The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/15/1992 Colty of Kent Cit Councmil Meetin 9 y Agenda CITY OF Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White September 15, 1992 1:v Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 15, 1992 Council Chambers 7: 00 p.m. MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White CALL TO ORDER _ ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Constitution Week B. roclamation - Day of Concern for the Hungry C , Tr 0c Ic t-na h c n - Nca rcid V«. k<- '3 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1993 Community Development Block Grant Program 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Beer Institute Grant for Drinking Driver Task Force - Acceptance D. Pioneer and Kennebeck Street Vacation - Resolution Growth Management Planning Goals - Resolution �3;�15 Urban Growth Areas - Resolution--/ - — ,J G. City of Des Moines Agreement - Sidewalk Construction H. Parkview Townhomes - Bill of Sale I. Fisher Industrial Park - Bill of Sale J. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th (Lindal) Release of Interest in Tract X - King County Short Plat 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Countywide Planning Policies - Resolution B. DeIletion of Vacant Positions - Ordinance C;(�, L.� Y\ t� .r n/ /lft�, r � 5. 18B'IDS None -6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTS 8 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) Proclamation - Constitution Week B) Proclamation - Day of Concern for the Hungry ? ) ✓-� �x , I J \/ I(-ke ( I �_ '(u� �Cl IV.cm� C. Pl - f�: Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15. 1992 Category Public Hearings ell 1. SUBJECT: 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider adoption of the 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as recommended by the City Council's Planning Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, proposed 1993 CDBG Program Summary, proposed 1993 CDBG staff analysis and the Planning Committee minutes of September 1, 1992 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee 3-0 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: �� `1 '1.=' d'l'l;4 }� ;;1 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember LAX" moves, Councilmember K)SZ9 seconds to adopt the 1993 Community Development Block Grant Program including the contingency plan for estimated entitlement change, as recommended by the Planning Committee. DISCUSSION• / n ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2A CITY OF �LL22 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Vl��WHVVI MEMORANDUM September 15, 1992 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LIN BALL, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: 1993 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Attached please find a copy of the proposed 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the city of Kent. The total proposed program is estimated at $279, 509 for expenditure January 1 through December 31, 1993 . The Human Services Commission reviewed the CDBG public (human) service applications and recommends funding the programs listed in the attached proposal. Their recommendation for funding was presented before the Council Planning Committee on September 1, as part of staffs proposed program. The Planning Committee reviewed the proposed 1993 program and recommends approval as presented. A description of each application submitted plus staff rationale for funding is attached for your review. The 1993 CDBG proposed program has changed slightly from the 1992 program. We have increased our program planning and administration funds to $15,793 , the maximum permitted, to pay a portion of the Human Services Manager salary and to fund a temporary intern position. These two positions were funded in 1992 , but only for a portion of the year. As in past years, the majority of CDBG funds are recommended to support the city' s Home Repair Services Program. This program continues to serve low-income, disabled and senior homeowners in Kent by providing needed repairs. The program also guarantees that some of the low-income housing stock in Kent is maintained. The total funds available for the 1993 program is an estimate based on the Federal Entitlement. In order to address potential entitlement changes resulting from the federal budget adoption later this fall, we have included a contingency plan in our proposal. Please note one project has been recommended to receive additional funds if the entitlement increases and another project is recommended to received reduced funding if the entitlement decreases. Our adopted program must be forwarded to King County by October 2 , 1992 . 1993 CDBG Program September 1, 1992 Recommended Action 1. Adopt the 1993 Community Development Block Grant Program, including the contingency plan for estimated entitlement change, as recommended by the Planning Committee. LB/mp:a:93cdbg.cc cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Alice L. Shobe 2 PROPOSED CITY OF KENT 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Total Estimated Capital Funds: $221, 803 Total Estimated Planning & Administration Funds: 15,793 Total Public (Human) Services Funds: 41,913 Total: $279,509 CAPITAL/PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION Capital Recommended Applications Received Amount Reauested Funding Level 1. Archdiocesan Housing Authority: Housing For Homeless Men - Relocation $ 25, 000 $ 25, 000 2 . City of Kent Housing Repair Services Program $ 161, 824 $ 161, 824 3 . City of Kent Planning and Administration $ 15, 793 $ 15,793 4 . Easter Seal Society of Washington: Access Modi- fication Rehabilitation** $ 30, 208 $ 21, 149 5. Pregnancy Aid Shelter Program: Shelter Rehabilitation $ 20, 000 -0- 6. South King Co. Multi- Service Center: Playground for Homeless Children $ 9 , 350 -0- 7 . Vision Special Needs Housing: Acquisition Houses 4 & 5*** $ 20 , 000 $ 13 ,830 Total $ 282 , 175 $237 , 596 * Human Services staff recommendation ** If the City receives an increased entitlement the Easter Seals project shall be increased accordingly. This funding shall be allocated as one- time-only funding. *** If the City receives a decreased entitlement the Vision Special Need Housing shall be decreased accordingly. -Continued next page- Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Page 2 PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES Public (Human Service) Recommended Applications Received Amount Requested Funding Level* 8 . Community Health Centers of King County Kent Clinic $17, 400 i i $17, 400 9 . Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle- King County $ 4 , 665 $4 , 665 10. YWCA of Seattle - King County, Domestic r Violence Housing 3 , 942 '! ' � $19 , 848 Total $46, 007 . `> > $41,913 * Human Services Commission recommendation a:93capit.doc PROPOSED CITY OF KENT 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM STAFF ANALYSIS 1. ARCHDIOCESAN HOUSING AUTHORITY: Housing For Homeless Men - Relocation Costs Program Summary: The proposed project consists of providing relocation funding to the existing tenants of a building purchased to house 10 homeless single men. The existing building is a single family residence currently used for offices. HUD requires that relocation assistance be provided to all tenants occupying the site at the time a purchase and sale agreement is signed. All funding will be used to pay relocation costs of tenants. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. The project addresses a City Council priority for 1991 - 1993 : to house homeless men. Providing shelter for homeless men in South King County was also identified as a priority in the King County Consortium CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) . Staff Recommendation: Fund proposal at full amount requested: $25, 000. Rationale: The project meets all policies and addresses a City Council and CHAS priority. The project will also serve a population which is not served in South King County. The project has also received King County HOF funding which requires a local match because the facility will be located within an incorporated city. This project will leverage a significant amount of county, state, and federal funds. 2 . CITY OF KENT HOUSING REPAIR SERVICES PROGRAM Program Summary: The proposed project consists of continuing the City' s Housing Repair Services Program which provides major and minor repairs for needy owner-occupied housing located within the City of Kent. The proposed program has changed slightly from the 1992 program in that the summer painting program has been suspended for one year. The proposed 1993 program will expand emphasis on major and minor repairs. Staff has not received any new painting requests for single-story homes owned by low-income Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 2 residents. The program may be reinstated in 1994 if there are increased requests. Funds will pay salaries, supplies, vehicle rental, contractor fees, and miscellaneous administrative fees. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. Staff Recommendation: Fund proposal at full amount requested: $161, 824 . Rationale: The City should continue its commitment to the Housing Repair Services Program which has operated in the City since 1975. The program serves 100% low and moderate income Kent residents. Most of the clients served are seniors or disabled; the program helps these people remain in their homes. This program continues to maintain the low-income housing stock in Kent. 3. CITY OF KENT PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION Program Summary: The proposed funds will pay a portion of the Housing and Human Service Manager' s salary and fund a temporary part-time intern. Funds will also be used for general program administration costs such as supplies, communications, and travel & training, which support Kent' s CDBG program. Funds may also be used to purchase a TDD phone for the deaf. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. Staff recommendation: Fund at full amount requested: $15, 793 . Rationale: A portion of the Housing & Human Services Manager position is currently funded with CDBG Planning & Administration funds. There is no general funding available to cover the portion of this position devoted to administering the CDBG program. An intern will provide additional project staff in a cost effective manner. Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 3 4. EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON: Access Modification Rehabilitation Program Summary• The proposed project includes access modifications to allow for handicapped accessibility in Kent homes. Specifically, access ramps, roll-in showers, grab bars, curb cuts, widening interior doors, wall hung sinks, and raised toilets are proposed. Funds will also pay for a portion of the Project Manager' s Salary and administrative costs. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. Staff Recommendation: Fund a portion of proposal at a level of $21, 149 . This recommendation should be specified as one-time-only funding. Specify that these funds will be used for rental housing only in the City of Kent. If the City' s CDBG entitlement is increased this proposal shall be increased accordingly. Rationale: This project will serve disabled residents of Kent residing in rental units. This population can not be served through the City' s Housing Repair Services Program since the City's Program only serves owner-cccupied units. The project specifically addresses a City of Kent local program priority which is to provide access modification for disabled persons. A significant amount of the housing stock in Kent is rental occupied; therefore CDBG funds will reach a larger number of disabled Kent residents. 5. PREGNANCY AID SHELTER PROGRAM: Shelter Rehabilitation Program Summary: Rehabilitation of one apartment unit used to shelter homeless pregnant women and rehabilitation of one office used by the agency to administer the program. Rehabilitation includes window replacement, replacing electrical fixtures, replacing floor coverings etc. Funds would pay for the repairs listed above. Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 4 Local and Consortium Policies & Priorities: Policy A. 6 of the King County Consortium policies requires that "no qualified disabled person is denied the opportunity to participate or benefit from any service because of his or her disability. " The building occupied by Pregnancy Aid is not handicapped accessible and their proposal does not include modifications to make it so. Pregnancy Aid has stated that they will meet disabled clients at alternative locations and will provide motel vouchers when possible. It appears from their limited budget that it may be difficult for the agency to house a disabled person in a motel for a time equal to that provided an able bodied person in their shelter. Policy A. 4 . requires that housing rehabilitated with federal funds remains in "public-interest" for a period of 20 years. Pregnancy Aid currently rents the apartment from a private individual. This individual has agreed to maintain the building as low-income housing for 7 years (in compliance with previous regulations) . A 20 year commitment has not been obtained from the property owner at this time, however it appears that the owner may be willing to agree to this increased time commitment. Staff Recommendation: No funding. Rationale: Pregnancy Aid is an all volunteer staff organization, lacking prior experience with construction projects which involve federal funding. Construction contracts using federal funding require a significant amount of expertise in dealing with federal wage rates and contract compliance requirements. This project also includes a unique proposal because the housing is rented; not owned by the non- profit. This proposal requests almost 100% of the rehabilitation funding in the form of a public grant. It may be difficult to establish and monitor "public benefit" of funds in this proposal. The City has consistently funded rehabilitation only in facilities owned by non-profit organizations. This facility is owned by a private for-profit owner. The City has never awarded a grant for rehabilitation of property owned by a private landlord. Staff is also concerned with the difficulty in complying with handicap accessibility requirements. Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 5 6. SOUTH RING COUNTY MULTI-SERVICE CENTER -- Playground for Homeless Children Program Summary: SKCMSC requests funding to add a playground outside their transitional housing facility in Kent. Included in the proposal is landscaping and fencing. Funds would pay for the fencing, landscaping, playground equipment & installation. Local & Consortium Policies & Priorities: The proposed project addresses all Consortium Policies. The proposal does not specifically address Local priorities because the priorities stress preservation or expansion of low-income housing. This proposal is enhancement to existing low-income housing. Staff Recommendation: No funding. Rationale: This housing facility has been funded three times by the City of Kent for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Phase III was intended to be completed by December, 1992 . This phase has not been started yet. In past years, the City of Kent has given lower priority to capital projects funded in the previous year. King County classifies this type of proposal as a "one-time-only" equipment request. This agency has requested funding from the "one-time-only" project fund established by King County. The City of Kent contributed a portion of its total entitlement to the County' s one-time-only project fund for dispersement. If this project were funded by the City it would in essence, receive double funding from the City. 7. VISION SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING -- Acquisition of Houses 4 & 5 Program Summary: Purchase 21 4 bedroom homes in South King County in order to house 10 individuals recovering from substance abuse. Funds would pay a portion of acquisition costs. Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 6 Local & Consortium Policies & Priorities: The proposed project complies with all Local & Consortium policies & priorities. Staff Recommendation: Fund proposals at full amount requested: $13 , 830. If the City receives a decreased entitlement this proposal shall be decreased accordingly. Rationale: This is a new agency that has just begun operating small homes for recovering substance abusers. They have recently opened three homes and are looking to open two more homes. The proposed project will house individuals recovering from substance abuse. This special population is currently under served in Kent. The proposal is consistent with the King County Consortium CHAS. The applicant is also requesting King County HOF funds in the fall. If HOF funds are granted a local match will be required. e. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS OF RING COUNTY -- Kent Clinic Program Summary Provide 2 , 800 unduplicated Kent residents with 7 , 000 primary health care visits. Local & Consortium Policies & Priorities: The proposed project complies with all Local & Consortium policies & priorities. Human Service Commission Recommendation: Fund the proposal at a level of $17 , 400. Rationale: Increased funding is proposed over the previous year because of the agency' s "at risk" status. The Health Centers are not able to keep pace with salaries for medical staff in the area; therefore they have vacancies which are difficult to fill. 9 . EMERGENCY FEEDING PROGRAM OF SEATTLE-KING COUNTY Program Summary Provide 996 unduplicated individuals with 1, 680 infant meals and 9, 192 adult meals. These meals are provided in food boxes and are nutritionally balanced. Special meal boxes are prepared for individuals with specific health concerns such as high blood pressure. Proposed 1993 CDBG Program Staff Analysis Page 7 Local & Consortium Policies & Priorities: The proposed project complies with all Local & Consortium policies & priorities. Human Service Commission Recommendation: Fund proposal at level of $4, 665. Rationale: 1) The agency provides nutritionally balanced meals to individuals and families in crisis. 2) Increased funding from the 1992 level will allow this agency to provide liquid diets for HIV infected individuals. 10. YWCA OF SEATTLE - RING COUNTY --Domestic Violence Housing Program Program Summary Provide 80 unduplicated victims of domestic violence with 1,920 bednights of shelter. Local & Consortium Policies & Priorities: The proposed project complies with all Local & Consortium policies & priorities. Human Service Commission Recommendation: Fund the proposal at $19, 848 . Rationale: The YWCA has received CDBG funding for several years for emergency housing. They requested that their funds be transferred to their new domestic violence transitional housing project. More than 80 percent of the women currently served by the emergency housing program are victims of domestic violence. This program is the only transitional housing program for victims of domestic violence in South King County. LB:a:93CDBGpro.an1 CITY OF 7-0?�� CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11 1992 4 : 00 PM dFiS4¢cC^S5� COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Norm Angelo Jim Bennett Mary Berg Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker Judy Woods, Council President Laurie Evezich Bob nson Tony McCarthy PLANNING STAFF GUESTS Lin Ball Steve Burpie Sharon Clamp Paul Morford Jim Harris Jean Parietti Margaret Porter Raul Ramos Fred Satterstrom Barb Simpson GROWTH MANAGEMENT 'UPDATE - F. SATTERSTROM I Plann g Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that a public hearing on the etification of the countywide planning policies will take place at night's City Council meeting. The Planning Commission's recommenda%on on the growth m�aement planning goals will also be discussed at�tonightIs Council meeting. Their recommendation includes designating Kent,,as an urban center. The Planning Commis kon' s recommendation on the wetlands ordinance will be presentec�/�o e Council the first meeting of October. Chair Orr requ sted the Council receive information on this ordinance at east one wee in advance of the Council meeting in order to have adequate time for review and questions. Mt rstrom also stated that" is likely that the Council will r. Sa be p sented with a citizen's��lternative to the Planning Co ssionIs wetlands recommendation: The Planning Commission did nhave an opportunity to review or consider this alternative. ` 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - (L. BALL Human Services Manager Lin Ball explained that the Council has taken action to- receive the Block Grant pass thru funds, set aside the amount for human services, and set aside funds for planning and administration of the program. Ms. Ball stated that the program for 1993 is $279,509 , an increase of approximately $30, 000 over 1992 , and noted that this is an estimate from the County based on CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11 1992 PAGE 2 the Federal entitlement. Ms. Ball noted two changes from the 1992 program: (1) There will be an increase in the funds for, Planning and Administration due to the establishment of the Office of Housing and. Human Services. This is to pay a portion of the Manager' s salary and provide for a temporary intern. (2) During 1992 , the City's Housing Repair Services Program will place more emphasis on the major and minor repair backlog, and the painting program will be placed on hold for one year. Ms. Ball presented the Committee with two options and explained the reason for looking at two options is that on Thursday, September 3 , the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) will be considering approving an increase in the amount that can be allocated to public (human) services. In anticipation of approval by the JPC, the Human Services Commission, at their August 27 meeting, reviewed the Block Grant public services applications and made recommendations on how to allocate the additional $6, 170. These recommendations are included in Option A which distributes the $6, 170 among the public services applications and decreased one capital project by the same amount. Option B is the proposed 1993 program if the JPC does not approve the increase. The full City Council needs .to adopt the 1993 program at its September 15 meeting, as the adopted program must be forwarded to King County by October 2 . Councilmember Bennett MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve both options of the Proposed 1993 CDBG Program so that the appropriate option which reflects the JPC' s decision can be forwarded to the City Council for adoption on September 15 . In response to Councilmember Bennett' s question about Vision Special Needs Housing funding, Ms. Ball explained that capital money typically goes for one time only projects while human services dollars fund ongoing services. She explained that capital dollars are used to help new programs get started. Motion carried. LAW & JUSTICE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GAL ADVOCATE - L. BALL i This ite was removed from-'-the agenda. PERMIT PROCESS REPORT - (J. HARRIS) Planning Direct Harris presented an overview of the Planning Department' s perms process. He explained that the department consists of Adminis ration, the office of Housing and Human Services, and the Planning Services Division. The Planning Services Division consists of two sections; long range planning and permit processing. Mr. Harris explained that the permit section 2randles the following: Yy CONSENT CALENDAR V3 . City Council Action: Councilmember LI )CL moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A thr-7o-ugh K be a proved. -� ' Discussion Action p, 1A,4 O K � IA. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 1, 1992 . J3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 15, (� 1992 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on September 15, 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agen a Item No. 3 -B Kent, Washington September 1, 1992 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Houser, Johnson, Mann, 'Orr, White and Woods, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Human Resources Director Olson, Parks Director Wilson, Finance Director McCarthy and Information Services Director Spang. City Adminis- trator Chow was not in attendance at the meeting. Approximately 125 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced COMMUNICATION that Glen Hatfield has been selected as the Employee of the Month for September. He noted that Glen works in the Finance Department as a water meter reader, and that he is known for his generosity and positive attitude. Finance Direc- tor McCarthy noted that Glen is the person the whole department calls on when they need extra help, and that Glen has been recognized in the past by citizens for helping them find leaks in their property. He commended him for all of his hard work. The Mayor then presented Hatfield with the Employee of the Month plaque. Geneva Obenchain Day. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation declaring September 1, 1992 as Geneva Obenchain Day in the City of Kent and urged citizens to join in congratulating her for 30 years of service. Finance Director McCarthy stated that Geneva has done a super job in a lot of different areas and strives to make sure customers get the best service possible. McCarthy informed the Council that Geneva is the City' s first 30-year employee and congratulated her for these accomplishments. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR G be approved. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 18 , 1992 . 1 September 1, 1992 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) SANITATION East Hill Shopping Center. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for continuous maintenance and operation of approximately 388 feet of water main improve- ments constructed for the East Hill Shopping Center and waiver of the one year maintenance period and the immediate release of cash and per- formance bonds, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. WATER (BIDS - ITEM 5B) Horseshoe Acres Pump Station. Bid opening was August 13th with two bids received. The low bid was submitted by Omega Contractors for the bid amount of $50, 840. 00 . The Public Works Committee has recommended acceptance of the bid. WHITE MOVED that the bid submitted by Omega Con- tractors in the amount of $50, 840 . 00 for the Horseshoe Acres Pump Station be accepted and the contract awarded. Woods seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5C) Del Webb Pump Station. Bid opening was August 18th with six bids received. The low bid was sub- mitted by R.W. Scott Construction in the amount of $60, 732 . 12 . The Public Works Committee has recom- mended acceptance of the bid. WHITE MOVED that the bid submitted by R.W. Scott Construction in the amount of $60, 732 . 12 for the Del Webb Pump Station be accepted and the contract awarded. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. SEWERS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) Sewer Extension Moratorium Resolution Amendment. This resolution alters the City' s existing mora- torium on the extension of water and/or sewer ser- vice by creating an exemption for governmental agencies, schools and non-profit organizations ; otherwise, it reaffirms the moratorium as origi- nally imposed by Council . 2 _. September 1, 1992 SEWERS Wickstrom noted that a church has requested this action at the Public Works Committee meeting and they also received a request from a new school for the extension of water and sewer. He stated that the Public Works Committee supported both recom- mendations. WHITE MOVED that the Council adopt Resolution No. 1322 , which exempts government agencies, schools and non-profit organizations from the City' s mora- torium on extensions of water and sewer service. Woods seconded. Houser requested a definition of governmental agencies and White stated that it refers to schools. Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that governmental agencies would include municipalities, Counties, Metro, Water Districts and any branch of government recognized under State statute. White clarified for Houser that the Public Works Committee didn't have anything specific in mind when governmental agencies was included in the resolution and that that phrase could be removed. Houser then requested that the term "governmental agencies" be excluded from the resolution and it was agreed upon by the Council . Charlie Kiefer expressed concern about where the extension of the sewer lines would run for the new school . Wickstrom noted that the school has requested this extension for a new site on 108th, south of 274th and that it will be their responsi- bility to determine how the water will get to the site, but that it will follow the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. Upon Kiefer' s inquiry as to whether there would be an alternative to sewer connections, Wickstrom noted that the Pine Tree Elementary School was on a septic system and wanted to expand and the County required them to be connected to a sewer system. Ed Pawlowski stated that the City should be a little more definitive, since this project will cost money and is not wanted in this area. White reiterated that he will continue to support the extension of sewers for schools and non-profit 3 September 1, 1992 SEWERS organizations and noted that Councilmembers do not have the right to block a new school that is badly needed. Johnson pointed out that the school is just like a developer and that they will have to turn in a plan as to where the line will be placed. John Kiefer noted that he is not against the school and understands White' s position, but is concerned as to how this project will be paid for and who will be paying for it. Wickstrom clari- fied that the school district would have to extend the sewers at their own cost. He noted that there will not be an LID charge but the school district could come back asking for a late comers charge for any property owner who fronts the sewer and wants to be connected at a later date. Wickstrom explained for Kiefer that the school district would be required to do an environmental impact statement and will have to go through the SEPA process just like developers. White reassured Kiefer that all the City is trying to do is allow the school to connect to water and sewer; it is not trying to impose something on the property owners that they do not want. The motion, as amended, then carried unanimously. (BIDS - ITEM 5A) LID 339 - Hilltop Sanitary Sewers. Bid opening was held August 3rd with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by King Construction in the amount of $73 , 991. 00. The Public Works Committee has recommended that this bid be accepted. WHITE MOVED that the bid submitted by King Construction in the amount of $73 , 991 . 00 for LID 339 be accepted and the contract awarded. Bennett seconded. A man from the audience presented a letter signed by eleven residents of the area which outlined the history of attempts to solve drainage and sewage difficulties over the past 23 months. He noted that residents contend that rainwater runoff has caused irreparable damage, and that corrective matters have been forgotten. He requested that the trunk line be installed by 11/30/92 and asked for a 15-year lien. WOODS MOVED that the letter 4 September 1, 1992 SEWERS be made a part of the record. White seconded and the motion carried. The motion to accept the bid submitted by King Contruction then carried. TRAFFIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G) CONTROL 272nd/277th Corridor. This project was referred at the August 4th Council meeting to the Public Works Committee for a recommendation. During the interim, a workshop was held on August 17th to answer Council questions on this subject. The matter was then discussed at the Public Works Committee meeting on August 26th. After discus- sion, the Public Works Committee voted 2-1 to adopt the Public Works recommendation to proceed with the project and to pursue the establishment and preferred alignment as reflected in the FEIS with the County. WHITE MOVED to proceed with the 272nd/277th Corri- dor Project and pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment with the County. Johnson seconded. Ron Rule, 10624 SE 287th, said he feels that the road is not going where it is needed and will not meet the transportation needs. He noted that the west terminus is not where it should be, and he hopes that the plan takes into account what the County is doing. He expressed appreciation that Benson and Kent-Kangley are being improved, but reiterated that this roadway is heading in the wrong direction. Jan Romero of the Covington area also expressed concern that this road will not relieve enough traffic. She referred to the Final Environmental Impact Statement which states that in the year 2010, the level of service through the intersections will be the same as taking no action. She said that this is not a good way to invest $30, 000, 000. She noted that using that roadway would not be efficient for her, and would increase her car expenses and time commuting. She urged the Council to consider the comments made by citizens because they have worked hard on this and are trying to help make the best decision. She suggested looking for more creative solutions, and voiced concern about the slope of Alternative A which is 11%, as opposed to 8 - 9% for Alternative C. She noted that she has spoken with a trucking 5 September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC company who did not feel an 11% grade would be CONTROL safe in the winter. John Kiefer distributed to Councilmembers a document asking what the project will cost, and noting that the City estimates the cost to be $16-30 million and the County estimates $38-71 million. He pointed out that the City has a revenue shortfall and asked why the citizens of unincorporated King County should also be driven to near bankruptcy. He said he estimates the cost at $71 million with the County going over both railroad tracks to West Hill . He said the LID cost of $9 million is more likely $27 million, and that the City funding would be $37 million rather than $14 million. He said the LID cost could be $750 per capita. Kiefer noted that the City has received a TIB grant for predesign proposal in the amount of $225 , 000 but that the Board has over- obligated funds to projects which may affect the timing for when sufficient funds will be available for construction phase approval . He also noted that in a memo to the Mayor and Council, Public Works Director Wickstrom pointed out that the TIB is not interested in any significant grant increase on the 272nd/277th corridor. Kiefer said that the citizens inside and outside of Kent have concerns and have tried to present them in a professional manner. Ed Pawlowski agreed that the cost to citizens could be as high as $1000 each for a project that is not in the City. He noted that he has studied the EIS and has suggested a Crow Road bypass to help with traffic, as well as building an overpass across Benson at 208th to 132nd. He said the EIS is poorly written, that this project is not a good solution, and that a north/south road is needed. Ron Allen said the public has spoken on this road and thanked the Council for the opportunity to do so. He questioned the legality of the City of Kent to build and condemn property located outside the City' s boundaries. He said if a vote is taken tonight in favor of building the road, there is no choice but to file litigation to decide if Kent truly has this right. He said attorney ' s fees would add to the City ' s budget problem, and urged the Council to consider whether they need another large expenditure, and whether the road will solve traffic concerns or add more traffic to an already congested highway system in the valley, 6 _. September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC financially depriving downtown businesses when CONTROL people bypass the area. Bill Carleton, 10201 SE 270th Place, spoke in opposition to the 11% grade. He read a letter from a neighbor, Bob Whelan, opposing the project and suggesting the money be spent on 'a good community bus service which could absorb much congestion on East Hill and in down- town Kent. Robert Dunakey, 27315 - 114th Avenue SE, said there are a thousand or more residents on East Hill who are in favor of the road. He explained that as an employee of the Kent Fire De- partment for 17 years, he responded in all types of vehicles of different weights and in all road conditions up and down the hill. He suggested making this a toll road and said people will pay to travel down a 5-lane roadway and get off of the Smith Street and James Street hills. He noted that people in support of this project are afraid to come forward or feel it won' t help, and urged the Council to vote yes on this issue tonight. Charlie Kiefer pointed out that all documents such as impact statements must be sent to the Depart- ment of Ecology to be registered, and that the register is available free by mail each week. He pointed out that for the week ending 6/26/92 , which was the date the EIS for this road was issued, it does not show the impact statement. He said he called the Department of Ecology and found that it was sent to the wrong place, and ques- tioned what else about this road can be believed. He noted that permits must still be applied for and opined that the impact statement would cause delays in the permit process, and recommended polishing it up before submitting it. Craig Brown voiced concern about the Council making a decision to proceed based on an Environmental Impact State- ment that has contradictions and is not a complete study. He noted that it does not identify real and long term solutions, encourages single occu- pancy vehicles, and contains contradictions in the traffic flow levels. He urged the Council to re- quest a complete study of the impacts and long term solutions as required by SEPA. Gloria Johnson, 27450 Green River Road, noted that she has been unable to sell her property because the proposed alternative goes through it. She stated that she is not opposed to the project, but would 7 September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC like the Council to make a decision. Steve CONTROL Buryee, representing the business community, said the Chamber has studied transportation problems for many years and supports the need for east/west corridors. He added that this project is only a portion df the solution, but that it is needed. Bob Nelson of the Covington area agreed that the road goes the wrong direction, and that it should go to the northwest. He stated that he had heard that the financing had to be in place and the road built before the public became aware of mass transit options, and asked the Council to consider the motivation for the project. He added that there will soon be the biggest change in transpor- tation planning the Puget Sound has ever seen, and it would be a tragedy for Kent to be stuck with a road that doesn't meet the needs of the regional transportation plan. He suggested using the money in different ways and noted that people will vote for mass transit. Bill Joy, 28183 - 109th Avenue SE, distributed copies of page 70 of the EIS and noted that in the year 2000 there will be 24 intersections at Level E & F with the No-Build and 26 under Alternative A. He added that in 2010 there will be 28 in the No-Build and 29 under Alternative A, noting that traffic conditions will be aggravated with the Build alternative. He pointed out that the text states that in the case of the three Build alternatives, the number of intersections at a low LOS is approximately equal to the number under the No-Build, although the chart states otherwise. He noted that the text also states that the EIS is not responsible for analyzing impacts of land development resulting from the new road, and future development would not only occur along the road, but in areas off the alignment. He then distributed copies of page 9 of the King County Public Works Technical Memo- randum No. 14 and 15 Alignment Development, and noted that Alignment A does not meet King County design standards, horizontal or vertical . He pointed out that if the City built the road, the County would accept the 40 mph design speed, the 800 ' horizontal radius and the 11% grade, but that if the County built the road, the design speed would be 60 mph, the horizontal radius would be between 2000-50001 , the grade would be a maximum 8 September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC of 9% and it would include an overpass over the CONTROL railroad tracks. He suggested allowing the County to build the road, if it is really needed, and noted that whatever the cost, the dollars will come from the taxpayers and will not be available for other` projects. Martin Durkan, Jr. , 22401 Sweeney Road, Maple Valley, noted that approximately 100, 000 people are expected to move into the East Hill/Covington area whether the road is built or not. He noted that the Soos Creek Plan called for the building of the 277th corridor and for the County to con- tinue the corridor all the way to Covington. He said it is a part of the solution to traffic con- gestion in the area. He pointed out that the citizens of the County will have an opportunity to vote on a north/south rapid transit rail system next year, but that people who use the north/south route still need to get to the valley floor, which this corridor would do. He noted that there has been no testimony tonight from Kent residents and noted that Romero, Rule and Kiefer, who are opposed to the project, are all part of the East Hill Environmental Council who doesn't want any growth on the hill. He said development will occur nevertheless and an alternative means for getting off the hill must be provided. Council- member Mann disagreed with Durkan' s comment con- cerning Kent residents testifying, noting that there had been comments from Kent residents . Jude Restis, 12025 SE 284th, reminded the Council that they are elected to represent the citizens of Kent, and that this road lies outside the City. He also noted that the County has a similar, if not better, proposal and requested that they vote against this proposal , and let all residents of King County pay for the road. Dave Heutchy, 10925 SE 287th Street, noted that he had been surprised to see that traffic moved relatively easily up Canyon Drive at 5: 15 p.m. Friday night and that he had a maximum wait of two minutes at the light at 104th. He pointed to 320th in Federal Way as an example of congestion. He said he is not sure an arterial heading south is what is needed, and that funneling traffic from 256th is causing part of the problems. He suggested eliminating the 256th traffic entering at that point and move it back to 9 September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC 108th or 116th, eliminating the second light at CONTROL the intersection. He also asked the Council to consider continuing the present business bypass and making it, as well as Kent-Kangley, one-way. Heutchy opined that people will use the new arterial to head south on SR 167 to the proposed Auburn Mall at SR 167 and Highway 18 . He noted that the Chamber endorses this project, but that if it goes through, Kent merchants will rue the day they supported it. He urged the Council to think twice before approving a large capital expenditure on a road that will likely siphon off revenue to Kent merchants and reduce tax revenue to the City. Rhonda Taylor, 12418 SE 273rd Place, said that at the last Council meeting it was stated that Hebert Research had found that 82% of people polled felt that this project should pro- ceed. She stated that a phone survey was done a year ago by Hebert Research of 400 residents who live south of SE 208th, west of 196th, north of S . 212th and east of SR 167 , and that it included only people who made at least three round trips a week on Kent-Kangley, SE 256th and James . She said the survey found that half of these people did not know about this project, and explained that the question referred to corridors, not just 272/277 . She pointed out that half of the respon- dents feel the time they spend commuting is reasonable and rated the proposed corridor as only somewhat effective. She added that nearly 1/3 indicated they did not know of any benefits of the corridor. She reiterated that most residents of Kent were not polled and that over 1/3 of the pro- posed beneficiaries do not intend to use the road. Bob Keever of Auburn noted that Councilmembers rely heavily on staff briefings, but that some- times the briefings do not give a true picture. He noted that he has read all 570 pages of the EIS and feels the roadway is not the cure some people believe it to be. He cited Canyon Drive as an example, noting that in the year 2000, traffic volumes will be only 15-20% less than the no- action alternative. He also cited examples from the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan. He noted that this was addressed recently in a community forum on growth management and visioning, which pointed out the need to balance 10 September 1, 1992 TRAFFIC growth management with transportation. Keever CONTROL asked the Council to look into this issue and not just rely on staff briefings. WHITE MOVED the previous question. The Mayor explained that that ends debate. Bennett seconded. The motion to end debate carried 5-1 with Mann opposed. (Council- member Houser was out of the room. ) Upon a roll call vote, the motion to proceed with the project and pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment with the County then carried 5-1 with only Mann opposed. Houser stated later in the meeting that since she was out of the room when the vote was taken, she would like to go on record as being in favor of the road. COUNTY-WIDE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) PLANNING County-Wide Planning Policies. The proposed POLICIES County-wide Planning Policies, when ratified through an interlocal agreement, will serve as the framework within which cities in King County will develop their comprehensive plans, pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The policies require rati- fication by 30 percent of the jurisdictions in the County, representing 70 percent of the population, in order to become effective. This public hearing has been scheduled to give the public an opportun- ity to give input on the proposed policies prior to ratification. Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department explained that the Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive plans of cities and counties be consistent, and that this is an attempt to implement that goal . He noted that the King County Growth Management Planning Council de- veloped county-wide planning policies which were adopted by the County Council on 7/6/92 , and pointed out that these policies may not reflect exactly how Kent would like to view all of the policy directions. He said that if Council has concerns on these policies, there is a process wherein the City can influence the amendment of that policy. He noted that within the County-wide Planning Policies there are policies dealing with urban growth areas and planning goals, both of which are separate items on tonight ' s agenda. 11 September 1, 1992 COUNTY-WIDE Satterstrom clarified for White that the first PLANNING step in the process is to ratify the policies, and POLICIES that concerns can be expressed when forwarding the resolution to the County. The Mayof opened the public hearing. Floyd Bacon, 24311 - 35th Avenue South, said he does not see much difference between the City' s and the County ' s plans. He asked whether there is a green belt area and where it is, where building of houses would stop and what type of housing would be built, whether the Council received a petition signed by residents of West Hill in reference to the area adjacent to the National Guard Armory, whether housing be low-cost housing, affordable housing, or apartments, and what will happen to West Hill if the plan goes through. Satterstrom explained that affordable housing is a part of the plan and that all jurisdictions would be required to share the responsibility of achieving a ration- al and equitable distribution of affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents in King County, and that the City would be required to do an inventory of housing and to determine how much of it is low and moder- ate income housing and compare that with other jurisdictions to be sure Kent has its fair share. He noted that the Growth Management Planning Coun- cil has drawn a proposed urban growth area bound- ary, and that it is approximately at the City' s proposed annexation area. He noted that Covington is designated as part of the urban growth area, but that most of the area east of the Big Soos Creek valley is designated greenbelt. Charlie Kiefer stated that he is in support of using the 1989 Federal manual for delineation of wetlands and critical areas policies. He noted that the County hopes all jurisdictions will use the same manual, and asked which manual Kent intends to use. Satterstrom agreed that most jurisdictions who have a sensitive areas ordinance do use the 1989 manual, but that there are some who use the 1987 manual . He explained that the Planning Commission has recently finished deliber- ations on the wetlands ordinance which recommends using the 1987 Federal manual . He pointed out that if the Council is concerned about that, they 12 September 1, 1992 COUNTY-WIDE can forward their concern to the GMPC, but that PLANNING the main objective of the County is that all jur- POLICIES isdictions work towards some kind of wetlands pro- tection. He clarified that this is a separate issue from the policies before the Council now. John Kiefer said it is his belief that the Soos Creek Plan contains a policy which states that the hillside from the City limits of Kent to Auburn Golf Course will all be urban separator, or green- belt. Floyd Bacon urged that more study be done and that the public be made aware of exactly what the King County plan is. He said that if the plan must be ratified tonight, he would be against it. Helen Nylon, Hedges and Roth Engineers, 14450 NE 29th Place, Bellevue, noted that many individuals, neighborhoods, community groups, businesses and associations have expressed grave concern for the process under which these policies were developed. She added that two appeals had been filed as a result of an inadequate SEPA process. She urged the Council to ratify these policies contingent upon the pending results of the supplemental EIS which was called for under King County Council ' s adoption of the policies. Paul Seeley of the Boeing Company, 7735 East Marginal Way, Seattle, also encouraged the Council to ratify the policies with concerns and questions. He pointed out that the process was never intended to take away what cities want for themselves, but to try to find common ground and to set perameters. He added that the funds will most likely come from businesses and citizens, and people need to be aware of what is in the plan and what the conse- quences are. There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to ratify the policies with suggestions for amend- ments or changes to the policies, that those amendments or changes be submitted to the Planning Committee for review and a recommendation which will be brought to full Council on September 15th, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the requisite resolution for the September 15th Council meeting. Johnson seconded. Orr noted that if a decision is not made by October 2nd, the County will have assumed that the City has rati- fied the policies without change. She noted that 13 September 1, 1992 COUNTY-WIDE the comments heard tonight and the letters PLANNING received will be reviewed by the Planning Commit- POLICIES tee on September 15th and a recommendation will be made, and that the item must be brought back to Council the same night for further direction. She noted that the suggestions will be contained in the agenda packet so that the Council can review them. She asked that Councilmembers who have con- cerns or recommendations provide them to the Plan- ning Department this week. White expressed concern that a 30% plurality rati- fies something, and that by not acting to approve, the County assumes approval . Orr' s motion then carried. GROWTH (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) MANAGEMENT Growth Management Planning Goals. This is the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt Kent' s proposed Growth Management Planning Goals, which are based on the planning goals contained in the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Plan- ning Policies. Kevin O 'Neill of the Planning Department noted that the Growth Management Act outlines 13 planning goals which include urban growth, transportation, housing, and critical areas. He explained that the goals have been reviewed by City departments, the Human Services Commission, and the Planning Commission, and that the results of the Community forum were taken into account. He explained that jurisdictions propose themselves to be an urban center or a manufacturing/industrial center, and once that has been decided, it is reviewed by the GMPC who determines whether or not the region feels the local jurisdiction meets the criteria. He noted that the criteria for urban centers is to have 15, 000 jobs and a residential density of approximately 15 units per acre within a 1 1/2 square mile area, and that the manufacturing/ industrial criteria is ' 10, 000 jobs and for land uses to be principally manufacturing and industrial. He noted that local jurisdictions must make a decision by October 1 as to whether or not they wish to propose themselves as either an urban center or a manufacturing/industrial center, 14 "' September 1, 1992 GROWTH and added that the Planning Commission determined MANAGEMENT that the City should propose both designations. ORR MOVED to approve the Planning Commissions rec- ommendation to adopt the Growth Management Plan- ning Goals and to direct the Attorney ' s Office to prepare the necessary resolution to be brought back to the full Council on September 15, 1992 . Johnson seconded and the motion carried. URBAN (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) GROWTH Urban Growth Areas. This is a recommendation of AREAS the Planning Committee to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the Urban Growth Area. There are four alternatives, and the Planning Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the Urban Growth Area to include the Covington area. Kevin O 'Neill of the Planning Department explained that the Growth Management Act requires each county to designate an urban growth area within which urban development will occur over the next 20 years. He noted that the Planning Commission recommendation differs from that of the Planning Committee and staff in that the Planning Commis- sion recommended extending the planning area out to include the Covington area. He explained for White that the intent of the Growth Management Act is that urban areas in the County would either ultimately be annexed to a city or incorporate. He added that this alternative is the most consis- tent with the Soos Creek Plan and with the City' s annexation area policy. ORR MOVED to approve the Planning Committee ' s rec- ommendation to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution and bring it back to the full Council on September 15 , 1992 . Johnson seconded. White asked Orr whether this is based on the annexation policies, and Orr said that although that had something to do with it, they had looked at the cost of providing services and it did not seem practical . Charlie Kiefer commented that the Planning Depart- ment mailed him a copy of the goals. He asked to be notified of when the scoping meeting will be 15 September 1, 1992 URBAN held for the EIS so that he could comment at the GROWTH appropriate time. He also suggested that thought AREAS should be given to where sixty acres can be found for mitigation for the destruction of the Lower Green River Wetland No. 24 , which is where the impoundment reservoir is proposed to be built. Orr' s motion then carried. COMMUNITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) DEVELOPMENT 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) BLOCK GRANT Program. AUTHORIZATION to set September 15, 1992 as the date for a public hearing to consider the 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Pro- gram. RECYCLING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Procurement Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3066 establishing procedures and programs to encourage and increase the procurement of recycled and recyclable products by the City of Kent Departments and contractors, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. SURPLUS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) EQUIPMENT Surplus Equipment. AUTHORIZATION to declare surplus a 1965 Crown Pumper and to call for bids in order to dispose of set apparatus to the highest bidder. Apparatus 708 , a 27 year old Crown pumper is no longer utilized in the Kent Fire Department as a reserve fire engine. The apparatus is surplus to the Kent Fire Department and staff recommends that it be sold to the high- est bidder, with a minimum bid beginning at $25 , 000 by advertising a call for bids. BUDGET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F) City Administrator Ordinance. During the August 18 , 1992 Council meeting, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 3065 deleting the position of City Administrator from the General Fund. If vetoed, this ordinance will be submitted for the record and consideration by Council . The Mayor clarified that this ordinance was vetoed on Friday, August 28th, and that it is on the agenda tonight for a possible veto override. 16 September 1, 1992 BUDGET JOHNSON MOVED to override the Mayor' s veto of Ordinance No. 3065 . White seconded and the motion carried, with Mann and Houser opposed. (OTHER BUSINESS - ADDED ITEM 4F-1) ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BENNETT Chief Administrative Officer Position. BENNETT MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3067 creating a new position entitled "Chief Adminis- trative Officer" , and amending Budget Ordinance No. 3011, removing the position of Assistant City Administrator, and transferring funds for said position. Johnson seconded and the motion car- ried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ADDED ITEM 4F-3) ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE Contingency Fund. WHITE MOVED for the adoption of Resolution No. 1323 relating to the City' s Contin- gency Fund. Johnson seconded. White read the resolution and noted that this is being offered to give the City some direction toward reestablishing the contingency fund. The motion then carried. MAYOR (OTHER BUSINESS - ADDED ITEM 4F-2) ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE Full-Time Mayor Position. WHITE MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3068 relating to the Mayor' s salary and changing the position from part-time to full-time. Woods seconded. White explained that this ordinance will spell out the existing duties of the Mayor and his pay structure; and, it will make the Mayor' s position a full-time position effective January 1, 1994 . He noted that the base salary of the position was left blank for Council debate. Woods inquired as to whether the salary amount should be sent to the Operations Committee. City Attorney Lubovich noted that the salary has to be established by ordinance and recommended that it be included in the ordinance tonight. He noted that the salary can be adjusted at a later date. 17 September 1, 1992 MAYOR White stated that the City ' s salary structure is very high in comparison to other cities the size of Kent. He noted that many government salaries have gotten out of line and at some point a line must be drawn showing that the City cannot go any further. " He also noted that he has been a candi- date for Mayor since long before salaries were discussed and that he will continue to be a candi- date no matter whether the position is full-time or part-time or whether the salary is set at $1. 00 a year. He stated that he doesn't feel comfort- able with the salary being any more than $50, 000 , and added that figure to his motion. Woods said that she is also concerned about the salaries in the City, but that $50, 000 seems minimal . However, she accepted the figure for the sake of discussion. Lubovich pointed out that the salary can always be increased later but that it cannot be decreased. Houser suggested salary suggestions be considered at a later time. White noted that the figure can be changed at any time, and that this would simply be a base salary. Orr suggested that this issue be sent to the new Budget Commit- tee for discussion concerning the amount and come back to the Council at a later date. Mann noted that several months ago when this issue was discussed, concern was expressed from the Legal Department that the possibility of a move of this nature may not be legal because of a contract the voters had when they voted for a Mayor who is part-time. Lubovich clarified that this ordinance establishes the position as full-time effective beginning the next term on January 1, 1994 and his concern was changing the position in the middle of a term. White stated that this ordinance is in partnership with the ordinance offered by Bennett. He said there has been enough controversy and disagree- ments and direction is needed as to where the City of Kent is going. He added that the City needs to address the budget crisis and other City business, and this is not meant to generate additional con- troversy. Houser said that she has seen the need for a full- time Mayor for quite a while but objected 18 September 1, 1992 MAYOR receiving ordinances just prior to voting on them. There was no further discussion and the motion then carried. FIRE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) DEPARTMENT 800 MHz Radio System. A contract was signed with Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc. on December 15 , 1989 for a 800 MHz radio system. The Kent Fire and Police Departments ' recommend the project be accepted based upon the completion of the outstanding items and the letter of agreement to resolve any remaining audio quality problems. Fire Chief Angelo gave a brief summary of this project noting that this was one of the key issues of the bond issue. He noted that Kent Police Officers and Firefighters could not communicate and that a proposal was brought to the Council which included the radio system to improve the rate of communication between the Police and Fire departments during emergencies, and which could be expanded to cooperate with the region in case of a disaster. Angelo noted that the letter of agree- ment refers to the fact that the system is not finished, but through Assistant Chief Kearns ' efforts, Motorola has offered to handle a particu- lar problem at Valley Com regarding audio quality, even though they were not required to do this and the City was not charged for it. He stated that the Police and Fire Departments are doing follow- up training now that the system has been fine- tuned to the point where they can translate the information that is needed for them to get their highest functionality. Angelo noted, however, that in order for both departments to operate, the old system is still currently tied to the new sys- tem but that consideration is being given to selling the system to the Valley Com agencies who would share in the cost of operation and mainte- nance. He noted that the City of Kent has one of the best public safety systems in the Northwest, and mentioned that on September 15th there will be an issue on the ballot referring to Public Safety and 800 trunking radio system as a regional wide system. He stated that it is much bigger and 19 September 1, 1992 FIRE different than the system the City has but that DEPARTMENT the bond issue contemplates integrating that system with the one the City has in place, making it possible to communicate County-wide. He also noted that it is through the efforts of the Valley Com Director, Assistant Chief Kearns and both departments that this system will be developed and have a deep, meaningful impact on regionalization of Public Safety communications. MANN MOVED that the Public Safety 800 MHz radio system be accepted and final payment be processed in accordance with the letter of agreement. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) East Hill Headquarters Fire Station/Training Center. A contract for construction of the East Hill Headquarters Fire Station/Training Center was signed with Marlon Contractors, Inc. on June 14 , 1989 . After a period of time to correct punchlist items, the Fire Department has accepted the project as 100 percent complete. The Fire Depart- ment recommends that the project be accepted and retainage be released subject to written notice of release by lien holders and other state agencies. Also, with the settlement of the last warranty item on the mutually agreed upon list, staff recommends that the one-year initial warranty period be satisfied. This does not, however, negate the multi-year manufacturer' s warranty. Fire Chief Angelo gave a brief summary of this project and thanked John Kist, brother of the Regional Corporation owner, who has worked with the City of Kent since last June to make things happen. He also thanked the Council and staff for their support. Angelo noted that work will con- tinue because of imperfections in these buildings. He noted that the contractor worked very hard to correct the items on the warranty list, and they have reached a mutual agreement. He also noted that the City has corrected some items themselves. He urged the Council to accept the project and the one-year warranty and to authorize the Fire Department to proceed with the paperwork to make sure that all liens are cleared and then release the retainage. 20 September 1, 1992 FIRE MANN MOVED to accept the East Hill Headquarters DEPARTMENT Fire Station/Training Center as complete, author- ize staff to proceed with the process to release retainage and to accept the first-year warranty period as satisfied. White seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) RECREATION Kent Memorial Field #1. AUTHORIZATION to accept resources and funding totaling $5, 000 from the new Kent American Legion Baseball Association to fur- ther develop and improve the Kent Memorial Field #1 for 1) hardball dedication, and 2) establishing park to a level which will support sponsorship of advanced playoffs on the high school and American Legion Regional and State Tournament levels. FINANCE Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through August 31, 1992 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on September 1, 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/15-8/31/92 121722-122215 $1, 167 , 904 . 22 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 9/4/92 01176300-01176743 $ 652 , 880 . 12 REPORTS Upon a question from Aggie Mauritsen regarding the Saturday Market, the Mayor noted that it was not on the agenda for this meeting, but that someone will meet with her after the meeting and explain when it may come up. Public Safety Committee. Mann announced that the Public Safety Committee will meet on Monday, September 21, at 5 : 30 p.m. at the new Police Sta- tion. Police Chief Crawford noted that the newly remodeled station will be dedicated on September 18 at Noon, and everyone is invited. He added that there will be an open house from 12 : 00 to 4 : 00 on Saturday, September 19 . 21 September 1, 1992 REPORTS Administrative Reports. Mayor Kelleher commended the Council for developing an alternate adminis- trative arrangement which he feels is workable. He announced that he is appointing Tony McCarthy as Interim Acting Chief Administrative Officer, as well as 'Chairman of the Executive Committee. He noted that McCarthy will also continue as Finance Director. He directed Human Resources Director Olson to immediately prepare a job description for the newly created position of Chief Administrative Officer and to advertise the position both inside and outside the City. EXECUTIVE At 10: 15 p.m. City Attorney Lubovich requested an SESSION executive session of approximately 10 minutes to discuss potential litigation with respect to the City Administrator. The Mayor noted that he would not be participating in this matter. The meeting reconvened at 10 : 20 and HOUSER MOVED for the payment of $55, 000 cash to Ed Chow, which would include all entitlements under his current contract, any and all accrued vacation rights, and all accrued benefits that he would be entitled to under his contract, in exchange for a complete release from any and all claims, subject to the City' s and Mr. Chow' s attorneys drafting of settlement documents for the same. Orr seconded. The motion carried on a roll call vote, with Bennett and White opposed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting then adjourned. i Brenda Jacobe JMC City Clerk 22 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15 , 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BEER INSTITUTE GRANT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of a $5, 000 grant from the Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund and authorization for the Mayor to sign hold harmless publicity and tax identifica- tion forms. Funds are to be used to supplement costs associated with the annual Game of Life Youth Drug and Alcohol Awareness Conference. The $5, 000 grant is one-half of the amount requested. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo , budget, letter from Beer Institute, hold harmless agreement , publicity agreement, tax ID form, grant application. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety (8/17/92) (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: O YES _ FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended t Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C X MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: BEER INSTITUTE GRANT - FISCAL NOTE Bator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/10/92 at 1701. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A $5, 000 GRANT FROM THE BEER INSTITURE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND. THE GRANT WILL BE USED BY THE DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE TO ASSIST IN FUNDING THE ANNUAL "GAME OF LIFE" YOUTH DRUG AND ALCOHOL AWARENESS CONFERENCE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 1992 . THE TASK FORCE WILL BE HIRING A FORMER EMPLOYEE ON A PART TIME BASIS TO COORDINATE THE CONFERENCE AND WILL BE WORKING WITH THE PARK'S RESOURCE CENTER AT-RISK STAFF FOR CONFERENCE PLANNING. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE $5, 000 GRANT AND ESTABLISHIMENT OF THE BUDGET. THE EXTENTION OF CITY PROGRAMS THROUGH GRANTS IS APPRECIATED AS THE CITY FACES TIGHT FISCAL TIMES. The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force is eligible for a $5, 000 grant from the Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund. Funds are to be used to supplement costs associated with the annual "Game of Life" youth drug and alcohol awareness conference tentatively scheduled for December 92 . The $5, 000 grant is one-half the amount requested. The budget has been adjusted to reflect the actual award. We anticipate working with the Park' s Resource Center At-Risk program for conference planning and staffing. The following is a breakdown of the estimated total conference costs by source: Beer Institute . . . . . . . . . . $ 5, 000 Community Contributions . . . . . 10, 333 Participant Registration . . . . 540 School District Costs (sub salaries) 840 WTSC Mini Grant . . . . . . . . . 500 WTSC Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 105 General Fund (soft match) 1, 325 Task Force General Fund 11025 TOTAL $ 221668 We will need Council authorization to: accept the grant, sign Hold Harmless, Publicity, and Tax Identification Forms, and assign an account number. Thank you. TOTAL BUDGET FOR REQUESTED SECOND CONFERENCE DAY ONLY Item -Grant nt Matching Total Rea-uest Source Wages & Benefits : Administrative� 460 460 Professional (cleric/legal/graphics/acct) 1-,7-30 5 1,730 (substitute sal . @ $70 ea. ) 1,-1.90 1�190 Program Assistant Wages ($15 hr x 10 hr wk x 52 wks) 3;900 , Program Assistant Benefits (@ 28% of sal . ) 1-092- 1,-092- Travel 125 125 Subsistence 100 100 j $ 4 , 992 $ 8-,-59-7 $ 131-589 Goods & Services - i Supplies 80• 80 160 Food 310 31_0 .620 Printing/Graphics 325- 325 - ="- 650 Photocopying 20 20 ry 40 T-Shirts ($5 . 15 ea. x 100) 250 265 Incentives (caps/pencils/packets) 312 312 Conference Materials 275 275 550 Follow-Up Materials 1,, 211 1,, 2-11 7=c 21-422" = - * Honorarium 600 600 Postage 25� 25, _ r— - 50 * Conference Facility -809 800- ,: ** "Vince & Larry" Costume 800 800 ' _; 1, 600 $ 5;-008 $ 3-623 $ 8-7-631- Other Community Contributions (4 yr average) Cash/In-Kind/Goods & Services 8;1-26 , 8 ,-126 .r Registration 540 540 Volunteers/Other Non-Paid Personnel -2 , 4-541 �� 2 , 454 ? Facility 800 800 Materials 1,-164 -;� 1-r164- Incentives 640 640 Presenters 1,90,6 StD 1-7-906 Transportation 103 103 TOTAL $ 170-000 - [ .5 $ 27-953 $ 37-953 Other funding sources will pay for firs[day of honorarium and facility charges. See attached supplemental infonna[ion on"Vince& Larry'costume. o c bigm[b ___��> ■ O BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND July 20, 1992 Ms Nancy Mathews Kent Drinking Driver Task Force 220 Fourth South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms Mathews : I am pleased to inform you that your organization has been approved for funding in the amount of $5, 000 . 00 by the Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund. The Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund was designed to enable local organizations , such as yours, to develop creative and effective programs to fight substance abuse. We believe that the purpose for which your grant was sought is an excellent example of this community effort and involvement, and will assist other communities who seek to implement similar programs . Enclosed please find a "Hold Harmless Agreement, " a "Publicity Agreement, " and a "Tax Identification Form, " all of which must be signed and returned promptly to us before we can issue you a check. If you have any questions pertaining to these agreements, please feel free to contact Molly McGinley for more information. The Beer Institute has recently formed a partnership with the National Organization of Student Assistance Programs and Professionals (NOSAPP) . I have enclosed a brochure describing the activities of NOSAPP and offer this information to you as yet another resource in your efforts to help the youth of your community. We wish you every success in your endeavors . S nc urs, Je y G. Becker Exe utive Director JGB/mm Enclosures 1225 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-2337 ==WW1 . A& 04, two IIIlI IQr1 BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1991, by and between the Beer Institute, a District of Columbia corporation (hereinafter known as "Donor" ) and , a (hereinafter known as "Donee" ) . WHEREAS, Donor desires to donate to Donee funds for use in connection with Donee ' s public service programs on alcohol abuse; and WHEREAS, Donee agrees to accept such funds for use in such programs ; IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Donee shall hold Donor harmless from any liability arising from or relating in any way to any donations made by Donor to Donee . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the date first hereinabove written. DONOR: Witness Gary M. Nateman Senior Vice President and General Counsel DONEE: By: Witness 1225 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-2337 � O � 1 BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND PUBLICITY AGREEMENT In accepting a grant from the Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund, the grant recipient agrees to allow the Fund to use the recipient organizations name in promoting and publicizing the grant and the recipient organization. GRANT RECIPIENT DATE 1225 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-2337 i • o ---r • mass OVE BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND TAX IDENTIFICATION FORM Under current federal income tax law, recipients of certain payments are required to furnish taxpayers identification numbers to payors who are required to report such payments to Internal Revenue Service. This law will impose a penalty for failure to provide a taxpayer identification number unless it can be shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. In addition, effective January 1, 1984, a payor who has not been furnished with a correct taxpayer identification number is compelled to withhold from payments a tax equal to 20% of each payment. To assist us in complying with this requirement, please complete Items 1 and 2 of the information requested below and return this form to us. 1. Name of recipient organization 2. Taxpayer identification number (complete only one) Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number 3. Type of payee receiving payment (please check one) Individual Corporation (Other) Sole Proprietorship Corporation Providing Health Partnership Care & Medical Services Estate Tax-Exempt Organization Trust State or Political Subdivision Foreign U.S. Government/U.S. Agency (Authorized Signature) 1225 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-2337 GRANT APPLICATION BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND JUNE 1, 1992 ORGANIZATION: CONTACT: Name Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Name Nancy Mathews Address 220 Fourth South Program Assistant Kent WA 98032 Phone (206) 859-4011 AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED: $ 10,000 1) PURPOSE OF THE GRANT: The Task Force will hold two (2) one-day substance abuselwellness skills youth conferences for a socioeconomic cross section of junior and senior high students from seventeen Kent secondary schools involving over 200 students. Current program and community funds will cover first day conference costs; second day expenses will be shared by Task Force project budgeted funds and BI grant funding. Each school "team" will consist of a parent, a staff person, and ten students. A combination of inspirational speakers, group discussions, and practical workshops will be presented, with the expectation that the school 'teams" will use the knowledge, skills and materials acquired at the conference to implement prevention activities in their schools. Follow-up projects will have the potential of reaching 44,000 area students and their families. The conference will offer nine workshops, selected by a Youth Conference Planning Committee, and presented by representatives of law enforcement, treatment providers, school staff, and the business and professional community. Each student will select three workshops geared to their interests. As a final exercise, each school 'team" will select an activity to sponsor in their school, and then identify: 1) goals and objectives, 2) project planning strategies, and 3) needs. Attachment 1: Team Planning Questionnaire One-day conferences similar in format, held in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, received tremendous community support. The very success of this youth project, and the identified need to target the "high risk population at an early age, clearly supports the expansion of the program. Attachment ll: Prior Youth Conference Projects and Publicity Beer Institute Community Assistance Funds will be used to hold the second day of workshops. "High risk youth as defined by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986, as amended, will be specifically targeted. The conference participants will be selected by school teachers and counselors. Grant funds will also help provide staff support, materials, and "seed" money for individual school sponsored wellness activities during the remainder of the school year. Attachment lil: Project Goals COMMUNITY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED: The incidents of substance abuse has been overwhelming to the City of Kent. The Kent Police Department has reported an increase of 35% in substance abuse arrests between 1989 and 1990, and a 34% increase in violent crime. Kent's 1990 crime rate was the third highest in King County per 1,000 residents. During the same period, rapid growth of Kent's population, 65% in the past ten years, requiring an average of three new schools each year, has left the city and the school district strapped for resources to combat substance abuse. 66% of Kent's population live in multi-family apartment units, including three low income housing projects, which attract a large number of economic disadvantaged single parent households, as established by recent census data. The district has a particularly high transient population; 80% of the students who start the school year at Kent's East Hill Elementary School have transferred out by year's end. Students, teachers and counselors often express feelings of isolation, as if they are the only people facing today's drug challenges. This conference will bring together the "front line" educators, health care specialist, local government, business and community leaders for a day of team building. As projects are implemented within each school, student participants will have the opportunity to reinforce skills learned at the conference, as well as share that knowledge with peers, family and the community at large. BUDGET: TOTAL BUDGET FOR REQUESTED SECOND CONFERENCE DAY ONLY Grant Matching Total Item Request Source $ Wages & Benefits: Administrative 460 460 Professional 1, 730 1,730 (cleric/legal/graphics/acct) 11190 1, 190 (substitute sal. @ $70 ea. ) Program Assistant Wages ($15 hr x 10 hr wk x 52 wks) 3 , 900 3 , 900 7, 800 Program Assistant Benefits 1, 092 2 , 184 (@ 28% of sal. ) 1, 092 1 125 Travel Subsistence 100 100 $ 4 , 992 $ 8 , 597 $ 13 , 589 Goods & Services Supplies 80 80 160 Food 310 310 620 Printing/Graphics 325 325 650 Photocopying 20 20 40 T-Shirts ($5. 15 ea. x 100) 250 265 515 Incentives (caps/pencils/packets) 312 312 624 Conference Materials 275 275 550 Follow-Up Materials 1, 211 1, 211 21422 * Honorarium 600 600 Postage 25 25 850 * Conference Facility 800 ** "Vince & Larry" Costume 800 800 1, 600 $ 5 , 008 $ 3 , 623 $ 8 , 631 Other Community Contributions (4 yr average) Cash/In-Kind/Goods & Services 81126 8 , 126 Registration 540 540 Volunteers/Other Non-Paid Personnel 2 , 454 21454 Facility 800 800 Materials 11164 11164 Incentives 640 640 Presenters 11906 11906 Transportation 103 103 $ $ 15, 733 $ 15, 733 TOTAL $ 10,000 $ 272953 $ 37,953 Other funding sources will pay for first day of honorarium and facility charges. See attached supplemental information on"Vince&Larry'costume. bigmtb 2) HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND? Ford W. Kiene, Manager of City Beverages, Inc., Kent, Washington, is a Steering Committee member of the applicant organization. The fund was brought to our attention through a communique from Joe Castellano, Consumer Awareness and Education Department, Anheuser-Busch Companies. Since 1983, when Mr. Kiene was appointed the first volunteer Chair of the 50 member Kent Drinking Driver Task Force, he has been instrumental in the development of a program that is well respected locally for its awareness and education programs which focus on abuse prevention. 3) WHAT IS YOUR ORGANIZATION'S OBJECTIVE: Attachment IV: Task Force Mission Statement 4) HOW LONG HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION BEEN iN EXISTENCE? The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force was formed in May 1983 to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving. Established by City Ordinance, the volunteer members are appointed by the Mayor and Chaired by Councilmember Christi Houser. Under the direction of the Police Chief, the Task Force emphasis has evolved to include alcohol and other drug abuse prevention program areas that are more comprehensive and on-going in nature. A Steering Committee coordinates Task Force prevention and education activities with those provided by local schools, churches, service organizations and city programs such as crime prevention and D.A.R.E. 5) PLEASE DESCRIBE CURRENT PROGRAMS/PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY YOUR ORGANIZATION. Attachment V. 1991 Program Executive Summary i 6) PLEASE UST ANYAWARDS OR RECOGNITION YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED FOR iTS WORK. 1992 Sgt. Brian Jones of the Kent Police Department received a Washington Traffic Safety Commission Award for Excellence in Traffic Safety. Sergeant Jones has served on the Task Force Enforcement Committee since 1984. 1992 Lynda R. Anderson, as Task Force Coordinator, made a presentation on community traffic safety programs at the State of Massachusetts DOT Conference. 1991 Three federal officials, including Fred Grubbe, Deputy Assistant of NHTSA, in Washington DC visited the Kent Task Force for a firsthand look at a community-based program promoting highway safety. 1990 Kent Task Force featured in National League of Cities publication, Local Officials Guide to Community Traffic Safety Programs. 1989 Winner in the United States Conference of Mayors - 1989 Prevention of Impaired Driving Award. 1988 The National Commission Against Drunk Driving education award presented to the 16 community DWI task forces in Washington State, including the Kent Task Force. 1988 The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force was featured in the U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA publication: Community Traffic Safety Programs. 1987 Recipient of both the 1987 regional and state Community Recognition Awards from the Washington Association of School Administrators. 1985 Recipient of the Award for Excellence in Traffic Safety from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. 7) COMMUNITY REFERENCES: Attachment IV: Letters of Support Please refer to Attachment It: Prior Youth Conference Programs and Publicity for specific examples of youth conference publicity. 8) ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL BUDGET: 9) FUNDING SOURCE PERCENTAGES: Year City of Kent WTSC Grant * Donations % Annual Budget 1990: $ 82,415 53% $ 42,486 28% $ 29,460 19% $ 154,361 1991: 67,187 42% 51,428 32% 41,617 26% 160,232 ** 1992: 79,029 47% 30,460 29% 39,480 24% 167,029 Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant is on a July to July calendar. 1992 figure represents 1991/92 unspent fund balance as of 1/1/92 and anticipated grant. " Estimated Actual. Attachment V. Anticipated Funding - State of Washington 10) ORGANIZATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Attachment VIII: Steering Committee Membership iI 11) TIMETABLE FOR GRANT PROJECT: The Youth Conference will be held over a two day period in early December 1992. Staff assistance with individual school follow-up activities will be spread over the remainder of the 1992193 school year, including graduation activities and special summer events for youth. I I I i 12) ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES: City of Kent Kent School District WTSC Grant Cypress Inn Participant Fees ($5 ea) Business Sponsorships *** Incentives,materials,supplies,volunteer time,professional presentations,transportation Attachment VI: Verification of Non-Profit Status The City of Kent, Washington is a municipal corporation and exempt from tax as defined under Title 26 IRC 501 (c) (1). Brenda Jacober, City Clerk 13) COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROJECT: Attachment VII: 1991 Youth Conference Sponsors & Supporters 1991 Youth Conference Planning Team Members (It is anticipated that the 1989 through 1991 Youth Conference sponsors and program participants will continue to be involved.) bigmn[ ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Team Planning Questionnaire. Attachment ll: Prior Youth Conference Programs and Publicity Attachment Ili: Project Goals Attachment IV: Task Force Mission Statement Attachment V: 1991 Program Executive Summary Attachment VI: Letters of Support Attachment VII: Anticipated Funding - State of Washington Attachment VIII: Steering Committee Membership Attachment IX: Verification of Non-Profit Status i Attachment X: 1991 Youth Conference Sponsors and Supporters Supplemental Information: "Vince and Larry" Costumes Supplemental Information: "Vince and Larry" Costumes V Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15. 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION - PIONEER AND KENNEBECK STREETS 2 , SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution setting October 20 as the date for a public hearing on a request by Kent Junior High to vacate portions of Pioneer and Kennebeck Streets to facilitate the construction of a new parking lot. Although the Public Works Committee approved a hearing date of October 6, the Planning Director has requested that it be held on October 20. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, street vacation request, vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO !\ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D x PUBLIC WORKS CONMYrEE SEPTEMBER 29 1992 PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in ' front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs . Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this . The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the interlocal agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Bill of Sale - Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S . 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of portions of Pioneer and Kennebeck Streets, as petitioned for by Kent School District No. 415, owners of property abutting upon said streets sought to be vacated, and setting the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for October 20, 1992 . WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed by Kent School District No. 415, owners of property abutting portions of Pioneer and Kennebeck Streets, to vacate said portions situated next to Kent Junior High School to connect newly purchased property by petitioners to the existing Kent Junior High School site and to use the vacated right-of-way for parking facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition (attached hereto with related documents as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference) shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7 : 00 p.m. , Tuesday, October 20, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032 . Section 2 . The City Clerk shall give proper notice of hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3 . The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection or other information from the Public Works Department and other appropriate departments and shall transmit information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 20, 1992 . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1992 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1992 • (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK strvac.res 2 BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC: . '"Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" CITY Of KENT— / - AUG 2 4 1992 EPIGINEFRING DEPT. August 18, 1992 Mr. Jerry McCaughan 220 Fourth Avenue South r 'r Kent, WA 98032 L).j{ '-� � ' RE: Vacation Application for Pioneer Street and Kennebeck Street for the New Kent Junior High Parking Facility Our Job No. 4479 Dear Jerry: I am enclosing the following documents concerning the proposed vacation of a portion of Pioneer Street and Kennebeck Street for the new Kent Junior High School parking lot facility which is scheduled to be under construction sometime early this fall: 1. A completed and signed street vacation application and petition. This application has been signed by the School District which has a 60 percent fee ownership interest in the abutting properties, which includes Lots 1 through 7 along the west half of the site. The City has a 14 percent ownership abutting Kennebeck Street. All other property owners have a 26 percent ownership interest (none of which have signed the petition). We understand that the City can proceed forward with the vacation with only 66 percent of the adjacent owners approval. Since the City appears to be in favor of the vacation, a total of 74 percent of the adjacent property owners support the vacation. 2. Exhibit "A" is the attached legal description for the entire property which includes a portion of Kennebeck Street and Pioneer Street to be vacated. 3. Exhibit "B" is the signature blocks, addresses and tax lot and block numbers for the adjacent and abutting property owners to the vacated out-of-way. 4. An exhibit showing the physical location of the portions of Kennebeck Street and Pioneer Street to be vacated. 5. Copies of the latest title reports from Lots 1 through 11 (the adjacent properties relative to the rights-of-way to be vacated). Please process this vacation petition at your earliest convenience. In accordance with our meeting last week, the legal description which combines all of the area of Kennebeck Street and Pioneer Street together will be acceptable to the City. Therefore, separate legal descriptions for the separate rights-of-way are not required. EXHIBIT A . . Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South•Kent,Washington 98032• (206) 251-6222 • Fax (206) 251-8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite#103• North Highlands, California 95660•(916) 348-3057• Fax (916) 348-0953 L _2_ August 18, 1992 Mr. Jerry McCaughan If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to call. As you know, we are in the process of finalizing our engineering design plans with the engineering department, and we will be glad to provide any assistance to your department, if necessary, in order to expedite this petition as much as possible. merely, ana B. Mower, P.E. Vice President DBM/ps 4479C.009 cc: Mr. Jerry Winkle, Kent School District Mr. Glen Anderson, Kent School District Mr. Fred Long, Kent School District Mr. Bill Ruth, W.E. Ruth Real Estate, Inc. Mr. Doug Conyers, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. EXHIBIT.4�. MAIL TO: APPLICANT: • Ga•rald B. McCaughan Name: Barghausen Consulting Engineers/ CITY OF KENT Dana B. Mower, Vice-President 220 So. 4th Ave, Address: 18215 - 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 9BO32 Kent, WA 98032 PERn u,A16AGEME � RECENED PRO Phone: (206) 251-6222 STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION Dear Mayor and Kent City Councfl : We, the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request that certain Right-of�Way hereby be vacated. (General Location) A portion of Pioneer Street and Kenne ec tree[ (,Next to Kent Jr. High School) Legal Description See Attached Exhibit "A" P,ECEN'ED PROPERLY mAnAGEMENT BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT To connect newly purchased property (by Kent School District) to existing Kent Jr. High School site and to use vacated right-of-way for facility parking. Sufficient proof, copy of deed contract etc, supported by King County Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without these a "CURRENfi" title report shall be required. When Corporations, Partnerships etc. are being sinned for, then proof of individual 's authority to sign for same shall also be submitted. Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description. ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT 9 SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK S PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG See Attached Exhibit "B" f� I � Tax #917960-2035-08 - Irons Group site Tax # 538560-0005 - Kent Jr. Site $150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. Land Value Paid Treasurer' s Receipt No. Deed Accepted Date Trade Accepted Date 5224-33A EXH I B IT .L PROPOSED VACATI-4 OF A PORTION OF PIONEER STREET AND KENNEBECK AVENUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land in the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Section 24; THENCE South 01 ° 15' 23" West, along the East line of said Section 24, a distance of 645.97 feet, to the North line of Pioneer Street as established in McMillin's Addition to Kent, according to the plat recorded in Volume 7 of Plats, page 58, Records of King County, Washington, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING South 01 ° 15' 23" West, along the East line of said Section 24, a distance of 124.42 feet, to the intersection of the Easterly extension of the South tine of Lots 1 through 1 1, Block 20, of Washington Central Improvement Company's First Addition to Kent, according to the plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 97, Records of King County, Washington; THENCE South 891 49' 47" West, along said extension of the South line of Lots 1 through 11, a distance of 33.46 feet, to the Southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 20 of said Washington Central Improvement Company's First Addition; THENCE North 000 42' 00" East, along the East line of said Lot 1 1 and the extension thereof, 95.33 feet, to South line of Pioneer Street as established in said McMillin's Addition to Kent; THENCE North 880 38' 12" West, along said South line of Pioneer Street, 340.07 feet, to the intersection of a Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 1, Block 20 of said Washington Central Improvement Company's First Addition; THENCE North 001 47' 04" East, along said extension, 30.00 feet, to the Nort0ine of Pioneer Street as established in said McMillin's Addition to Kent; THENCE South 880 38' 12" East, along said North line of Pioneer Street, 374.69 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said tract contains 14,455 square feet or 0.332 acres, more or less. Project: Kent Junior High School Parking Lot Expansion July 20, 1992 4479L.001 CWS/ps EXHIHIT.A.- KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 415 RESOLUTION NO. 787 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Kent School District No. 415, that in accordance with WAC 180-29-120, the following district personnel whose certified signatures are noted below, are hereby authorized to sign any and all forms of district authorization(s), as required by Chapter 180-29 WAC. This Resolution No. 787, supersedes and cancels Resolution No. 722, adopted by the Board of Directors on the 12th of September, 1990. AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL: f Superintendent: mes L. Hager, f . Assistant Superintendent 11AI for Business Services: Gerald M. Winkle Administrative Assistant 1� for Finance: I -- — — ------- -� d H. Hia Director of Plant and Facilities: Glen H. Anderson ADOPTED by the Board of Directors at a regular open meeting thereof held the 81h of July, 1992; the following Directors being present and voting therefor. KENT SpkiOOL DISTRICT NO.- 44115 ------------------------ Its Directors A ST: mes L. Hager, Ph.D. Secretary to the Board EXHIBIT .4 �./ T,�sr-, for Air=U. , Filed for Record at Request of. ' Norwest Escrow Company, Inc. AFTER RECORDING MAILTO:NG �L TO g AFTER RECORD . vu,e for gttxrrd� Name Kent trict 41:6ohool Dis flegwst of .. Address 12033 seutheaat 256th FIRST AMER(CAN TITLE -j1 city,State7jp Kent, itA 98031 1.4tJRTHa BL �+ �) SEATTLE �g EnEscrowNumbcr:10855 Statutory Warranty Deed , 8 Williams, each as to their THEGRANTORBetty J. Acheson, Leroy H. Irons, and Barbara J. l imary residence. r&- separate estate, who do r ut,t,>e Property as Pr for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION ti S is hand paid,conveys and warrants to Kent 4chool District 415 the following described real estate,simated m the Coenty of King,State Of Washingson. 0 FEET OF LOT B, BLOCK 20, WASHINGTON CENTRAL INpROVExrST LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 AND THE WEST 1 PAGE 9STREDDIT ON TO GE T, hCCCORDIHZAGTON PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN YOLVHE 3 OF PLATS, VAS TY, TOGETHER WITH AN UNPLATTED STRIP ADJACENT NORTH OF SAID BLOCK AND SOUTH OF EAST PIONEER STREET] EXCEPT THAT PORTIN-OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 5 AS CONVEYED EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 8f AND 2. TO THE CITY OF RENT FOR ALLEY By DEED RECORDED VNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 642305 SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON '[f Q CV Datcd this 10 day of July,1992. By By Barbara J. Wil s the on By / By y') Le I one STATE OF WASHINGTON r (\ COUNTY OF KING 1 I cutify that I know or have satitfaaory nideuca that ed this ins eat and aekno lodged the perso o appeared before me,and said perso4S ackn0wl tha sign it to bt free and voluntary act for the uses and p mentio in trument. Dated: a o 1,2� Pub' for State of W .NG-TON -- rsidmg� TTL MY appomtment expires:022392 W "10 = - OZ/20/1992 _00 Q72300.00 E1E30372 UL?A,1992 EXHIBIT ^' .rjI I01 1 l � c S Q] N I b - - - - - c STATE ST- - - � - - � n 1 , N x 1 l \ I I I � zJJ� 1 A oil . �„ - O rn _ J I0-0000 J l a Is KENNEBECK ST. z csF �a S BarghausetifJ Consulting Engineers Inc.Land Planning, Survey B Engineering Speelaliata E/\}� 1 I ��. .a 18215 72nd Ave Soulh Kent,Wash, 06032 (206) 261-$222 A ..t r Kent City Council Meeting f Date September 15, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution approving and adopting Kent's proposed Growth Management Planning Goals, which are based on the planning goals contained in the Growth Management Act and the County-wide Planning Policies as approved by the City Council on September 1, 1992 . I 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and attachments _'0— ,�,�_ c rl CG C 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (7-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended of Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT N: Councilmember moves, �ouncilmember seconds / r n i DISCUSSION: Ckl ACTION: VI Council Agenda Item No. 3E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding adoption of City of Kent Planning Goals. WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act outlines thirteen planning goals, as outlined in RCW 36.70A. 020, which are to guide the development and adoption of local comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act also requires the adoption and ratification of County-Wide Planning Policies, which are to provide a County-Wide framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be developed (RCW 36.70A. 210) , and which were adopted by the King County Council on July 6, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, in February and March, 1992, the Planning Department coordinated the Kent Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, a public participation effort in which over 400 people participated, and the findings of which are outlined in a report dated June, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent Administration' s Growth Management Work Program outlines the preparation and adoption of local planning goals as a Planning Department work task; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department prepared a draft set of planning goals which were based on the goals outlined in the Growth Management Act, the County-Wide planning policies adopted by the King County Council, and the results of the Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning; and WHEREAS, these draft goals were reviewed by Community Forum participants, and the Planning Department conducted public workshops on August it and August 20, 1992 , to solicit input on the proposed goals; and WHEREAS, the proposed goals were reviewed by the Kent Human Services Commission on July 23 , 1992, and the Commission recommended a set of Human Services Planning Goals to the City Council ; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the Planning Goals on August 10, 1992 , and a public hearing on the goals on August 24, 1992 , and voted to recommend Planning Goals to the City Council, including the designation of Kent as an Urban Center and a Manufacturing/Industrial Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Planning Commission' s recommendation and adopted the Planning Goals on September 1, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, these Planning Goals have been reviewed pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43 .21) , and a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Kent Responsible Official on September 10, 1992 ; NOW THEREFORE, 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The City of Kent Planning Goals, attached hereto marked as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby approved and adopted by the City of Kent City Council. Section 2 . These Planning Goals shall be used by all City Departments as the policy framework for preparation of the City,s Comprehensive Plan as required by the Washington State Growth Management Act. Section 3 . The City of Kent shall designate an Urban Center and a Manufacturing/Industrial Center within its planning 11 area, for review by the King County Growth Management Planning Council pursuant to the County-Wide Planning Policies. Section 4 . These Planning Goals shall be interpreted in light of the vision for Kent which was developed through the Kent Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning. Section 5 . The Planning Goals attached hereto shall be filed with the City Clerk and the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this — of 1992 . 3 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1992 • (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK pgoals.res 4 EXHIBIT A INTRODUCTION Section 2 of ESHB 2929, the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990, outlines planning goals to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for the counties and cities required or choosing to plan under the provisions of the Act. The planning goals discuss such issues as urban growth, environmental protection, transportation, capital facilities, and housing. In addition, the 1991 amendment to the Growth Management Act (HB 1025) required that all counties planning under the provisions of the Act prepare countywide planning policies. These policies must address several issues, including designation of urban growth areas, promotion of "contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development", affordable housing, and policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas. Countywide planning policies were adopted by the King County Council on July 6, 1992, and are now being considered by cities within the County for ratification. This report will outline proposed planning goals for the City of Kent. These proposed local planning goals are based on the state goals in the Growth Management Act, the regional goals outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies, and local priorities as reflected in the City's Growth Management Public Participation Program and existing plans. These local planning goals, once adopted by the City Council, will provide an overall framework for the goals, policies, and objectives which will be developed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the development regulations which will subsequently be adopted to implement the Plan. BACKGROUND A. Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act lists thirteen planning goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The goals address the following issues: -urban growth -reduction of urban sprawl -transportation -housing -economic development -private property rights -permits -natural resource industries -open space and recreation -environmental protection -citizen participation and coordination -public facilities and services 1 City of Kent Planning Goals -historic preservation The goals in their entirety are outlined in Appendix A. These goals have been used as the overall framework for development of the proposed local planning goals contained in this report. Although the goals are fairly general, they do provide policy direction and summarize the intent of the Act. The State Legislature, however, recognized the need for each county to develop planning policies specific to its own needs and priorities. Therefore, during its 1991 session, the Legislature amended the GMA to require that counties prepare countywide planning policies. The intent of these policies, according to the Act, is to establish a framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are development, and to ensure that county and city plans are consistent with one another. B. Countywide Planning Policies Pursuant to the requirements in the 1991 amendments to the Growth Management Act regarding countywide planning policies, the King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) was formed in October, 1991 . The GMPC is a group of fifteen elected officials'from Seattle, King County, and suburban cities which was established to develop countywide planning policies to recommend to the King County Council. The GMPC was also given authority to devise a formula for ratification of the countywide planning policies, and a procedure for amending the policies. In June, the GMPC forwarded its recommended policies to the King County Council. The countywide policies, like the planning goals contained in the Growth Management Act, cover a broad spectrum of issues. These include: -critical areas -the countywide land use pattern -transportation -community character and open space -affordable housing -contiguous and orderly development -siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature -economic development and fiscal impact The County Council adopted the countywide policies on July 6. The Kent City Council is currently considering ratification of the countywide planning policies, as are every other city in King County. If the policies are ratified pursuant to the interlocal 2 City of Kent Planning Goals agreement between King County and its cities, they will become the mandated framework to be used by all cities in the county in developing their comprehensive plans. Therefore, these policies have an extremely important influence on the development of Kent's local planning goals. The framework policies developed by the GMPC and adopted by the County Council are outlined in Appendix B. Copies of the Countywide Planning Policies in their entirety are available at the Kent Planning Department. C. Kent Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey The Growth Management Act requires local communities to involve citizens in the planning process. The Kent City Council decided that the City should undertake an effective type of public participation process for growth management, in an effort to involve as many people as possible. This emphasis led to the adoption by the Council of the Growth Management Community Participation Program which involved two components: the Community Forum and the Visual Preference Survey. The Community Forum consisted of dozens of small group discussions throughout the greater Kent area, led by a facilitator, or "convener", on the subject of growth management. The participants watched a video, held a group discussion, and filled out a questionnaire prepared by the Planning Department. Over 400 people participated in these forums, which were conducted in February, 1992. The second component of the Community Participation Program was the Visual Preference Survey (VPS). VPS participants rate a series of slide images of selected development types, streets, and open spaces on a scale from + 10 to -10. Over 75 people participated in Kent's VPS, which was conducted in March 1992 by A. Nelesson Associates, a New Jersey urban design firm which developed this technique. In many cases, the results of this process corroborated the results of the Community Forum. The information provided through this effort has been used to help formulate the proposed local planning goals contained in this report, and will be utilized in the development of the comprehensive plan. Some of the results of the Community Forum process which were used to develop the proposed planning goals are listed in Appendix C. A report outlining the complete results of the Community Forum and VPS is available for review from the Kent Planning Department. 3 City of Kent Planning Goals D. Human Services Report The proposed Human Services Planning Goals were developed in part from goals outlined in the "Report of the Human Services Study Committee on Human Services Policies", dated August, 1986 E. Public Process The Planning Department prepared an evaluation form for the proposed Planning Goals and mailed the draft goals and the evaluation form to all Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey participants. The Planning Department also held two public forums to solicit further input on the draft goals, and to present some visual concepts of what implementation of these goals might mean for Kent's future growth and development pattern. These forums were held on August 11 and August 20. The input received from the evaluation forms and the forums was taken into consideration when preparing this report. RECOMMENDED GOALS The following goals are outlined by subject matter. The sections for the most part follow the goals outlined in the Growth Management Act. There are some issues, such as human services and urban design, for which the GMA does not outline specific planning goals; however, since these are important issues in Kent, goals relating to these issues have been prepared and included in the report. The following planning goals shall be interpreted in light of the vision for Kent which was developed through the Kent Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, as outlined in the report dated June, 1992. URBAN GROWTH UG-1 A future growth and development pattern shall be encouraged which minimizes urban sprawl. In particular, the conversion of undeveloped land not presently in the City into low-density urban development shall be discouraged. 4 City of Kent Planning Goals UG-2 The City's Urban Growth Area boundary shall be coordinated with King County and surrounding jurisdictions, and will reflect the regional growth vision as expressed in Vision 2020 and the Countywide Planning Policies. The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate at least twenty years of residential, commercial, and industrial growth, and will represent the City's future annexation area. UG-3 Growth shall occur first in areas already served by public infrastructure, particularly roads, water, and sewer systems. UG-4 Areas shall be designated within the city's planning area for medium to high-density development, in order to preserve existing neighborhoods and open space areas and enhance transit opportunities. UG-5 Mixed use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the planning area. UG-6 Kent shall designate an Urban Center area, within which employment, housing, infrastructure, and transit improvements shall be concentrated.' UG-7 Kent shall designate a Manufacturing/Industrial Center, within which manufacturing land uses and employment will be concentrated, and which shall be served by transit. UG-8 The City shall work with citizens to define neighborhoods to foster a strong sense of community. The City and each neighborhood shall cooperatively develop neighborhood plans addressing land use, mobility, parks, and public facilities and services. 'Proposed planning goals UG-6 and UG-7 have been included pursuant to Countywide Planning Policies FW-11 and FW-12 , which outline the designation of Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in King County. These designations would be made by the GMPC. Under the countywide policies, local jurisdictions must propose whether or not they wish to contain an urban or manufacturing/industrial center by October 1, 1992 . 5 City of Kent Planning Goals TRANSPORTATION TR-1 The City shall develop a transportation network which promotes a variety of mobility options, including private automobile, public transit, bicycling, and walking. TR-2 The City shall support development of public transit, including commuter rail. Transit service shall be focussed in designated medium and high- density centers within the City. TR-3 The City shall promote and encourage programs which reduce the number of single occupant vehicles (SOV). TR-4 The City's transportation system shall be coordinated with the State of Washington, METRO, King County, and all surrounding jurisdictions. The City's transportation planning will reflect regional priorities as established in Vision 2020 and the Countywide Planning Policies. HOUSING H-1 Preserve, maintain and improve the City's existing single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods. H-2 Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing neighborhoods. H-3 Encourage an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Assure that opportunities for a diversity of housing is available to all income levels. H-4 Ensure environmental quality in residential areas. H-5 Ensure housing opportunities for persons with special needs, such as senior citizens, the homeless, mentally and developmentally disabled, and low and moderate income persons and families. 6 City of Kent Planning Goals H-6 Encourage residential development in designated medium and high- density commercial and mixed use areas. H-7 Ensure opportunities for affordable housing in close proximity to employment, public transportation, and human services. HUMAN SERVICES HS-1 The City shall maintain and enhance the quality of life for all citizens through the provision and support of effective and accessible human services. HS-2 The City shall incorporate consideration of the social and human development needs of its citizens in all areas of physical planning. HS-3 The City shall continue its commitment to human services by allocating funding, staff, and other resources to address the needs of its residents. HS-4 The City shall ensure the fairest distribution and most effective use of its human services resources, consistent with adopted priorities and criteria. HS-5 The City shall maintain information on current community human service needs and available resources. HS-6 The City shall support the long term stability and viability of the community based human services system. HS-7 The City shall take an active role in regional and sub-regional human services issues and form partnerships to effectively address human service needs. HS-8 The City shall educate the community and promote awareness of human service needs. HS-9 The City shall provide for the full spectrum of human services needs through the support of programs that address emergency needs, preventative services, and life enhancement services. HS-10 The City shall promote and support humans services which are culturally 7 City of Kent Planning Goals relevant and physically accessible to all populations. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ED-1 An adequate supply of land shall be designated for commercial and industrial development to accommodate at least the next 20 years of growth. ED-2 Additional office and retail development shall be encouraged, particularly in designated centers which can be served by transit. ED-3 Public infrastructure, transportation, and transit service enhancements shall be utilized to focus economic development in designated medium and high-density areas. PROPERTY RIGHTS PR-1 Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. PR-2 The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. PR-3 In developing policies, plans and regulations, the City shall minimize impacts on private property rights, when feasible and consistent with the public's interest. PERMITS P-1 The City shall process permit applications in a fair and timely manner, while ensuring that the public's health, safety and welfare are not compromised. P-2 The City shall allocate adequate resources to the permit review process. P-3 The City shall establish and utilize policies and procedures for permit review that will ensure that the review process is consistent and 8 City of Kent Planning Goals predictable. NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES NR-1 The City shall ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land through regulation, acquisition or other methods. NR-2 Lands designated for long-term commercial agricultural use shall not be considered for urban development. NR-3 The City shall discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands. NR-4 The City shall condition development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION OS-1 The City shall preserve and enhance significant open space, including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, areas prone to flooding or geological hazards, and stream corridors. The City shall also preserve and maintain its active and passive recreational areas, cultural resource areas, scenic vistas, and areas which serve as physical or visual buffers. OS-2 The City shall inventory its significant open spaces and develop a comprehensive management plan for those spaces. OS-3 The City shall seek to acquire the most significant open spaces. OS-4 The City shall identify and designate open space corridors that will connect environmentally sensitive areas, viewsheds, or other areas where a contiguous system would provide greater benefit than a series of isolated areas. OS-5 The City shall regularly update its Comprehensive Park Plan for use as a tool in inventorying and planning current and future active and passive recreational open spaces. 9 City of Kent Planning Goals ENVIRONMENT E-1 The City shall protect and enhance the environment, including air.and water quality and the availability of water. E-2 The City shall ensure that its land use and transportation policies protect the City's air and water quality. E-3 The City shall develop and implement a comprehensive water quality plan that will protect and restore stream habitat and water quality. E-4 The City shall participate in regional plans and programs to protect and restore regional air and water quality. E-5 The City shall develop a comprehensive water resources plan that will ensure adequate supplies of water within the next twenty years. PUBLIC FACILITIES PF-1 The provision of public facilities shall be closely coordinated with the City's land use plan. Emphasis for extension and improvement of public facilities will be placed in those areas of the city designated for medium and high-density development. PF-2 Development shall not occur in areas unless there are public facilities and services in place or planned which are adequate to accommodate that development. Level of service standards should be established for public facilities which ensure the adequacy of services while at the same time facilitating the city's land use goals. PF-3 Provision of public facilities shall be phased in 6-10•year increments. The initial phase shall focus on providing and enhancing service to areas which are already urbanized. PF-4 Public facilities planning shall be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts. Within the City's designated annexation area, as time and conditions warrant, the City assume urban services which are presently provided by special districts. m 10 City of Kent Planning Goals URBAN DESIGN UD-1 The City shall develop an urban design strategy which reflects the desired community vision, its environmental and historical setting, and which maintains and enhances the livability, vitality and identity of the community. UD-2 Through development of an urban design strategy, the City shall ensure that the comprehensive plan and regulations and policies implementing the plan reflect the desired visions of the citizens of Kent. UD-3 The urban design strategy shall communicate the desired visions on a citywide as well as a neighborhood scale. UD-4 The City shall utilize visual images to better communicate City goals to the development community and the public. UD-5 The City shall promote citizen awareness of urban design issues. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HP-1 Kent's cultural, physical, and environmental heritage shall be preserved and protected. HP-2 Buildings having historic significance shall be preserved. Enhancement and renovation of historic buildings shall be encouraged. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT CI-1 The City shall provide for public participation in the development and amendment of the comprehensive plan and regulations and policies implementing such plans. 11 City of Kent Planning Goals CONCLUSION Although these proposed goals encompass a wide range of issues, they are designed to be consistent with each other, and together represent a cohesive and comprehensive set of planning goals for the city. City Council adoption of these goals, after a public review process, will provide an overall policy framework for the city's comprehensive plan, will help ensure that elements within the comprehensive plan are consistent with one another, and assure that the city's planning goals are consistent with state and regional priorities. 12 APPENDIX A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT PLANNING GOALS PART I GOALS AND PLANNING NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. PLANNING GOALS. The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required to choose to plan under section 4 of this act. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations: (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services and public facilities. (6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. (7) Permits. Application for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. (9) Open space and recreation. Encourage the retention of open space an development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. (10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. 1 APPENDIX A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT PLANNING GOALS (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. 2 APPENDIX B COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FRAMEWORK POLICIES Environmental Protection All jurisdictions shall protect and enhance the natural ecosystems through comprehensive plans and policies, and develop regulations that reflect natural constraints and protect sensitive features. Land use and development shall be regulated in a manner which respects fish and wildlife habitat in conjunction with natural features and functions, including air and water quality. Natural resources and the built environment shall be managed to protect, improve, and sustain environmental quality while minimizing public and private costs. (FW-3) Puget Sound, floodplains, rivers, streams and other water resources shall be managed for multiple beneficial uses including flood and erosion hazard reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, agriculture, open space, water supply, and hydropower. Use of water resources for one purpose shall, to the fullest extent possible, preserve and promote opportunities for other uses. (FW-4) Land Use Pattern The land use pattern for the County shall protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions based on the Countywide Planning Policies. (FW-5) Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies. (FW-6) All jurisdictions acknowledge that rural areas provide an overall benefit for all residents of King County. Strategies to fund infrastructure and services in rural areas may be needed to support a defined rural level of service. Towns and cities in the rural areas play an important role as local trade and community centers. (FW-7) The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. An Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions based on the Countywide Planning Policies. (FW-8) The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the Urban Growth Area shall be instituted. (FW-9) Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas. Counties are the appropriate providers of most countywide services. Urban services shall not be extended through the use special districts without approval of the appropriate jurisdiction. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume urban services provided by special purpose districts. (FW-10) Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally designated. (FW-11) 1 APPENDIX B COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FRAMEWORK POLICIES Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure a number of locally- designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies [will be locally designated]. (FW-12) Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the centers but within the urban area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, activity areas, business/office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in scale and intensity to support the countywide land use and regional transportation plan. (FW-13) Transportation The use land pattern shall be supported by a balanced transportation system which provides for a variety of mobility options. This system shall be cooperatively planned, financed, and constructed. Mobility options shall include a High Capacity Transit system which links the urban centers and is supported by an extensive High Occupancy Vehicle system, local community bus system for circulation within the centers and to the non-center urban areas, and non-motorized travel options. (FW-14) All jurisdictions in the county, in cooperation with Metro, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the State, shall develop a balanced transportation system and coordinated financing strategies which implement regional mobility and reinforce the countywide vision. Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies shall be recognized as the framework for creating a regional system of Centers linked by High Capacity Transit and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and supported by a transit system. (FW-15) In recognition of the fact that King County is the regional freight hub and a major international trade gateway, and that freight transportation is one of the state's most important basic sector economic activities, goods mobility by all modes shall be included as a component of comprehensive plans. (FW- 16) Infrastructure planning and financing shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide vision and land use plans. (FW-17) Where appropriate, King County and its cities shall adopt a clear definition of level-of-service and concurrency requirements and establish a consistent process for implementing concurrency, including accountability for impacts for adjacent jurisdictions. (FW-18) Each jurisdictions shall identify the facilities needed to ensure that services are provided consistent with the community's adopted service levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified. (FW-19) Community Character and Open Space All jurisdictions shall support the county's existing diversity of places to live, work and recreate and the ethnic diversity of our communities. The countywide development pattern shall include sufficient supply of quality places for housing, employment, education, recreation, and open space and the provision of community and social services. (FW-20) 2 APPENDIX 6 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FRAMEWORK POLICIES Each urban area shall be characterized by superior urban design as locally defined. (FW-21) Significant historic,archaeological, cultural, architectural and environmental features shall be respected and preserved. (FW-22) All jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify, establish, protect and steward urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance. (FW-23) Housing All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a process to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of low-income and affordable housing throughout the county in accordance with land use policies, transportation, and employment locations. All jurisdictions shall provide a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs and incomes. (FW-24) Provision of Urban Services Planning for and financing of services shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide policies. (FW-25) Jurisdictions shall identify the services needed to achieve adopted service levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified. (FW-26) Protection of public health and safety and the environment shall be given high priority in decision- making about infrastructure improvement. County residents in both urban and rural areas shall have reasonable access to a high-quality drinking source meeting all federal and state drinking water requirements. Management and operation of existing on-site septic systems shall not result in adverse impacts to public health of the environment. (FW-27) Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature shall be sited to support the countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs. Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods/jurisdictions in which facilities are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an interjurisdictional process established by the GMPC. (FW-28) Economic Development and Finance All jurisdictions shall contribute to the economic sustainability of the county in a manner which supports the countywide land use pattern. This is to be accomplished by providing cost-efficient quality infrastructure and public services at an adopted level of service specific to the local situation, providing affordable housing, promoting excellence in education, and protecting the environment. (FW- 29) All jurisdictions shall act to increase work training and job opportunities for all residents and communities. (FW-30) 3 APPENDIX B COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FRAMEWORK POLICIES All jurisdictions shall support the development of a regional economic development strategy consistent with the countywide land use pattern. (FW-31) To implement the Countywide Planning Policies, jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify regional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies by July 1, 1993. Such strategies shall consider the infrastructure and service needs of Urban Centers, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, Activity Areas, Business/Office Parks, other activity concentrations, and rural areas. (FW-32) 4 APPENDIX C KENT COMMUNITY FORUM SUMMARY RESULTS Urban Growth 0 58% of respondents stated that they would prefer a growth pattern which allowed medium to high-density development is specific areas which currently have services and restrict development in undeveloped or rural areas (13-2) 0 55% of respondents felt that the City should annex only those unincorporated areas which are either served by City water and sewer or are immediately adjacent to the city limits and are already mostly developed (14-2) 0 74% of respondents felt that future non-residential growth in Kent should target office or retail development (19-2) 0 59% of respondents felt that they would like their home to be either a safe walking distance to their place of employment, or a safe walking distance to public transportation which would take them to their place of employment (42-5) Transportation 0 78% of respondents felt that the most important focus of our transportation resources should be supporting development of proposed rail transit or developing programs and incentives to promote carpools and public transit (26-3) 0 89% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the City should actively pursue increasing the availability of public transit (27-3) 0 52% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the City should plan for high density areas of residential and commercial development to enhance the feasibility of public transit (28-3) 0 58% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the City should actively pursue programs aimed at reducing the number of single-occupant automobiles (30-3) Public Facilities 0 67% of respondents felt that the best way for the City to finance future capital facilities was either to only pay for the capital facilities planned for in the capital improvements budget, regardless of development pressures, or to impose impact fees (34-4) Housing 0 68% of respondents stated that the type of residential development which would be most acceptable in their neighborhood in the future would be single-family housing (17-2) 0 43% of respondents felt that the best way to accommodate future residential growth was primarily single-family housing. 27% of respondents felt the best method was encouraging housing located in mixed use developments (22-2) Natural Resource Industries 0 See comments related to rural lands, under Open Space and Recreation, below 1 APPENDIX C KENT COMMUNITY FORUM SUMMARY RESULTS Open Space and Recreation 0 67% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Kent offers a good selection of recreation, cultural and community events (8) 0 44% of respondents stated that they would be willing to accept growth in their neighborhoods in order to preserve open spaces, including wetlands, rural lands and wildlife habitat (16) 0 53% of respondents felt that Kent had adequate open space (20) 0 58% of respondents stated that development should be restricted in areas which were currently undeveloped in order to preserve their natural or rural character (211 0 53% of the respondents stated that Kent should ensure that outdoor recreation facilities respond to growth by acquiring land for future park development and by developing small neighborhood parks (40) 0 26% of the respondents felt that the most important challenge facing the city is the protection of the environment and preserving open space (44) Environment 0 35% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that "Kent does a good job of protecting the environment." 28% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. 0 1) 0 30% of respondents felt that regional water treatment facilities were the best way to improve water quality, while another 27% felt that requiring development to connect to sewer systems would be best (36) 0 32% of respondents felt that water conservation should be encouraged primarily through conservation devices in new construction (low flow toilets, shower heads, etc.), but another 27% thought that community education about water conservation was the most effective method (37) 0 84% of respondents felt that recycling, either voluntary (with rates which reward waste reduction) or mandatory, was the best way to reduce solid waste (38) 0 28% of respondents thought that air quality improvement was best achieved through the control of auto emissions. Another 20% felt that the planting of street trees was the best method, while yet another 20% voted for increased transit opportunities, even if this required higher density development (39) 0 See also comments related to Open Space and Recreation above 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15, 1992 fV Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: URBAN GROWTH AREAS - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of&,(esolution „ � accepting and adopting Alternative 3 for boundaries of the Urban Growth area as approved by the City Council on September 1, 1992 . (0"ul' P-�L)D�' a< n.% tic LbAt C It 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and attachments 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (7-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCALJPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F X RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding adoption of City of Kent Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary. WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that each county establish an Urban Growth Area, within which urban growth, future annexation, and future incorporations shall occur, as outlined in RCW 36.70A. 110; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act also requires the adoption and ratification of County-Wide Planning Policies, which are to provide a County-Wide framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be developed (RCW 36.70A. 210) , and which were adopted by the King County Council on July 6, 1992,and included an interim urban growth area for King County; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent Administration Growth Management Work Program outlines the designation of an urban growth area as a Planning Department work task; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department prepared four alternatives for an interim urban growth area for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning commission considered these four alternatives in a workshop on May 11, 1992, and a public hearing on June 8 , 1992, and made a recommendation to the City Council ; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation on June 16, August 41 and August 18 , 1992 , and after further consideration made a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Committee on September 11 1992 ; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary, attached hereto marked as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted by the City of Kent City Council. Section 2 . The Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary shall function as the area within which the City shall prepare its Comprehensive Plan as required by the Washington State Growth Management Act. The boundary shall be interim until the Comprehensive Plan is approved by the Kent City Council. Section 3 . The Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary attached hereto shall be filed with the City Clerk and the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection. 2 Passed at a regular meeting ofof the City council of the City of Kent, Washington this 2 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1992 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK uga.res 3 1 i f Mi LLI U \ M F - � III Y - /,, , — L Y I ) 77 ry 9nILLJ� rc SI J -< - � -�� ( � Sri - �xvu n.c�r a I_ 'L -V�m� = n34, 1LLt_ ^1' 1 la 1 � TQ J4 in v A vzuo_u1�. �e5[ A_— n"(N�,•Tjlia, y> r 'I n A f �1YA-i'tl F 'F rr v W IFT�11 Y7 y t t� Cil T o kH W Jai, y - 1 Kent City Council Meeting �! vi Date September 15, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - CITY OF DES MOINES SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign interlocal agreement with City of Des Moines for construction of approximately 330 ' of sidewalk on So. 240th. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director and the proposed agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agen�a Item No. 3G PUBLIC WORKS COMA TTEE SEPTEMBER 211992 PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6 . The Committee unanimously recommended approval . Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs . Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the interlocal agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Bill of Sale - Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S. 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 28, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMM1ITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION As I have mentioned previously, the City of Des Moines has a project to construct sidewalks on the south side of S. 240th Street within their city limits. The project will terminate at the Kent city limits leaving a 300 foot gap between our existing sidewalk and the newly constructed improvement. This agreement will give lead agency status to Des Moines to extend their project to construct that 300 feet of sidewalk to match our existing for which we would reimburse Des Moines . Costs are estimated at about $24 , 000 . Funds have been reserved in the Sidewalk Construction fund. Thus, we would recommend we execute the agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION In accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39 . 34 RCW) the City of Kent, a municipal corporation, and the City of Des Moines, a municipal corporation, agree as follows: FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS This agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts and assumptions: 1. The City of Des Moines has formed a local improvement district for the construction of sidewalks and appurtenances on South 240th Street. 2 . The City of Des Moines sidewalk construction on the south side of South 240th Street will terminate at its easterly point at the city limits of the City of Kent. 3 . The City of Kent finds it to be in the public interest that the planned sidewalk on the south side of South 240th continue in an easterly direction to a point at which the sidewalk ties into existing City of Kent sidewalk. 4 . The City of Kent recognizes that there may be substantial cost savings in the construction of the Kent portion by participating with the City of Des Moines in the bidding process for the city of Des Moines local improvement district. 5 . The City of Des Moines agrees that such sidewalk continuity is in the public interest, and by this instrument the City of Des Moines agrees to cooperate with the City of Kent in the bidding process and to ensure proper sidewalk continuity. AGREEMENT WHEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City of Des Moines agrees to include in bidding documents construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, piped and covered drainage, asphalt matching pavement, and landscaping in accordance with the depiction on Sheet 5 of the Plans for the South 240th/20th Street Local Improvement District Project. An abstract of Sheet 5 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . Construction east of "City of Des Moines City Limits" is considered the City of Kent portion. Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction City of Kent Page 2 of 2 . 2 . The estimated cost of construction of the Kent portion is twenty-four thousand three hundred thirty dollars and fifty-eight cents ($24 , 330 . 58) which is depicted in detail on the document attached hereto as Exhibit "B" . The parties recognize that the figure of twenty-four thousand three hundred thirty dollars and fifty-eight cents is a construction estimate, and may be revised upward or downward depending upon the actual construction costs. 3 . The City of Des Moines will act as agent of the City of Kent for the sole purpose of developing through the bidding process the cost of the City of Kent portion of the sidewalk, and for no other purpose. The Kent portion of the sidewalk shall be included in the contract signed by the City of Des Moines, and the City of Kent shall be a third party beneficiary. 4 . Following award of the construction contract, and prior to signing of the construction contract, ' the City of Des Moines will notify the City of Kent of the cost of the Kent portion. Should such cost be unacceptable to the City of Kent, the City of Des Moines will institute a change order in the construction contract to delete the Kent portion. 5 . As to the Kent portion, the City of Kent will inspect the quality of the work and contractor performance and notify the City of Des Moines in writing of its in a timely manner in order that the acceptance of the work the benefit of such acceptance City of Des Moines may have prior to final disbursement to the contractor. 6 . The City of Des Moines shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City of Kent and its officers, agents, and employees, acting in their official capacity or course of employment, harmless from any and all suits, claims, or liabilities of any kind or nature, including costs and expenses, resulting in whole or in part, from the performance or omission of any employee, agent, or representative of the City of Des Moines under this Agreement, and the City of Kent shall indemnify, defend, and - hold the City of Des Moines and its officers and employees , acting in their official capacity or course of employment, harmless from any and all suits, claims, or liabilities of any kind or nature, including costs and expenses, resulting in whole or in part, from the performance or omission of any employee, agent, or representative of the City of Kent under this Agreement. 7 . This contract, consisting of two pages and Exhibit "A" , represents the entire understanding of the Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction City of Kent Page 3 of 2 . parties. It supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with or modifies terms and conditions . IN WITNESS, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed on the dates written below. CITY QF DES INES CITY OF KENT City Cana er Mayor Da te � � �7Z Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Vty Attor City Attorney C o Des oines City of Kent Date z Date CONTRACT/LID240/92/082 S o CRY CF DES MOI,NES CRY Uu7S • I S11nF 1 ,LLD 1N3N l0 A10 n It v rI : I ' •.N N N III �� 0 o r n Cc " Ln oLn ;s J n o $b z Ln F e Nam. e . - o { z� E �II [ 240th Street/20th Aveune South L.l.D_ -icy of Kent Cost Share of Project .ote, Lu%; Sun Amounts Where Based on 5% of Estimated Total Cost Engineers Estimate tem No Item Ouant ity Unit Unit Cost Amount 1 Mobilization 1 LS 51,575.00 51,575.00 2 surveying And Staking 1 LS $500.00 s500.00 3 Clearing, Grubbing & Roadside Clean 1 LS 5250.00 5250.00 4 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion C 0 LS 50.00 50.00'. 5 Project Signs 0 EA s500.00 50.00 6 Removal of Structures/Obstructions 1 LS 5250.00 5250.00 7 Unclassified Excavation 62 CY $5.00 5310.00 8 Curb & Gutter in Place 349 LF s10.00 53,490.00 9 Concrete sidewalk in Place 168 SY $15.00 52,520.00 10 Driveways in Place 10 SY $20.00 5200.00 11 Sawcutting (Intl Asphalt Disposal) 361 LF $3.00 51,083.00 12 Rockery 240 SF 512.00 $2,880.00 13 Asphalt Patching in place 24 T 560.00 sl,440.00 14 Crushed Rock, Subsurface 63 T 515.00 51,020.00 15 Catch Basin, Type 1 0 EA 51,100.00 50.00 16 Curb Inlet 1 EA 5800.00 5800.00 17 Pipe, 12" A.D.S. 0 LF s25.00 50.00 18 Pipe, 18" A.D.S. 0 LF 535.00 50.00 19 Tie-In Outflow (Sta. 25+50) 0 LS 50.00 50.00 20 Solid Locking Catch Basin Lid 1 EA 5300.00 $300.00 21 Additional Bank Run Fill 0 CY 58.00 50.00 22 Utility Trench 0 LF $20.00 $0.00 23 Sand Slurry 0 CY 515.00 50.00 24 Adjust Utility Covers To Grade 1 LS 5150.00 5150.00 25 Rip Rap OutfaLl 0 CY 510.00 50.00 26 Chain Link Fencing, 4' 0 LF 58.00 $0.00 27 Chain Link Fencing, 6' 200 LF 510.00 52,000.00 28 Striping 341 LF 50.15 551.15 29 Rebuild Concrete Steps 1 LS 5500.00 5500.00 30 mailbox & sign Relocations 1 LS 5100.00 5100.00 31 Topsoil and Seeding 0 CY 512.00 50.00 32 Vertical Curb, 6" 0 LF 56.00 50.00 SUB TOTAL BID PRICE 519,419.15 - 10% Contingency 51,941.92 12% Engineering 52,330.30 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIHATE 523,691.36 Eid]IBIT "B l Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15. 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PARKVIEW TOWNHOMES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works , Comm,_ ittee`acceptance of the bill of sale and a war ! greement submitted by Parkview Townhomes for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 550 feet of water main extension, 550 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 570 feet of street improvements and 44 feet of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 100th Ave. S. E. and So. 234th and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period, 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3HA PUBLIC WORKS CONBUTTEE SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6 . The Committee unanimously recommended approval . Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs. Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the interlocal agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Bill of Sale Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S. 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and SITF PLAID SCALE, I' 20.0' 1T Y '�'�y 1; -1. ,- i ¢'e1F•. � t' <ti:• zTM• a zt 'P•�q�.ti> 5E 'I OB"m 5T 1 [� ,p�, 1rs < 1 '•ffs w` mrtN ti. c roA 1.4 I., YTItH 1t '•:Za J Y.tMrSe.k�. -t r� ..i �;�1. i�.Py . rsf..' � [ �r Jt�, tv,.rrj,- ' Yfw�i � .F 4 s.•j, EN� a'Y� o >f ` r." r• .' e ate�,,,, .Y''% k 1nr .• is s �• d d d ,� t `s 9r+ 'A4r 1 entt INLX.7L „ I Tk .�[, ^ MYF I d•», i1V ..�•Ik .F r 4fK �4 I= r.aro IT701h,iC! !/ 1E/• _. t� ''>•.• _ __ mitt IT � .. carat. ♦ u- ,�� a Z'',�?.,'�.�r ' ,r41 .I tc an.``'• • .0. �,,.� r'1 • ,1 t '."F%':r F4 �} x,,,,��., _�' —__to , a: _u ^ ,f J y 7 y Z[s. +♦,I 4 r r nttr tt s" •^�'`PS IT 1.c iron( h `• [ f..�. �,. uns n �, 1 1't"'t lJt nOVluc .z� f w 5 252♦- Sr tnMJ nfft ua sr Iz I� yt Ines�,r Y,y a: '�}`.z. A�•'+S�M * "� N'c^� k� rF' ;.1'4,y � ��..:•irS x 1<tl^r 71 • Lt 'S �f• Q �� I}t'{� 3 � SF w� f'�' .;r • . n I , i r�.. C�. G.•, tl T R S R I 4Fi f �♦•r a[.mfrt `�� {T >un _Ir 0tl rJ �'r I C pi ' 2 [Y • I .� ^a;h, 4f.��7F'l 1c; Ij-..w�+r(r fi Jy� .. ) �[ L iiw 3 f ' N V T Sli � IIA��,,:.51 r�ti S ter'�4J �.:lz:�us, ` •', ait,v� 1l{Y' ?:t S byg t S; it f. :A.>i tJOArE' t•tl i~ 'c'R/.2'�}S L'f Fi["r rae 1 -i r Y' a /i i' q 6 4"rR' �, I�'�- to anr(i I '• ` sc '`� In i f I7 C SI F.i� 1 .-.0 .tY:s%•1ti. � rii�u zr <` h.'�� .._e VICINITY MAP �( Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15. 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FISHER INDUSTRIAL PARK EXPANSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As rec_omapnded_ by the Public Work s; C_szmmittee+ cceptance of the bill of sale and warranty i agreement submitted by Fisher Properties Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 606 feet of street improvements and 255 feet of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of So. 224th and 83rd Ave. So. and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance perio 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE SEPTEMMER 2, 1992 PRESENT: Jim White Gary GillTon _ Jim Bennett y McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6 . The Committee unanimously recommended approval . Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in ` front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs. Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the interlocal agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval . Bill of Sale Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S. 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and 4 I jI 'i ,tl En C4[,1% / jA S �.. s ZXTH ST y > N I st St J < / > 1 S N T n 3 T 3 1 r II TN ST ' I 5 2:DTtl ST, F < ?: W > > s( Ll = T 5 2t24C Cl s s u i» ST , TH F U S_INTN 1T ^ I 1 p h PARR '4, �S� 1 ��T1. 5_T - � ... •.. DOVI DR ON IpJrevq l W C, OY T I LL I " T t o 1 N 5T 1 � R Di' � G > O J Jf PCS LJ '-�' STDTM •t ' °t •W z zM1 a i < : �Rr.IES' Trrl.•n 'w�'" s 2WT °S ST =�i P90FEATY VICINITY MAP 7O N PROCESS. 'EW1ENT WILL NT5 Y Kent City Council Meeting �C Date September 15, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY-72ND AND 196TH - LINDAL PROPERTY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Public Works Department to proceed with acquisition of property at 72nd/196th and to transfer $175, 000 from the East Valley Highway Improvement Project to this project fund. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, memo from Public Works Director, vicinity map and fiscal note 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J PUBLIC WORKS COMM11"lEE SElYrEMBER 2, 1992 PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill _ Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in 'front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs. Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the inter.local agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Bill of Sale - Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S. 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and 196th. The purchase option was subject to investigation for any contamination from Western Processing. We spent approximately $60,000 on investigations which did reveal some contamination but at that time standards under the Model Toxics Act had not been established so we did not know what would be considered contamination. Those standards have since been established and it appears any contamination on this property falls below those standards. Wickstrom stated we had originally intended to purchase this property in order to construct 72nd on through to 196th. Now, it will provide us with a staging area for construction on the bridge project for the 196th corridor. Additionally, it may serve as a detention facility for the road project. The fund has approximately $140,000 remaining. Wickstrom explained there are additional funds in the EVH project and proposed transferring $175,000 for acquisition of this property. There is also the possibility we would be able to use some of the 196th corridor grant funds from TIA for the acquisition. It was confirmed this is all street related money and can only be spent on street projects and that no general fund money is involved. We have negotiated the purchase for $340,000. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to proceed with the purchase and to transfer the funds as requested by Wickstrom. Triangle Apartments - Access Issue on 4th Avenue DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 4, 1992 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROM �! RE: LINDAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION 72ND AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY NORTH OF 196TH STREET In 1988 , the City initiated acquisition of the above referenced property. At that time, a purchase option thereon for $360, 000 was secured. Because the site is next to Western Processing, the option was tied to the result of an environmental investigation. The investigation concluded that some contamination existed; however, because the State Model Toxic Act had just gone into effect, contamination standards were not yet established. As such, we let the option lapse and subsequently transferred some of the acquisition money to a more immediate project. Since that time, the standards have been adopted and the property is basically not contaminated except for some relatively minor, in terms of cost to cure, petroleum contamination. Due to the property owner's desire to resolve this acquisition issue, we have recently secured a new purchase option thereon in the amount of $340, 000. The property is extremely important per completing the extension of 72nd Avenue from 180th Street to 196th Street. It is, in fact, the missing link therein. It is also important for the 196th Street project to be used both for a staging area for the bridge construction from railroad track (Union Pacific) to railroad track (Burlington Northern) . Also, portions of the property could be used for a storm water detention and water quality facility for said project, thus, getting some TIA grant funding reimbursement. Total funding remaining in the original acquisition is approximately $140, 000. We also have some City street monies left in the East Valley Highway project which we have earmarked for this and one other project needing additional funds. The Public Works Department recommends proceeding with the acquisition and the transfer of $175 , 000 from the East Valley Highway project to this project fund with the remaining balance being picked up in the 196th Street Corridor project fund. Executive Committee has reviewed this and concurs with same. 0 W 3 TANK ��" a.., I . WAREHOUSE SOLVENT CONTAMINATION 1 CONCRETE PAD PROPERTY LINE GRAVEL PARKING LOT NOT TO SC M E �1 BLACKBERRY BRUSH CONCRETE RUBBLE 1 � ' 1 I I i I WESTERN PROCESSING I SUPERFUND SITE BOUNDARY UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE i 1 TANKS CL 1 fI E HEAVY METAL SURFACE CONTAMINATION i I LIMITS OF — --DIRT ROAD GREAT j AREA VIII WEST 1 I STEEL I I I I EII I • 1 I � 1 RESIDENCE 1 1 (ABANDONED) S.196TH STREET FIGURE 1 CITY OF KENT.WASHINGTON SITE ASSESSMENT FOR 72nd AVE. SOUTH PROPERTY ACQUISITION SITE LAYOUT R.W. BECK ANll/S.X�:IATLS — , 1 I II �' S`N TR Sr —i— irs T; s 16M Si I�� 1.' t1 .� 1-`.' TR CK OR z 1 D(/J� F = r ,J t ' •Y:,I lVUlj 1�j sw erH 5r S •�'' tit r '~ > OR Ry P, 4� �' •t • G' 3 �1 I u� 2 JI m I ST O x s ld1T 'I?�1 T 1,jY.y,26.�: . ' �� ,I CNRlST- ',7 �a 5W JISTi I ¢ ` GREENBELT r RD ST I I ENSEN rn LL PK TH ST •.J i CORV4PA_TF r "6A S MIHKLER BL - I:. -- ------ —• — — a - �oMMuvnYi� ort — 3 > s �sTN3r o _,w HEALTH o EMERGQYCT' I.': �. -+ I < '<<> , L. p W K f r11 T P N I W > Y 1 Lr h O I Q r:]K IKE T T i. �'` I ll vl l) p W ..i ' .I �• t..� SA 0 I IDR 2 178TH f Y�. 2 O> 5TH ST o > SW > RO I ST �1 ` I 1 ~ F.. 180TH I ..—. T S iUST ST 3 f ► _, F (••, 1 ✓tr 4 A(•'R S 1B2ND =I ST ;-� --- - > v / 35 rODD 36 �P 3 CIA rn 4 I �•-. �.L• ' - W S1 S 18BTH ST e. S 1 i H ST 4 j yrfB Uj 1 p I N ~ J O Q -ST S I H ST 1➢pa) TH 190TH , U UND ST 1921 _. _.—..�._._.—._._ - - > J .. - I Q 5� s 191TH sr '151TN ST > Q' p N a _ 1 z ' - 1, .s 195TH ST r. N TH —i•S4L�—� I cT 7 I h ' " PROJECT SITE y 2 _ MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: 72nd & 196th PROPERTY ACQUISITION - FISCAL NOTE aator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/10/92 at 1618 . THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING REALLOCATION OF $175, 000 OF STREET FUNDS FROM THE EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT TO THE 72ND/196TH PROJECT. THE MONEY IS NEEDED TO PROCEED WITH THE FINAL PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT BUDGET HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED FOUR YEARS AGO IN 1988 . ORIGINALLY THE LAND WAS TO BE PURCHASED TO CONSTRUCT 72ND THROUGH TO 196TH. NOW THE PROPERTY CAN ALSO BE STAGING FOR THE 196TH CORRIDOR AND POSSIBLY A STORM DETENTION FACILITY. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REALLOCATION OF STREET FUNDS TO THE 72ND & 196TH PROJECT SINCE THIS REQUIRES NO NEW FUNDS, JUST A REALLOCATION OF ALREADY BUDGETED STREET FUNDS. NOTED ALSO IS THE TIE TO THE COUNCIL'S #2 TARGET ISSUE ON TRANSPORTATION. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RELEASE OF INTEREST IN TRACT X KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to release city interest in Tract X easement on Lot 2 King County short plat. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes; request from property owner and a site map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3K Public Works committee September 2 , 1992 Page 3 Release of CitV Interest in Tract X of King CountV Short Plat Wickstrom explained that when the property was short platted while in unincorporated King County, a Tract X 30-foot road easement on Lot 2 was a condition thereof. The property owner has requested the release of this easement in order to build a garage. Because the City may have some rights with respect to this Tract X easement, we need to release them before we can issue a building permit. Wickstrom stated we did not need such rights, if any, in this easement and recommended we relinquish same. The Committee unanimously recommended approval . 248th and 116th Jim White commented that he has had inquiries about when the City would be installing a traffic signal at this intersection. Wickstrom explained that three legs of that intersection are in the County but we would look into it and report back. ,,259th and Central Jim White asked about the status of that signal. It was explained that the signal design is complete and we are currently in right of way ' acquisition. One parcel belongs to Pay-N-Pak thus that acquisition is slow because of Pay-N-Pak's status. As soon as the right of way is acquired we would be able to go out to bid. r, rE NI T o U LI C � F--F L6r l�lNe I�CUNT•� SlIC3(� I (L T0 �� n , QIO��1 O _ v ri • r W � .aOtA I 1 2 9'7 O 30 C lass a 1 orto /i/h r..vrowar7ti rl . c71 1?: x4='. ¢.;t .�C3! >=ogw6Y. FREED: `1O=�4-tJ4 F09- ' 30 'wl[sf ./!32.01 -V.o z7. 30w! • '7707270776 ::•. �,. 78020a0746-15 ,. 1 1016 1d 9.09(STf , IG3 ,!/ i .. /L 3.D/S.. I + CD 7 �7 OW /Cd as .c's.a9 N 4 Ai ou a �3� ��r J 2'• h , :.1� C?.: � V� r.. Q� � A�Hi � o`1 u` . is r r y I a1.G a9 /PB ZOOr2+/� �01 dot Irr G4 ! to , 00 — M I ?tI .;.,'rr-''i ti . 1 ro u Q ' I AI - oI /o•.aG d - . t tivl� �a r,+ Vl �: � Ly �D .. � �• 7 .�1�1]I t � �. �� .� 1cA:ta !!•D•29 12N/. lG4.L3" "Y %tp ,*r•F� p�>, Jr c 3z7. ca laz cz cat " dlr'-4 i i �o ' T 1.0-29 /Z6 -1 1hSrNNW • 1 NNW * J p,lµ , O' T4 L�:L�ty-�j'w! C1Y- r.✓ .1. - �•,� � 1� 04 MN Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15. 1992 pp Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: A resolution has been prepared ratifying the County-wide Planning Policies with the recommended suggestions or changes to the policies as approved by the City Council on September 1, 1992 . This item will be brought to the Planning Committee at their September 15, 1992 meeting and any changes to the resolution will be reported at the September 15 � City Council meeting. lt�l�V1Cd { ,n�Ge"✓ �L } c� vC� �U Cc P/U hl C't 'L (� �2ti�C�% '��P_ �.�G.rt,vwv�c � C'Vttirtiu�lt'.ti V. FILe,nit �'vvt7i�d-�-�' �C6�'n�t � LL 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution with attachments v 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Per Council action o 1 92 this issue is to be considered by the Planning C ittee on September 15 and to the City Council for actiorL- (Committee, Staff, Eafi ner, Commission, etc. ) i , 5. UNBUDG ED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISC PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 EXPENDITIIRE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: n Councilmember j moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of Resolution ,.J ''ratifying the County-wide Planning 22 Policies. DISCUSSION• ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 4A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding ratification of the County-Wide planning policies adopted by the King County Council pursuant to the Growth Management Act. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36. 70A. 210) requires the adoption of County-Wide Planning Policies by the legislative authority of King County no later than July 1, 1992 , and that said policies are to provide a County-Wide framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be development; and WHEREAS, King County, the City of Seattle, and the incorporated suburban cities and towns in King County established a process for the development, adoption, and ratification of County-Wide planning policies by an interlocal agreement, which was approved by the City of Kent, and that said interlocal agreement states that each city shall by ordinance or resolution ratify or disapprove the policies within ninety days of adoption by King County; and WHEREAS, said interlocal agreement also established the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) , a fifteen member group consisting of six elected officials from King County, six elected officials from suburban cities, and three elected officials from Seattle, who were authorized to develop a set of recommended County-Wide planning policies for consideration by the King County Council; and WHEREAS, after six months of deliberation, which included public workshops and hearings, the GMPC recommended a set of County-Wide planning policies to the King County Council on June 3 , 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the King County Council adopted these policies pursuant to Ordinance No. 10450 on July 6, 1992 , as required by RCW 36.70A.210; and WHEREAS, in adopting Ordinance No. 10450, the King County Council expressly conditioned its adoption of the policies upon completion of a Phase II Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and fiscal analysis, and that subsequent development of the county comprehensive plan amendments and regulations would implement the County-Wide planning policies as amended, subject to completion of the ratification process provided for in Ordinance No. 10450 ; and WHEREAS, after public input was received through a public hearing, the Kent City Council voted to conditionally approve and ratify the County-Wide planning policies on September 11 1992 ; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and 2 incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the County-Wide planning policies, attached hereto marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2 . The City hereby ratifies the policies contingent upon further review of the potential environmental and fiscal impacts of the policies as outlined in King County Ordinance No. 10450, which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3 . In the event that any subpolicy within the County-Wide Planning Policies is found to be inconsistent with the City of Kent locally adopted Comprehensive Plan policies prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City of Kent policy will prevail. Section 4 . The County-Wide Planning Policies and process outlined in King County Ordinance No. 10450 attached hereto shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this of , 1992 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 3 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1992 • (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK cpp.res 4 _.. EXHIBIT A King County Growth Management Planning Council Countywide Planning Policies Recommendation to the King County Council June 3, 1992 Printed June 10, 1992 Growth Management Planning Council Chair Cynthia Sullivan, King County Council Members Paul Barden, King County Council - Margot Blacker, Councilmember, Bellevue Bob Edwards, Councilmember, Renton Audrey Gruger, Chair, King County Council Tim Hill, King County Executive Fred Jarrett, Councilmember, Mercer Island Bruce Laing, King County Council Roger Loschen, Mayor, Lake Forest Park Margaret Pageler, Councilmember, Seattle Larry Phillips, King County Council Norm Rice, Mayor, Seattle Bob Stead, Mayor, Federal Way Jim Street, Councilmember, Seattle Bob Wray, Councilmember, Des Moines Ex-off icio Pat Davis, Port of Seattle Alternate Members Keith Blackburn, Mayor, Enumclaw Brian Derdowski, King County Council Sue Donaldson, Councilmember, Seattle Sherry Harris, Councilmember, Seattle Rosemarie Ives, Mayor, City of Redmond Greg Nickels, King County Council Shirley Thompson, Councilmember, SeaTac Staff Interjurisdictional Liaison Committee of Planning, Public Works and Finance Staff Table of Contents King County Growth Management Act Countywide Policies Pao King County 2012 A. The Problem 4 B. The Process 4 C. The Growth Management Act 5 D. Vision for King County 2012 5 E. The Framework Policies 7 I. Critical Areas 9 II. Land Use Pattern 13 A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry and Mineral 13 B. Rural Areas 14 C. Urban Areas' 15 Urban Growth Area Map D. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 19 E. Urban Growth Outside of Centers 25 Ill. Transportation' 29 IV. Community Character and Open Space 35 V. Affordable Housing* 38 V1. Contiguous and Orderly Development* 40 VII. Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or 44 Statewide Nature' Vill. Economic Development and Fiscal Impact* 45 Appendix I Transportation: Requirements of the Growth Management Act 47 *These elements are required by RCW 36.70A.210. King County 2012 A. The Problem - King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. The county's attractive lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities. An additional 325,000 people will live here by the year 2010 (State of Washington Office of Financial Management), bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth fuels the area's strong economy, the absence of effective management of that growth threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life. The effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth are obvious. King County has the fifth worst traffic mess in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding aggravated by development, and escalating housing costs. Many of the schools are overcrowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for services to control crime and to provide critical human resources. The need facing the County and State is to provide the incentives necessary to promote a vigorous, sound, and diversified economy, while reducing, controlling and managing the potential adverse effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 and strengthened it in 1991 to address these problems. B. The Process Growth management involves planning for economic and population growth, determining where new jobs and housing should go and then locating and phasing population growth in accordance with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. This should include economic development, a workable transportation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing, good schools, open space and parks and, at the same time, protection of our natural environment. King County and the 31 cities within it are addressing growth management problems together and in their local jurisdictions. Planning at both levels is called for by the Growth Management Act. All jurisdictions are working together to develop a vision for the future. This vision is embodied in this series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. Realization of this vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices about the appropriate level of growth, its location, the type of growth to be encouraged, public spending, governance decisions, environmental protection, and the quality of life in King County. A formal body, the Growth Management Planning Council, with elected officials from Seattle, the suburban cities, and King County, has considered these draft policies, and based on public input, will make a recommendation to the King County Council for adoption. Adoption must take place by July 1, 1992. King County will then submit the adopted policies.to the cities for ratification. GMA:pol Page 4 06/10/1992 The Countywide Planning Policies will serve as the framework for each jurisdiction's own comprehensive plan, which must be in place by July 1, 1993. These individual comprehensive plans throughout the county, then, will be consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County. C. The Growth Management Act The GMA fundamentally changes the way that comprehensive planning is to be done and land use _ decisions are to be made in Washington State. The challenge of GMA is to establish a countywide vision and devise a strategy to achieve it. This includes balancing growth, economics, land use, infrastructure, and finance. If resources are inadequate to realize the vision, then the strategies and land use must be revised. The GMA requires Countywide Planning Policies be adopted by July 1, 1992. At a minimum, the policies must address: a. Implementation of RCW 36.70A.110 (Urban Growth Areas); b. Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services; C. Siting of public capital facilities; d. Transportation facilities and strategies; e. Affordable housing; f. Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas; g, countywide economic development and employment; and h. Analysis of fiscal impact. Special emphasis is placed on transportation. Future development activity will be constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to provide and finance transportation improvements or strategies. This fact has implications for all jurisdictions who can no longer finance and build the facilities necessary to retain current service levels. D. Vision for King County 2012 Our county has significantly changed in the 20 years that have elapsed from 1992 to today. The paramount cause for this change has been the successful public/private partnership which has: supported a diversified, sound regional economy; managed and accommodated growth; and maintained the county's quality of life. An effective stewardship of the environment has preserved and protected the critical areas in the county. This stewardship has extended to the conservation of our land, air, water and energy resources for future generations. The rural areas first formally identified in 1985 and expanded in 1992 remain permanently preserved with a clear boundary between rural and urban areas. Development has emphasized the use and reuse of the existing urbanized areas. Much of the new growth after 1992 first occurred in the areas where there was existing capacity. Growth then occurred where existing infrastructure could be easily extended or enhanced. lastly, areas which required significant new investment in infrastructure accommodated growth. Today, there still is ample room for new development within the urban area. Much of the growth in employment, and a significant share of new housing, has occurred in Urban Centers. These Centers now provide a mixture of employment, residential, commercial, cultural and recreational opportunities. The centers are linked by the high-capacity transit system, and transit stations within the centers are located within walking distance to all parts of the center. GMA:pol Page 5 06/10/1992 Each center has its own unique character, and they are all noted for their livability, pedestrian orientation and superior design. Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the urban area, and focus on providing goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They are linked to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system. Manufacturing/industrial areas continue to thrive and be key components in the urban area. They are served by a transportation system which emphasizes the movement of people and goods to and within these areas. Rural cities provide unique environments within the rural area and provide commercial and employ- ment opportunities for their residents. This includes retail, educational and social services for city residents and surrounding rural areas. Businesses in rural cities provide employment opportunities for local residents. The entire urban area is increasingly characterized by superior urban design and an open space network which defines and separates, yet links the various urban areas and jurisdictions. Countywide and regional facilities have been located where needed, sited unobtrusively and with appropriate incentives and proper impact mitigation. Attractive and workable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle have been built and strategies adopted which assure the mobility of people, goods and information throughout the county and beyond. Regional funds have been used to further the regional land use plan and fund needed regional facilities. Local resources have been focused on local facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional plan can succeed and so that all can benefit. The economy is vibrant and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of goods produced and services provided. Businesses continue to locate in our county because of the high quality of life, the emphasis on providing a superior education, and the predictability brought about by the management of growth and the effectiveness of the public/private partnership in these areas as well as the mutually beneficial partnership in economic development. Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county, and with the balanced transportation system, access to employment is assured. The needs of residents are attended to by a social service system that emphasizes prevention, but which stands ready to respond to direct needs as well. The urban area is located within the incorporated cities, which are the primary urban service providers. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortiums have been created for certain services, and the county government is recognized as a regional service provider. Through a clear understanding of growth management, residents and businesses have recognized that all problems will not be cured quickly, but clear and reasonable timelines and financing commitments demonstrate to them that problems will be solved. Residents and businesses trust in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth in 1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the growth management plan. GMA:poi Page 6 06/10/1992 E. The Framework Policies The GMA gives local officials new tools for planning and, for the first time, mandates that the county and cities work together to establish an overall vision. Through a collaborative process, the local jurisdictions of King County have prepared the following draft countywide planning policies. This process relies on local choice to determine the density/intensity and character of each area. All jurisdictions must recognize that the smart, long term choices for the region will require compromises in local self-determination. These policies represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to establish a vision for the county which builds on existing land use patterns. The policies are organized by topics in separate chapters. At the beginning of each chapter is a framework policy which establishes the overall direction for the following policies. The Countywide Planning Policies can only be realized through local plans and regulations. A decision made locally must become a commitment that the region can rely upon. The following framework policies outline the countywide planning process. FW-1 Countywide growth management is a five-step process: STEP 1: The Countywide Planning Policies shall become effective upon adoption by the King County Council and ratification by at least thirty percent of the city and county governments representing seventy percent of the population in King County. (September 1992 target date) STEP 2: a. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) shall receive by October and confirm by December 1992 nominations from cities for Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers as established in the Countywide - Planning Policies. (October-December 1992 target dates) b. The GMPC shall adopt 20 year target numbers for projected population growth and capacity based on Urban Centers decisions, the criteria established in policies LU-51 and LU-52, and population ranges recommended by an interjurisdictional.staff committee. (December 1992 target date) C. The GMPC shall adopt 20 year target numbers for projected employment growth and capacity based on Urban Centers decisions, the criteria established in policy LU-53, and employment ranges recommended by an interjurisdictional staff committee. (December 1992 target date) d. Housing and jobs to accommodate King County's projected population shall be planned in the context of carrying capacity of the land. Housing density and affordability shall be considered co-equal objectives. e. The GMPC shall confirm the Urban Growth Areas based on Centers designations and subarea population and employment targets, insuring sufficient capacity within the Urban Growth Area to meet projected growth. (December 1992 target date) STEP 3: All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the Countywide Planning Policies into their respective comprehensive plans. (July 1993 target date) GMA:pol Page 7 06/10/1992 STEP 4: a. The GMPC shall reconvene in July 1993 or sooner as needed to review issues raised through local plan implementation efforts, and to consider new or revised policies developed through implementation of the GMPC tasks specified in the Countywide Planning Policies. The GMPC shall recommend revisions as needed to resolve identified conflicts between policies and address implementation issues. (July 1994 target date) b. The GMPC shall establish a process for resolving conflicts between local plans and the Countywide Planning Policies as raised by local jurisdictions, and may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans. (July 1994 target date) C. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies shall be subject to ratification by at least thirty percent of the city and county govemments representing seventy of the population in King County. (July 1994 target date) STEP 5: All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the Countywide Planning Policies and their respective comprehensive plans through regulations. (July 1994 target date) FW-2 Countywide Planning Policies are effective after King County adoption and city ratification for the purposes of updating comprehensive plans, and providing a policy framework for other governmental actions of all jurisdictions. Significant planning options will be precluded if interim actions are not taken to assure capacity and direct growth in the Urban area, and to protect the Rural area from the impacts of growth. The following interim actions will be taken by all jurisdictions no later than one month after ratification. a. King County shall adopt interim rural zoning consistent with the designation of rural for the "new" Rural area adopted through the Countywide Planning Policies to ensure rural character is not threatened by additional subdivision activity. b. All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt interim minimum density ordinances and review and, where appropriate, remove regulatory barriers to accessory dwelling units and manufactured homes on individual lots, to ensure that urban land is used efficiently. C. Jurisdictions shall not expand the existing land area zoned for business/office parks. GMA:pol Page 8 06/10/1992 I . Critical Areas Most jurisdictions in King County have sensitive areas ordinances in place or under development. These regulations are tailored to the specific needs of each jurisdiction and are not likely to be modified based on another jurisdiction's regulations. It is important to promote regional policies that do not erode existing regulations while providing guidance for achieving consistency and - compatibility among them. A. Overall Environmental Protection FW-3 All jurisdictions shall protect and enhance the natural ecosystems through comprehensive plans and policies, and develop regulations that reflect natural constraints and protect sensitive features. Land use and development shall be regulated in a manner which respects fish and wildlife habitat in conjunction with natural features and functions, including air and water quality. Natural resources and the built environment shall be managed to protect, improve and sustain environmental quality while minimizing public and private costs. FW-4 Puget Sound, floodplains, rivers, streams and other water resources shall be managed for multiple beneficial uses including flood and erosion hazard reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, agriculture, open space, water supply, and hydropower. Use of water resources for one purpose shall, to the fullest extent possible, preserve and promote opportunities for other uses. B. Wetlands Protection CA-1 All jurisdictions shall use as minimum standards, the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and reference the 1989 manual in their wetlands protection ordinances. CA-2 In the long term, all jurisdictions shall work to establish a single countywide classification system for wetlands. CA-3 Within each basin, jurisdictions shall formulate their regulations and other non-regulatory methods to accomplish the following: protection of wetlands; assure no-net-loss of wetland functions; and an increase of the quantity and quality of the wetlands. The top class wetlands shall be untouched. CA-4 Implementation of wetland mitigation should be flexible enough to allow for protection of systems or corridors of connected wetlands. A tradeoff of small, isolated wetlands in exchange for a larger connected wetland system can achieve greater resource protection and reduce isolation and fragmentation of wetland habitat. GMA:pol Page 9 06/10/1992 C. Aquifers Currently, there are five Ground Water Management Plans underway in King County: Redmond, Issaquah, East King County, South King County, and Vashon. The state Department of Ecology has designated Seattle-King County Department of Public Health as the lead agency. Each plan is prepared in conjunction with an advisory committee with representatives from suburban cities, businesses, private well owners, environmental groups, and state agencies. The plans will identify aquifer recharge areas and propose strategies for protection of ground water through preservation and protection of the aquifers. CA-5 All jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater where appropriate: a. Jurisdictions chat are included in Ground Water Management Plans shall support the development, adoption, and implementation of the Plans; and b. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and affected jurisdictions shall develop countywide policies outlining best management practices within aquifer recharge areas to protect public health. D. Fish and Wildlife Habitat CA-6 Adjacent jurisdictions shall identify and protect habitat networks that are aligned at jurisdictional boundaries. Networks shall link large protected or significant blocks of habitat within and between jurisdictions to achieve a continuous countywide network. These networks shall be mapped and displayed in comprehensive plans. CA-7 All jurisdictions shall identify critical fish and wildlife habitats and species and develop regulations that: a. Promote their protection and proper management; and b. Integrate native plant communities and wildlife with other land uses where possible. CA-8 Natural drainage systems including associated riparian and shoreline habitat shall be maintained and enhanced to protect water quality, reduce public costs, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and prevent environmental degradation. Jurisdictions within shared basins shall coordinate regulations to manage basins and natural drainage systems which include provisions to: a. Protect the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems, maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and restore and maintain those natural functions; b. Control peak runoff rate and quantity of discharges from new development to approximate pre-development rates; and C. Preserve and protect resources and beneficial functions and values through mainte- nance of stable channels, adequate low flows, and reduction of future storm flows, erosion, and sedimentation. CA-9 Jurisdictions shall maintain or enhance water quality through control of runoff and best management practices to maintain natural aquatic communities and beneficial uses. CA-10 The Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Indian Tribes both manage fish and wildlife resources. However, local governments have authority for land GMA:pol Page 10 06/10/1992 use regulation. Jurisdictions shall coordinate land use planning and management of fish and wildlife resources with affected state agencies and the federally recognized Tribes. E. Frequently Flooded Areas The State adopted comprehensive flood legislation in 1991 /Senate Bill 541 1) that makes the GMA requirement for coordination and consistency on flood hazard regulations much more explicit. According to the new legislation, counties are to develop flood hazard control management plans _ with the full participation of jurisdictions within the planning areas. Once adopted by the county, cities within flood hazard planning areas must comply with the management plan. The draft Countywide Flood Hazard Reduction Plan is currently being reviewed by affected jurisdictions before transmittal to the King County Council for consideration and adoption. CA-11 All jurisdictions shall adopt and implement the relevant general and land use policies of the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan and develop appropriate regulations for implementation and enforcement of the Plan. Regulations shall: a. Reduce flood impacts on existing development by reducing risk and regulating new development; b. Reduce long term public and private costs; C. Protect natural flood storage and conveyance functions; and d. Develop an enforcement program. F. Geologic Hazard Areas CA-12 All jurisdictions shall regulate development on certain lands to protect public health, property, important ecological and hydrogeologic functions, and environmental quality, and to reduce public costs. The natural features of these lands include: a. Slopes with a grade greater than 40%; b. Severe landslide hazard areas; C. Erosion hazard areas; d. Mine hazard areas; and e. Seismic hazards. Regulations shall include, at a minimum, provisions for vegetation retention, seasonal clearing and grading limits, setbacks, and drainage and erosion controls. G. Air and Water Quality CA-13 All jurisdictions, in coordination with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Puget Sound Regional Council, shall develop policies, methodologies and standards that promote regional air quality, consistent with the Countywide Policy Plan. CA-14 All jurisdictions shall implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of the Puget Sound Basin. GMA:pol Page 11 06/10/1992 H. Implementation CA-15 King County shall establish a technical committee to facilitate environmental protection which is to include representatives of the county, the cities, the federally recognized Tribes, business community, environmental community, public utilities, special districts, and interested citizens. The committee will serve as a depository of regulations and policies adopted by jurisdictions in King County. Based on information provided by all jurisdictions, the committee shall prepare a report by - December 1993 which addresses consistency and compatibility of regulations and designations, cumulative impacts, and education programs. The report should be designed to assist jurisdictions in developing permanent regulations with optimal consistency among the jurisdictions. GMA:pol Page 12 06/10/1992 II . Land Use Pattern A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral The protection and management of resource lands in King County is a regional concern and a major objective of the countywide planning policies. The vast majority of resource lands are located in unincorporated King County. These areas were identified and protected under the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent community plans and regulations. FW-5 The land use pattern for the County shall protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies. LU-1 Agricultural and forest lands are protected primarily for their long-term productive resource value. However, these lands also provide secondary benefits such as open space, scenic views and wildlife habitat. All jurisdictions should encourage utilization of natural resources through methods that minimize the impacts on these secondary benefits. Resource lands also contain an abundance of critical areas that shall be protected in accordance with adopted State and local regulations. LU-2 All jurisdictions shall protect existing resource lands within their boundaries that have long-term commercial significance for resource production. Any designated agricultural and forestry lands shall not be considered for urban development. Jurisdictions are required to enact a program authorizing the transfer or purchase of development rights for designated forest or agricultural areas within Urban Growth Areas. At the request of any city, King County will work to reinstate the King County Purchase of Development Rights Program and/or establish an interjurisdictional transfer of development rights program to protect these resource lands in accordance with the GMA. LU-3 Existing mineral extractive and processing operations or designated sites may be annexed or incorporated to a city only if there are policies and regulations in place to protect the long term viability for continued operation and ensure adequate reclamation and enhancement of the site once operation ceases. LU-4 All jurisdictions shall encourage compatible land uses adjacent to natural resource areas which support utilization of the resource and minimize conflicts among uses. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing the plat and permit notification requirements for properties within-300 feet of the resource land, as specified in RCW 36.70A as amended. Jurisdictions will consider an increased distance for notification and notification to titles to property within or adjacent to the resource lands. LU-5 All jurisdictions shall require mineral extraction and processing operations and agricultural practices to implement best management practices to reduce environmental impacts and mitigate any unavoidable impacts. GMA:pol Page 13 06/10/1992 - B. Rural Areas The vast majority of rural areas are located in unincorporated King County. These areas were identified and regulated through the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent community plans and regulations. While counties are the jurisdictions specified by the GMA as responsible for designating and regulating rural areas through their comprehensive plans, the protection of King County's rural area is a regional issue and a fundamental objective of the countywide planning policies. FW-6 Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies. FW-7 All jurisdictions acknowledge that rural areas provide an overall benefit for all residents of King County. Strategies to fund infrastructure and services in rural areas may be needed to support a defined rural level of service. Towns and cities in the rural areas play an important role as local trade and community centers. LU-6 Through the Countywide Planning Policy process, King County, with the cooperation of the cities, shall be responsible for designating rural areas consistent with GMA. In designating long term rural areas, King County shall foster better use of limited public funds by allowing service providers to establish distinctly rural facility and service standards. LU-7 Designated rural areas are considered to be permanent and shall not be redesignated to an Urban Growth Area. Future growth should be accommodated by efficient use of existing urban land within the Urban Growth Area. Annexation of rural areas to cities shall be prohibited. When annexation of rural areas is necessary to link two urban areas, that intervening rural area shall be designated as permanent urban separator at low rural densities. LU-8 Designated rural areas shall have low densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems and rural roads, without degrading the environment or creating the necessity for urban level of services. LU-9 The GMPC shall establish a subcommittee to develop an outcomes-based policy recommendation on the definition of rural character and incentives for protection of rural areas. The subcommittee shall have proportional representation from King County, Seattle and suburban cities and shall make its report to the GMPC by October 1, 1992. The definition shall consider rural densities, clustering and other tools to protect rural character. Incentives to be considered include: a. Assess land in rural areas on its current use; b. Facilitate small land owners qualifying land for special categories such as forest, wetlands, riparian zones; C. Develop programs for direct marketing of produce in urban areas; d. Reinforce right to farm and forest practices in rural areas; and/or e. Develop services through existing agencies with rural expertise. LU-10 Rural areas designated by King County shall remain rural. Additional rural areas shall be designated by King County through adoption of a land use map authorized by the Growth Management Planning Council. These additional areas meet at least one of the following criteria: GMA:pol Page 14 06/10/1992 a. Opportunities exist for small scale farming and forestry which do not qualify for resource land designation; b. The rural designation serves as a buffer for designated resource lands or sensitive areas; C. Significant environmental constraints make the area generally unsuitable for intensive urban development; d. Major physical barriers exist to providing urban services at reasonable cost; e. The area is contiguous to other designated rural areas, resource areas or sensitive areas; _ f. The area has outstanding scenic, historic, and/or,aesthetic value that can best be protected by rural land uses and densities; and g. The area has limited public services, extension of full services is not planned, and Will at higher densities is not feasible or necessary to meet regional goals. Criteria specified in LU-10(g) permits the redesignation of urban lands in King County to rural. These areas have not received a full range of services, such as sewers, and are developed at densities which are too low to support cost-effective provision of all urban services. The inclusion of these new rural areas will carry out regional policies by focusing new development to urban areas that are planned to have full urban services. LU-11 Low-density urban areas meeting the criteria of LU-10(g) shall be redesignated rural and zoned for rural residential densities. Legally created existing lots within the rural area are legal building sites as authorized in the King County Code. LU-12 To maintain rural character, and to minimize the need for additional infrastructure, while maximizing undeveloped land available for traditional rural uses, clustering of new development shall be required on all existing parcels of contiguous ownership of ten or more acres, provided that clustering shall be designed and scaled to be consistent with rural area character. LU-13 King County, cities that are adjacent to or are surrounded by rural designated areas, and other agencies that provide services to rural areas shall form a technical committee to prepare a manual on rural infrastructure design, fire/wildfire protection, and service standards. C. Urban Areas The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGAI and methods to phase development within this area in order to bring certainty to long-term planning and development within the county. The Urban Growth Area is a permanent designation. Land outside the Urban Growth Area is designated for permanent rural and resource uses, except for the cities in the rural area. Countywide policies on rural and resource areas are found in Chapter I/A, Resource Lands, and Chapter 111B, Rural Areas. The capacity in the Urban Growth Area for growth, based on adopted plans and regulations, exceeds the 20-year minimum requirement of the GMA according to the current population forecasts. In the future, all urban growth is to be accommodated within permanent urban areas by increasing densities. Phasing is to occur within the Urban Growth Area to ensure that services are provided as growth occurs. Al/cities are to be within the Urban Growth Area. Cities in the rural area are to be UGA islands. GMA:pol Page 15 O6/10/1992 NK }L �• -�St ::-, - ••'—Y::'•.�, �Y1Mee.'.-:.•.Z... :�'•'•i`:•!i'ffjlt`.•Yr:�•.[/.�I we- / :•::; _ — — lop,am da or qF /Flo ol Met % //VZW/ j �j .�/� rid j/, /i/ , �i// %//%% / County all protect l environment by FW_8 The onsu ption of and and cornicentratinghdevelopment.e An ra reducing c ban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations s countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth adopted. This include Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions based on the Countywide Planning Policies. Fyy_9 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future urban development. Policies to d the ie Urban'Growth An of bea han services 'be institutednsure efficient use of the growth capacity 1 . Urban Growth Area an Urban Growth Area tUGA) in consultation with The GMA requires King County to designate Urban Growth cities. The Countywide Planning Policies must establish an Area that contains enough urban land to accommodate at least 20 years of new population and employment growth. The GMA states: "based upon the population forecast made for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the Urban Growth Areas in the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. orpen space areasn Growth Area UGA mapsisaelpermit ttached.urban densities and shall include greenbelt LU-14 The lands within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) shall be characterized by urban development. The UGA shall accommodate at least the 20-year projection of population and employment growth with a full range of urban services. The Countywide Planning Policies shall establish the Urban Growth Area based on the following criteria: a. Include all lands within existing cities, including cities in the rural area and their designated expansion areas; b, The GMPC recognizes that the Bear Creek Master Plan Developments (MPDs) are subject to an ongoing review process under the adopted Bear Creek Community Plan and recognizes these properties as urban under these Countywide Planning Policies. If the applications necessary to implement the MPDs are denied by King County or not pursued by the applicant(s), then the property subject to the MPD shall be redesignated rural pursuant to the Bear Creek Community Plan. Nothing in these Planning Policies shall limit the continued r view and s or othementation er er approvals of existing applications, capital improvements appropriations these two MPDs as new communities under the Growth Management Act. C. Not include rural land or unincorporated agricultural, or forestry lands designated through the Countywide Planning Policies plan process; d, Include only areas already characterized by urban development which can be efficiently and cost effectively served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools and other urban services within the next 20 years; e. Do not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, which impede provi- sion of urban services; ures which form a natural edge such as rivers and ridge f. Respect topographical feat lines; and g. Include only areas which are sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban growth without major environmental impacts unless such areas are designated as an urban separator by interlocal agreement between jurisdictions. are lo density ares or reas of ittle an must be hin LU-15 Urban e Urban Growth AreaW Urban separatorsashall beldefi defined asopermanent low density lands Page 16 06/1011992 G MA:pol which protect resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. These lands shall not be redesignated in the future to other urban uses or higher densities. 2. Phasing Development within the Urban Growth Area Development in the urban area will be phased to promote efficient use of the land, add certainty to - infrastructure planning, and to ensure that urban services can be provided to urban development. The minimum densities required by LU-51 help ensure the efficient use of the land. Phasing will further ensure coordination of infrastructure and development. Urban areas in jurisdictions which do not have urban services and are not scheduled to receive urban services within 10 years shall be subject to phasing requirements. LU-16 Within the Urban Growth Area, growth should be directed as follows: a) first, to centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity; b) second, to areas which are already urbanized such that infrastructure improvements can be easily extended; and c) last, to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements. LU-17 All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans by identifying areas for growth for the next ten and the next twenty years where necessary urban services can be provided. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State GMA requirements. The ten and twenty year growth phasing plans for cities shall not extend beyond their Potential Annexation Areas. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation and future annexation for the Potential Annexation Areas. LU-18 Where urban services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: a. Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, densities and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become avail- able; and b. Establish a process for converting land to urban densities-and uses once services are available. 3. Joint Planning and Urban Growth Areas around Cities The GMA requires each county to designate Urban Growth Areas, in consultation with cities. Within the countywide Urban Growth Area, each city will identify land needed for its growth for the next twenty years. Although the GMA does not explicitly equate Urban Growth Areas with municipal annexation areas, the Urban Growth Areas around cities may be considered potential expansion areas for cities. FW-10 Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban ser- vices shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts. GMA:pol Page 17 06/10/1992 LU-19 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential annexation areas _. shall not overlap. Within the potential annexation area the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with Countywide Planning Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between cities. LU-20 A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities - shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. LU-21 Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Subsequent to establishing a potential annexation area, infill lands within the potential annexation area which are not adjacent or which are not practical to annex shall be developed pursuant to interlocal agreements between the County and the affected city. The interlocal agreement shall establish the type of development allowed in the potential annexation area and standards for that development so that the area is developed in a manner consistent with its future annexation potential. The interlocal agreement shall specify at a minimum the applicable zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation within the potential annexation area. LU-22 Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. Unincorporated urban areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered. Development within the potential annexation area of one jurisdiction may have impacts on adjacent jurisdictions. LU-23 A jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its potential annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the designation process the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development proposals under consideration by other jurisdictions in the impact area. The GMA has a provision granting counties the discretion to disband the Boundary Review Boards after comprehensive plans and development regulations are adopted. The following policy provides direction for considering whether to disband the Boundary Review Board for King County. LU-24 Upon the adoption and ratification of the Countywide Policies, the King County Council shall convene a meeting with municipal elected officials to determine a process for disbanding the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County and establishing criteria to oversee municipal and special district annexations, mergers, and incorporations in King County. Until the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is disbanded, it should be governed in its decisions by the interim urban growth area boundary and the adopted and ratified countywide planning policies. The criteria shall include, but not be limited to: a. Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies; b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and GMA:pol Page 18 06/10/1992 C. Annexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands of development. The GMA requires that city and county comprehensive plans be coordinated and consistent with one another. Consistency is required "where there are common borders or related regional issues" (RCW 36.70A. t 00). Joint planning is fundamental to all the framework policies. LU-25 All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the countywide planning policies. 4. Cities in the Rural Area The cities and unincorporated towns in the rural areas are a significant part of King County's diversity and heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Snoqua/mie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the county. As municipalities, the cities are to provide urban services and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, generally western Urban Growth Area. LU-26 In recognition that cities in the rural area are generally not contiguous to the countywide Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the options cities in rural areas provide, these cities shall be located within an Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands separate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the county. Each city in the rural area, King County and the GMPC shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. Urban Growth Areas must be approved by the GMPC by January 1, 1993. The Urban Growth Area for cities in rural areas shall: a. Include all lands within existing cities in the rural area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support rural city growth without major environmental impacts; C. Be contiguous to city limits; and d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, to features, and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development. LU-27 Cities in the rural areas shall include the following characteristics: a. Shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for resources industries, including commercial, industrial, and tourism development at a scale that reinforces the surrounding rural characteristic; b. Residential development, including small-lot single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use developments; and C. Design standards that work to preserve the rural, small-town character and promote pedestrian mobility. D. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial . Centers Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses such as retail, recreational, public facilities, parks and open space. GMA:pol Page 19 06/10/1992 Urban Centers are designed to 11 strengthen existing communities, 2) promote housing opportuni- ties close to employment, 3) support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, 4) consume less land with urban development, and 5) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Manufacturing/Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional economy. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing or other industrial employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as Business/Office parks (see FW-13 and LU-58-62), in that a land base is an essential element of their operation. FW-11 Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally designated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; C. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees, residents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. FW-12 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure a number of locally-designated Manufacturing/industrial Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies will be locally designated. The Manufacturing/Industrial Centers will be and are characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensityldensity of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing and industrial uses; and C. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway system for the movement of goods. FW-13 Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the centers but within the urban area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, activity areas, business/office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in scale and intensity to support the countywide land use and regional transportation plan. 1. Urban Centers Designation Process LU-28 The location and number of Urban Centers in King County will be determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers; b, By October 1, 1992, local jurisdictions shall determine if they will contain an Urban Center(s). Jurisdictions electing to contain these centers will provide the GMPC with a statement of commitment describing the city's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these policies and a timetable for the required GMA:pol Page 20 06/10/1992 Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing environmental documentation to be used; and C. By December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and confirm the Centers that are elected by local jurisdictions (consistent with Policy FW-11, or make adjustments based on: 1) The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a countywide system of Urban Centers; 2) The total number of centers in the county that can be realized over the next twenty years, based on twenty years projected growth; 3) The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Center goals; and 4) Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Centers is assured. 2. Urban Centers Criteria LU-29 Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the urban center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the center. All centers shall be up to 1-1/2 square miles of land. Each center shall be zoned to accommodate: a. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within 1/2 mile of a transit center; b. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and C. At a minimum, an average 15 households per gross acre. LU-30 Jurisdictions which contain urban centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall identify transit station areas and right-of-way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance lone half mile) of a station. LU-31 In order to reserve right-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and C. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. LU-32 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to charge for single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or a limit on the number of off-street parking spaces for each Urban Center, and establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that limit the use of the single-occupant vehicle and develop coordinated plans that incorporate Commuter Trip Reduction guidelines. All plans for Urban Centers shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian activity. LU-33 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for Urban Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the Urban Centers criteria. In order to promote urban growth within centers, the Urban Center plan shall establish strategies which: a. Support pedestrian mobility, bicycle use and transit use; b. Achieve a target housing density and mix of use; GMA:pol Page 21 06/10/1992 C. Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, such as street improvements, Schools, parks and open space, public art and community facilities; d. Emphasize superior urban design; - e. Emphasize historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; f. Include other local characteristics necessary to achieve a vital urban center; and g. Include facilities to meet human service needs. LU-34 The system of urban centers shall form the land use foundation for a regional high capacity transit system. Urban centers should receive very high priority for the location of high- capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. (See also LU-47) 3. Incentives for Urban Centers In order to help create Urban Centers, incentives to jurisdictions to establish Urban Centers, and to the community to build in Urban renters, should be established. The provision of high-capacity transit (HCT) is one such incentive. Others include funding, and streamlined permitting. LU-35 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC by July 1, 1993 which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including social and human services, and subarea planning efforts, in Urban Centers. LU-36 Each jurisdiction electing to contain an Urban Center under Policy LU-28 shall prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) for each proposed center. The PEIS shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner and shall'address probable significant adverse environmental impacts from and reasonable alternatives to the proposal. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to subjects of area-wide concern such as cumulative impacts, housing, schools, public utilities, and transportation. Subsequent project-specific proposals shall not be required to perform duplicative environmental review of issues which have been adequately reviewed in the PEIS, but shall provide additional environmental review of other issues. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to the direct impacts of the specific proposal, substantial changes in the nature of the proposal or information regarding impacts which indicate probable significant adverse environmental impacts which were not adequately analyzed in the PEIS. Examples of project-specific direct impacts include local traffic impacts, site aesthetics, and other issues not addressed by the PEIS. LU-37 In support of centers, additional local action should include: a. Strategies for land assembly within the center, if applicable; b. Infrastructure and service financing strategies and economic development strategies for the centers; C. Establishing expected permit processing flow commitments consistent with the PEIS; and. d. Establishing a streamlined and simplified administrative appeal process with fixed and certain timelines. LU-38 Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development within Urban Centers such as: a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to permits in Urban Centers; GMA:pol < ` Page 22 06/10/1992 b. Policies to reduce or eliminate impact fees; C. Simplifying and streamlining of the administrative appeal processes; d. Eliminating project-specific requirements for parking and open space by providing those facilities for the Urban Center as a whole; and e. Establishing a bonus zoning program for the provision of urban amenities. 4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation Process LU-39 The location and number of regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in King County will be determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; b. By October 1, 1992, local jurisdictions shall determine if they will contain a Manufacturing/Industrial Center(s). Jurisdictions that elect to contain a Manufactur- ing/Industrial Center shall specify how the Center will meet the intent of the Countywide Policies, including plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other commit- ment to implement Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; C. By December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and confirm the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that are elected by local jurisdictions (consistent with Policy FW-1), or make adjustments based on: 1 . The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing and proposed transportation facilities and its potential for promoting a countywide system of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; 2. The total number of centers in the county that are needed in the county over the next twenty-years based on twenty years projected need for manufacturing land to satisfy regional projections of demand for manufacturing land; 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Manufacturing/Industrial Center goals; 4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers is assured; and 5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation facilities. 5. Manufacturinglindustrial Center Criteria LU-40 Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. Each Center shall be zoned to: a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of land parcels sized for manufactur- ingfindustrial uses; b. Discourage land uses other than manufacturing and industrial; and C. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs. LU-41 All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial siting policy to link the countywide manufacturingAndustrial centers into the regional network of industrial activity. GMA:pol Page 23 06/10/1992 LU-42 Jurisdictions shall design access to the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers to facilitate the mobility of employees by transit, and the mobility of goods by truck, rai! or waterway as appropriate. Regional comprehensive plans shall include strategies to provide capital improvement projects which support access for movement of goods. LU-43 Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in conjunction with METRO, shall identify transit station areas and right-of-way in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Transit feeder systems, bicycle routes and pedestrian systems shall be established to link the Center to the transit station area(s). LU-44 In order to reserve right-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and C. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. LU-45 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to charge for single-occupancy vehicle parking or a limit on the number of parking spaces for single-occupancy vehicles within each regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center. All plans for regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian circulation. LU-46 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for regional Manufacturing/industrial Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria. In order to promote manufacturingAndustrial growth, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan for each jurisdiction shall establish strategies: a. To provide capital improvement projects which support the movement of goods and manufacturing/industrial operations; b. To provide buffers around the Center to reduce conflicts with adjacent land uses; C. To facilitate land assembly; and d. To attract the type of businesses that will ensure economic growth and stability. LU-47 Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and having sufficient employment densities to support HCT should be served by HCT. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which are located on the regional high capacity transit alignment and which meet the transit-friendly criteria in policies LU-42 through LU-46 above shall receive one or more high capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. 6. Incentives for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers LU-48 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC by July 1, 1993 which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including social and human services in regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and subarea planning efforts in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. GMA:pol - Page 24 06/10/1992 LU-49 Jurisdictions shall consider conducting detailed SEPA review for the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center at the planning stage so that project-specific environmental review is minimized. LU-50 To reduce or prevent conflicts, jurisdictions shall develop policies to establish and support normal manufacturingfindustrial practices such as notices on development permits for properties adjacent to a manufacturingtndustrial center. E. Urban Growth Outside of Centers _ A variety of land uses and concentrations of growth occur within the Urban Growth Area and outside of the Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Local land use plans will be responsible for the designation, character, and utilization of urban areas outside of centers. However, Countywide Policies are presented below to provide guidance for these areas to ensure that they support the Centers growth concept. These policies do not apply to the rural cities whose land use pattern is described by policies LU 26 and LU 27. 1 . Urban Residential Areas Urban residential areas form the bulk of the Urban Growth Area, and are home to a large portion of the county's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different characteristics in different neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form, preservation and development of these areas is a local jurisdictional responsibility. However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas. LU-51 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the Urban Growth Area, provide for housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infrastructure, each jurisdiction shall: a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net new dwelling units the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20 years and adopt regulations to achieve the target number; b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new construction in each residential zone; and C. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix. LU-52 The targets and regulations in LU-51 shall be based on the following steps: a. By October 1, 1992 the GMPC shall adopt a target number of net new dwelling units to be accommodated countywide; b. By October 1, 1992 the interjurisdictional staff committee shall report to the GMPC recommended ranges for net new dwelling units for each unincorporated urban and rural community, and each city based on the following criteria: 1 . The capacity and condition of existing and forecast infrastructure, 2. Proximity to major employment centers, 3. Access to existing and projected regional transit, 4. Capacity of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment given the character of existing development, 5. The need for a range of housing types, GMA:pol Page 25 06/10/1992 6. Each jurisdiction's share of affordable housing as required by Affordable Housing policies, 7. Consistency with the countywide numbers; C. The targets in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall fall within the ranges, or shall state the reasons for deviating from the range; d. Through the process established under FW-1 Step 4b, if the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target, the GMPC may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans; and e. The interjurisdictional staff committee shall recommend a process to monitor the implementation of this policy. The process should include members of the public. 2. Urban Employment Growth A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in activity areas and neighborhoods in the urban area. This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while balancing local employment opportunities in the urban area. LU-53 Targets for employment growth outside Urban Centers shall be established for cities and for unincorporated urban communities through the joint local and countywide adoption process based on the following steps: a. By December 1992 the Growth Management Planning Council shall adopt 20 year target numbers for employment growth and employment capacity inside urban centers and outside urban centers. By October 1992 the interjurisdictional staff committee shall develop preliminary recommendations for ranges of employment growth and capacity inside and outside urban areas in each city, in unincorporated urban communities and in rural areas based on the following criteria: 1 . Consistency with the countywide numbers; 2. The need to direct growth to urban centers based on consistency with the multiple centers strategy; 3. Access to regional rapid transit and existing highway and arterial capacity; 4. Availabilities of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment given the character of existing development; 5. The willingness of local jurisdictions to implement policies which encourage transit such as S.O.V. parking charges and/or limits, transit, bicycle and pedestrian supportive design, and the adoption of policies that encourage clustering of commercial and residential areas; b. As part of their comprehensive plans, all jurisdictions shall indicate planned employment capacity and targeted increases in employment for 20 years inside and outside urban centers and shall show how their plans reflect the criteria in this policy; and C. Through the process established under FW-1 Step 4b, if the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target, the GMPC may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans. 3. Infjll Development Urban growth occurs both in "new" neighborhoods and in existing neighborhoods. Existing neigh- borhoods have a history of development patterns which have created a sense of identity. At the GMA:pol Page 26 06/10/1992 same time a vital neighborhood adapts to change and develops its own image. New development in these neighborhoods should build on the existing patterns in a manner which respects and enriches the neighborhood. For example in single family neighborhoods selective permitting of accessory units and carriage houses may be more compatible than new apartment buildings. LU-54 All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design processes to encourage infill development and enhance the existing community character and mix of uses. 4. Activity Areas Activity Areas are locations that contain a moderate concentration of commercial land uses and some adjacent higher density residential areas. Activity Areas are distinguishable from community or neighborhood commercial areas by their larger size and their function as a significant focal point for the local community. Activity Areas contain a broad spectrum of locations with varied functions, geographic sizes, and land uses. Activity Areas are designated in comprehensive plans. Examples of Activity Areas might include the central business districts of Kirkland, Burien, and Des Moines, East Hill in Kent; and a number of business districts in Seattle, such as Lake City, Wallingford, and West Seattle. LU-55 Jurisdictions shall designate the boundaries, maximum densities, and uses within all activity areas to provide for local employment, commercial activities and public facilities. LU-56 All Activity Areas should receive frequent peak hour transit service. Activity Areas may contain a high-capacity transit station or transit hub if the activity area: a. Is on an HCT corridor, or can serve as a transit hub; b. Has pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-supportive site planning, building design and road design regulations; and C. Has parking regulations to encourage transit use. LU-57 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the single-occupant vehicle. Jurisdictions should establish mechanisms to charge for single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or a limit on the number of off-street parking spaces for each activity center. All plans for Activity Areas shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian activity. 5. Business/Office Parks Business/Office Parks are areas where low-density office development is collected at locations separated from an identified retail commercial core. These parks tend to have low densities and thus tend not to be supportive of transit or pedestrian circulation. These employment opportunities generally do not require extensive land for their operations, and could be accommodated in Urban Centers. Because the further development of these areas may compete with the employment growth that is planned to support Urban Centers, significant future employment will not be encouraged in these areas. LU-58 Office building development is directed primarily to Urban Centers. Office building development outside Urban Centers should occur within activity areas and promote transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses. LU-59 Jurisdictions shall not expand existing land area zoned for business/office parks. GMA:pol Page 27 06/10/1992 III. Transportation A. Transportation Overview RCW 36.70A.070(6) (Growth Management Act) fundamentally changes the way that _ comprehensive planning will be done within the State of Washington. The Act places special emphasis on transportation making it unlawful to approve development for which the approving jurisdiction cannot demonstrate the availability of facilities, strategies and services which are needed to accommodate the growth in traffic at the adopted level-of-service within six years. Future development activity will be constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to finance and provide transportation improvements or strategies. This fact has some very significant implications for all jurisdictions which are dependent upon the region's transportation systems because: 1. Projected traffic growth on the freeway and arterial system within the region greatly exceeds the foreseeable collective ability to finance and construct the improvements needed to retain historical levels-of-service. 2. Maintaining the current level of personal mobility by single occupant vehicles will be a costly public investment that will negatively impact the regional quality of life, create severe impacts to sensitive areas, degrade environmental quality, and increase energy use and the consumption of land. 3. Development within any one jurisdiction can be severely impacted by decisions and actions beyond that jurisdiction's control: o WSDOT may be unable to program improvements concurrent with a jurisdiction's approval of a development permit. o Metro may not be able to respond to transit levels-of-service adopted by local jurisdictions. o A jurisdiction may adopt level-of-service standards for arterials within its jurisdiction and decline to accept improvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts from a proposed development in an adjoining jurisdiction. o Cumulative growth throughout the region will cause traffic growth on the existing network and may thereby exhaust the capacity for local jurisdictions to approve development. In light of these financial constraints and potential dangers, it will be necessary to undertake a dramatically different approach for both transportation planning and land use planning, than has been done in the past. This is necessary if the region is to avoid haphazard denials of development permits following the July 1994 deadline for implementing ordinances. In order to limit sprawl, create the desired urban form, and provide some measure of predictability for landowners and developers, the region's scarce resources for transportation capacity improvements must be used prudently to focus on areas where zoning and densities support a multi-modal transportation system. System capacity investments should be targeted first to those areas where the existing land use and transportation system provides some hope of achieving the desired multi-modal level-of-service within six years. GMA:pol Page 29 06/10/1992 B. Transportation Policies FW-14 The land use pattern shall be supported by a balanced transportation system which provides for a variety of mobility options. This system shall be cooperatively planned, financed, and constructed. Mobility options shall include a High Capacity Transit system which links the urban centers and is supported by an extensive High Occupancy Vehicle system, local community transit system for circulation within the centers and to the non-center urban areas, and non-motorized travel options. FW-15 All jurisdictions in the county, in cooperation with Metro, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the State, shall develop a balanced transportation system and coordinated financing strategies and land use plan which implement regional mobility and reinforce the countywide vision. Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies shall be recognized as the framework for creating a regional system of Centers linked by High Capacity Transit and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and supported by a transit system. FW-16 In recognition of the fact that King County is the regional freight distribution hub and a major international trade gateway, and that freight transportation is one of the state's most important basic sector economic activities, goods mobility by all modes shall be included as a component of comprehensive plans. T-1 The countywide transportation system shall promote the mobility of people and goods and shall be a multi-modal system based on regional priorities consistent with adopted land use plans. The transportation system shall include the following: a. An aggressive transit system, including High Capacity Transit; b. High Occupancy Vehicle facilities; C. Freight railroad networks; d Marine transportation facilities and navigable waterways; e. Airports; f. Transportation Demand Management actions; Q. Non-motorized facilities; and h. Freeways, highways, and arterials. T-2 King County, its cities, adjacent counties, Metro, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) shall support the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) pursuant to its Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designation. The primary forum for the development of regional transportation systems plans and strategies shall be the PSRC, as the MPO. T-3 The annual update and approval of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the PSRC should be the primary tool for prioritizing regional transportation improvements and programming regional transportation revenues. T-4 The GMPC or its successor shall have the ongoing responsibility for the following: a. Developing and maintaining coordinated level-of-service standards and a concurrency system for countywide transit routes and arterial streets, including state facilities; GMA:pol Page 30 06/10/1992 b. Developing regionally consistent policies for implementing countywide Transportation Demand Management actions and the Commute Trip Reduction Act including, but not limited to, parking policies, with an examination of price as a determinant of demand; and C. Developing and recommending transportation financing strategies, including recommendations for prioritizing capacity improvements eligible to receive federal funds available to the region under the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). 1 . High Capacity Transit/Regional Transit Project (HCT/RTP) T-5 Each Urban Center will be providing for a minimum of 15,000 jobs and should be served by High Capacity Transit (HCT). Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and having sufficient employment densities to support HCT should be served by HCT. All jurisdictions that would be served by HCT shall plan for needed HCT rights-of-way, stations and station supportive transportation facilities and land uses in their comprehensive plans. The land use and transportation elements of comprehensive plans shall incorporate a component to reflect future improvement needs for High Capacity Transit. Interim regional transit service should be provided to centers until the center is served by HCT. If voters do not approve HCT local option taxes, jurisdictions shall address this implication in the reassessment phase. T-6 WSDOT should assign a high priority to completion of the core HOV lanes in the central Puget Sound region. King County, its cities, and Metro Council representatives on the Transportation Policy and Executive Boards of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) shall make completion of this system a high priority in programming the federal funds available to the region. 2. Non-motorized Transportation T-7 The transportation element of Comprehensive Plans shall include pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation system and be developed on a coordinated, regional basis. The bicycle and pedestrian element shall be a part of the funding component of the capital improvement program. 3. Freeways/Highways/Arterials T-B In order to maintain regional mobility, a balanced multi-modal transportation system shall be planned that includes freeway, highway and arterial improvements by making existing roads more efficient. These improvements should help alleviate existing traffic congestion problems, enhance HOV and transit operations, and provide access to new desired growth areas, as identified in adopted land use plans. General capacity improvements promoting only Single Occupant Vehicle traffic shall be a lower priority. Transportation plans should consider the following mobility options/needs: a. Arterial HOV treatments, b. Driveway access management for principal arterials within the Urban Growth Area; and C. Improvements needed for access to manufacturing and industrial centers, marine and air terminals. GMA:pal Page 31 06/10/1992 FW-17 Infrastructure planning and financing shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide vision and land use plans. FW-18 Where appropriate, King County and its cities shall adopt a clear definition of level-of- service and concurrency requirements and establish a consistent process for implementing concurrency, including accountability for impacts for adjacent jurisdictions. FW-19 Each jurisdiction shall identify the facilities needed to ensure that services are provided - consistent with the community's adopted service levels. Timelines for the construction of the needed facilities shall be identified. 4. Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) T-9 Level-of-service standards shall be used as a 'tool' to evaluate concurrency for long-range transportation planning, development review and programming of transportation investments. T-10 Each local jurisdiction shall establish mode-split goals for non-SOV travel to all significant employment centers to reflect that center's contribution to the solution of the region's transportation problem. Mode-split goals will vary according to development densities, access to transit service and other alternative travel modes and levels of congestion. Comprehensive plans shall demonstrate what transportation system improvements, demand management and land use strategies will be implemented to achieve these mode-split goals. These local goals shall be coordinated to achieve county and regional goals. T-11 Elements to be considered in the level-of-service standard are,mobility options that encourage the use of transit, other high occupancy vehicles, demand management actions, access to transit, and non-motorized modes of travel. These standards shall be consistent with the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction Act. T-12 Mode split goals and measures of mobility for transit, ridesharing and non-motorized travel shall be established by local jurisdictions and METRO. T-13 Level-of-service standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns and growth management objectives. Lower arterial standards, tolerating more congestion, shall be established for urban centers. Transit LOS standards may focus on higher service levels in and between centers and decrease as population and employment densities decrease. T-14 Metro should develop transit level-of-service standards which provide the county and cities with realistic service expectations to support adopted land uses and desired growth management objectives. These standards should consider that route spacing and frequency standards are necessary for differing service conditions including: a. Service between designated centers served by High Capacity Transit; b. Service between designated centers not served by High Capacity Transit; and C. Service to areas outside centers. 5. Reassessment T-15 Local governments shall work together to reassess regional land use and transportation elements if transportation adequacy and concurrency cannot be met. Should funding fall GMA:pol Page 32 06/10/1992 short for transportation improvements or strategies needed to accommodate growth, the following actions should be considered: a. Adjust land use and level-of-service standards to better achieve mobility and the regional vision; b. Make full use of all feasible local option transportation revenues authorized but not yet implemented; and C. Work with WSDOT, Metro, and the private sector to seek additional state transportation revenues and local options to make system improvements necessary to accommodate projected employment and population growth. 6. Financing T-16 Transportation elements of Comprehensive Plans shall reflect the preservation and maintenance of transportation facilities as a high priority to avoid costly replacements and to meet public safety objectives in a cost-effective manner. T-17 Developer impact fees shall be structured to ensure that new development contributes its fair share of the resources needed to mitigate the impact on the transportation system. Adjoining jurisdictions shall execute interlocal agreements for impact fees which recognize that traffic generated in one jurisdiction contributes to the need to make transportation improvements across jurisdictional boundaries. Impact fees shall not be assessed to cure that portion of the improvement attributable to correcting existing deficiencies. T-18 Existing local option transportation funding shall be applied within King County as follows: a. Employee tax base -- reserved for city street utility development; b. Commercial parking tax -- defer action, pending development of a regional TDM strategy; C. HOV acceleration financing -- defer until after High Capacity Transit vote; and d. Local option gas tax -- consider as potential source to address transportation "concurrency" needs of county and cities only after vote on High Capacity Transit. T-19 Regional revenues (such as Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act funds) which provide discretion should be used to address regional mobility projects and strategies, including such strategies as creating centers or enhancing transit/HOV-SOV mode split. 7. State Transportation Role T-20 Consistent with the countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate with the State on land use and transportation systems and strategies which affect state facilities and programs. T-21 State capital improvement decisions and policy actions shall be consistent with regional and countywide goals and plans. The State shall ensure its transportation capital improvement decisions and programs support the adopted land use plans and transportation actions. T-22 The State and local governments shall use the same capital programming and budgeting time frame that all local governments and the county use, a minimum of six years, for making capital decisions and for concurrency management. GMA:pol Page 33 06/10/1992 8. Siting Regional and Countywide Transportation Facilities T-23 King County, the cities, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the State, Metro, and other transportation providers shall identify significant regional and/or countywide land acquisition needs for transportation and establish a process for prioritizing and siting the location of transportation facilities. GMA:pol Page 34 06/10/1992 IV. Community Character and Open Space A measure of the success of planning for growth is the extent to which we restore, maintain and create good places to live, work and play. We must encourage growth which improves our neighborhoods and landscapes, and builds a strong sense of place. The following policies on cultural resources, civic architecture and landmarks, multi-use roadways, Will development, and incentives for urban and rural design, aim to promote good community character. FW-20 All jurisdictions shall support the county's existing diversity of places to live, work and recreate and the ethnic diversity of our communities. The countywide development pattern shall include sufficient supply of quality places for housing, employment, education, recreation, and open space and the provision of community and social services. FW-21 Each urban area shall be characterized by superior urban design as locally defined. FW-22 Significant historic, archaeological, cultural, architectural and environmental features shall be respected and preserved. A. Historic Resources Historic resources create a sense of local identity and history, enhance the quality of life, support community vitality, and otherwise enrich our lives. Historic resources are non-renewable: they embody the unique heritage and evolution of particular places. Thoughtful management of these resources contributes to economic development and moderates some of the harmful effects of rapid growth. Planning for historic resources includes protecting archaeological sites and historic buildings and landscapes, encouraging expression of diverse ethnic and folk traditions, and supporting activities for children and youth. CC-1 All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources including continued and consistent protection for historic resources and public art works. CC-2 All jurisdictions shall encourage land use patterns and implement regulations that protect and enhance historic resources, and sustain historic community character. B. Urban Design Governments should be leaders in providing structures, public spaces, parks and streets which support the quality of our region. Civic design should express the region's values and vision, and should provide landmarks which contribute to our sense of place. Additionally, individual jurisdictions can nurture their individual character by developing a clear set of goals and policies which outline the public interest in the design of private development in the urban and rural communities. CC-3 All jurisdictions shall promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly-funded construction isuch as civic buildings, parks, bridges, transit stops), and in private development. GMA:pol Page 35 06/10/1992 C. Human and Community Services Human and community services are: social and health services; emergency shelters; meeting places; performing arts and cultural activities; schools; libraries; parks and recreation; and fire and police protection. CC-4 Human and community service planning activities shall support Countywide Planning Policies and the countywide land development pattern. CC-5 All jurisdictions shall identify essential community and human services and include them in land use, capital improvement, and transportation plans. D. Open Space Open space lands are essential to the community character of King County. They provide visual variety and relief from developed areas, protect environmental quality, and provide wildlife habitat and foster opportunities for outdoor recreation. Open space corridors physically and functionally link open space lands. The challenge for jurisdictions is to establish programs that contribute to the protection, accessibility and stewardship of open space lands and corridors. The GMA requires jurisdictions to form linkages between and within population centers with lands useful for recreation, trails, wildlife habitat and connection of critical areas. These open space lands and corridors or greenways should be selected and preserved to form an interconnected system regionally and within jurisdictions locally and should be stewarded to ensure continuing environmental and ecological significance. Where appropriate, the regional system and its local components should provide for multiple benefits and functions, which will require careful planning and management to ensure compatibility and long-term viability of the benefits and functions. Open space lands and corridors have significance at both the local and regional scale. Identification and protection of focal open spaces will be considered within the comprehensive plans of each jurisdiction. On an individual basis,jurisdictions should strive to identify, establish and protect open space lands of local significance that also compliment, adjoin or enhance the regional system. The regional open space system includes open space lands and corridors that have importance beyond jurisdictional boundaries and will require multi jurisdictional coordination to identify, protect and steward. FW-23 All jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify, establish, protect and steward urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance. CC-6 A regional open space system shall be established to include lands which: a. Provide physical and/or visual buffers such as open spaces which help to separate incompatible uses, distinguish the urban and rural areas, define urban growth boundaries, or establish the character of a neighborhood, community, city or region; b. Provide active and passive outdoor recreational opportunities which are compatible with the environmental and ecological values of the site; and/or C. Contain natural areas, habitat lands, natural drainage features, and/or other environmental, cultural, and scenic resources. CC-7 All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect open space corridors of regional significance. This process shall include: GMA:pol Page 36 06/10/1992 a. Identification of regional open space lands and corridors which form a functionally and physically connected system with environmental, ecological, recreational and aesthetic significance and which is readily accessible to our urban populations; b. Identification of implementation strategies and regulatory and non-regulatory tech- niques to protect the -lands and corridors, including collaboration and coordination with land trusts and other land preservation organizations; and C. Development of management plans and strategies to sustain the corridors' open space benefits and functions of the preserved lands and corridors. CC-8 Water bodies and rivers of the Puget Sound region form an important element of the open space system. Jurisdictions shall work to protect visual access to water bodies and rivers, and provide for physical access where appropriate. CC-9 Countywide funding shall be available for the acquisition, maintenance and stewardship of parks and open space, a) advancing the development of the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified by the jurisdictions, and b) ensuring the ready access of our citizens residing in Urban Centers to the regional open space system. CC-10 The conceptual map of open space systems contained in the 1988 King County Open Space Plan shall be used as the planning basis for regional open space lands and corridors. All jurisdictions will work cooperatively to revise and supplement this map to direct the protection of these valuable resources throughout the county. CC-11 All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces are provided as development and redevelopment occur. CC-12 All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified. CC-13 All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level of service standards for the provision of parks and open spaces. 06/1011992 GMA:pol Page 37 V. Affordable Housing Adequate housing, for all economic segments of the population, is a basic need of King County's residents and an issue of countywide concern. Affordable housing needs must be addressed by local governments working in cooperation with the private sector and nonprofit housing agencies. The GMA requires countywide policies to address parameters for the distribution of affordable housing, including housing for all income groups. This complex issues requires adequate infor- mation regarding current housing resources and housing needs, which is being developed for comprehensive plan housing elements, as well as in-depth discussion of values and priorities for housing development. FW-24 All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a process to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of low-income and affordable housing throughout the county in accordance with land use policies, transportation, and employment locations. All jurisdictions shall provide a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs and incomes. AH-1 All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility for achieving a rational and equitable distribution of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of low and moderate income residents in King County. The distribution of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households shall reflect the need for proximity to lower wage employment and access to transportation and human services; recognize each jurisdiction's past and current efforts to provide housing affordable to low and moderate-income households; avoid over-concentration of assisted housing; and increase housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households in communities throughout King County. Each juris- diction shall give equal consideration to local and countywide housing needs. The GMPC shall define and quantify affordable housing needs for low and moderate-income households and countywide objectives for distribution of affordable housing for low and moderate-income households. The process shall include involvement by housing industry representatives, housing interest groups, and community organizations. The Affordable Housing Technical Forum, which has representatives from the County and each city, shall prepare recommendations for the GMPC by August 1, 1992. By October 1, 1992 each jurisdiction shall specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households to be accommodated in its comprehensive plan, based on countywide objectives for distribution. By December 1, 1992 the GMPC will review, and the county and cities will ratify, the countywide objectives for distribution and each jurisdiction's proposed range and amount of affordable housing units. The process shall address: a. Development and preservation of subsidized housing and low-cost market rate housing; b. The definition of low-income and moderate-income housing; C. Guidelines to meet affordable housing needs in individual jurisdictions as well as need throughout King County, including recognition for jurisdictions that already meet the guidelines; GMA:pol Page 38 06/10/1992 d. Strategies, including land use incentives. streamlined permitting processes, and funding commitments, to be adopted by all jurisdictions to provide affordable housing; and e. Guidelines to ensure that affordable housing is provided in conjunction with regional transportation planning, including funding for acquisition and rehabilitation to pre- serve existing affordable housing; funding and incentives for development of new housing in infill and redevelopment projects; and, subject to a legal determination, inclusionary requirements to ensure that a proportion of new residential development is affordable to low and moderate income households. _ Providing sufficient land for housing development is an essential step in promoting affordable housing. Affordable housing can be encouraged by zoning additional land for higher residential densities, which helps provide needed capacity for growth, reduces land development cost per units, and allows for lower cast construction types such as attached dwellings. Higher density housing includes a range of housing types: small-lot single family, attached single family, mobile home parks, apartments and condominiums. In addition, zoning changes that permit additional housing in established areas, such as accessory units, carriage houses, and residences built above commercial uses, increase affordable housing opportunities. AH-2 Each jurisdiction shall show in its comprehensive plan how it will use policies, incentives, regulations and programs to provide its share of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households as determined by the process outlined in AH-1. AH-3 Each jurisdiction shall evaluate its existing resources of subsidized and low-cost non-subsidized housing and identify housing that may be lost due to redevelopment, dete- riorating housing conditions, or public policies or actions. Each jurisdiction shall develop strategies to preserve existing low-income housing where feasible and provide relocation assistance to low income residents who may be displaced. AH-4 All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their jurisdiction and determine annually the total number of new units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth. King County shall report annually on housing development, the rate of housing cost and price increases and available residential capacity countywide. AH-5 Within the urban growth area, each jurisdiction shall maximize its ability to accommodate sufficient, affordable housing by removing regulatory barriers, reviewing codes for redundancies and inconsistencies and providing opportunities for a full range of housing types such as accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes on individual lots, apartments, townhouses and attached single family housing. GMA:pol Page 39 06/10/1992 VI. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development Chapter /1, "Land Use Pattern," contains policies for phasing development within the Urban Growth Area. An integral component of the phasing process is ensuring that development is accompanied by a full range of urban services. Equally important is ensuring that infrastructure improvements are not provided in advance of development which could undermine the countywide development pattern. This chapter provides policies which support phasing within the Urban Growth Area and ensure the integrity of the countywide land development pattern. FW-25 Planning for and financing of services shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide policies. FW-26 Jurisdictions shall identify the services needed to achieve adopted service levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified. FW-27 Protection of public health and safety and the environment shall be given high priority in decision-making about infrastructure improvements. County residents in both urban and rural areas shall have reasonable access to a high-quality drinking water source meeting all federal and state drinking water requirements. Management and operation of existing on-site septic systems shall not result in adverse impacts to public health or the environment. A. General Policies To ensure that land use is accompanied with the maximum possible use of existing facilities and cost-effective service provisions and extensions, and to encourage development of strong, interrelated communities, policies are needed which integrate a full range of urban services with land-use planning and environmental protection. Urban service definitions should be guided by "public services," "public facilities," and "urban governmental services"as defined in RCW 36.70A (GMA). Community and human services policies are included under Chapter 1V, "Community Character and Open Space," and transportation policies are included under Chapter l/l, "Transportation." Several countywide planning efforts provide direction for achieving the integration of services, aquifer and natural resource protection, and land use planning. These include the Coordinated Water System Plans, Seattle Regional Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, Groundwater Management Plans, Basin Plans, Chelan Agreement Regional Water Resources Planning Process, Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, Wastewater 2020 Plus, Human Services Strategies Report, and the King County Sewerage General Plan. Furthermore, there are state mandates which affect the provision of services. For example, water resource allocation must accommodate all reasonable out-of-stream needs and maintain sufficient flows for in-stream uses. The following policies transcend Urban and Rural land use designations and apply countywide. GMA:pol Page 40 06/10/1992 1. Urban Services Required as Growth Occurs CO-1 Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they plan to provide them. 2. Conservation, Efficiency, Cost Effectiveness and New Technologies CO-2 Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, conjunctive use of resources, and sharing of facilities. Interjurisdictionai planning efforts shall evaluate approaches to share and conserve resources. CO-3 Service provision shall be coordinated to ensure the protection and preservation of resources in both rural areas and in areas that are developing, while addressing service needs within areas currently identified for growth. CO-4 All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface water management system which crosses jurisdictions boundaries and identifies and prioritizes program elements and capital improvements necessary to accommodate growth and protect the natural and build environment. The GMPC shall develop and recommend a financing and implementation strategy to meet this need. CO-5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors. The region should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand needs of all agencies and water purveyors. CO-6 Aggressive conservation efforts shall be implemented to address the need for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, protect natural resources, and achieve improved air quality. Efforts shall include, but not be limited to, public education, water reuse and reclamation, landscaping which uses native and drought-resistant plants and other strategies to reduce water consumption, small lot size, low-flow showerheads, conservation credits, and energy efficiency incentives in new and existing buildings. CO-7 Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large commercial and residential developments, and for high water users such as parks, schools, golf courses, and locks. CO-8 When planning for the future demand on wastewater treatment and conveyance, alternatives to the expansion of the Metro centralized system such as decentralized treatment and other treatment technologies, and wastewater reclamation and reuse shall be identified and incorporated into plans as viable options. CO-9 The presence of tightline sewers or availability of sewer pipeline capacity and water supply above what is required to meet local needs shall not be used to justify development counter to the countywide policies, and any such land use development proposal shall be denied by the permitting agency. B. Urban Areas Identified for Growth for the Next Ten Years The designation of the Urban Growth Area establishes the service area for the county. The detailed arrangement and timing of services and the installation of infrastructure improvements is GMA:pol Page 41 06/10/1992 left to be determined through shorter-term capital improvement plans. To support the densities and land uses of urban areas identified for immediate development, urban water and sewer systems are essential to support growth anticipated in the Urban Area over the next ten years. Urban water systems are defined as a network of pipes which are designed to meet all user needs and provide fire protection. Urban sewer systems are defined as a system of pipes providing conveyance to a sewage treatment facility. 1. Urban Water and Sewer Systems Required CO-10 In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions. However, existing septic systems, private wells, and/or small water systems may continue to serve the developments so long as densities and physical conditions are appropriate, the systems are allowed by the relevant jurisdictions, and management keeps the systems operating properly and safely. C. Urban Areas Designated for Growth Beyond 2002 In urban areas designated for growth beyond 2002, there will be a mix of existing services which may or may not be at urban service levels. The appropriate infrastructure improvements for sewer and water systems will vary according to existing site conditions. New developments should occur contiguous to existing, fully-developed areas so that extension of services occurs in an orderly and cost-effective manner. 1. Phased and Cost Effective Extension of Urban Water and Sewer Systems CO-11 To the extent practicable, all new plats shall be contiguous to the areas identified for growth for the next ten years. The phased expansion should respect basin boundaries or other natural landscape features. CO-12 Preferred sewer and water systems in areas designated for growth beyond 2002 are community drainfields and water systems which are professionally managed. These systems shall be designed, sited, and built to facilitate eventual conversion to urban sewer and water systems. Jurisdictions shall require all known and projected costs of infrastructure improvement to urban service levels be funded at the permitting stage. CO-13 Urban sewer system extensions in unincorporated King County shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage General Plan, countywide policies, and the policies of the jurisdiction in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. D. Rural Areas and Resource Lands Residents in rural areas and resource lands need to have many of the same types of services as urban areas. However, the service standards in rural areas and resource lands are not at Urban levels. Rural water systems are defined as individual or community wells or piped water systems designed to meet all user needs but, in most cases, not providing for fire protection. GMA:pol Page 42 06/10/1992 1. Limited Extension of Urban Water and Sewer Systems CO-14 Sewer expansion shall not occur in rural areas and resource lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening structures permitted before July 1, 1992 or the needs of public facilities such as schools. Sewers may be extended only if they are tightlined and only after a finding is made that no alternative technologies are feasible. Mechanisms to reduce cost and limit the number of individual hookups shall be explored and actions recommended to the GMPC. CO-15 Urban water system extensions shall not be permitted in rural areas and resource lands except to solve immediate health or safety problems threatening existing residents. If urban water systems are extended, the maximum number of hookups that is consistent with the countywide land development pattern shall be specified at the time of the extension. CO-16 All rural water systems outside existing service areas (planning areas) shall be professionally managed by the applicable water purveyor according to the satellite management procedures of the Coordinated Water System Plans, and designed to rural standards. GMA:pol Page 43 06/10/1992 VII . Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Nature Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature generally have characteristics that make these facilities extremely difficult to site. Such characteristics include the number of jurisdictions affected or served by the facility, the size of the facility, and the facility's potential adverse impacts, such as noise, odor, traffic, and pollution generation. The facilities can be either desirable or undesirable to jurisdictions. Some of the facilities are privately owned and regulated by public entities. Facilities also can be owned by the state and used by residents from throughout the state, such as universities and their branch campuses. The county and the cities need to develop a process for siting public capital facilities with these types of characteristics, including but not limited to, utility and transportation corridors, airports, wastewater treatment plants, solid waste landfills, higher educational facilities, correctional and in-patient treatment facilities and energy-generating facilities. FW-28 Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature shall be sited to support the countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs. Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods/jurisdictions in which facilities are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an interjurisdictional process established by the GMPC. S-1 The Growth Management Planning Council shall establish a process by which all jurisdictions shall cooperatively site public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature. The process shall include: a. A definition of these facilities; b. An inventory of existing and future facilities; C. Economic and other incentives to jurisdictions receiving facilities; d. A public involvement strategy; e. Assurance that the environment and public health and safety are protected; and f. A consideration of alternatives to the facility, including decentralization, demand management, and other strategies. GMA:pol Page 44 06/10/1992 Vill . Economic Development and Finance Jurisdictions should cooperatively create an environment which sustains the economic vitality of the region and which contributes to manageable economic growth. Jurisdictions shall recognize that King County is part of a larger regional economy, which is strongly linked by trade to the national and international economies. Infrastructure investments should be focused into urban centers and manufacturing/industrial employment centers which are supported by transit. Countywide policies shall be integrated with economic development. FW-29 All jurisdictions shall contribute to the economic sustainability of the county in a manner which supports the countywide land use pattern. This is to be accomplished by providing cost-efficient quality infrastructure and public services at an adopted level of service specific to the local situation, providing affordable housing, promoting excellence in education, and protecting the environment. FW-30 All jurisdictions shall act to increase work training and job opportunities for all residents and communities. FW-31 All jurisdictions shall support the development of a regional economic development strategy consistent with the countywide land use pattern. A. Economic Development Policies ED-1 By December 1, 1992, the GMPC shall adopt Economic Development policies which: a. Establish the county's role in the regional economy; b. Maintain a strong economic base within King County; C. Encourage diversification of-the economy; d. Maintain an adequate supply of land to support future economic development; e. Identify geographic areas to target public resources promoting economic development; f. Foster job training opportunities to maintain a highly educated work force; g. Protect the natural environment as a key economic value in this region; h. Consider the special needs of economically disadvantaged citizens and neighborhoods; and L Include the assistance of private sector. ED-2 By July 1, 1993 regional planning shall produce a regional industrial siting policy based on a regional assessment of the need for industrial zoned land and the availability of transportation and other infrastructure to serve it. ED-3 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans shall include economic development policies. These policies shall address the local economic concerns of each jurisdiction within the context of a regional economic development strategy. GMA:pol Page 45 06/10/1992 ED-4 Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall include an economic development element which will include an estimate of the type and number of jobs to be accommodated in the jurisdiction during the next 20 years. ED-5 The county shall work with Snohomish and Pierce Counties to develop a joint 20-year regional economic development strategy. B. Finance A fiscal analysis is required by the GMA. This section of policies is intended to bring together references to financial matters found in earlier chapters (see Chapter Il, "Rural Areas"and "Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers," Sections B and DI and to provide direction for the fiscal analysis of the anticipated results of implementing the countywide planning policies. FW-32 To implement the Countywide Planning Policies, jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify regional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies by July 1, 1993. Such strategies shall consider the infrastructure and service needs of Urban Centers, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, Activity Areas, BusinesslOffice Parks, other activity concentrations, and rural areas. Such strategies shall also provide incentives to support the Countywide Planning Policies and should: a. Make existing and newly identified funding sources respond in the most flexible way to meet countywide needs; b. Ensure that a balance of services is available countywide to meet, among others, human service, public safety, open space and recreation, education, and transportation needs; and C. Evaluate current revenue and service demands and the potential for more effective coordination of service delivery. GMA:pol Page 46 06/10/1992 Appendix I TRANSPORTATION: Requirements of the Growth Management Act Countywide Policies (ReESHB 1025, Section 2) Countywide planning policies must be adopted by July 1, 1992 to provide a framework from which consistent county and city comprehensive plans will be developed. Policies for transportation must address: 1. Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development [32.2 (3J MY, 2. Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or state-wide nature(32.2 (3J (01, 3. Policies for countywide transportation facilities and strategies 132.2 0 (d)], 4. Policies for joint county and city planning within growth areas [32.2 (3) (N, 5. An analysis of the fiscal impact.i32.2 (3J (hJ]. Comprehensive Plans (RCW 36.70A.070) The transportation element of comprehensive plans adopted by the county or cities will be measured against the policies and standards approved and ratified as part of the countywide framework plan. ay July 1, 1993 the county and cities are required to adopt a comprehensive plan with a mandatory transportation element that includes the following sub-elements: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel demand; 2. Facility and service needs for attaining and sustaining level-of-service standards for arterials and transit routes; 3. Six-year financing plan based upon the needs of the comprehensive plan; reassess land use element if level-of-service standards cannot be met with funding resources; this plan will be updated and adopted annually, 4. Intergovernmental coordination with adjacent jurisdictions; 5. Transportation Demand Management strategies. Within one year of adopting a comprehensive plan, the county and cities are required to meet. 1. Adequacy Requirements: Adopt an ordinance which prohibits development approval if the development causes the level-of-service to decline below the standard adopted in the transportation element. 2. Concurrency Requirements: Deny development unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development can be in place at the time of development or a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Other Laws and Regulations Federal law requires an on-going cooperative, continuous and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition of federal transportation grants. To comply with this requirement, GMA:pol Page 47 06/10/1992 the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization /MPO) is responsible for long-range transportation planning and short-range transportation improvement programming (TIP). The MPO planning and programming responsibilities are strengthened and enhanced under the recent re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act. The Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (1STEA) eliminates several categorical funding programs and creates a new flexible Surface Transportation Program (STP) and a new Congestion Mitigation Program. Funds available to the region under these two highway programs may be used for multi-modal solutions, and the MPO has project selection authority for these programs, as well as _ the federal transit program funds for the region. In addition, Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) project selections under the Interstate Maintenance, Bridge, and National Highway System (NHS!programs must be made in cooperation with the MPO and in conformance with the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) of 1990 requires substantial reduction of emissions from the transportation sector. The Puget Sound Regional Council's transportation plans and projects must conform to Transportation Control Measures contained in the State implementation Plan (SIP)prepared by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The current strategy for meeting CAAA vehicle emissions requirements include: o expanded inspection and maintenance program, and o a regional implementation of the Commute Trip Reduction Law cited below. The State Commute Trip Reduction Law of 1991 requires reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Employers of 100 or more employees are directed to reduce work travel demand by 35 percent by 1999. Ordinances adopted by the county and cities must be coordinated with transit agencies, regional planning organizations and major employers; and they must be consistent with commute trip reduction plans of neighboring jurisdictions. State law provides for the development of a High Capacity Transit (HCT) system within the Puget Sound Area. The law requires that transit agencies (Metro, Pierce Transit, Snotran, Community Transit and Everett Transit)jointly plan the implementation of such a system. For that purpose, the Joint Regional Policy Committee was formed and charged with the responsibility of recommending a system plan and financial program that would implement the HCT system. This plan is being developed in support of the Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies; this vision calls for creation of a regional system of central places linked by High Capacity Transit facilities, and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. . The 1990 State Legislature passed various legislation granting local governments authority to establish a number of taxing programs for funding transportation projects and programs. An interim and informal group called the Local Options Strategy Development Steering Committee was formed to recommend how these funding authorities should be exercised. This initial work was completed in September of 1991 with a comprehensive recommendation as to how each funding source should be assigned. As local jurisdictions take actions on these recommendations, it would be useful to re-convene this Steering Committee or a similar group for coordinating transportation funding decisions. GMA:pol Page 48 06/10/1992 EYMBIT B July 1, 1992 Introduced by: Sullivan/Laing 92-439s8:MMcF/JC:hdm Gruger/Phillips Derdowski Proposed No. : 92-439 1 10450 2 ORDINANCE NO. _ 3 AN ORDINANCE adopting the Countywide 4 Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 5 36.70A.210 and ratifying the Countywide 6 Planning Policies for unincorporated King 7 County. 8 PREAMBLE: 9 For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the State 10 of Washington Growth Management Act to establish a countywide 11 framework from which comprehensive plans are to be developed as 12 specified in RCW 36.70A.210,. the King County Council makes the 13 following findings: 14 1. The Countywide Planning Policies describe the vision 15 for King County and provide the initial strategies to be used 16 by local jurisdictions, acting individually and cooperatively, 17 to achieve that vision. 18 2. RCW 36.70A.210 requires that, through a process agreed 19 to by King County (county) , the City of Seattle (Seattle) , and 20 incorporated suburban cities and towns (suburban cities) , the 21 county, as the legislative authority, adopt Countywide Planning 22 Policies no later than July 1, 1992. 23 3. The county, Seattle, and suburban cities established 24 that process through an interlocal agreement creating the 25 Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) . The GMPC is 26 comprised of the King County Executive, five members of the 27 King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six 28 representatives of the suburban cities with three votes, and 29 one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. 30 4. After six months of deliberation which included public 31 workshops and hearings, the GMPC adopted and recommended the 32 Countywide Planning Policies to the King County Council. 33 5. The council finds that the existing environmental 34 documents adopted by King County on May 5, 1992 and the 35 supporting addendum issued on June 18, 1992 are adequate under 36 SEPA for the purposes of the county's adoption of the 37 Countywide Planning Policies. 38 6. The county recognizes that additional work is planned 39 to further refine the Countywide Planning Policies with regard 40 to numerous issues, including but not limited to urban centers, 41 manufacturing and industrial areas and centers, affordable 42 housing, mobility, transportation, economic development, rural 43 character, provision of urban services, including services in 44 potential annexation areas, and adjustments to the Urban Growth 45 Area. Based on this work, the GMPC will recommend to the 46 county amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. These 47 amendments would be subject to further environmental review, 48 and adoption by the county and ratification by the cities. The 49 results of this work would be a refined set of Countywide 50 Planning Policies. A Supplemental Environmental Impact 51 Statement (SEIS) will analyze the impacts of the proposed set 52 of refined policies and will consider reasonable alternatives 92-439s8:MMCF:hdm July 6, 1992 10:02am 10450 1 to those policies. Attachment A lays out the work program and ,2 timetable for refining the policies. -• 3 7. With respect to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary a 4 number of study areas have been identified which require 5' additional consideration by the GMPC. These study areas are 6 identified on the GMPC Recommended Urban Growth Area map. For 7 the East Sammamish area, the GMPC determined that the area 8 should be further evaluated and possibly revised based on the 9 East Sammamish Community Plan Update process which is now under 10 way and which will be completed in January 1993 . 11 Recommendations on the UGA Boundary will be developed in 12 cooperation with the affected cities, neighborhoods, property 13 owners and the general public. Changes to the adopted UGA 14 Boundary may be recommended to the county by the GMPC and 15 subject to adoption and ratification. 16 8. The Countywide Planning Policies apply within King 17 County only and therefore only apply to unincorporated King 18 County and to that portion of a city or town located within the 19 county. 20 9. The Countywide Planning Policies provide for the 21 coordination and regulation of public and private development 22 and bear a substantial relationship to, and are necessary for, 23 the public health, safety, and general welfare of King County 24 and its residents. 25 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 26 SECTION I. The county will implement the major planning 27 requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in three 28 phases, each accompanied by the appropriate scope and level of 29 environmental review pursuant to both the GMA and the State 30 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and fiscal review. Phase I is 31 the adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies for the 32 purposes described in Section 2. Phase II is the process for 33 refinement of Countywide Planning Policies through proposed 34 amendments to them, and the preparation of an SEIS and a fiscal 35 analysis. Phase II, which will begin upon adoption of the 36 Countywide Planning Policies, is described in section 3 . Phase 37 III is the review and adoption of amendments to the King County 38 Comprehensive Plan. Phase III will incorporate any changes 39 made to the Countywide Planning Policies in Phase II. 40 SECTION 2. The Countywide Planning Policies attached 41 hereto are hereby approved and adopted for purposes of 42 complying with RCW 36.70A.210; to begin the process of city 43 review and ratification; to provide a policy framework for 44 developing and updating jurisdictions, comprehensive plans; to 92-43958:MMc F:han July b, 1992 10:02am 2 10450 1 provide a policy framework for interim controls to the extent 2 the policies expressly require them; and to establish a program 3 for the additional work necessary to refine, amend and 4 implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SEIS 5 review and fiscal analysis. 6 SECTION 3. In Phase II the county will reconvene the 7 GMPC no later than December 1992 to evaluate the following 8 information and recommendations: nominations of urban and 9 manufacturing/industrial centers by affected jurisdictions; the 10 target numbers for population and employment by jurisdiction; 11 recommendations from the Rural Character, Affordable Housing 12 and Economic Development Task Forces; further fiscal analysis; 13 analysis of mobility and transportation; other relevant 14 information and public comment, in preparing amendments. GMPC 15 will consider the results of the additional work and may 16 recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies to the 17 county. Any such recommended amendments shall be subject to 18 adoption by the county and ratification by the cities according 19 to the formula in the interlocal agreement creating the GMPC. 20 Further fiscal analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies, 21 any proposed amendments and alternatives will be prepared and 22 circulated for public comment. The objectives of the fiscal 23 analysis are to a) provide information on the anticipated 24 financial and economic impacts on the individual, and on the 25 private and public sectors, and b) determine how these impacts 26 affect the fiscal viability of the individual and of the 27 private and public sectors. A SEIS will be prepared for the 28 proposed refined set of Countywide Planning Policies resulting 29 from the work described in this Section. The SEIS will analyze 30 the probable significant environmental impacts, including 31 countywide impacts, of the proposed refined set of policies and 32 reasonable alternatives to those policies. The scope of the 33 environmental impact statement will be based on a public 34 scoping process pursuant to WAC 197-11-408. 92-639s8:MMCF:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02am 3 10450 1 SECTION 4. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by this 2 ordinance for the purposes specified herein are hereby ratified 3 on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 4 SECTION 5. The Countywide Planning Policies shall become 5 effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 6 thirty percent of the city and county governments representing 7 seventy percent of the population of King County according to 8 the interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have 9 ratified the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within ninety 10 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action 11 disapproves the Countywide Planning Policies. 12 SECTION 6. The county executive shall commence 13 preparation of the Phase II SEIS and fiscal analysis, and the 14 county comprehensive plan amendments and regulations to 15 implement the countywide policies, subject to completion of the 16 ratification process set out in Section 5. The Countywide 17 Planning Policies will affect the county's land use decisions 18 when the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations 19 implementing the policies are adopted. 20 SECTION 7. The county executive shall develop and 21 propose to the council a process to enter 'into interlocal 22 agreements relating to each city's potential annexation area. 23 The process shall include consultation with affected special 24 purpose districts. 92-63958:MMaF:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02am 4 1045,0 1 SECTION 8. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, 2 sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application 3 to any person or circumstance be declared unconstitutional or 4 invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the 5 validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or it 6 application to other persons or circumstances. 7 INT/RODUCED AND READ for the first time this day h`Zlis••. , 19 9�8 of 9 PASSED this S2 day of Y* 19TZ_ 10 KING COUNTY COUNCIL 11 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 12 13 Chair 14 ATTEST: 15 16 Clerk of the Council 17 APPROVED this C day of `- �' �"`� 19q Z 18 19 King County Executive 20 92-439s8:MMCF:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02am 5 10450 ATTACHMENT A Work Proeram to Refine Countywide Planniniv Pulici The completion dales are points at which the GNIPC is expected to review and consider:unendnnents to the Countywide Planning Policies. Jurisdictions have additional tasks to complete or revise local comprehensive plans. PUBLIC REVIEW WILL CONTINUE AS NIATERIALS ARE PREPARED AND RECONINISNDATIONS FRONI JURISDICTIONS ARE DEVELOPED. GNIPC Conn lotion Date Task 1. Scoping of additional issues requiring supplernental September 1992 environmental review. 2. Urban Growth Boundary One mouth after Interim actions by cities and County. ratification Technical review of study areas. October 1992 3. Centers and Capacity Urban and Nianufacturing/Industrial Centers nomination & confinnation(LU-28& 39) December 1992 Dwelling units accnmmodatedldislrihuted; employment growth distributed (LU-52& LU-53) December 1992 4. Affordable housing: needs and distribution(All-1) December 1992 (includes recommendations from Task Force of GNIPC private sector) 5. Economic Development Policies December 1992 (includes recommendations from Task Force of GNIPC private sector) 6. Rural Areas December 1992 Rural character (LU-9) (includes recommendations from GNIPC Task Force) January 1993 Cities in rural areas growth areas (LU-26) y jbc:mmc ccpwk:62592 - 92.439e8:MMcf:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02sm 6 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 15, 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: DELETION OF VACANT POSITIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As requested by the City Council at their meetings of July 21 and August 18, 1992, an ordinance has been prepared to delete 28 .25 vacant positions and the associated salary credits. The deletions do not include the recent laid off positions nor do they include non-general fund impact positions, In addition to deleting the positions, the ordinance provides a section related to retention of position titles to allow flexibility in implementing reorganizations or in filling more critical positions as future positions become vac)ance - 3 . EXHIBITS: Summary analysis of vacant positions, or delete positions and associated individual positi list 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examin Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGE FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES C PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended TURE REQUIRED: $ OF FUNDS: UNCIL ACTION:member moves, Councilmember "" 4wLk� seconds ao adoption of Ordinance & I P �' � deleting 28.25 vacant city positions and the associated salary credits in the 1992 Budget. DISCUSSION: VW ACTION: M C;1 Council Agenda Item No. 4B v� MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: DELETED POSITION ORDINANCE aator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/28/92 at 1045. THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHOWS THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE SECOND DELETED POSITION ORDINANCE. THE FIRST ORDINANCE PASSED BY COUNCIL ON 8/18/92 DELETED 10.5 GENERAL FUND POSITIONS THAT WERE NEVER FILLED. THE DELETION OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S POSITION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE POSITIONS DELETED BY COUNCIL. THIS SECOND DELETED POSITION ORDINANCE DELETES 28 . 25 GOVERNMENTAL FUND POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN VACATED BETWEEN 1/1/91 AND 7/31/92 AND NOT REFILLED. THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED FROM THE PREVIOUS PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. POLICE - NON GENERAL FUND POSITIONS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, NOT DELETED FIRE - BATTALION CHIEF POSITION NOT DELETED, AND SECTION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE RETAINS POSITION TITLES FOR FUTURE FLEXIBILITY PUBLIC WORKS - NON GENERAL FUND POSITIONS NOT DELETED LAW - CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROSECUTOR MOVED TO VANNEMAN'S GENERAL FUND POSITION WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE POSITION NOT DELETED BUT REMAINING FROZEN FINANCE - PARTTIME PRINTER FILLING VACANT FULLTIME PRINTER POSITION WITH ALL BENEFITS OF FULL TIME PER AFSCME LABOR AGREEMENT SO PARTTIME POSITION DELETED IN LIEU OF FULL TIME POSITION A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE IMPACTS, IN COMBINATION WITH THE LAYOFF IMPACTS, IS )WN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. THE ORDINANCE ALSO DELETES ALL SALARY CREDITS AND IN SO DOING INCREASES THE GENERAL FUND'S BUDGETED FUND BALANCE FOR 1992 . THIS ACTION THOUGH DOES NOT INCREASE ANY FUNDS SINCE THE DELETED POSITIONS WERE BUDGETED TO BE KEPT VACANT THROUGH 1993 . City of Kent, Washington Projected Positions Reductions As A Percentage Of Total Original Positions August, 1992 Deleted Positions Vacant Per Potenially Positions Total Council Deleted Layoff Not Proposed Positions Action Positions Positions Total % For Deletion GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Executive/Administration 7.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 20.0% 1.0 City Clerk 2.5 0.5 0.5 20.0% Civil Service 1.0 Law 7.5 1.0 1.0 13.3% Human Resources 6.5 1.0 1.0 15.4% Finance/Public Office Buildings 31.5 4.0 4.0 12.7'/. Planning 19.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 12.8% Police 128.5 1.0 7.5 0.5 9.0 7.0% Fire & Code Enforcement 152.5 3.0 6.0 2.0 11.0 7.2% 1.0 Public Works 68.1 3.5 4.0 1.0 8:5 12.5% 2.0 Perks, Recreation & Culture 63.0 0.5 2.25 4.0 6.75 10.7% Information Services 15.0 2.5 2.5 16.7% 1.0 Total 503.0 11.5 27.75 9.0 48.25 9.6% 5.0 OTHER FUNDS Special Revenue Funds Criminal Justice Lau 2.0 1.0 Police 8.25 2.0 Environmental Fire 1.0 Public Works 1.0 H&CD Planning 2.0 Street Utility-Public Works 2.5 1.0 Total 16.75 4.0 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Utility Billing-Finance 6.5 0.5 0.5 7.7'% Utility Operations-Public Works 45.0 6.0 Golf Complex-Parks 17.0 2.0 2.0 11.8% 1.0 Total 68.5 0.5 2.0 2.5 3.6% 7.0 TOTAL POSITIONS 588.25 11.50 28.25 11.00 50.75 8.6% 16.0 3 A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 1992 Budget as adopted by Ordinance No. 3011 to delete 28 . 25 Vacant Positions and Delete Salary Credits. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 1992 Budget of the City of Kent as passed by Ordinance 3011 is hereby amended by deleting positions and making certain budgetary adjustments as set forth below and as more specifically set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. POSITIONS BUDGET FUND/DEPARTMENT DELETED ADJUSTMENTS GENERAL FUND ADMINISTRATION 0. 5 (32, 426) FINANCE 2 . 0 (40, 776) PLANNING 1. 0 (29, 820) POLICE 7 . 5 -0- FIRE 6 . 0 (18, 707) PUBLIC WORKS 4 . 0 (187 , 155) PARKS 2 . 25 (7 , 886) TOTAL GENERAL FUND 23 . 25 (316 , 770) STREET FUND 51809 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 24, 809 1 POSITIONS BUDGET FUND/DEPARTMENT DELETED ADJUSTMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 13 , 594 WATER FUND 138, 147 SEWERAGE FUND 56, 253 GOLF COURSE FUND 15, 420 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 21, 802 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND FINANCE 2 . 0 (31, 275) INFORMATION SERVICES 2 . 5 (100 , 318) TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 4 . 5 (131, 593) UTILITY CLEARING FUND FINANCE . 5 27 , 529 PUBLIC WORKS 12 , 528 TOTAL UTILITY CLEARING FUND . 5 40, 057 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 5 184 , 298 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 28 . 25 (132 , 472) Section 2 . RETENTION OF POSITION TITLES. With deleted positions being those created by random employee terminations, position titles and descriptions will be retained in Human Resources records for the purpose of allowing flexibility in implementing reorganization or filling of more critical positions as future random positions become vacant. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 2 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1992 APPROVED the day of 1992 PUBLISHED the day of , 1992 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 ORDINANCE ITOTDELETE VACANT POSITIONS a _.. FUND SALARY DELETED POSITIONS BUDGET DEPARTMENT CREDIT NUMBER AMOUNT ADJUSTMENT GENERAL FUND 0. 5 32 , 426 (32 , 426) ADMINISTRATION 35,765 2 . 0 76, 541 (40,776) FINANCE 23 , 036 1. 0 52 , 856 29 , 820 PLANNING 304 , 096 7 . 5 304 , 096 0 POLICE 240, 708 6. 0 259 , 415 (18 ,707 FIRE 4 . 0 187 , 155 (1871155 PUBLIC WORKS 56, 517 2 . 25 64, 403 (7 , 886) PARKS TOTAL GENERAL FUND 660, 122 23 . 25 976, 892 (316,770) STREET UTILITY 5� 809 5, 809 PUBLIC WORKS CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 41764 41764 ATTORNEY POLICE 20 , 045 20, 045 TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 24 , 809 24, 809 ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 5610 51610 , FIRE PUBLIC WORKS 7 , 984 7 , 984 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 13 , 594 13 , 594 WATER FUND 138 , 147 138 , 147 PUBLIC WORKS SEWERAGE FUND 56 253 56, 253 PUBLIC WORKS GOLF COURSE FUND 15, 420 PARKS 15, 420 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 21, 802 PUBLIC WORKS 21, 802 CENTRAL SERVICES FINANCE 44 , 804 2 . 0 76 , 079 (31, 275) INFORMATION SERVICES 91857 2 . 5 110, 175 (100, 318) TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 54 , 661 4 . 5 186, 254 (131, 593) UTILITY CLEARING FUND FINANCE 48 , 276 0. 5 20, 747 27 , 529 PUBLIC WORKS 12 , 528 12 , 528 TOTAL UTILITY CLEARING 60, 804 0. 5 20, 747 40, 057 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 1, 051, 421 28 . 25 1, 183 , 893 (132, 472) C: \USERS\LAURIE\ORDDEL.WQ! 08-Sep-92 EXHIBIT a POTENTIALLY DELETED POSITIONS VACANT GENERAL FUND IMPACT POSITIONS 1992 EST ACT 1993 SALARY & SALARY & BUDGETED EXCESS SALARY & BENEFIT BENEFIT VACANCY VACANCY BENEFIT DEPARTMENT POSITION TITLE POSITIONS BUDGET SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS BUDGET GENERAL FUND POSITIONS VACATED IN 1991 FINANCE FINANCE TECHNICIAN (MERTES) 1.00 39,235 39,235 42,112 POLICE RECORDS SPECIALIST (JARDINE) 1.00 28,677 28,677 32,016 POLICE PATROL OFFICER (EMERSON TO CRIM JUST) 1.00 41,452 41,452 43,258 POLICE PATROL OFFICER (STEVEN KELLY TO CRIM JUST) 1.00 41,452 41,452 43,258 POLICE PATROL OFFICER (JAMES MILLER TO CRIM JUST) 1.00 41,452 41,452 43,258 POLICE PATROL OFFICER (BOURNE TO CRIM JUST) 1.00 41,452 41,452 43,258 FIRE FIRE LIEUTENANT (CARROLL) 1.00 57,559 57,559 59,363 FIRE FIRE FIGHTER (BASTA) 1.00 42,405 42,405 41,831 FIRE FIRE FIGHTER (TILLEY) 1.00 42,405 42,405 41,831 FIRE BUILDING INSPECTOR (KORTH) 1.00 46,330 46,330 46,941 FIRE SUPPORT SVCS MGR (HOFFMAN-GROSS) 1.00 47,079 47,079 46,874 PUBLIC WORKS ENGR TECH 11 1.00 49,321 49,321 43,098 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER 11 (BRAKE) 1.00 52,712 52,712 54,475 PUBLIC WORKS ENGR TRANS (VACANT SINCE 1990) 1.00 52,712 52,712 54,475 PARKS MW2 (ALCONCEL TO WATER) 1.00 31,661 31,661 34,947 TOTAL GENERAL FUND POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1991 15.00 655,904 655,904 670,995 POSITIONS VACATED IN 1992 ADMIN PUBLIC INFO COOR (CASTILLO) 1/14 0.50 33,376 32,426 31,845 FINANCE BUDGET ANALYST (SHEA) 4/30 1.00 49,930 37,306 44,920 PLANNING SR PLANNER (ANDERSON) 1/15 1.00 54,644 52,856 53,265 P^IICE PROGRAM ASSISTANT - KDDTF (SCHORRAN) 0.50 25,011 25,011 24,576 CE PATROL OFFICER (PEARCE) 1/4 1.00 51,915 51,033 43,258 IweICE PROG COORD KDDTF (ANDERSON) 5/13 1.00 49,950 33,567 47,855 FIRE BUILDING & GROS MTC (STRECKER) 6/24 1.00 35,517 23,637 36,470 PUBLIC WORKS ENG TECH III (ANDERSON) 5/15 1.00 50,529 32,410 46,374 PARKS YOUTH AT RISK COORDINATOR 0.25 10,740 10,740 11,704 PARKS ADMIN SEC I (BREWER) 5/15 1.00 37,105 22,002 35,903 TOTAL GENERAL FUND POSITIONS VACATED IN 1992 8.25 398,717 320,988 0 0 376,170 TOTAL GENERAL FUND VACANCIES a 7/31/92 23.25 1,054,621 976,892 660,122 316,770 1,047,165 OTHER GENERAL FUND IMPACT POSITIONS POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 AND CURRENTLY VACANT CENTRAL SERVICES FINANCE CUSTODIAN I 1.50 49,481 49,481 51,170 INFORMATION SERVICES PRODUCTION SVC SUPERVISOR 1.00 48,292 48,292 49,969 TOTAL OTHER GENERAL FUND IMPACT POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 2.50 97,773 97,773 101,139 POSITIONS VACATED IN 1991 CENTRAL SERVICES FINANCE PRINTER (NGUYEN TO FT) 0.50 26,598 26,598 27,759 INFOMATION SERVICES MICROCOMPUTER TECH (KNOX TO SUPR) 1.00 40,576 40,576 42,112 INFOMATION SERVICES WP SPCLST I (RIEG TO POLICE) 0.50 21,307 21,307 22,489 UTILITY CLEARING FINANCE METER READER II (ALCONCEL TO PARKS) 0.50 20,747 20,747 23,527 TOTAL OTHER GENERAL FUND IMPACT POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1991 2.50 109,228 109,228 0 0 115,887 .L OTHER GENERAL FUND IMPACT VACANCIES a 7/31/92 5.00 207,001 207,001 391,299 (184,298) 217,026 TOTAL VACANCIES RECOMMENDED TO BE DELETED 28.25 1,261,622 1,183,893 1,051,421 132,472 1,264,191 EXHIBITa 1=� GENERAL FUND DELETED POSITIONS PER COUNCIL ACTION 1992 EST ACT 1993 SALARY & SALARY & BUDGETED EXCESS SALARY & BENEFIT BENEFIT VACANCY VACANCY BENEFIT DEPARTMENT POSITION TITLE POSITIONS BUDGET SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS BUDGET POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 BUDGET AND CURRENTLY DELETED 0.50 20,404 20,404 23,691 C17Y CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I 1.00 57,559 57,559 61,269 FIRE LIEUTENANT 2.00 84,810 84,810 87,472 FIRE FIREFIGHTER 1 00 46,172 46,172 56,409 LAW ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 826 24,212 PARKS COMMONS CUSTODIAN 1.00 40,576 40,576 1.00 40,576 40,576 44,193 HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASST II 1 00 44,219 44,219 47,905 POLICE SYSTEMS COORDINATOR 41,202 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER TECH 1 1.00 37,181 47,181 50,479 PUBLIC WORKS CHIEF INSPECTOR 1.50 18,911 18,911 0.50 18,911 18,911 22,173 PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE TECHNICAN 1I 1.00 44,165 44,165 47,405 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR-WATER/SEWER TOTAL POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 BUDGET AND CURRENTLY DELETED 10.5 462,460 462,460 506,410 POSITIONS DELETED BY COUNCIL ACTION ADMIN CITY ADMINISTRATOR (CHOW) 1.0 108,222 GRAND TOTAL POSITIONS DELETED 11.5 462,460 462,460 614,632 C -- LAYOFF POSITION ANALYSIS 1992 EST ACT 1993 SALARY & SALARY & SALARY & BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT DEPARTMENT POSITION TITLE POSITIONS BUDGET SAVINGS BUDGET GENERAL FUND LAYOFF POSITIONS IN 1992 PLANNING SR PLANNER (PROW) 1.00 56,239 17,781 59,315 PLANNING OFFICE TECHNICIAN II (ROBBINS) 0.50 23,666 7,658 26,598 POLICE PUBLIC EDUCATION SPECIALIST (TOURTLOTTE) 0.50 24,147 6,852 26,271 FIRE BUILDING INSPECTOR (TINNER) 1.00 49,416 16,167 54,203 FIRE PERMIT SPECIALIST I (GUMESON) 1.00 37,893 12,575 38,995 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER I (CHENG) 1.00 58,449 15,929 61,046 PARKS PARKS PROJECT ASSISTANT 11 (NEIFFER) 1.00 47,457 13,986 49,113 PARKS PUBLIC INFO COORDINATOR (STROZYK) 0.50 32,814 11,701 33,332 PARKS RECREATION FACILITY ASST I (WESCOTT) 0.50 23,786 8,270 24,642 PARKS CUSTODIAN I (JOSTMEYER) 0.50 28,918 13,037 27,755 PARKS RECREATION FACIL ASST I (CRABBE) 0.50 22,055 6,120 23,830 PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER II (LOFRANCO) 1.00 38,365 12,167 41,844 TOTAL GENERAL FUND LAYOFFS a 7/31/92 - 9.0 443,205 142,243 466,944 NON GENERAL FUND LAYOFF POSITIONS IN 1992 GOLF COURSE GOLF COMPLEX ASST SUPT MNTN (ANDERSON) 1.00 51,200 12,689 58,542 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE WORKER II (DANIEL) 1.00 35,670 12,475 38,121 TOTAL NON GENERAL FUND LAYOFFS a 7/31/92 2.0 86,870 25,164 96,663 GRAND TOTAL 11.0 530,075 167,407 563,607 C:\USERS\WKS\VACLAYOF.WD! 24-Aug-92 VACANT POSITIONS NOT PROPOSED FOR DELETION 1992 EST ACT 1993 SALARY & SALARY & SALARY & BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT DEPARTMENT POSITION TITLE POSITIONS BUDGET SAVINGS BUDGET GENERAL FUND POSITIONS VACATED IN 1991 FIRE FIRE BATTALION CHIEF (ORNDORFF) 1.00 57,964 57,964 65,034 1.00 57,964 57,964 65,034 TOTAL POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1991 POSITIONS VACATED 1N 1992 ADM1N CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (NEW) 1.00 88,615 45,886 88,815 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN (RICHTER) 8/31 1.00 46,915 10,840 40,592 TOTAL POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1992 2.00 135,530 56,726 129,407 TOTAL GENERAL FUND VACANCIES a 8/31/92 3.00 193,494 114,690 194,441 NON GENERAL FUND POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 AND CURRENTLY VACANT CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND ACCT SVCS ASST II 1.00 33,043 33,043 34,449 POLICE 1.00 34,920 34,920 35,903 POLICE EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN STREET UTILITY 1.00 52,712 52,712 54,475 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER 11 TOTAL POSITIONS NEW IN 1991 BUDGET 3.00 120,675 120,675 124,827 POSITIONS VACATED IN 1991 SEWER FUND 100 33427 33427 34,947 PUBLIC WORKS UTIL SPECIALIST I (BOWERS to WTR) 6-91 . , , GOLF FUND 1.00 49,249 49,249 50,536 PARKS GOLF ASST SUPT PRO (SYZDEL) TOTAL POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1991 2.00 82,676 82,676 85,483 TOTAL NON GENERAL FUND VACANCIES a 12/31/91 5.00 203,351 203,351 210,310 POSITIONS VACATED 1N 1992 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 1.00 50,729 0 55,532 LAW ASST CITY ATTORNEY (HAENEL TO VANNEMAN POS) WATER FUND 1.00 50,077 38,848 43,895 PUBLIC WORKS FIELD SUP. (AUSBURN TO ENG) 3/16 1.00 50,911 19,622 34,947 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY SPECIALIST I (CIHAK) 6/16 1.00 36,911 9,612 34,947 PUBLIC WORKS FIELD SUPERVISOR (HAGER) 8/31 895 SEWER FUND 1.00 39,890 26,596 37,740 PUBLIC WORKS MTC WKR Ili (REED TO WTR) 4/30 1.00 35,670 26,596 37,740 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY SPECIALIST I (CORNER) 7/31 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1.00 39,290 21,826 40,363 PUBLIC WORKS MECHANIC 11 (GERDELMAN) 6/05 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 1.00 48236 13101 46,874 INFORMATION SERVICES OFFICE SYSTEM SUPERVISOR (KNOX) 8/10 , , TOTAL POSITIONS VACATED DURING 1992 8.00 351,094 142,065 338,193 TOTAL NON GENERAL FUND VACANCIES a 8/31/92 13.00 554,445 345,416 548,503 TOTAL FUND VACANCIES a 8/31/92 16.00 747,939 460,106 742,944 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE Z'. E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE A-t; , (/ai r F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS CITY OF )V ,21022 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 4: 00 PM d�7II�C9t� COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Norm Angelo Jim Bennett Mary Berg Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker Judy Woods, Council President Laurie Evezich Bob nson Tony McCarthy PLANNING STAFF GUESTS Lin Ball Steve Burpie Sharon Clamp Paul Morford Jim Harris Jean Parietti Margaret Porter Raul Ramos Fred Satterstrom Barb Simpson GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that a public hearing on the ratification of the countywide planning policies will take place at tonight' s City Council meeting. The Planning Commission's recommendation on the growth management planning goals will also be discussed at tonight' s Council meeting. Their recommendation includes designating Kent as an urban center. The Planning Commission' s recommendation on the wetlands ordinance will be presented to the Council the first meeting of October. Chair Orr requested the Council receive information on this ordinance at least one week in advance of the Council meeting in order to have adequate time for review and questions. Mr. Satterstrom also stated that it is likely that the Council will be presented with a citizen's alternative to the Planning Commission' s wetlands recommendation. The Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to review or consider this alternative. 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - (L. BALL) Human Services Manager Lin Ball explained that the Council has taken action to receive the Block Grant pass thru funds, set aside the amount for human services, and set aside funds for planning and administration of the program. Ms. Ball stated that the program for 1993 is $279 , 509 , an increase of approximately $30, 000 over 1992 , and noted that this is an estimate from the County based on CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 PAGE 2 the Federal entitlement. Ms. Ball noted two changes from the 1992 program: (1) There will be an increase in the funds for Planning and Administration due to the establishment of the Office of Housing and Human Services. This is to pay a portion of the Manager's salary and provide for a temporary intern. (2) During 1992 , the City' s Housing Repair Services Program will place more emphasis on the major and minor repair backlog, and the painting program will be placed on hold for one year. Ms. Ball presented the Committee with two options and explained the reason for looking at two options is that on Thursday, September 3 , the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) will be considering approving an increase in the amount that can be allocated to public (human) services. In anticipation of approval by the JPC, the Human Services Commission, at their August 27 meeting, reviewed the Block Grant public services applications and made recommendations on how to allocate the additional $6, 170. These recommendations are included in Option A which distributes the $6, 170 among the public services applications and decreased one capital project by the same amount. Option B is the proposed 1993 program if the JPC does not approve the increase. The full City Council needs to adopt the 1993 program at its September 15 meeting, as the adopted program must be forwarded to King County by October 2 . Councilmember Bennett MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve both options of the Proposed 1993 CDBG Program so that the appropriate option which reflects the JPC' s decision can be forwarded to the City Council for adoption on September 15. In response to Councilmember Bennett' s question about Vision special Needs Housing funding, Ms. Ball explained that capital money typically goes for one time only projects while human services dollars fund ongoing services. She explained that capital dollars are used to help new programs get started. Motion carried. LAW & JUSTICE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGAL ADVOCATE - (L. BALL) This item was removed from the agenda. PERMIT PROCESS REPORT - (J. HARRIS) Planning Director Harris presented an overview-..-of- the Planning Department' s permit process. He explained that the department consists of Administration, the Office of Housing and Human Services, and the Planning services Division. The Planning Services Division consists of two sections; long range planning and permit processing. Mr. Harris explained that the permit section handles the following: "" CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11 1992 PAGE 3 Land Use Permits: rezones subdivisions short plats variances shoreline permits conditional use permits Development Permits (which lead to building permits) : major developments (i.e. warehouses, etc. ) minor developments (i.e. a house on a single lot) Sign Permits Special Use Permits Site Plan Review Design Review Landscaping Plan Review SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) consisting of environmental checklists and environmental impact statements. The Planning Department has processed 80 applications year to date. Most minor development never goes thru SEPA, however, all major development is required to go thru SEPA. Business Licenses - The department issues the licenses and gathers land use data which ties into new and existing development. Public Information Notices zoning information - constant interaction with the public on the phone and at the counter issue zoning permits Code Enforcement Program citizen complaints conditional uses which are not in compliance Zoning Code Amendments Mr. Harris explained that the department is unique in that it is the only City department that serves several boards and commissions: Hearing Examiner, Board of Adjustment, and Planning Commission. Staff reports and recommendations are sent to these boards and commissions from Planning Staff. In addition, City Council meeting agendas contain approximately 30% planning items. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 PAGE 4 On a daily basis, Planning staff also deals with other City departments, other cities, King County, and state and federal agencies. overall, the Planning Department' s development permit process is a very large operation with many things occurring simultaneously. Mr. Harris explained that the Mayor' s committee report zeroed in on minor development. While important, this represents smaller items handled by the Planning Department. These items rarely require SERA and do not go to the Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner. In response to Councilman Bennett's questions, Mr. Harris explained that everything in the permit process has a timeline. He explained that on a daily basis there is a constant flow of phone calls and citizens at the counter asking questions. The Planning Director responds to approximately 70-80 phone inquiries per month and estimates that staff responds to 120-140 phone inquiries per month. The department also handles mandates from the City Council and the State, such as growth management, and matters within the Office of Housing and Human Services. Chair Orr feels the Planning Committee is the appropriate place to discuss the report. She has been informed that the chair of the Operations Committee does not want this discussion at that committee. Steve Burpie stated that he felt recent articles which have appeared in the Seattle Times were devised to create controversy and stressed that the Chamber's position is to look at an objective process of dealing with issues. Raul Ramos clarified that it is actually the mayor ' s proposed plan of action that will come to committee for discussion. ADDED ITEMS Chair Orr is concerned about two vacant houses on South 248 Street west of Daniel Elementary school and sees a potential hazard with school starting. Planning Director Harris indicated he will look into the situation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4 : 53 p.m. PC0901.92 CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS COMM] SEPTEMBER 2, 199-9 PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Paul Mann Ed White Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tom Brubaker John Streich Street Vacation - Pioneer & Kennebeck Streets Wickstrom explained that Kent Junior High has requested a street vacation of approximately one half block between Pioneer and Kennebeck to construct a parking lot. Wickstrom stated we were requesting that Council adopt a resolution to set the hearing date on this vacation request for October 6 . The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Interlocal Agreement - Sidewalk Construction Wickstrom stated that the City of Des Moines is improving 240th in front of Highline High School. There will be a 300 foot gap between where their sidewalks would end and Kent's begin. They have indicated they would construct sidewalks to fill in that gap if the City would reimburse their costs. Wickstrom stated there are funds in the Sidewalk Construction fund for this. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the interlocal agreement with Des Moines for construction of this sidewalk. Bill of Sale - Parkview Townhouses Wickstrom explained the developer has completed the utility improvements for the Parkview Townhomes in the vicinity of 100th Avenue S.E. and S. 234th. We are recommending the bill of sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. The Committee unanimously recommended approval . Bill of Sale - Fisher Industrial Park Expansion Similarly, the street and storm improvements have been completed for the Fisher Industrial Park Expansion at S . 228th and EVH. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale and release of bonds after the one year maintenance period. Acquisition of Property - 72nd & 196th - Lindal Property Wickstrom explained that in 1988 we established a budget and executed a purchase option for this property located at 72nd and Public Works Committee September 2 , 1992 Page 2 196th. The purchase option was subject to investigation for any contamination from Western Processing. we spent approximately $60, 000 on investigations which did reveal some contamination but at that time standards under the Model Toxics Act had not been established so we did not know what would be considered contamination. Those standards have since been established and it appears any contamination on this property falls below those standards. Wickstrom stated we had originally intended to purchase this property in order to construct 72nd on through to 196th. Now, it will provide us with a staging area for construction on the bridge project for the 196th corridor. Additionally, it may serve as a detention facility for the road project. The fund has approximately $140, 000 remaining. Wickstrom explained there are additional funds in the EVH project and proposed transferring $175, 000 for acquisition of this property. There is also the possibility we would be able to use some of the 196th corridor grant funds from TIA for the acquisition. It was confirmed this is all street related money and can only be spent on street projects and that no general fund money is involved. We have negotiated the purchase for $340, 000. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to proceed with the purchase and to transfer the funds as requested by Wickstrom. Triangle Apartments - Access Issue on 4th Avenue Wickstrom explained that the City had restricted access to come off 4th for this 130 unit apartment complex in the North Park area. The State has limited access control in the area of 234th and has denied access. Gill explained that the State denied access to preserve their options for any future widening of SR 167 . The developer has asked whether the City would use its condemnation authority to purchase a lot to give them access on 4th. The developer would be reimbursing the City for the costs involved. To deny them access totally would amount to inverse condemnation and we would have to purchase the property. If their access off 4th is denied we would have to allow them to access on Third out to James. Wickstrom continued that the developer has been informed that if access is allowed on Third they would have to improve it to at least 24 feet in width, a 5-foot shoulder for pedestrian access on one side, and they would have to address the intersection at James. It was determined that the attorney should review the request and the City's options and bring back a recommendation to the next Public Works Committee meeting. Public Works Committee September 2, 1992 Page 3 Release of City Interest in Tract X of King County Short Plat Wickstrom explained that when the property was short platted while in unincorporated King County, a Tract X 30-foot road easement on Lot 2 was a condition thereof. The property owner has requested the release of this easement in order to build a garage. Because the City may have some rights with respect to this Tract X easement, we need to release them before we can issue a building permit. Wickstrom stated we did not need such rights, if any, in this easement and recommended we relinquish same. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. 248th and 116th Jim White commented that he has had inquiries about when the City would be installing a traffic signal at this intersection. Wickstrom explained that three legs of that intersection are in the County but we would look into it and report back. 259th and Central Jim White asked about the status of that signal. It was explained that the signal design is complete and we are currently in right of way acquisition. One parcel belongs to Pay-N-Pak thus that acquisition is slow because of Pay-N-Pak's status. As soon as the right of way is acquired we would be able to go out to bid.