HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/23/2016 (2)For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City’s website at:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office in advance at (253) 856-
5725. For TTY/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For
general information, contact Economic & Community Development Department, Planning Division at
(253) 856-5454.
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
PUBLIC HEARING AND WORKSHOP
AGENDA
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
MAY 23, 2016
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Frank Cornelius, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Jack Ottini, Barbara
Phillips, Randall Smith
CITY STAFF: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Hayley Bonsteel,
Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator; David Galazin, Assistant Civil Attorney.
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing
followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, MAY 23, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. These meetings will
be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The
public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the
Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed
amendment may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Charlene Anderson
at: canderson@kentwa.gov. No public testimony is taken at the Workshop, although the
public is welcome to attend.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the April 25, 2016 Minutes
4. Added Items
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT COOPERATIVES [ZCA-2016-5] Hayley Bonsteel
This is a public hearing to consider zoning regulations pertaining to a new category of
medical marijuana growing operation, referred to as “patient cooperatives,” which will
replace the existing category of “medical cannabis collective gardens” beginning July
1, 2016, due to recent changes in state law.
8. WORKSHOP:
COMPLETE STREETS ORDINANCE [CPA-2016-4] Hayley Bonsteel
Discussion to consider amendments to Title 6 of the Kent City Code (KCC) to adopt a
new chapter 6.14 pertaining to complete streets.
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2016
1. Call to Order
Chair Cornelius called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm
2. Roll Call
• LUPB Members: Frank Cornelius Chair; Katherine Jones Vice Chair;
Barbara Phillips, and Jack Ottini were in attendance with Randall Smith
Excused Absence.
• City Staff: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Hope
Gibson, Parks Planning & Development Manager; and David Galazin,
Assistant Civil Attorney were in attendance.
3. Approval of Minutes
Board Member Jones MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a
Motion to Approve the Minutes of April 25, 2016. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
4. Added Items
None
5. Communications
None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
None
7. Public Hearing
Park and Open Space Plan [CPA-2016-3]
Gibson described where within the Park and Open Space Plan (the Plan) edits and
amendments were made to the Plan. She stated that the draft Plan was brought
before the Board for discussion at their March 28th workshop. Gibson distributed to
the Board; an amended Table CF.9 Parks Facilities Inventory-2015, and page two of
Appendix A - Recreational Value/Level of Service Overview.
Gibson submitted an email from Sandi Lynden dated April 22, 2016 drawing
attention to concerns related to new park level of service standards and Park Fee-
in-lieu Funds.
Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Ottini SECONDED a
motion to accept this Email (defined as Exhibit 1) from Sandi Lynden, into
the record. Chair Cornelius called for the vote. Motion PASSED 4-0.
Gibson spoke about each of the Eight Chapters the Plan is comprised of:
Chapter 1 defines the role of parks and open space in the city. Chapter 2 speaks
about the public outreach efforts whereby staff assembled a citizens’ task force,
engaged the public through community events, invited attendees to participate in
1
Land Use & Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2016
Page 2 of 2
informal online surveys and hired a survey firm to execute a more formal,
statistically valid survey. Chapter 3 speaks about four core themes: 1) Provide
quality public spaces, 2) Maintain the parks system through performance based
approach, 3) reinvestment approaches and 4) sustainable funding strategies.
Chapter 4 addresses the new approach to level of service.. Chapter 5 discusses
park classification and lays out strategic projects for every region in the city.
Chapter 6 discusses various parks capital funding options, Chapter 7 address Parks
Goals and Policies and lays out priorities related to continuing development and
stewardship of City’s park and open space system. Chapter 8 concludes the
narrative and the following appendix provides transparency by including the
questions and answers to the two surveys and other information pertaining to the
park and open space system and the new Level of Service approach.
Anderson stated that the Park and Open Space Plan is being incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Capital Facilities and Parks and Recreation Elements
of Kent’s Comprehensive Plan are being updated to reflect the updated Parks plan.
She stated that staff proposes to update Table CF.9 in the Capital Facilities Element
to reflect the current acreage of park categories. Anderson also proposed deletion
of Table CF-10 including the 2015 level of service table (reflected on page 236 of
the packet), and correction of the Level of Service Comparison table and Level of
Service by City Region table with information from the corresponding tables in the
2016 Park and Open Space Plan. .
Anderson described changes to the Parks and Recreation Element needed to reflect
the latest iteration of the 2016 Park and Open Space Plan, referring to pages 4
through 43 of the Parks and Recreation Element portion of the agenda packet.
In response to Board member Jones, Gibson stated that the surveys showed that
the public desires trails, open space, and sports parks. Gibson stated that the
survey showed that people prefer parks close to their homes that are open, clean,
safe and nicely landscaped.
Concluding deliberations, Board Chair Cornelius invited the audience to speak.
Seeing no speakers, Cornelius closed the public hearing.
Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Jones SECONDED a
Motion recommending to the City Council approval of proposals to adopt
the 2016 Park and Open Space Plan Update, incorporate it into the City of
Kent Comprehensive Plan, and make associated amendments to the Capital
Facilities and Parks and Recreation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan,
as presented by staff. Motion PASSED unanimously 4-0.
Adjournment
Chair Cornelius adjourned the meeting at 8:07 pm
_____________________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager,
LUPB Board Secretary
2
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
May 16, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator
RE: Patient Cooperatives Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-5)
For May 23, 2016 Hearing
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval (or denial; or approval,
as modified) of proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code, related to
medical marijuana patient cooperatives, as presented by staff.
SUMMARY: Recent changes in state law will introduce a new category of medical
marijuana growing operation called a “patient cooperative,” replacing the existing
category of “collective garden” beginning July 1, 2016. The new category will allow
up to four qualifying patients and/or designated providers to form a “cooperative” in
which marijuana can be collectively grown for personal, medical use in the domicile
of one of the members. The Liquor and Cannabis Board will have regulatory
oversight of these cooperatives; however, the Board cannot register a cooperative
where prohibited by a local zoning provision. A patient cooperative must be located
within the domicile of one of the members; ergo, cooperatives may only exist in
residential areas. The law does not specify that the domicile be owned by the
member, meaning there is the potential for impacts to rental properties.
Kent’s zoning code does not currently address this new category of patient
cooperatives; the draft ordinance attached rectifies this by repealing the regulations
related to collective gardens and adding a definition and zoning for patient
cooperatives. The ordinance is drafted to prohibit patient cooperatives in all zoning
districts; however, the Board has the option of recommending that patient
cooperatives be permitted in one or more zoning districts if it so chooses. If the
Board wishes to modify the proposal in order to permit patient cooperatives, staff
recommends that the Board limit its recommendation to the Single Family SR-1
zone, as this zone may contain the highest ratio of ownership to rentals of any
zone. The potential for impacts to rental properties introduces concerns regarding
accountability, as property owners are likely to want to decide for themselves
whether patient cooperatives’ benefits are worth the potential property impacts.
State law provides a number of other mandatory siting criteria, contained in RCW
69.51A.250, which staff can speak to if the Board wishes to recommend something
other than prohibition.
3
BACKGROUND: Second Substitute Senate Bill 5052 and Second Engrossed Second
Substitute House Bill 2136, both of which were enacted during the 2015 legislative
session, make several changes to state law regarding medical marijuana. Beginning
July 1, 2016, medical cannabis collective gardens (see RCW 69.51A.085) will cease
to exist; instead, qualifying patients and/or designated providers may now form
“cooperatives” in which marijuana can be collectively grown for personal, medical
use (see RCW 69.51A.250). The law limits membership in the cooperative to no
more than four individuals, requiring that all members be registered with the
newly-created state-run database of qualifying patients and designated providers.
It mandates that all members provide actual assistance in growing the plants, in
addition to several other requirements, including the need to register the location
with the State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Patient cooperative must be located in
the domicile of one of the members. The law does not specify that the domicile be
owned by the member, however, meaning there are potential impacts to rental
properties. Impacts can include excessive power consumption, increased mold and
mildew and structural damage.
HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-5 Med Marijuana Patient Cooperatives\05-23-16 LUPB hearing MMJ Patient
Cooperatives Memo.doc
Encl: Draft ordinance; copy of RCW 69.51A.250 (effective July 1, 2016), Decision Document, DNS and SEPA Checklist
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
David Galazin, J.D., LL.M., Assistant City Attorney
4
1 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15 of the
Kent City Code by repealing all sections pertaining
to medical cannabis collective gardens, and
adopting new regulations pertaining to medical
marijuana patient cooperatives.
RECITALS
A. Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5052, known as the
“Cannabis Patient Protection Act,” was signed into law by Governor Inslee
on April 24, 2015. This Act allows qualifying patients and/or designated
providers who hold valid recognition cards to form a “cooperative” in which
marijuana can be collectively grown for personal, medical use, beginning
July 1, 2016. The Act also repeals the existing category of “collective
gardens,” as defined in RCW 69.51A.085, effective as of July 1, 2016.
B. Medical marijuana patient cooperatives are limited to four or
fewer members; must be registered with the state Liquor and Cannabis
Board; and must be located within the domicile of one of the members of
the cooperative.
C. Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2136, signed
by Governor Inslee on June 30, 2015, further clarified that the Liquor and
Cannabis Board must deny the registration of a proposed patient
cooperative if the location is prohibited by local zoning ordinance.
5
2 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
D. Kent’s zoning code does not currently address this new
category of patient cooperatives, requiring an amendment to the city code.
E. On May 5, 2016, the City requested expedited review under
RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce
regarding the City’s proposed code amendments. The Washington State
Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on
_______. No comments were received from State agencies.
F. On May 9, 2016, staff gave an overview of these proposed
amendments before the Economic and Community Development
Committee.
G. On May 9, 2016, during a workshop meeting, staff received
authorization from the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) to draft an
ordinance amending Kent’s zoning code to address collective gardens and
patient cooperatives.
H. On May 20, 2016, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of
Nonsignficance for the proposed code amendments.
I. On May 23, 2016, the LUPB moved to recommend to the full
City Council the adoption of the draft amendments, as prepared by staff,
at a regularly-scheduled public hearing.
J. On June 13, 2016, the Economic and Community
Development Committee considered the ordinance repealing collective
gardens and addressing the new category of patient cooperatives, and
recommended approval of the ordinance, as proposed by staff and
6
3 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
approved by the LUPB. The matter was subsequently considered by the
full City Council at its June 21, 2016, meeting.
K. While collective marijuana growing has never been authorized
in Kent, the Kent Police Department (“KPD”) has investigated numerous
illegal marijuana grow operations in housing units in the City. KPD has
noted that residential “grow houses” often pose multiple environmental
concerns, including, but not limited to: excessive power consumption;
increased mold and mildew; pervasive odors; and structural damage.
L. Furthermore, these impacts are magnified by the fact that
these grow houses are often rental units that are rendered uninhabitable
after being used for the indoor growing and cultivation of marijuana.
M. The City Council recognizes that approved medical uses of
marijuana may provide relief to patients suffering from debilitating or
terminal conditions, but because of the potential secondary impacts, the
establishment of facilities for the collective growth, production, and
processing of medical marijuana in residential units is not appropriate for
any zoning district within the City.
N. The City Council further understands that while the medical
benefits of marijuana have been recognized by the state legislature,
marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and possession and use of marijuana is
still a violation of federal law.
O. The City Council has determined that the passage of a
permanent zoning code amendment that shall prohibit the establishment of
residential medical marijuana patient cooperatives in all zoning districts of
the City will serve the public health, safety and welfare.
7
4 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Repealer. Section 15.02.074 of the Kent City Code is
hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. - Repealer. Section 15.08.290 of the Kent City Code is
hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. - Amendment. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended by adding a new section 15.02.326 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.02.326 Patient cooperative, medical marijuana.
Medical marijuana patient cooperative means a group of four or
fewer qualifying patients and/or designated providers who share
responsibility for producing and processing marijuana only for the medical
use of the members of the cooperative, pursuant to, and in accordance
with, all the terms and conditions of RCW 69.51A.250.
SECTION 4. - Amendment. Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended by adding a new section 15.08.295 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.08.295 Patient cooperatives.
A. Medical marijuana patient cooperatives, as defined in KCC
15.02.326, are prohibited in the following zoning districts:
1. All agricultural districts, including A-10 and AG;
8
5 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
2. All residential districts, including SR-1, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6,
SR-8, MR-D, MR-T12, MR-T16, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, MHP, PUD, MTC-1,
MTC-2, and MCR;
3. All commercial districts, including NCC, CC, CC-MU, DC, DCE,
DCE-T, CM-1, CM-2, GC, and GC-MU;
4. All industrial districts, including M1, M1-C, M2, and M3; and
5. Any new district established on or after July 1, 2016.
B. Any violation of this section is declared to be a public nuisance per
se, and shall be abated by the city attorney under applicable provisions of
this code or state law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 1.04 KCC.
C. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize, legalize or permit
the establishment or operation of a use that violates any city, county, state
or federal law or statute.
SECTION 5. – 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 6. – 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.
9
6 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 -
Re: Patient Cooperatives
SECTION 7. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force on July 1, 2016, which is more than five days from and after its
publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2016.
APPROVED: day of , 2016.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2016.
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)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Ordinance\Patient Cooperatives Ordinance.docx
10
69.51A.250
Cooperatives—Qualifying patients or designated providers may form—
Requirements—Restrictions on locations—State liquor and cannabis board may
adopt rules. (Effective July 1, 2016.)
*** CHANGE IN 2016 *** (SEE 2520.SL) ***
(1) Qualifying patients or designated providers may form a cooperative and share
responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources needed to produce and process
marijuana only for the medical use of members of the cooperative. No more than four
qualifying patients or designated providers may become members of a cooperative under
this section and all members must hold valid recognition cards. All members of the
cooperative must be at least twenty-one years old. The designated provider of a qualifying
patient who is under twenty-one years old may be a member of a cooperative on the
qualifying patient's behalf.
(2) Qualifying patients and designated providers who wish to form a cooperative must
register the location with the state liquor and cannabis board and this is the only location
where cooperative members may grow or process marijuana. This registration must include
the names of all participating members and copies of each participant's recognition card.
Only qualifying patients or designated providers registered with the state liquor and
cannabis board in association with the location may participate in growing or receive
useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products grown at that location.
(3) No cooperative may be located in any of the following areas:
(a) Within one mile of a marijuana retailer;
(b) Within the smaller of either:
(i) One thousand feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary
school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit
center, library, or any game arcade that admission to which is not restricted to persons
aged twenty-one years or older; or
(ii) The area restricted by ordinance, if the cooperative is located in a city, county, or
town that has passed an ordinance pursuant to RCW 69.50.331(8); or
(c) Where prohibited by a city, town, or county zoning provision.
(4) The state liquor and cannabis board must deny the registration of any cooperative if
the location does not comply with the requirements set forth in subsection (3) of this
section.
(5) If a qualifying patient or designated provider no longer participates in growing at the
location, he or she must notify the state liquor and cannabis board within fifteen days of the
date the qualifying patient or designated provider ceases participation. The state liquor and
cannabis board must remove his or her name from connection to the cooperative. Additional
qualifying patients or designated providers may not join the cooperative until sixty days
have passed since the date on which the last qualifying patient or designated provider
notifies the state liquor and cannabis board that he or she no longer participates in that
cooperative.
(6) Qualifying patients or designated providers who participate in a cooperative under
this section:
11
(a) May grow up to the total amount of plants for which each participating member is
authorized on their recognition cards, up to a maximum of sixty plants. At the location, the
qualifying patients or designated providers may possess the amount of useable marijuana
that can be produced with the number of plants permitted under this subsection, but no
more than seventy-two ounces;
(b) May only participate in one cooperative;
(c) May only grow plants in the cooperative and if he or she grows plants in the
cooperative may not grow plants elsewhere;
(d) Must provide assistance in growing plants. A monetary contribution or donation is
not to be considered assistance under this section. Participants must provide nonmonetary
resources and labor in order to participate; and
(e) May not sell, donate, or otherwise provide marijuana, marijuana concentrates,
useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products to a person who is not participating under
this section.
(7) The location of the cooperative must be the domicile of one of the participants. Only
one cooperative may be located per property tax parcel. A copy of each participant's
recognition card must be kept at the location at all times.
(8) The state liquor and cannabis board may adopt rules to implement this section
including:
(a) Any security requirements necessary to ensure the safety of the cooperative and to
reduce the risk of diversion from the cooperative;
(b) A seed to sale traceability model that is similar to the seed to sale traceability model
used by licensees that will allow the state liquor and cannabis board to track all marijuana
grown in a cooperative.
(9) The state liquor and cannabis board or law enforcement may inspect a cooperative
registered under this section to ensure members are in compliance with this section. The
state liquor and cannabis board must adopt rules on reasonable inspection hours and
reasons for inspections.
[2015 2nd sp.s. c 4 § 1001; 2015 c 70 § 26.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent—Effective dates—2015 2nd sp.s. c 4: See notes following RCW
69.50.334.
Effective date—2015 c 70 §§ 12, 19, 20, 23-26, 31, 35, 40, and 49: See note
following RCW 69.50.357.
Short title—Findings—Intent—References to Washington state liquor control
board—Draft legislation—2015 c 70: See notes following RCW 66.08.012.
12
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT COOPERATIVES ZONING REGULATIONS
ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700
ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614
Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Hayley Bonsteel
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for this
project, which proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code to prohibit a
new category of medical marijuana grow operations called patient
cooperatives. There is also an option to permit patient cooperatives in single
family (SR-1) districts.
See attached for proposed draft amendment.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB
6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and
Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require
concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the
Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to
roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater
detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and
domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction
Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified
improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City
Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent
in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development
based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes
or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require
provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site.
In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10,
13
Decision Document
Medical Marijuana Patient Cooperatives Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700
ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614
Page 2 of 5
1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took
effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State
Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
The Proposal is unlikely to impact earth, as it prohibits a new type of
indoor marijuana grow operation.
Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, they would
be located indoors and would therefore also be unlikely to impact
earth.
B. Air
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to air
are anticipated. Prohibiting patient cooperatives is unlikely to affect
air. Were patient cooperatives permitted in SR-1 zones, it is possible
that negligible odors could be created; however, SR-1 lot sizes are
large and therefore any impact would be unlikely to affect the air
beyond the immediate vicinity of the property.
C. Water
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to
water are anticipated. Prohibiting patient cooperatives is unlikely to
affect water. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones,
it is possible that residential water use would increase—but the burden
of this would fall on the resident paying the water bill, and is unlikely
to affect water city-wide.
D. Plants and Animals
This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on plants or animals.
Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, an increase
of up to 60 marijuana plants per residential household is possible—
however, the addition of marijuana plants to indoor residences does
not significantly impact existing plants or animals in any discernable
way.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on energy or natural
resources. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones,
an increase in residential energy use is possible—however, the burden
of this increase in residential energy usage would fall on the resident
paying for the energy, and would have negligible impacts on city-wide
systems.
14
Decision Document
Medical Marijuana Patient Cooperatives Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700
ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614
Page 3 of 5
F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
Patient cooperatives are indoors and therefore would not be likely to
have any significant effects on aesthetics, noise, light or glare, were
they to be permitted in SR-1 zones as is an option. It is possible that
patient cooperatives would contribute to mold or other internal
property damage, but this aesthetic impact would be limited to the
interior of the home and therefore not have any significant impact.
However, as drafted, this Proposal prohibits patient cooperatives, so
these effects are even less likely.
G. Land and Shoreline Use
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated
to have significant environmental impacts. Prohibiting patient
cooperatives has no effect on land or shoreline use. Were patient
cooperatives to be permitted in the SR-1 zone, as is an option for this
project, a new use would be introduced to the zoning code; however,
the use would be internal to residences and therefore unlikely to have
significant environmental impacts on land or shoreline use.
H. Housing
The Proposal is not anticipated to impact housing availability. Were
patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, it is possible that
subsequent indoor grow operations would have negative impacts on
residential structures if improperly maintained; however, the burden of
this impact would mostly fall on the property owner to repair any
structural damage that occurs as part of an improperly maintained
patient cooperative.
I. Recreation
The proposal is not anticipated to impact recreation.
J. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered with site work for any project action, the application must
stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and
Historical Preservation. Given that this Proposal prohibits patient
cooperatives or potentially permits them in the SR-1 zone internal to
residences, no historic or cultural preservation impacts are anticipated.
K. Transportation
The Proposal is not anticipated to impact transportation systems. Were
patient cooperatives to be permitted, a negligible increase in traffic
might be expected as members travel to and from the residential
cooperatives site; however, it is unlikely that this traffic would be
significant.
L. Public Services
15
Decision Document
Medical Marijuana Patient Cooperatives Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700
ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614
Page 4 of 5
Patient cooperatives, if permitted in SR-1 zones, could become a
target for theft which could increase the number of police calls–
however, since they are inside homes, they would not be as visible
targets as outdoor grow operations. This lack of visibility renders any
potential increase insignificant. Regardless, this amendment prohibits
patient cooperatives, so impacts to public services are not anticipated.
M. Utilities
This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant effect on utilities.
Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, an increase
in residential utility use is possible—however, the burden of this
increase in residential utility usage would fall on the resident paying
for the utilities, and would have negligible impacts on city-wide
systems. If patient cooperatives are prohibited, as proposed, there
would be no impacts on utilities.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the
City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts
associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following
conditions and mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent
Shoreline Master Program;
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code;
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley
Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation
Element;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments;
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16
Decision Document
Medical Marijuana Patient Cooperatives Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700
ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614
Page 5 of 5
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
May 17, 2016
CA:HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-5 Med Marijuana Patient
Cooperatives\SEPA_Decision.doc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
May 16, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator
RE: Complete Streets Ordinance
For May 23, 2016 Workshop
SUMMARY: Complete Streets is a policy and design approach that requires streets
to be planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient and
comfortable access for all users, regardless of age or ability. Complete Streets
concepts are becoming more crucial every day for planning and transportation
projects in the region, as traffic congestion worsens, transportation costs rise and
public health initiatives strive to increase people’s activity levels. To date, more than
700 agencies at the local, regional and state levels have adopted Complete Streets
Ordinances; adopting such an ordinance in Kent would enable the City to be more
competitive for regional grants and steer future updates to plans and standards,
which would have real impacts on implemented projects. Staff seeks Board
authorization to consider an amendment to the Kent City Code to include a
Complete Streets chapter.
BACKGROUND: The City of Kent’s pedestrian and bicycle network consists of
sidewalks, pathways, trails, bike lanes, shared off-street paths and striped
shoulders. In the past, many sidewalks and bicycle lanes have been constructed as
part of individual development projects. This has resulted in gaps, missing
connections and inconsistencies in the design and quality of facilities.
The City has a number of strong Complete Streets-supportive policies and plans in
place, including the Transportation Master Plan (which recognizes the need to
improve connectivity and identifies a network of streets to receive bicycle and
pedestrian facilities) and the Comprehensive Plan (which has policies in land use
and transportation chapters related to improving non-motorized access and
encouraging walking and bicycling). Complete Streets policies improve safety, lower
transportation costs, provide mobility alternatives, encourage healthy activity,
stimulate local economies, contribute to economic development goals through
creating a sense of place, improve social interaction and generally improve adjacent
property values. See the attached draft proposed ordinance; staff will be available
at the May 23, 2016 meeting to discuss the process and concepts for such a
project.
HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\CPA-2016-4 Complete Streets Ord\05-23-16 LUPB workshop Complete Streets.doc
Encl: Draft ordinance
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
39
40
1 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 6 of the
Kent City Code (KCC) to adopt a new chapter 6.14
pertaining to complete streets.
RECITALS
A. The Complete Streets concept promotes streets that are safe
and convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, freight haulers and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities.
B. Streets constitute a large portion of the public space and
should be corridors for all modes of transportation.
C. Streets that support and invite multiple uses are more
conducive to the public life and efficient movement of people than streets
designed primarily to move automobiles and freight.
D. Trends in energy and transportation costs, air quality, public
health and economic development necessitate a more comprehensive
approach to mobility.
E. The City of Kent engaged residents during the Let’s Go Kent
project in 2010, which focused on improving the walking and biking
41
2 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
network. Residents repeatedly expressed the desire for better walking and
biking options.
F. There are practical limits to the expansion of roadways in
response to traffic congestion. Promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit
travel as an alternative to the automobile can reduce congestion, reduce
the negative environmental impacts of automobiles and also reduce
transportation costs for residents and commuters.
G. A 2007 Washington State Department of Transportation
survey found that a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as
sidewalks and bicycle lanes, is a primary reason why Washington residents
do not walk or bicycle more frequently.
H. The United States Congress and the National Association of
Local Boards of Health specifically recommend Complete Streets policies as
a strategy to increase pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. Complete
Streets legislation has been adopted by the United States Department of
Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, as well as cities
such as Seattle, Kirkland, Redmond, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego,
Boulder and Chicago. The Complete Streets concept is also supported by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers, American Planning Association, United
States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Public Health
Association and many other transportation, planning and public health
professionals.
I. The City Council-adopted Strategic Plan includes a vision of a
safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse
urban centers. Safety and connectivity can only be achieved if all users’
needs are taken into account during planning and implementation of
roadway projects.
42
3 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
J. The Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan for
the City of Kent both contain policies and goals supportive of Complete
Streets concepts, including policies to promote walking and bicycling,
policies regarding level of service for pedestrians, bicycles and transit,
policies to provide non-motorized facilities and many more.
K. Planning staff introduced Complete Streets at a regularly
scheduled Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) workshop on May 23,
2016, and received authorization from the LUPB to draft the policy and
ordinance.
L. The City determined that due to the procedural nature of this
amendment (which includes no development regulations), neither
notification to the State nor State Environmental Policy Act review are
required.
M. Planning staff presented the draft ordinance and policy to the
LUPB at a public hearing on June 13, 2016. The LUPB moved to
recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance and policy as
presented by staff.
N. The Economic and Community Development Committee, at a
regularly scheduled meeting on July 11, 2016, moved to adopt the
ordinance and policy as recommended by the LUPB.
O. The full City Council, at a regularly scheduled meeting on July
19, 2016, adopted the ordinance and policy as presented by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
43
4 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – New Chapter. Title 6 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new chapter 6.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 6.14.010. Vision
The City endorses the concept of Complete Streets, which promotes
roadways that are safe, convenient and attractive for all users regardless
of age and ability, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight
haulers and motor vehicle drivers. The vision of complete streets is a
community in which all residents and visitors can safely and efficiently use
the public right-of-way to meet their transportation needs regardless of
their preferred mode of travel.
Sec. 6.14.015. Policy
The City will plan for, design, construct, operate and maintain an
appropriate and integrated transportation system that will meet the needs
of pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, transit riders, freight haulers,
motorists, emergency responders and residents of all ages and abilities.
Transportation system facilities that support the concept of Complete
Streets include, but are not limited to pavement markings and signs, street
and sidewalk lighting, sidewalk and pedestrian safety improvements,
Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI compliance, transit
accommodations, bicycle accommodations including signage and markings
and, as appropriate, streetscapes that appeal to and promote all modes of
travel. The system’s design will be consistent with and supportive of local
neighborhoods, recognizing that transportation needs vary and must be
balanced in a flexible, safe and cost-effective manner.
Sec. 6.14.020. Applicability
44
5 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
Those involved in the planning and design of projects within the public
right of way will give consideration to all users and modes of travel from
the start of planning and design work consistent with approved plans.
Transportation system improvements shall be viewed as opportunities to
create safer, more accessible streets for all users. This shall apply to new
construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation. The City may create a
checklist that will assist in considering modes of travel in the planning and
design of transportation system improvements. Installation of ADA-
compatible ramps or other ADA-compliant improvements required for
improved accessibility are exempt from complete streets consideration, as
are ordinary maintenance activities such as mowing, sweeping, spot repair,
joint sealing, pothole filling and installation of raised pavement markers.
Sec. 6.14.110. Plans and Standards
As City plans, guidelines and standards are updated, consideration shall be
given to complete streets concepts to ensure that new regulations and
practices comply with this chapter and the latest in applicable complete
streets research and best practices. Examples of plans and standards
include, but are not limited to the Design and Construction Standards and
the Transportation Master Plan. Resources to be referenced in developing
these standards and plans shall include, but not be limited to the latest
editions of National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban
Street Design Guide and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Sec. 6.14. 200 Exceptions
The Public Works director and the Economic and Community Development
director may jointly determine that there are exceptions to the provisions
for these facilities, in the following circumstances:
a. The project would require the accommodation of street uses
prohibited by law;
45
6 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
b. The accommodation of a specific use is expected to have adverse
impacts on environmental resources such as streams, wetland
floodplains or on historic structures or sites, above and beyond
the impacts of currently existing infrastructure;
c. Topographic challenges make accommodation of a specific use
infeasible.
d. Their establishment would be contrary to public safety;
e. The cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or
probable future use;
f. Their inclusion in a small project would create a very short
section of improvements with problematic transitions on either
end or unlikely similar improvements at either end.
Where the above exceptions allow Complete Streets facilities to be omitted
from a roadway project, the City shall consider whether bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit users and persons of all abilities can be accommodated
by nearby facilities, and strive to provide Complete Streets connections to
those facilities.
Sec. 6.14.240 Intergovernmental Cooperation
The City will cooperate with other transportation agencies including the
Washington State Department of Transportation, King County Metro and
Sound Transit to ensure the principles and practices of complete streets
are embedded within their planning, design, construction and maintenance
activities. The City will specifically cooperate to ensure the transportation
network flows seamlessly between jurisdictions in accordance with local
and regional road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian plans.
46
7 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
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
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 [OR five (5) days
after its publication], as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
47
8 Amend KCC ________ -
Re: ________________
PASSED: day of , 201__.
APPROVED: day of , 201__.
PUBLISHED: day of , 201__.
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)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
48