HomeMy WebLinkAbout1423RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, stating that the
City will not certify the City of SeaTac's
request for a sanitary sewer connection to
METRO's ULID 250 Trunk Sewer on South 212th
Street.
WHEREAS, a portion of Metropolitan King County's
("METRO") ULID 250 Trunk Sewer Line is located within the City of
Kent in the right-of-way of South 212th Street and ends on the
east side of the Green River at South 212th Street; and
WHEREAS, in the past, the City of SeaTac has repeatedly
sought permission from the City of Kent to develop a sanitary
sewer system that would extend into the City of Kent and
eventually connect to METRO's ULID 250 Trunk Sewer Line; and
WHEREAS, the City has consistently opposed and stated
its reasons for opposition to the construction of any such sewer
system within that portion of the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1994, the City of SeaTac once
again sought to extend this proposed sewer system into the City
of Kent (see Exhibit A) and the City, in turn, clearly responded
with its reasons for opposing this extension (see Exhibit B) ,
which reasons centered on the City of Kent's concerns regarding
direct stormwater and traffic impacts to the City of Kent and
increased pressure to develop this agriculturally designated
area; and
WHEREAS, the City of SeaTac has most recently applied
directly to METRO, without prior notice to the City of Kent, to
develop this sewer system and extend it through the City of Kent
to connect to METRO's ULID 250 Trunk Sewer Line in order to
provide sanitary sewer service to approximately 333 acres, part
of which lies within the existing city limits of SeaTac and part
of which lies within an area that is proposed--but not approved--
for annexation to SeaTac; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5(C) of King County
Ordinance No. 11034, before METRO can authorize extension and
connection of this sewer line, METRO's Executive Director must
first obtain certification from the legislative body of concerned
or affected jurisdictions that the proposed connections or
extensions are consistent with local land use policies; and
WHEREAS, because the proposed sewer extension crosses
through and seriously affects a portion of the City of Kent, the
City of Kent is an affected jurisdiction under King County
Ordinance No. 11034; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has designated the areas
lying north and south of South 212th Street west of the Green
River as Agriculture in its current Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has zoned the area on both
sides of South 212th Street as A-1, Agriculture; and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent continues
to oppose the City of SeaTac's proposed sewer system extension
for the reasons indicated above, which are more clearly addressed
in the City of Kent Mayor Jim White's letter dated August 16,
1994, which lS attached as Exhibit Bi NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are by this
reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
Section 2. The City of Kent finds that the proposed
extension of METRO's ULID 250 Trunk Line is not consistent with
Kent's land use policies, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning in the
area through which the proposed sewer line will pass in Kent.
Section 3. The City of Kent does not certify the City
of SeaTac's request for this proposed sewer extension.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this 7z;.lt_, day of ~ 1995.
Con~y the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
_$__day of~ , 1995.
3
ATTEST:
Y CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. /tf~-.3
of Kent, Washington, the
ULID250.res
, passed by the City Council of the City
7 r~ '-y);'J / day of 1/ I ta'LCA-v , 1995.
BRENDA JACOB¢R, CITY CLERK
4
Mayor
Joe Brennan
Deputy Mayor
Terry Anderson
City of SeaTac
Councilmembers
Roger Anderson
Shirley Thompson
Frank Hansen
Kathy Gehring
Don DeHan 17900 International Blvd., Suite 401 · SeaTac, Washington 98188-4236
City Hall: (206)241-9100 ·Fax: (206)241-3999 ·TOO: (206)241-0091
August 2, 1994
Mayor and City Council
City ofKent
220 4th Avenue S.
Kt:nt, ~\\-TA 98032
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
City Manager
D. Scott Rohlfs
Assistant
City Manager
Thomas J. Fus
City Attorney
Daniel B. Heid
r~ur.; 0 ·• 199 · ,..., ..2 ,) 4
OFFICE OF THE MA.\'OP
I am writing this letter on behalf of the entire City of SeaTac City Council. As you may or may
not be aware, the City of SeaTac, over the last four years, has endeavored to service one of its
property owners with sewer by way of a trunk extension from an existing Metro line located in
the City of Kent. Unfortunately, our efforts to do so have been hindered by the apparent
unwillingness by the City ofKent to reasonably allow such an extension. The effect of this action
(inaction) by the City of Kent has materially impacted the subject property owner within the City
of SeaTac by removing his opportunity to develop his property.
Although it remains somewhat unclear to our City why this relatively straightforward situation has
been effectively blocked by the City of Kent, we are now at the end of our patience in trying to
work out an amendable understanding with Kent at the staff level. The property owner, Victor
Scalzo, has recently approached the City Council and suggested that legal action may be his
remaining remedy to break the apparent bottleneck in securing this basic service to allow
development ofhis property. The intent of this Jetter is to assure our City Council that this matter
has come to your attention, as fellow elected officials, so that we can determine ifthe lack of
consensus from the City of Kent has been before you. At this point in time, and to protect the
interest of one of our citizens, it is imperative that we are reach an understanding with the City of
Kent or that we explore alternative forums to assure that this situation does not continue. We are
hopeful that by calling this directly to your attention, the matter can be quickly resolved.
However, after four years of effort, it is imperative that we receive a response as to your position
on this issue within the next ten (I 0) working days.
It would be our intention to provide an opportunity for comment by the City of Kent for any
future development that may occur on the property that Kent believes may, in some manner, have
an impact within Kent's territorial limits. However, the appropriate time and venue for that input
is already provided for under State law and this letter may also serve as our assurance that any
comments you choose to make will be treated with the regard they're due during the process of
development.
August 2, 1994
Page 2
Also, please be assured that the City of SeaTac desires to facilitate communication and
cooperation between our cities on this and any other issue of mutual interest, but cannot allow
itself to be the victim of any kind of arbitrary or unwarranted action that materially and negatively
affects any of our citizenry.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter and we look forward to hearing from
you in the time prescribed above so that this matter can be dispensed within a cooperative and
positive manner.
Sincerely,
cc: SeaTac City Council
Mayor and all Councilmembers of Kent
King County Council
Gary Locke, King County Executive
D. Scott Rohlfs, SeaTac City Manager
Dan Heid, SeaTac City Attorney
Victor Scalzo, Property owner
0152.94
Mayor and City Council
City of SeaTac
17900 International Blvd., Suite 401
SeaTac, Washington 98188-4236
August 16, 1994
RE: Sewer Trunk Extension--Victor Scalzo Property
Dear Mayor Brennan and Councilmembers,
Jim White, Mayor
Thank you for your August 2, 1994, letter regarding the above-referenced sewer trunk line
extension. I offer this response both for myself and for the Kent City Council. As you indicated,
the City of Kent and the City of SeaTac have been discussing this proposed sewer extension for
some time. During these discussions, various SeaTac representatives have come forward with
differing information and differing proposals affecting Mr. Scalzo's development. In response to the
information your representatives provided, Kent has alternately been nonsupportive and supportive
of this proposed extension. However, based on the latest information provided us, we remain
unwilling to allow this proposed sewer extension.
In your letter, you asserted that Kent's refusal to provide this extension was unreasonable.
We have tried repeatedly to explain our position (and its reasonable basis) to your City Manager(s),
Public Works Director and City Attorney. Because Mr. Scalzo's property lies on the east flank of
the "west hill" ridge and is oriented to the Green River Valley and, specifically, the City of Kent, it
should be exceedingly clear to all of you that this proposed development will have a direct impact
on Kent's systems and services. Among the various potential impacts of Mr. Scalzo's proposed
multi-family development, the City of Kent has expressed its concerns in two significant areas.
First, all stormwater run-off from this development will flow into Kent's storm drainage
system. As a result, this proposed development will increase volumes flowing into Kent's
Mayor and City Council
City of SeaTac
August 16, 1994
Page 2
system and could also adversely affect water quality. The City of Kent has designated the property
lying directly to the east of Mr. Scalzo's property as agricultural. Run-off from the development
could oversaturate these properties and degrade their agricultural effectiveness. Further, an
unintended spill or poorly designed or constructed filtration or detention systems could degrade
water quality in the Kent's storm drainage system. These water quality issues become even more
crucial as they affect Kent's outfall into the Green River. I am sure you can appreciate the regulatory
quagmire Kent would face with DOE, the Army Corps of Engineers, various Indian tribes and others
should our storm drainage system negatively impact the Green River.
Second, a substantial amount of traffic from the development will also flow "downhill" to
the Kent industrial center on the valley floor--for employment, for commercial and retail services
and for access to SR 167. The additional traffic trips generated will significantly impact the City's
street system, in particular the intersection of212th Street and the West Valley Highway. The City
of Kent must seriously consider the proposed development's traffic impacts. For example, these
impacts may impede the City's ability to achieve its stated Level of Service goals" under the Growth
Management Act. Accordingly, these traffic impacts must be mitigated or the development must
be denied.
Because Mr. Scalzo's multifamily development proposal impacts Kent in so many ways, we
discussed entering into an interlocal agreement with SeaTac that would insure that Kent and SeaTac
would share decisionmaking authority on SEP A issues. That way, the City of Kent could
independently determine the development's environmental impacts to the City and could require the
developer to mitigate those impacts as a condition of development. You determined not to enter into
such an agreement. Instead, you have asked Kent to rely on the SEPA process and our "opportunity
to comment" to identify and mitigate impacts to the City. However, the City of Kent will not yield
its authority. In the past, we have repeatedly commented on the impacts of development in King
County on the City of Kent, and we do not feel our concerns were adequately addressed. Although
we would not expect the same treatment from a sister jurisdiction, we nevertheless cannot abdicate
our authority over these matters of great concern both to us and to the citizens of Kent.
Perhaps most importantly, construction of this sewer trunk line, even if by a force main
system, will tend to increase development pressure on the very same agricultural lands previously
mentioned in this letter. The Kent City Council has repeatedly affirmed its intent to preserve these
historic lands as a remnant of the valley's agricultural past. As a result, even if we can structure an
agreement that satisfactorily addresses mitigation of environmental impacts, I still cannot guarantee
the support of the City Council, as they simply may not be willing to escalate development pressure
on these historic properties.
Mayor and City Council
City of SeaTac
August 16, 1994
Page 3
Hopefully, this letter clearly explains our position on this matter. I trust you now recognize
that you are not the "victim of any kind of arbitrary or unwarranted action" as you stated in your
letter. Also, I too want to assure you that Kent desires to facilitate communication and cooperation
between our cities. However, on this matter, we will not yield our right to insure that the City of
Kent is protected from the impacts ofthe proposed development.
cc: Kent City Council
SeaTac City Council
Gary Locke, King County Executive
D. Scott Rohlfs, SeaTac City Manager
Dan Heid, SeaTac City Attorney
Brent McFall, Kent Director of Operations
Roger Lubovich, Kent City Attorney
Don Wickstrom, Kent Public Works Director