
(b) Noise from existing industrial installations which exceed the
standards contained in these regulations and which, over the
previous three years, have consistently operated in excess of 15
hours per day as a consequence of process necessity and/or
• demonstrated routine normal operation. Changes in working hours,
which would affect exemptions under this regulation, require
approval of the department .
(3) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173-
60-040, except insofar as such provisions relate to the reception
of noise within Class A EDNAs between the hours of 10 : 00 p .m. and
7 : 00 a.m.
(a) Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a
result of construction activity.
(b) Sounds originating from forest harvesting and silvicultural
activity.
(4) The following shall be exempt from all provisions of WAC 173-
60-040 :
(a) Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by chapter 173-
62 WAC.
(b) Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that
originate at airports which are directly related to flight
operations .
(c) Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in interstate
commerce by railroad.
(d) Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously
for more than five minutes, or bells, chimes, and carillons .
• (e) Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise
suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not
economically feasible .
(f) Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the
file:////LEGINFOB/WAC$/WAC 173 TITLE/WAC 173 - 60 CH.../WAC 173 - 60 -050.HT 6/25/01
„ , 1 Page 2 of 2
interests of law enforcement or for health safety or welfare of the
community.
(g) Sounds originating from motor vehicle racing events at existing
authorized facilities .
(h) Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other
public events .
(i) Sounds emitted from petroleum refinery boilers during startup
of said boilers : Provided, That the startup operation is performed
during daytime hours whenever possible .
(j ) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms in the course of
hunting .
(k) Sounds caused by natural phenomena and unamplified human
voices .
(1) Sounds created by motor vehicles, licensed or unlicensed, when
operated off public highways EXCEPT when such sounds are received in
Class A EDNAs .
(m) Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and
distribution facilities . However, in circumstances where such
sounds impact EDNA Class A environments and complaints are
received, the director or his designee may take action to abate by
application of EDNA Class C source limits to the facility under the
requirements of WAC 173-60-050 (5) .
(6) Nothing in these exemptions is intended to preclude the
department from requiring installation of the best available noise
tabatement technology consistent with economic feasibility. The
establishment of any such requirement shall be subject to the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34 . 04 RCW.
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 94-12-001 (Order 92-41) , § 173-60-050,
filed 5/18/94, effective 6/18/94; 83-15-046 (Order DE 82-42) , § 173-60-050, filed
7/19/83; Order DE 77-1, § 173-60-050, filed 6/2/77; Order 75-18, § 173-60-050,
filed 8/1/75; Order 74-32, § 173-60-050, filed 4/22/75, effective 9/1/75. ]
i
file:////LEGINFOB/WAC$/WAC 173 TITLE/WAC 173 - 60 CH.../WAC 173 - 60 -050.HT 6/25/01
7/2/01
Planning Committee
Item#6
KING COUNTY GMPC
(GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COUNCIL)
INFORMATION ITEM :
Staff will discuss the upcoming Growth
Management Planning Council ("GMPC") related
to Urban Separators and Countywide Planning
Policy ("CPP") amendments affecting Agricultural
Production Districts.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director
PLANNING SERVICES
T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager
KEN
WASHINGTON
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
June 25,2001
TO: CHAIR TOM BROTHERTON AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER
RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL
URBAN SEPARATORS AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Date: 7/2/01 Planning Committee Meeting
Attached are an agenda and back-up information for the July 25, 2001 meeting of the Growth
Management Planning Council ("GMPC") related to Urban Separators and Countywide Planning Policy
("CPP")amendments affecting Agricultural Production Districts.
Urban Separators
The recommended action for the GMPC is to add the issue of Urban Separators to their work schedule
and to direct county staff to prepare a map of existing Urban Separators located in both incorporated and
• unincorporated King County. County staff could propose amending existing policy in order to clarify the
intention of the CPP's regarding Urban Separators. County staff recommends that the GMPC direct staff
to present a map for consideration at their September meeting.
Agricultural Production Districts
On June 16, 1999 the GMPC adopted Motion 99-3 amending the CPP's to add two new policies
regarding the Agricultural Production Districts. One policy stated the districts shall not be annexed by
cities. The other policy basically recognizes the districts as an urban separator. Additionally, the Urban
Growth Boundary and Interim Potential Annexation Area Map would be amended to exclude the
Agricultural Production Districts. King County did not adopt or ratify the amended CPP's at that time,
probably because they were anticipating the major update of their Comprehensive Plan in 2000.
However, King County's Comprehensive Plan amendments in 1999 and 2000 were consistent with these
policies.
The most recent King County action in this regard, on May 21, 2001, via the adoption of Motion 11208,
requests that the GMPC review and reconsider amendments to the CPP's affecting Agricultural
Production Districts. As stated in the Executive/Council Summary for the GMPC agenda item on July
25, 2001, "The King County Motion requests a full public process, including opportunities for public
testimony, and includes as its rationale a statement indicating that a quorum was not present at the June
10 meeting." County staff recommends that the GMPC direct staff to present the issue for
reconsideration at their September meeting.
Recommendation
Staff will be available at the July 2nd meeting to further discuss these issues and receive committee
• direction as appropriate.
CA\pm S:\Permit\Plan\GMPC-pc.DOC
Attachment Growth Management Planning Cncl Agenda 7/25/01
cc: Mike H.Martin,Interim Chief Admin Officer
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Acting Community Development Director
File
Council Meeting Date: July 25,2001 Agenda Item:II-A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction to Urban Separator Map and related Countywide Planning Policy discussion
PRESENTED BY: Paul Reitenbach,King County
EXECUTIVE /COUNCIL SUMMARY
The GMPC is being asked to consider including a map of existing Urban Separators in the
Countywide Planning Policies document. This is a technical improvement to the CPP document,
since the CPP's recognize Urban Separators by policy but do not show where they are.
BACKGROUND
Urban Separators have been designated by King County on the County comprehensive plan land
use map and recognized by the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP's). These lands are within
the Urban Growth Area and therefore appropriate to be annexed by cities. The CPP's call for
Urban Separators to remain as low-density areas for the 20 year planning horizon of the CPP's.
Once annexed,Urban Separators (and all other annexed land) are shown as "incorporated areas"
on the County comprehensive plan map. The lack of a map of Urban Separators raises the
• possibility that these areas may be upzoned after annexation. There has been at least one
instance where this has occurred.
The following Countywide Planning Policy is applicable:
LU-27 Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban
Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands
which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive
areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators
shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle)to other urban
uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as
well as a local concern. Therefore,no modifications should be made to the
development regulations governing these areas without King County review and
concurrence.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a Motion recommending adoption of an Urban Separator map for
discussion and possible action at the September GMPC meeting.
4 [ • •
Council Meeting Date:July 25,2001 Agenda Item:II-B
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
AGENDA TITLE: Request for reconsideration of Countywide Planning Policy amendments affecting
Agricultural Production Districts
PRESENTED BY: Lauren Smith,King County
EXECUTIVE /COUNCIL SUMMARY
On May 21, 2001 the King County Council adopted Motion 11208,requesting that the GMPC review and
reconsider amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies affecting Agricultural Production Districts.
The recommended amendments, embodied in GMPC Motion 99-3,were adopted at the June 16, 1999
meeting. The King County Motion requests a full public process, including opportunities for public
testimony, and includes as its rationale a statement indicating that a quorum was not present at the June
16`s meeting.
BACKGROUND:
On June 16, 1999, the GMPC adopted the following motion recommending amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies:
Substitute Motion 99-3: Amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies to address the
long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
Summary: Motion 99-3 recommends amending the CPPs by adding two new policies addressing the
long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts (see proposed policy language below). The
motion also contains a statement that upon ratification of the policies by member jurisdictions of the
GMPC,the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised to reflect that APDs are to remain
under the County's jurisdiction. Lastly, the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower
Green River APD to clarify that it is outside of the Urban Growth Area. The King County
Comprehensive Plan includes policies that are consistent with the proposed CPP's,and the Lower Green
River Agricultural Production District has been removed from the Urban Growth Area on the King
County Comprehensive Plan land use map.
Vote: Motion 99-3 was adopted by a vote of 5 '/2 to 0.
L&2A Oesignrtted Agri dtu, ad lIProduction-Districts shall nit + annexed by cities.
LU-2B The otver Green lA fiver Y"alley Agricultural Production District is 141 regj6nally,designated
resotit'oe that is to remain in unirraorporated=King�'o�nty. Pres��'v�tivrt of the dower Gruen
diver l alfeyAgricultural Production District will provide an urban sgparatoi r s surrounding
Urban are &ai'e annexod and de elt+ped King County mad cotttr#xet x ith athex jurisdietiotts to
provide some local serwis io this ttrea as appropriate.
•
i i � •
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to:
1. Prepare a new motion (identical to Motion 99-3)for discussion and possible action at the September
26 GMPC meeting.
2. Notify interested property owners and other stakeholders of the meeting date and time, and invite
public testimony.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. King County Motion 11208, remanding Growth Management Planning Council Motion 99-3 to the
GMPC for further review and reconsideration.
2. GMPC Motion 99-3,adopted June 16, 1999
3. GMPC Meeting Summary for June 16, 1999
•