HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/09/2017Land Use and Planning Board
Workshop Agenda
Board Members: Katherine Jones, Chair; Jack Ottini, Vice Chair;
Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius; Dale Hartman; Paul Hintz; Randall Smith
October 9, 2017
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1.Call to order YES Chair Jones 1 min
2.Roll call YES Chair Jones 1 min
3.Added items YES Chair Jones 1 min
4.Communications NO Chair Jones 1 min
5.Notice of upcoming meetings NO Chair Jones 1 min
6.Code Amendment Alternatives
for Safe Injection Sites
NO Danielle Butsick 30 min 1
7.Meet Me on Meeker
Design and Construction
Standards
NO Hayley Bonsteel 24 min 32
8.Adjournment Chair Jones 1
Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 7 p.m. on the second and
fourth Mondays of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 Fourth Ave S,
Kent, WA 98032.
No public testimony is taken at LUPB workshops; however, the public is welcome to attend.
For additional information, contact Cheryl Trimble via email at ctrimble@KentWA.gov or 253-
856-5454.
Documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board may be accessed at the City’s
website: http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-
856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 1-800-833-6388.
YES
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: October 2, 2017
TO: Chair Katherine Jones and Members of Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
RE: Community Health Engagement Locations (CHELs)
For Meeting of October 9, 2017
SUMMARY: On August 15, 2017 the City of Kent passed a 6-month moratorium prohibiting
community health engagement locations (CHELs) in all zoning districts in the city. Economic and
Community Development staff will present follow-up information on two code amendment
alternatives presented at the September 25 Land Use and Planning Board workshop. Staff will
also present information regarding Land Use and Planning Board responsibilities regarding public
hearings and recommendations to city council.
BACKGROUND: In September 2016, the Heroin and Opioid Addiction Task Force convened by
King County and Seattle recommended a comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and
increasing access to addiction treatment on demand. In January 2017, the King County
Executive and Seattle Mayor announced they would move forward on the complete set of
recommendations including the establishment of facilities referred to as community health
engagement locations (also known as safe injection sites). In June 2017, the King County
Council voted to limit establishment of community health engagement locations (safe injection
sites) only to cities whose elected leaders choose to locate these facilities in their communities.
Kent City Council adopted a 6-month moratorium in August 2017, temporarily prohibiting
location of community health engagement locations in all zoning districts in Kent. Planning staff
have developed two alternatives for permanent code amendments to be considered by the Land
Use and Planning Board for their recommendation to city council. Staff will provide information
on the Land Use and Planning Board’s responsibilities in carrying out this process.
Staff will be available at the October 9 meeting to provide follow-up information, answer
questions, and receive feedback from the Land Use and Planning Board on alternatives for
community health engagement locations.
EXHIBITS: Draft ordinances for each of two alternatives; Kent Police Department Crime Map;
Report: Kimber et al., 2005. Survey of drug consumption rooms: service delivery and
perceived public health and amenity impact. Drug and Alcohol Review, January 2005, 24,
21-24; KCC Ch. 2.57
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
DB\ct\S:\PUBLIC\City Clerk's Office\City Council\Advisory Committees\Land Use & Planning Board\2017\Packet Documents\10-9-
17\10-9-2017_LUPB_CHELsMemo_Workshop.doc
CC: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
Information Only
1
1 Adopt KCC 15.08.550 -
Re: Prohibiting Safe Injection Sites
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, permanently adopting
section 15.08.550 of the Kent City Code,
prohibiting in all zoning districts the establishment
of community health engagement locations, safe
injection sites, and other uses or activities designed
to provide a location for individuals to consume
illicit drugs.
RECITALS
A. Heroin and opioid use are at crisis levels in King County. In
2015, 229 individuals died from heroin and prescription opioid overdose in
King County.
B. In September 2016, the Heroin and Opioid Addiction Task
Force convened by King County and Seattle recommended a
comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and increasing access to
addiction treatment on demand.
C. In January 2017, the King County Executive and Seattle
Mayor announced they would move forward on the complete set of
recommendations including the establishment of facilities referred to as
community health engagement locations (also known as safe injection
sites or safe consumption sites).
2
2 Adopt KCC 15.08.550 -
Re: Prohibiting Safe Injection Sites
D. In addition to providing a hygienic space for consumption of
illicit drugs, Community Health Engagement Locations provide drug users
with access to healthcare, addiction treatment options, and other
community health services.
E. The City of Kent recognizes that research exists that
evaluates the efficacy of community health engagement locations
throughout the world in countries including Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, and Spain; findings suggest that community health
engagement locations may contribute to a reduction in overdose deaths,
reduced HIV risk behavior, reduction in injection-related litter and public
injecting, and increased uptake of treatment services. However, under
state and federal law it remains illegal to possess controlled substances
without a prescription or to operate a place intended for the illicit use of
controlled substances.
F. Community health engagement locations or similar sites
inherently attract criminal activity as the drugs consumed at those sites
are themselves illegal, and locating sites in the City of Kent may attract
additional criminal activity such as drug trafficking, burglary, and theft.
G. In June 2017, the King County Council voted to limit
establishment of community health engagement locations (safe injection
sites) only to cities whose elected leaders choose to locate these facilities
in their communities.
H. On August 15, 2017, Kent City Council adopted a 6-month
land use moratorium and interim official control prohibiting community
health engagement locations, safe injection sites, and other uses or
activities designed to provide a location for individuals to consume illicit
drugs.
3
3 Adopt KCC 15.08.550 -
Re: Prohibiting Safe Injection Sites
I. In response to this rapidly evolving policy issue, the Kent City
Council will continue to prohibit uses and activities in the City of Kent that
are established and designed to provide a location for individuals to
engage in illegal acts.
J. The City Council adopts the foregoing as findings of fact
establishing the need to permanently prohibit community health
engagement locations in the City of Kent in order to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
K. On September 5, 2017, Kent City Council held a public
hearing to hear comments from the public regarding the 6-month
moratorium prohibiting Community Health Engagement Locations in all
zoning districts, and more generally on the location of Community Health
Engagement Locations in Kent.
L. On September XX, 2017, the city requested expedited review
from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the city’s
proposed amendments to KCC. The expedited review was granted on
XXXX, 2017.
M. On September XXX, 2017, the city’s SEPA responsible official
issued XXXX.
N. The land use and planning board held a workshop to discuss
these code amendments on September 25, 2017. After appropriate public
notice, the board held a public hearing on XXXX, 2017 to consider the
proposed code amendments and forwarded their recommendation to the
city council.
4
4 Adopt KCC 15.08.550 -
Re: Prohibiting Safe Injection Sites
O. On XXXX, 2017, the economic and community development
committee considered the recommendation of the board and made a
recommendation to the full city council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – New Section. Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “General and Supplementary Provisions”, is hereby permanently
amended to add a new section 15.08.550, entitled “Use prohibited in all
zoning districts,” to read as follows:
Section 15.08.550 Use prohibited in all zoning districts.
Community Health Engagement Locations (CHELs) designed to provide a
hygienic environment where individuals are able to consume illegal or illicit
drugs intravenously or by any other means are prohibited in all zoning
districts in the city. A CHEL includes all uses established or activities
undertaken for the above-defined purpose, irrespective of how the use or
activity is described. A CHEL may also be referred to as a medically
supervised injection center, supervised injection site or facility, safe
injection site, fix room, or drug consumption facility.
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
5
5 Adopt KCC 15.08.550 -
Re: Prohibiting Safe Injection Sites
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapters
15.02 and 15.04 of the Kent City Code, to define
“Community Health Engagement Locations
(CHELs)” and adopt appropriate land use controls
to regulate them.
RECITALS
A. Heroin and opioid use are at crisis levels in King County. In
2015, 229 individuals died from heroin and prescription opioid overdose in
King County.
B. In September 2016, the Heroin and Opioid Addiction Task
Force convened by King County and Seattle recommended a
comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and increasing access to
addiction treatment on demand.
C. In January 2017, the King County Executive and Seattle
Mayor announced they would move forward on the complete set of
recommendations including the establishment of facilities referred to as
Community Health Engagement Locations (also known as safe injection sites
or safe consumption sites).
7
D. On August 15, 2017, Kent City Council adopted a 6-month
land use moratorium and interim official control prohibiting community
health engagement locations, safe injection sites, and other uses or activities
designed to provide a location for individuals to consume illicit drugs.
E. In addition to providing a hygienic space for consumption of
illicit drugs, Community Health Engagement Locations provide drug users
with access to healthcare, addiction treatment options, and other community
health services.
F. As of March 2017, approximately 100 Community Health
Engagement Locations operate in over 65 cities in 10 different countries
around the world. They operate under various names including supervised
consumption services, drug consumption rooms, and safer injection facilities.
G. Community Health Engagement Locations are an important
part of the comprehensive strategy provided by the Opioid Addiction Task
Force. They are intended to maintain a continuum of care and help meet the
goals of User Health Services and Overdose Prevention when Primary
Prevention efforts fail and the drug user is not yet ready to seek treatment.
H. The City of Kent recognizes that research exists that
evaluates the efficacy of community health engagement locations throughout
the world in countries including Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and
Spain; findings suggest that community health engagement locations may
contribute to a reduction in overdose deaths, reduced HIV risk behavior,
reduction in injection-related litter and public injecting, and increased uptake
of treatment services. However, under state and federal law it remains illegal
to possess controlled substances without a prescription or to operate a place
intended for the illicit use of controlled substances.
8
I. Community Health Engagement Locations are endorsed by
the American Medical Association, The American Public Health Association,
AIDS United, International Drug Policy Consortium, and other medical and
public health organizations in the United States.
J. In June 2017, the King County Council voted to limit
establishment of Community Health Engagement Locations only to cities
whose elected leaders choose to locate these facilities in their communities.
K. The Kent City Council declares and finds that it is appropriate
and necessary, and in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, to
define and classify Community Health Engagement Locations and adopt land
use controls to regulate these facilities.
K. On September 5, 2017, Kent City Council held a public
hearing to hear comments from the public regarding the 6-month
moratorium prohibiting Community Health Engagement Locations in all
zoning districts, and more generally on the location of Community Health
Engagement Locations in Kent.
L. On September XX, 2017, the city requested expedited review
from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the city’s
proposed amendments to KCC. The expedited review was granted on
XXXX, 2017.
M. On September XXX, 2017, the city’s SEPA responsible official
issued XXXX.
9
N. The land use and planning board held a workshop to discuss
these code amendments on September 25, 2017. After appropriate public
notice, the board held a public hearing on XXXX, 2017 to consider the
proposed code amendments and forwarded their recommendation to the
city council.
O. On XXXX, 2017, the economic and community development
committee considered the recommendation of the board and made a
recommendation to the full city council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – New Section. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended to add a new section
15.02.085.1, entitled “Community Health Engagement Location,” to read
as follows:
Sec. 15.02.085.1. Community Health Engagement Location.
Community Health Engagement Location means a location designed to
provide a hygienic environment where individuals are able to consume
illegal or illicit drugs intravenously or by any other means. A CHEL includes
all uses established or activities undertaken for the above-defined purpose,
irrespective of how the use or activity is described. A CHEL may also be
referred to as a medically supervised injection center, supervised injection
site or facility, safe injection site, fix room, or drug consumption facility.
10
SECTION 2. – Amendment. Chapter 15.04.090 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Service land uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.090 Service land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A =
Accessory
Uses
A-
10
AG
SR
-
1
SR
-
3
SR
-
4.
5
SR
-
6
SR
-
8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
Finance,
insurance
, real
estate
services
P
(2
2)
P P
(1
)
(1
2)
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Personal
services:
laundry,
dry
cleaning,
barber,
salons,
shoe
repair,
launderet
tes
P
(2
2)
P P
(1
2)
P P P P P P P
(1
0)
P
(1
0)
P
(2
)
(1
0)
Mortuarie
s
P
(1
2)
P P P
Home
day-care
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Day-care
center
C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Business
services,
duplicatin
g and
blue
printing,
travel
agencies,
and
employm
ent
agencies
P
(1
2)
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Building
maintena
nce and
pest
P P P P P P P
(2
)
11
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A =
Accessory
Uses
A-
10
AG
SR
-
1
SR
-
3
SR
-
4.
5
SR
-
6
SR
-
8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
control
Outdoor
storage
(including
truck,
heavy
equipmen
t, and
contracto
r storage
yards as
allowed
by
developm
ent
standards
, KCC
15.04.19
0 and
15.04.19
5)
P P A A A A
C
(9
)
P
Rental
and
leasing
services
for cars,
trucks,
trailers,
furniture,
and tools
P P P P P P P
(2
)
Auto
repair
and
washing
services
(including
body
work)
C P P P P P P P
(2
1)
(2
3)
Repair
services:
watch,
TV,
electrical,
electronic
,
upholster
y
P P
(1
2)
P P P P P P P
(2
)
Professio
nal
services:
medical,
clinics,
and other
health
care-
related
P
(2
0)
P P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
12
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A =
Accessory
Uses
A-
10
AG
SR
-
1
SR
-
3
SR
-
4.
5
SR
-
6
SR
-
8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
services
Opiate
substituti
on
treatment
facility
C
(3
)
Communi
ty Health
Engagem
ent
Location
C(
3)
Heavy
equipmen
t and
truck
repair
P P P C
(9
)
P
Contract
constructi
on
service
offices:
building
constructi
on,
plumbing,
paving,
and
landscapi
ng
P
(1
6)
P P P
(1
6)
P
(1
7)
P
(1
7)
P
(2
)
(1
7)
P
Education
al
services:
vocationa
l, trade,
art,
music,
dancing,
barber,
and
beauty
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Churches
S
(
4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
Administr
ative and
professio
nal offices
– general
P P
(1
2)
P P P P C P P P P P
(2
)
Municipal
uses and
buildings
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(2
)
(1
P
(1
3)
13
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A =
Accessory
Uses
A-
10
AG
SR
-
1
SR
-
3
SR
-
4.
5
SR
-
6
SR
-
8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
3)
Research,
developm
ent, and
testing
P C P P P P P P
(2
)
P
(1
4)
Accessory
uses and
structures
customari
ly
appurten
ant to a
permitted
use
A A A
(7
)
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A A A A A A A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A A A A
Boarding
kennels
and
breeding
establish
ments
C C C
Veterinar
y clinics
and
veterinar
y
hospitals
C P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
Administr
ative or
executive
offices
which are
part of a
predomin
ant
industrial
operation
P P P P P
Offices
incidental
and
necessary
to the
conduct
of a
principall
y
permitted
use
A A A A A
14
SECTION 3. – Amendment. Section 15.04.100 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Service land use development conditions,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.100 Service land use development conditions.
1. Banks and financial institutions (excluding drive-through).
2. Uses shall be limited to 25 percent of the gross floor area of any
single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which
exceed the 25 percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be
subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A
conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business
basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating
characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite
conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis.
3. Opiate substitution treatment facilities or community health
engagement locations are permitted only with a conditional use permit,
and must provide indoor waiting areas of at least 15 percent of the total
floor area. In addition to the general requirements of KCC 15.08.030, all
applications shall contain and be approved by the city based on the
following information:
a. A detailed written description of the proposed and potential
services to be provided, the source or sources of funding, and identification
of any applicable public regulatory agencies;
b. A written statement of need, in statistical or narrative form,
for the proposed project currently and over the following ten-year period;
15
c. An inventory of known, existing or proposed facilities, by
name and address, within King County, or within the region, serving the
same or similar needs as the proposed facility;
d. An explanation of the need and suitability for the proposed
facility at the proposed location;
e. An analysis of the proposed facility’s consistency with the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, and plans and
policies of other affected jurisdictions, including but not limited to the King
County Countywide Planning Policies;
f. Documentation of public involvement efforts to date, including
public and agency comments received, and plans for future public
participation; and
g. A proposed “good faith” agreement for neighborhood
partnership. This agreement shall state the goals of the partnership and
address loitering prevention steps the facility owner/operator will take as
well as frequency of planned maintenance and upkeep of the exterior of
the facility (including, but not limited to, trash and litter removal,
landscape maintenance, and graffiti). The agreement shall serve as the
basis for a partnership between the City, facility, and local businesses, and
will outline steps partners will take to resolve concerns.
No opiate substitution treatment facility or community health engagement
location may be located within 500 feet of an existing opiate substitution
treatment facility or community health engagement location.
16
4. Special uses must conform to the development standards listed in
KCC 15.08.020.
5. [Reserved].
6. [Reserved].
7. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones.
8. Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals when located no closer than
150 feet to any residential use, provided the animals are housed indoors,
with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing
must be designed by competent acoustical engineers.
9. Those uses that are principally permitted in the M3 zone may be
permitted in the M2 zone via a conditional use permit.
10. Personal services uses limited to linen supply and industrial laundry
services, diaper services, rug cleaning and repair services, photographic
services, beauty and barber services, and fur repair and storage services.
11. [Reserved].
12. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the
pedestrian overlay of the DC district, set forth in the map below, must be
pedestrian-oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main
ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and
17
visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk, and may include the
following uses:
a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to
convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as
apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods,
home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops, and book shops;
b. Personal services, including but not limited to barber shops,
beauty salons, and dry cleaning;
c. Repair services, including but not limited to television, radio,
computer, jewelry, and shoe repair;
d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to restaurants
(including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and
taverns;
e. Copy establishments;
f. Professional services, including but not limited to law offices
and consulting services; and
g. Any other use that is determined by the economic and
community development director to be of the same general character as
the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the
district, pursuant to KCC 15.09.065, Interpretation of uses.
18
13. Except for such uses and buildings subject to KCC 15.04.150.
14. Conducted in conjunction with a principally permitted use.
15. [Reserved].
16. Contract construction services office use does not include contractor
storage yards, which is a separate use listed in KCC 15.04.040.
17. Outside storage or operations yards are permitted only as accessory
uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the
property or structure.
18. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas.
19
19. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and
loading/unloading areas.
20. Shall only apply to medical and dental offices and/or neighborhood
clinics.
21. Auto repair, including body work, and washing services are
permitted only under the following conditions:
a. The property is also used for heavy equipment repair and/or
truck repair; and
b. Gasoline service stations that also offer auto repair and
washing services are not permitted in the M3, general industrial zoning
district.
22. Any associated drive-up/drive-through facility shall be accessory and
shall require a conditional use permit.
23. Auto repair, including body work, and auto washing services shall be
allowed in the general industrial (M3) zoning district as follows:
a. For adaptive reuse of existing site structures, all of the
following conditions must apply:
i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and
ii. Existing site structures do not have dock high loading
bay doors, where the finished floor is generally level with the floor of
freight containers; and
20
iii. All ground-level bay doors of existing structures have a
height of less than 14 feet, which would generally impede full access to
freight containers; and
iv. Existing site structures have a clear height from
finished floor to interior roof trusses of less than 20 feet; and
v. Maximum building area per parcel is not greater than
40,000 square feet.
b. For proposed site development, all of the following conditions
must apply:
i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and
ii. Based on parcels existing at the time of the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this section, the maximum parcel size is
no greater than 40,000 square feet.
24. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not
including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to
agricultural uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
SECTION 4. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is 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. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
21
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
22
Drug-Related Crimes in Kent: June 28, 2017 - Sept. 26, 2017 23
Survey of drug consumption rooms: service delivery and perceived
public health and amenity impact
JO KIMBER
1, KATE DOLAN
1 & ALEX WODAK
2
1National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia and
2Alcohol and Drug
Service, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) have operated in Europe for more than 20 years. At the time of this study three Australian
jurisdictions were considering trials of DCRs and little information about these services was available in the English literature.
We surveyed 39 DCRs in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Spain in 1999–2000 regarding service delivery and
perceived public health and amenity impact and 15 (40%) responded. The DCRs surveyed were professionally staffed, low
threshold services which provided a range of health, psych-social, drug treatment and welfare services and referrals. No overdose
deaths were reported and the estimated rate of non-fatal overdose ranged from 1 to 36 per 10,000 visits. These DCRs appeared
to be achieving their service delivery objectives with few negative consequences.
Key words:drug consumption room, injecting room, injecting drug use, harm reduction.
Introduction
Drug consumption rooms (DCRs), also known as
supervised injecting centres and safe injecting rooms
have operated in Europe since the early 1970s [1].
DCRs currently operate in the Netherlands, Switzer-
land, Germany, and Spain Australia [2] and a trial
facility recently commenced operation in Canada [3].
DCRs are defined as ‘‘legally sanctioned and supervised
facilities designed to reduce the health and public order
problems associated with illegal injection drug use...which
enable the consumption of pre-obtained drugs in an anxiety
and stress-free atmosphere, under hygienic and low risk
conditions’’[4]. Some DCRs also allow for non-
injecting routes of drug administration, such as smok-
ing and snorting [5].
The proposed benefits of DCRs relate to both
public health and public amenity and include:
reduction in heroin-related overdoses (both fatal and
non-fatal); reduction in public nuisance (inappropri-
ately discarded injecting equipment, public injecting
and intoxication and visible drug dealing); reduction
in the risk of blood-borne viral transmission; and
improved access to health care, especially drug
treatment. Critics have suggested the risks of DCRs
are: condoning drug use (‘sending the wrong
message’); facilitating the congregation of drug users
and drug dealers (‘honey pot effect’); and delaying
entry to drug treatment [6, 7].
When this study was planned in mid-1999, three
Australian jurisdictions were considering trials of
DCRs. Policy makers, potential service providers,
researchers and public health advocates involved in
the discussion were keen to know more about the
feasibility and impact of these facilities. At that time
limited published information relating to the operation
of DCRs was available in English. The aim of this study
was to survey known DCRs regarding the nature of
service delivery and their perceived public health and
amenity impact.
Methods
Contact details were obtained through the author’s
professional networks for 39 DCRs across the Nether-
lands, Switzerland, Germany and Spain. A 60-item
survey was developed [8]. The survey was sent by post,
facsimile, or e-mail between October 1999 and July
2000. In addition, six surveys were completed as face-
to-face structured interviews during site visits. Survey
respondents were typically the DCR Manager or Team
Leader.
Jo Kimber BSc Psych Hons Doctoral Candidate, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia,
Kate Dolan PhD, Senior Lecturer, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Alex Wodak
MB BS, Director, Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Correspondence to Ms Jo Kimber, National Drug and
Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. Tel. +44 2072291660; E-Mail j.kimber@unsw.edu.au
Received 25 September 2003; accepted for publication 13 July 2004.
Drug and Alcohol Review, (January 2005), 24, 21–24
ISSN 0959-5236 print/ISSN 1465-3362 online/05/010021–04 ªAustralian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs
DOI: 10.1080/09595230500125047
24
Estimating the rate of non-fatal overdose
The rate of non-fatal overdose at each DCR was
estimated by dividing the number of overdoses per
annum by the number of visits per annum. Depending
on the data provided, the number of overdoses per
annum was based on the number of overdoses in the
past 12-months or the average number of overdoses per
week multiplied by 52. The number of visits per annum
was based on the number of client visits per day
multiplied by 365.25. In cases where a range was
provided, for example 100–150 visits per day, the
midpoint was used. The rate was rounded to one
significant figure.
Results
Fifteen of 39 surveys were completed (Hamburg n =4,
Frankfurt n =2, Hanover, Saarbru¨cken, Basel, Bern,
Solothurn, Schaffhausen, Apeldoorn, Rotterdam, Ma-
drid) and two surveys were returned address unknown,
yielding a response rate of 40%. German DCRs
completed the majority of surveys (8/10) and the lowest
response was from The Netherlands (2/12).
Hours of operation, throughput and staffing
All DCRs operated six or seven days a week. Opening
hours ranged from 26 to 107
1
2 hours per week, with a
minimum of three hours per day and maximum of 15
1
2
hours per day.
The number of places for injecting ranged from three
to 12. Six Centres also provided places for smoking and
snorting, with a range of three to six places. The time
limit for use of the injecting room ranged from 15 to 30
minutes with some flexibility. The median number of
average visits per day was 100 and ranged from 25 to
400 per day.
Social workers were the most commonly employed
professional staff, followed by nurses. Most centres also
employed sessional medical officers. Three of the
Centres had an ex-User staff position.
Facilities and services
Core DCR facilities were an injecting room, toilets, and
contact cafe´ or in one case simply a reception area.
Other common facilities included places for smoking
drugs, showers, laundry and clothing pool. Three
DCRs also offered onsite overnight accommodation.
All DCRs provided safer injecting advice, overdose
management, a needle and syringe program (NSP),
counselling, and basic medical care. Many also offered
legal advice. All DCRs offered referral to a wide range
of services and assistance including drug substitution
treatment, detoxification, therapy, medical care, reha-
bilitation, accommodation, employment and training,
social services and legal aid. Other types of programs
and services offered at some DCRs included outreach
overdose management and NSP, opening times for
women only, case management, art materials, off-site
recreational activities (e.g. films, picnics), parenting
skills training, and postal contact with prison inmates.
Rules
In general rules for entry to the DCRs were being aged
18 or older, except for two Swiss DCRs where the
minimum age was 16 years. Five DCRs reported
residency restrictions (where clients were expected to
be resident in the local government area). Seven DCRs
reported systematically checking that new clients had a
history of injecting drug use. Drug dealing was strictly
prohibited on the premises of all DCRs except one
which aimed to regulate the quality and price of drugs
for their clients by approved ‘house dealers’.
Four DCRs reported refusal of entry to heavily
intoxicated clients to inject and the remainder assessed
clients on a case-by-case basis, encouraging heavily
intoxicated clients to wait before using drugs. Six
DCRs had restrictions on use of some physical injecting
sites, such as the eyes, face, neck, groin, genitals, chest
and abdomen. Staff were not permitted to assist clients
to inject, although some reported assisting in excep-
tional cases, such as where the client was visually-
impaired or an amputee. Six DCRs permitted clients to
assist each other to inject. Clients were permitted to
share drugs at four centres. Only one centre did not
allow clients to leave immediately after injecting.
Overdose management
The primary management of heroin-related overdose
was expired air resuscitation (EAR) and the provision
of oxygen gas. In cases where clients were not
responding, an ambulance officer would be called to
the DCR to administer naloxone or in the case of two
DCRs, the naloxone could be administered by an
onsite medical officer.
No fatal overdoses were reported at any of the
surveyed DCRs. The estimated rate of non-fatal over-
dose ranged from 1 to 36 per 10,000 visits (Table 1).
Perceived impacts
The majority of respondents perceived that the opera-
tion of their DCR had contributed to a reduction in
overdose deaths and events, a reduction in HIV risk
behaviour and a reduction in discarded injecting
equipment and public injecting.
Six DCRs reported an increase in drug dealing in the
vicinity of their DCR. Three of these DCRs also
22 J. Kimber et al.
25
reported an additional negative impact: aggressive
incidents among clients outside the premises, increases
in petty crime in the area, and the resentment of local
residents respectively.
Documentation and evaluation
Five DCRs reported some form of client registration
varying in threshold from a name or alias and signature
acknowledging house rules through to more extensive
demographic and drug use information. All DCRs
collected some basic operational data such as the
number of visits, gender composition, drug used,
adverse events and referrals. The ability to monitor
client’s individual service utilisation was reported by
four DCRs.
Most reported they kept clinical records when
significant interventions or referrals were provided;
had policies and procedures documents; and published
annual reports. Six DCRs reported being the subject of
an evaluation. Copies of the evaluation reports were
obtained for Hanover [9], Basel [10], Bern [11], and
have been reviewed elsewhere [7].
Funding & community consultation
The median annual budget in 1999–2000 [12] was
e440,650 (range e164,300–e859,268) and funding
was sourced predominantly from local and State
governments. All DCRs reported ongoing consultation
with police, local government and other community
stakeholders.
Discussion
DCRs were professionally staffed health and welfare
services. Service delivery was low threshold and core
facilities and services included an injecting room,
toilets, cafe´ or waiting area, safer injecting advice,
overdose management, NSP, counselling, basic medi-
cal care and comprehensive referral to drug treatment,
medical and social welfare services. Almost half the
DCRs also offered places for administration of drugs by
non-injecting routes. Client documentation was limited
and data collection was generally confined to aggregate
counts of visits by gender, adverse events, and referrals.
Local variation was evidenced in the hours of
operation, the number of injecting places available,
availability and number of places for non-injecting
routes of administration, and the composition of onsite
to referred services. This variation appeared to reflect
the range of other services in the area for drug users; the
size of the drug scene; drug availability and use (e.g.
prevalence of crack cocaine) and preferred routes of
administration (e.g. heroin ‘chasing’) as well as support
for different forms of harm reduction among service
providers.
Common rules of entry were being of a minimum
age, a history of illicit drug use, and assessment of
intoxication. Consumption-related rules included no
staff assisted injection of clients, and restrictions on the
use of some injecting sites or use of the facility by
severely intoxicated clients. Drug dealing was strictly
not permitted except in one atypical setting. These
rules seemed to reflect the need to meet legal
requirements with respect to drug administration and
supply and staff liability, ensure occupational and client
health and safety, and create and maintain a managed
environment. The importance of local police and
residents as stakeholders in DCRs was reflected by
ongoing community consultation.
Early intervention in the case of overdose at DCRs
appeared to be effective; there were no reported
overdose deaths at any of the surveyed DCRs. Only
death, due to anaphylactic shock, has since been
reported at a DCR [13]. Early intervention in the case
of heroin-related overdose was also likely to have
contributed to a reduction in morbidity associated with
non-fatal overdose [14, 15]. For example, a Frankfurt
study found the likelihood of a hospital admission was
10 times greater for an overdose occurring in the street
compared to one occurring in a DCR [16]. Moreover, a
lower level of intervention seemed to be required in the
majority of overdose events, which were managed with
oxygen alone. The limited use of naloxone may also
partly reflect regulations restricting administration of
this drug in some of these countries to medical
practitioners or ambulance officers.
Table 1.Estimated rate of non-fatal overdose at DCRs
Centre Year
Estimated
non-fatal
overdoses
per annum
Estimated
visits per
annum
Rate of
non-fatal
overdose
per 10000
visits
Frankfurt A 1999 42 45626 9
Frankfurt B 1999 52 146100 4
Hamburg A 1999 130 69398 19
Hamburg B 1999 100 36525 27
Hamburg C 1999 60 32873 18
Hanover 1999 130 36525 36
Saarbru¨cken 1999 156 73050 21
Basel 1998 20 43830 5
Bern 1998 136 94965 14
Schaffhausen 1999 48 18263 26
Solothurn 1999 21 10958 19
Apeldoorn 1999–
2000
1 9131 1
Rotterdam 1999–
2000
20 18262 11
Notes: Information was not available for two DCRs, Hamburg
D and Madrid.
Survey of drug consumption rooms 23
26
The estimated rate of non-fatal overdose at the DCRs
surveyed ranged from 1 to 36 per 10,000 visits. This
variation between DCRs may be related to differences
in the classification and reporting of overdose; the
relative frequency of use of heroin and other depres-
sants such as benzodiazepines compared with psycho-
stimulants; and the attendant route of administration,
where smoking heroin is associated with a lower rate of
overdose [17].
Overall, DCRs appeared to achieve their objectives,
as reported on here, with few negative consequences.
The majority of respondents perceived that their DCR
contributed to a reduction in overdose events and
deaths, HIV risk behaviour and transmission, discard-
ing of injecting equipment and injecting in public
places. Reports of increases in drug dealing and other
anti-social activity in the vicinity of DCRs appeared to
be clustered at a small number of DCRs. However, it
should be noted that these perceived impacts were in
most cases, not substantiated by other evidence in this
survey. The potential benefits and adverse conse-
quences and cost effectiveness of DCRs require
further systematic evaluation.
A limitation of this study was the low response rate.
The findings of the survey are likely to provide a
reasonable representation of DCR service delivery at
the time of survey in Germany, however, may be less
generalisable to other DCRs operating in Switzerland
and The Netherlands and Spain.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the DCRs who
participated in the survey, and particularly those that
allowed site visits; Dr Heino Sto¨ver for providing
contact information and organising visits to German
DCRs; and Ms Anita Marxer, Mr Nicolas Heller, Dr
Wouter de Jong and Ms Sian Powell for their assistance
in providing contact information. This was an un-
funded study.
References
[1] Sto¨ver H, Michels I. Gesundheitsra¨ume. In: Klee J, editor.
Akzeptanorientierte Angebote in der Drogen-und AIDS-
Selbsthilfe: Gesundheitsra¨ume in der aktuellen Debatte.
Berlin: Medialis alle Berlin, 1997.
[2] Kimber J, Dolan K, van Beek I, Hedrich D, Zurhold H.
Drug Consumption Facilities: An update since 2000. Drug
Alcohol Rev 2003;22:227–33.
[3] Wood E, Kerr T, Montaner J, Strathdee S, Wodak A,
Hankins C, et al. Rationale for evaluating North America’s
first medically supervised safer-injecting facility. Lancet
2004;4:301–6.
[4] Schneider W, Sto¨ver H. Guidelines for the operation and
use of Consumption Rooms. In: Konsumra¨ume als profes-
sionelles Angebot der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Internationale
Konferenz zur Erarbeitung von Leitlinien; 1999 May
2000; Hannover: Akzept e.V & Carl von Ossietzky
Universita¨t Oldenburg, 1999.
[5] de Jong W, Weber U. The professional acceptance of drug
use: a closer look at drug consumption rooms in the
Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. Int J Drug Pol
1999;10:99–108.
[6] Parliament of New South Wales. Report on the establish-
ment or trial of safe injecting rooms. Joint Select Committee
into Safe Injecting Rooms. Sydney: Parliament of New
South Wales, 1998.
[7] Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, Fitzgerald J, MacDonald D,
Trautmann F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and
the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Aus-
tralia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000;19:337–46.
[8] Kimber J, Dolan K, Wodak A. International Survey of
Supervised Injecting Centres (1999–2000). Sydney: Na-
tional Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW; 2001.
Report No.: Technical Report 126.
[9] Jacob J, Rottman J, Sto¨ver H. Entstehung und Praxis eines
Gesundheitsraumangebotes fu¨r Drogenkonsumierende. Ab-
schlußbericht der einja¨hrigen Evaluation des ‘drop-in
Fixpunkt’, Hannover. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks -und Infor-
mationssystem der Universita¨t Oldenburg, 1999.
[10] Ronco C, Spuhler G, Coda P, Schopfer R. Evaluation der
Gassenzimmer I, II und III in Basel. Soz Praventivmed
1996;41:S58–S68.
[11] Nejedly MM, Bu¨rki CM. Monitoring HIV Risk Behaviours
in a Street Agency with Injection Room in Switzerland.
Bern: Medizinischen Fakulta¨t – Universita¨t Bern, 1996.
[12] Antweiler W. PACIFIC Exchange Rate Service. In: Uni-
versity of British Columbia, 1998.
[13] Gerlach R, Schneider W. Consumption and Injecting Room
(CIR) at INDRO, Mu¨nster, Germany: Annual Report 2002
(English Version). Mu¨nster: INDRO e.V., 2003.
[14] Warner-Smith M, Lynskey M, Darke S, Hall W. Heroin
overdose: causes and consequences. Addiction
2001;96:1113–25.
[15] Warner-Smith M, Darke S, Day C. Morbidity associated
with non-fatal heroin overdose. Addiction 2002;97:963–7.
[16] Integrative Drogenhilfe. Jahresbericht 1996. Frankfurt:
Integrative Drogenhilfe, 1997.
[17] Grund J-P. Drug use as a Social Ritual - Functionality,
Symbolism and Determinants of Self-regulation. Rotter-
dam: University of Rotterdam, 1993.
24 J. Kimber et al.
27
28
29
30
31
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: October 9, 2017
TO: Chair Katherine Jones and Members of Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: Meet Me on Meeker Design and Construction Standards
For Meeting of October 9, 2017
SUMMARY: Meet Me on Meeker is the collaborative redesign of a key gateway and
commercial “main street” connecting the Green River to the historic downtown. City
staff are working through comments and revisions with various stakeholders and will
provide an update on the project including a tentative schedule at the October 9th
workshop.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BE:ct\S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2017\MEEKER DESIGN STANDARDS\MMOM LUPB
Update 10.9.17.docx
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Information Only
32