HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/01/1992 I cit of nt
y
ii3
II ,�
it you nil l� eet � n
1�9 enii1a
1
CITY O F
li � J k C it
Mayor D alai III11 h e r
I�
i Council Il , hers
ii Judy Woods; Pi j8ident ;; I
�a I Jim Bennett Paul Mann ,
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
�i Septemb it ' '11 NCO � a
r k
F �l Office of th1 ;Ciit 10erk
I I
^
i
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 1, 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. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - Geneva Obenchain
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ratification of County Wide Planning Policies
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
45 Bills
1993 CDBG Program - set public hearing date
Z Kent Memorial Field #1 - accept donation
h: Procurement Ordinance for Recycled Products t'�'L-
-f/ Surplus Equipment 1965 Crown Pumper
G. Bill of Sale - East Hill Shopping Center
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. 800 MHz Radio System - acceptance
B. Growth Management Planning Goals - acceptance
C. Urban Growth Areas
D. East Hill Fire Station/Complex and Warranty Acceptance
E. Sewer Extension Moratorium Resolution Amendment /3�1
�.3 F. City Administrator Ordinance
V, 272nd/277th Corridor
5. BI
LID 339 - Hilltop Avenue Sanitary Sewers
Horseshoe Acres Storm Water Pump Station
Del Webb Pump Station
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
TI
7 . REPORTS i J
8 . ADJO�MENT4 . S E S s ( � ' J
X C c�"7" ice- 1�
TE:/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) Employee of the Month
B) Proclamation - Geneva Obenchain
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1, 1992
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed countywide 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 ratification 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
opportunity to give input on the proposed policies prior to
ratification.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Countywide Planning Policies, Interlocal
Agreement with King County, and Planning Committee minutes of
August 18, 1992
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (unanimous 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:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
l Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
(1) ratify the policies as they appear in the packet with no
changes and direct the City Attorney to prepare a requisite
resolution for the September 15 full council meeting;
OR -
(2) ratify the policie`s'�with suggestions for amendments or
changes to the policies,)and direct the City Attorney to
prepare the requisite resolution for the September 15 full
council meeting; - OR -
(3) not to ratify the countywide planning policies.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agend
Item No. 2A
CITY OF ILL���
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
p�9�II�5S� MEMORANDUM
September 1 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: RATIFICATION OF COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
The proposed County-wide Planning Policies (CPP) will serve as the
framework for comprehensive planning in King County once they are
ratified. According to Kent ' s interlocal planning agreement with
King County, ratification occurs when 30% of the jurisdictions in
King County representing at least 70% of the population approve the
proposed CPP. (A copy of Kent ' s agreement is attached. )
On August 18 , 1992 , the City Council Planning Committee voted to
schedule a public hearing on the ratification of county-wide
policies. The purpose of the hearing, scheduled for September 1st,
is to obtain public input on the proposed policies as they may be
applied to the City of Kent. Should the City Council have concerns
relative to the proposed CCP, recommendations may be made to the
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) for policy modifications.
The City of Kent needs to take action on the CPP at least by
September 15 , 1992 (the date of the second regular meeting of the
Council in September) . According to the King County ordinance
which endorses the county-wide policies, ratification will be
assumed to have occurred if no action has been taken by October 2 ,
1992 . This date occurs before the Counc:il ' s first regular meeting
in October.
The Planning Department urges the Council to adopt the agreement
with the proviso that it is understood that modification of
policies will be intertained by the Growth Planning Council at a
future period.
FNS/mp: a:ratify. cpp
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
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
Paae
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
III. Transportation` 29
IV. Community Character and Open Space 35
V. Affordable Housing' 38
VI. 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 1 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:pol 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 governments
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 that 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 5411) 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
infill at higher densities is not feasible or necessary to meet regional goals.
Criteria specified in LU-10(g) permits the redeslgnation 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 ell 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 (UGA) 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 11A, Resource Lands, and
Chapter l/1B, 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. All cities are to be within the Urban Growth Area. Cities in the rural
area are to be UGA islands.
GMA:pol Page 15 06/10/1992
/;tip.-�' ;.��,• .i
%ice//a������%/
El
/ / ./
_ =• ��= •:G/:.: !tip/j.--.� !/w�/
.� alp;-�.% --r � j /,� -%�•.
1::::�.�. �:a..�'•-�� •• :•�.;'••�''=::.- ::::• ��:�.Yam•.;•:::. �Y..;
: : !:.-: -tom:.!'f�':�:•::•:{P����:�:❖:•••:�1":::•�
_
ice'•_','•::;,:::
M
t�
FW-8 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-9 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future urban
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.
1 . Urban Growth Area
The GMA requires King County to designate an Urban Growth Area fUGAI in consultation with
cities. The Countywide Planning Policies must establish an Urban Growth 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. Each Urban Growth Area shall permit urban densities and shall include
greenbelt and open space areas." A UGA map is attached.
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 review and implementation through
existing applications, capital improvements appropriations or other approvals of
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;
f. Respect topographical features which form a natural edge such as rivers and ridge
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.
LU-15 Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development and must be within
the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low density lands
GMA:pol Page 16 06/10/1992
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 interlocai 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"
iRCW 36.70A. f001. 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, Snoqualmie 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, 21 promote housing opportuni-
ties close to employment, 31 support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce
dependency on automobiles, 4/ consume less land with urban development, and 51 maximize the
benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6/ reduce costs of and time required for
permitting, and 71 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 8usiness/Office parks (see FW-13 and
LU-58-62), in theta 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 speck 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. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing and industrial
uses; and
C. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rat, 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. 8y 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
r
Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing
environmental documentation to be used; and
C. 0y December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and
confirm the 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 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 (one 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 Centers, 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 (PEIS) 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. Estat".ishing 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 4 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. Manufacturing/Industrial 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-
ing/industrial 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 manufacturingtndustrial 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 arealsl.
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 manufacturing"industrial
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
manufacturingfindustrial 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 manufacturingAndustrial practices such as notices on development permits for
properties adjacent to a manufacturingAndustrial 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. Avaiiabilities 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. Infill 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 Kirk/and, 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 :r 06/10/1992
LU-60 All jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to encourage transit use. Examples of potential
mechanisms include a charge for S.O.V. parking and/or a limit on the number of parking
spaces for single occupancy vehicles within each existing business/office park. Bicycle and
pedestrian supportive design should be encouraged.
LU-61 To implement policy LU-53, all jurisdictions shall establish maximum Floor Area Ratios
and/or maximum employment levels for office use in existing business/office parks. These
maximums are intended to channel future employment and office space growth from _
business/office parks outside of Urban Centers to Urban Centers.
LU-62 All jurisdictions should develop planning mechanisms to assist in the conversion of
business/office parks to mixed use areas. Jurisdictions should encourage inclusion of
residential and neighborhood commercial land uses and open space within existing
business/office parks.
GMA:pol Page 28 c 06/10/1992
III. Transportation
A. Transportation Overview
RCW 36.70A.070(61 (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:poi 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 muiti-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;
g. 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 06/16/1992
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-8 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:pol 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 TOM
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.
GMAcpol Page 33 06/10/1992
S. 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, infill 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 (such 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 local 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.
GMA:pol Page 37 06/1011992
V. Affordable Housing
Adequate housing, for a#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 cost 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 ll, '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 111, '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. Interjurisdictional 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
VI1 . 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
VIII . 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
I. 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 lsee Chapter ll, "Rural Areas'and "Urban
and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, 'Sections B and Dl 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, Business/Office 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 most 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 l32.2 (3) (b)l;
2. Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or state-wide nature/32.2
(3) (c)1;
ortation facilities
3. Policies for countywide transp and strategies l32.2 ((3 (d)1;
4. Policies for joint county and city planning within growth areas [32.2 ) (f11;
5. An analysis of the fiscal impact.[32.2 (3) (hY.
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. By 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,
t;MA:nol 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 (ISTEA) 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 IWSDOT) 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
AGREEMENT AMONG KING COUNTY, THE CITY OF SEATTLE, AND
SUBURBAN CITIES AND TOWNS IN KING COUNTY FOR THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
5/27/92
This Agreement is entered into among King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as the "County"; the City of Seattle, municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as "Seattle", and suburban cities and towns of King County, all municipal corporations of
the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Suburban Cities."
WHEREAS RESHB 1025 adopted in 1991 requires that, through a process agreed to by the County, Seattle,
and Suburban Cities, the legislative authority of the County adopt a county-wide planning policy by July 1,
1992, and
WHEREAS the County, Seattle, and Suburban Cities have developed a collaborative process to produce the
county-wide planning policy, and
WHEREAS this agreement is authorized by the Interlocal Agreement Act, RCW 39.34,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
a. Suburban Cities: Cities and towns in King County other than the City of Seattle.
b. County-wide planning Policy (CPP): The written policy statement or statements used solely for
establishing a county-wide framework from which County, Seattle, and Suburban City comprehensive
plans are developed and adopted, thus promoting comprehensive plans which are consistent as required
by RCW 36.70A.100.
2. Establishment of the Growth Management Planning Council and staff. In order to establish the Growth
Management Planning Council and provide staff, the parties shall designate the following elected official
members and staff. To the extent possible, the parties' designees shall have a broad geographic
representation.
a. Membership for the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC).
1) Seattle shall designate three members to exercise three votes;
2) Suburban Cities shall designate six members to exercise three votes;
3) King County shall designate six members, one of whom will be the King County Executive, to exercise
six votes.
b. Staff to the GMPC.
1) Each party shall designate staff to form an interjurisdictional team to provide staff to the GMPC. The
County shall have designated staff of the King County Council and designated staff of the King County
Executive. The staff designated by the Executive shall serve as lead for the interjurisdictional team
through initial ratification.
2) The GMPC shall select a coordinator specifically to handle its administrative and procedural matters.
3. County-wide Planning Policy development adoption process and ratification process. The GMPC shall
develop and recommend to the King County Council a proposed CPP. Following a public hearing, the King
County Council shall adopt an ordinance approving a CPP. King County then shall circulate the CPP for
ratification. The CPP shall be deemed adopted for purposes of the RCW 36.70A.210 when it has been
ratified by ordinance or resolution of a) at least thirty percent (30%) of the number of city and county
governments in King County and b) such governments represent at least seventy percent (70%) of the
population of King County. Adoption of the CPP by King County shall constitute ratification on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County. Each city shall by ordinance or resolution either ratify the
CPP or disapprove the CPP. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the CPP unless, within ninety day of its
adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves the CPP.
4. Function and authority of GMPC.
a. The GMPC shall recommend to the King County Council the county-wide planning policy in a form
and with content to comply with applicable State law. The recommended planning policy from the
GMPC shall address issues and concerns obtained from review and comment during its public review
process. At a minimum, the CPP shall address the following: policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110;
policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such
development; policies for siting public capital facilities of a county-wide or state-wide nature; policies
for county-wide transportation facilities and strategies; policies that consider the need for affordable
housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameter for its distribution;
policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas; policies for county-wide
economic development and employment; and an analysis of the fiscal impact.
b. The GMPC shall devise and the parties shall comply with a locally based conflict resolution process
which will be directed at conflicts which may arise from the work of the GMPC.
C. The GMPC shall devise and the parties shall comply with a process to amend the CPP that is adopted.
Amendments to the CPP shall be adopted and ratified in the same manner as provided in Section 3
above.
5. Funding or staff of the GMPC. The parties recognize that under a separate agreement which allocates the
State Growth Management Act grant dollars among King County, Seattle, and Suburban Cities funds are set
aside for the development of the CPP.
6. Duration. This agreement shall become effective January 1, 1992 and shall remain in force and effect until
completion of the designated duties of the GMPC, provided that a party may withdraw from this agreement
with sixty (60) days notice to the County which notice may not be given prior to October 1, 1992.
Withdraw of any party will not affect the status of the CPP.
7. Amendments. This agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
8. Entire aereement. The parties agree that this agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and
any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. The parties recognize that
time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this agreement.
9. State relationshia. A copy of this agreement shall be filed with the Washington State Department of
Community Development.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by:
Name of Jurisdiction King County Executive
by:
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
City Attorney Prosecuting Attorney
F:\vpfila1rtri—l\tM'"Vro.3 5127l9'!
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
Planning Director Harris stated Federal Way and Kirkland have told
the State they will be doing their comprehensive plan one year
late. Des Moines stated they will have trouble with the timelines
too.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning
Committee delayed voting on four alternative interim urban growth
area boundaries at its August 4 , 1992 meeting. The Planning
Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban
growth area to include the Covington area. The Planning staff
recommended Alternative 3 , which conforms to the 20 year annexation
plan the City Council adopted three or four years ago and is more
serviceable.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth
area. Councilmember Johnson stated he was in favor of Alternative
3 versus Alternative 4 because he did not think the City should go
out as far as Covington and it did not seem practical or
serviceable. Councilmembers Orr and Bennett agreed. Motion
carried. This item will be placed on the September 1, 1992 City
Council agenda.
RATIFICATION OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (F. SATTERSTROM)
Prior to the King County Council adoption on July 6 of the
recommended County Wide Planning Policies (known as Growth
Management Planning Council) , the Planning Committee discussed this
item two or three times. Now we are in the ratification process.
This ratification process requires at least 30 percent of the
jurisdictions within the county comprising of at least 70 percent
of the county' s population to ratify the policies.
Ratification can be done either of two ways:
1) Ratification by Resolution or Motion of a city.
2) Ratification by no action of a city. If a city does not
disapprove it within 90 days, it is considered ratified.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that on August 18 , 1992 the City Council
will only be setting a date for a public hearing for September 1 as
an action item to begin the ratification process. The County
recognizes that cities as well as the public may have amendments to
the County Wide Planning Policies that were adopted on July 6,
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 1992
1992 . During Phase II of the County Wide Planning Policies, there
may be suggestions for amendments to the policies. When the GMPC
reconvenes no later than December of 1992 , they will evaluate the
public comments and other relevant information and prepare
amendments. Then any such recommended amendments shall be subject
to adoption by the County and then go through a ratification
process.
Chair Orr opened the meeting for public comments and mentioned she
had received a letter from the Board of Realtors. Mike Spence from
the Association of Realtors stated the primary reason for this
organization getting involved in this issue is because of the huge
effects that this could have on housing affordability. With this
in mind, they reviewed the County Wide Planning Policies and would
like to see a supplemental environmental impact statement prepared
as well as a fiscal analysis done.
Paul Seeley from the Boeing Company agreed with Mike Spence. He
encouraged the Council to ratify the policies, but is pleased to be
able to make suggestions. He is concerned and has some problems
with being able to meet the criteria as described in activity
centers, urban centers, urban growth boundaries, etc. Some of
these things do not seem to fit in the ratification process. For
example, he said the density requirements for manufacturing require
about 15, 000 employees per acre. With this as the criteria, the
Boeing Company would have to leave the State of Washington for all
of its sites. They would like to be able to keep our options open.
Don McDaniel from Puget Power said they would like to keep their
options open.
Barbara Simpson from the Kent Chamber of Commerce said to take our
time in the process to make amendments.
Chair Orr asked if the full council has to vote on ratification on
September 1 or could they take the comments and considerations back
to Planning Committee, develop our recommendations as far as any
changes or amendments we would like to see, and then bring this
item back to the full council for their approval in 30 days? Mr.
Satterstrom responded that the County ' s ordinance specifies
ratification within 90 days of adoption by King County (October 6) .
It was pointed out that October 6 is a meeting night for the City
of Kent full council. Chair Orr suggested this item come back to
the Committee on September 15 and to the full council on October 6.
Mr. Satterstrom will call the County to find out an answer to this
question. Another suggestion is for this to go to the Planning
Committee on September 15 and on to the full council the same
night. Chair Orr suggested the council give an indication on
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
September 1 as to whether they plan on ratifying the policies and
providing suggestions and recommendations later.
Mr. Satterstrom added the policies designate a specified process
wherein a city can nominate itself as an urban center and forward
that designation by October 1st to the County to be considered by
the GMPC by December 1992 . This process for designation is set
forth in the County Wide Planning Policies which the City of Kent
is being asked to ratify.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that another item coming to the full
council on September 1 is Growth Management Planning Goals, wherein
the Planning Commission will have considered the proposal by the
Planning Department as to whether or not the City of Kent wants to
designate itself as an urban center. This needs to be acted on in
time to get this information to the GMPC by October 1st. It was
discussed that perhaps action could be deferred to September 15 if
additional time is needed.
Mr. Harris reminded the Planning Committee that those cities that
designate themselves as urban centers are going to get the highway
funds, transit funds, and other kinds of funds.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to put the County Wide Planning Policies on the consent
calendar August 18 to set a public hearing date for September 1 for
the ratification. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the
September 1 City Council agenda for a public hearing.
SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS)
Mr. Harris passed out a draft document called "Short Plat Process"
consisting of current procedures and two proposed changes.
Mr. Harris stated in Proposed Change No. 2 questions might occur as
to why would the public would not be invited to come to a short
plat meeting. He stated the reason was because short plats are
administrative by State law. Another question is whether the
public would have the right to appeal ; appeal procedures would need
to be written.
Tom Brubaker from the Law Department had some ideas for the
Committee to think about on these two different possibilities. He
said the short plat procedure as written in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) is to cut red tape and be a fast remedy for
property owners who want to short plat . One extreme is not having
nearby property owners who notified. Another is a more elaborate
4
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action.-I
Councilmember �0 moves, Councilmember 1
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be approved.
Discussion
Action
✓3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
August 18 , 1992
N� 3B. 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
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenda✓
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
August 18 , 1992
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett,
Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow,
City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Information Services Director Spang, Finance
Director McCarthy, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, and
Human Resources Director Olson. Councilmember Houser was excused
from the meeting and Parks Director Wilson was on vacation.
Approximately 100 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Council Meeting Broadcast. Bill Doolittle pointed
COMMUNICATION out that the Council meeting of August 4 , 1992 ,
had not been televised. The Mayor asked the young
man who tapes the meetings to contact the cable
company to make sure that this does not happen in
the future, and to ask that the August 4th meeting
be broadcast. Doolittle noted that he had
received many calls the day after the video should
have been shown from people wondering why it was
not televised. He stated that he had been told by
Administration that the tapes had been sent out,
but that the person who coordinates this for the
City of Seattle said he had not received them. He
noted that the City of Seattle seems to feel that
they are accommodating the City of Kent by
broadcasting the meetings, and pointed out that
Ordinance 2669 stipulates that TCI will provide
access time for Kent City Council meetings. He
said he feels that the meeting was not shown
because of its length and the fact that no money
is involved. He noted that there is one time slot
set aside every two weeks and that if the tapes of
the 4th surface, the only way to show them would
be to not show tonight' s meeting. He said he
feels an honest error has been made due to the
length of the meeting, and asked that the Mayor
and Administration make arrangements with TCI to
gain an additional time slot, and publicize it so
that people can see and hear what went on at the
August 4th meeting. The Mayor stated that he
feels the cable company would be willing to air an
extra slot, and that they will be asked to do so.
Police Auction. Bill Doolittle noted that at a
recent committee meeting he requested the results
of the police auction which was held on July 11,
1992 . He reiterated that he had not been pleased
with the results of the auction held to dispose of
1
August 18 , 1992
PUBLIC furnishings from the library. He commended
COMMUNICATION Charlie Lindsey for running the police auction for
a total cost of just over $2100, $200 of which
went to the auctioneer. He noted that the auc-
tioneer for the library auction cost approximately
$1500. He stated that a lesson has been learned
about conducting city auctions and felt this
should be a part of the record. There were no ob-
jections and it was so ordered.
Kent Old Timers Day. Mayor Kelleher read a proc-
lamation declaring the 30th of August, 1992 , as
Kent Old Timers Day in the City of Kent and
inviting all Kent Old-Timers and other interested
individuals to attend a reunion on August 30th and
celebrate this occasion. The proclamation was
presented to Dorice Wolfrom, who introduced the
members of the Kent Old Timers committee, noting
that together they represent over 1, 000 years of
community service. ,
Regional Justice Center. Kathleen Scott, Central
Project Manager for the Regional Justice Center,
explained that she will be managing the design and
construction of this project for King County. She
noted that there are currently three ordinances
before the King County Council relating to the
project, and that all three will be voted on on
August 24th. She explained the ordinances as
follows:
1. The first ordinance will provide for
financing of the project, which will either
be a levy or a bond which will go on the
November ballot.
2 . The second ordinance is a facility pro-
gram plan which defines the scope of the
project, such as the number and size of the
spaces inside the project, and also contains
a schedule and a budget for the project.
3 . The third ordinance is an appropriations
ordinance which funds the project from now
until financing proceeds are available.
2
• August 18 , 1992
PUBLIC Scott said she anticipates being able to start
COMMUNICATION design by December, and that it will take 12-15
months. She noted that site work may be done in
1993 and building could occur during mid-1994 thru
the end of 1995, if they stay on the current
schedule. She noted that they have discussed
Kent' s SEPA process and permitting process with
Jim Harris, Roger Lubovich, Alana McIalwain and
Raul Ramos to prepare for submittal of permits,
which they anticipate will occur in October or
later. She noted that the County has an open
process relating to schematic design and that many
review and comment sessions will be held through-
out the County and in the City of Kent. She said
they will be able to support Kent' s staff
regarding workshops or presentations, but noted
that it would be best to wait until after the vote
on August 24th setting the direction and schedule
for the project.
White stated that there has been little pr no com-
munication with the City Council, and that they
are asked questions on a daily basis about the
impacts of this project. He said that there are
serious concerns about traffic and that he would
like to have some input into the process. Scott
reiterated that they would not be starting the
SEPA process or applying for permits until October
at which point all questions will be closely
looked at. White pointed out that the Councilmem-
bers are not involved in the SEPA process and
asked where elected officials fit in. Scott said
they would be happy to conduct a workshop for
staff regarding any information they have, and
offered to come back to Council at least every
other month to give an update on the project. The
Mayor noted that the Council would like to have a
workshop as soon after the 24th as possible and
asked Scott to contact Council President Woods who
will help schedule the workshop.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR K, including corrections to 3A and 3C, be
approved, with the exception of Item 3G which was
removed by Councilmember White. Mann seconded and
the motion carried.
3
August 18 , 1992
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the August 4 , 1992 , meeting with the following
correction to page 8 , line 16, regarding the
272nd/277th corridor project:
"He noted that $250, 000 would be paid by City LID"
SHOULD READ:
"He noted that $5 , 250, 000 would be paid by City
LID" .
SEWERS (BIDS .- ITEM 5A)
LID 338 - Westview Terrace/McCann's Westview
Sanitary Sewer. Bid opening was July 31 with
seven bids received. The low bid was submitted by
Universal Land Construction in the amount of
$306, 265. 54 and staff recommends the bid be
accepted and the project awarded. WHITE SO MOVED.
Woods seconded and the motion carried. 1
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Decant Stations. Bid opening was August 5 with
five bids received. The low bid was submitted by
R.W. Scott in the amount of $66 , 401 . 09 . Staff
recommends the bid be accepted and the project
awarded. WHITE SO MOVED. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
CONTROL Parking Penalties. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3062
relating to parking infraction penalties. Cur-
rently we have parking citations that are $100 and
$25 but get reduced to $25 and $10 respectively,
if a mitigation hearing is not requested. This
requires writing purchase orders to refund money
when citizens overpay. When the additional cost
of this is added to a system that already costs
the City $16 . 35 per citation to write and process,
the City receives $10 in revenue. When they go to
court, the cost is $23 . 00 . The ordinance estab-
lishes the $100-$25 fine to a flat $25 and the
$25-$10 fine to a flat $20. 00 plus all other $10
fines are raised to $20.
4
August 18, 1992
ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
West Hill Island Annexation. The proposed
ordinance would annex an area of unincorporated
King County to the City of Kent, known as the West
Hill Island Annexation. This ordinance replaces
Ordinance 3049 which annexed the same area and was
repealed by Ordinance 3060 due to non-compliance
with SEPA. A public hearing was held on July 7 ,
1992 , on the West Hill Island Annexation. City
Attorney Lubovich noted that shortly after the
adoption of Ordinance 3049 , it was determined that
an environmental review had not been performed on
the issue of the annexation, but that it has since
been performed. He noted that the 45-day period
for the referendum petition would begin after pas-
sage of this ordinance.
ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3064 annexing the
West Hill Island, subject to the City' s existing
indebtedness and to the zoning requirements of the
Kent City Code. White seconded and the motion
carried.
COUNTY-WIDE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
POLICIES Ratification of County-Wide Policies. AUTHORIZA-
TION to set September 1, 1992 , as the date for a
public hearing on the ratification of county-wide
policies. The Growth Management Plan and Council
(GMPC) prepared draft policies for consideration
by the King County Council and city councils. A
memo of the county-wide planning policies and
ordinance adopted by King County were sent to the
councilmembers on August 11 for their preliminary
review.
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
1993 Budget Workshop. AUTHORIZATION to set August
31 from 8 : 00 a.m. until Noon as the date and time
for a workshop on the 1993 Budget, as requested by
Council . The workshop will be held at the Senior
Center.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Deletion of Vacant Positions. As requested by the
City Council at their meeting of July 21, 1992 ,
three ordinances have been prepared for consider-
ation.
5
August 18, 1992
BUDGET One ordinance would delete all 52 . 25 vacant
citywide positions and associated salary credits
that appear in the 1992 budget. These positions
deleted would not include recent layoffs but in-
clude 16. 0 1991 positions that were never filled
plus 36. 25 positions that were vacated in 1991 and
1992 by July 31, 1992 and not replaced. (Option A)
An optional ordinance would delete ONLY the 36. 75
general fund, vacant through 7/31/92 , positions
and would not include the recent layoffs. (Option
B-1)
Another ordinance would delete ONLY the 15. 5
non-general fund, vacant through 7/31/92 ,
positions and would not include the recent
layoffs. (Option B-2)
Finance Director McCarthy noted that deleting the
vacant positions has no budgetary impact, assuming
that those positions were kept frozen through
1993 . He added that deleting them cleans up the
budget and allows for more realistic forecasting.
He noted that deleting the vacant positions may
result in the deletion of high priority positions,
and that it may be inequitable since some depart-
ments have had more vacancies than others. He
noted that department reorganizations may be
required. He distributed copies of comments writ-
ten by the Police Chief, the Fire Chief and the
Public Works Director proposing that certain posi-
tions not be deleted. McCarthy explained for the
Mayor that although the Executive Committee has
discussed vacant positions, they have not reviewed
those positions. McCarthy explained for White
that the positions from Public Works just came to
the Executive Committee last week, and that the
Human Resource Department is analyzing them. Rose
Nelson of the Human Resources Department noted
that at least one field supervisor should be
hired, that no determination has been made on the
other two positions, and that a decision could be
made by the next Council meeting. White asked
about the Fire positions and McCarthy explained
that the Executive Committee has determined that
they would be frozen, since they were vacant and
are not scheduled for any review by the Executive
6
August 18 , 1992
BUDGET Committee. He noted that departments have been
asked to prepare a memo outlining why they would
not want to delete certain positions. White
pointed out that although this was requested a
month ago, there is still not adequate information
to take action. Woods noted that three of the
four Fire positions are positions vacated in 1991
and that at the last meeting it was suggested that
flexibility be available. Fire Chief Angelo said
that the difficulty is that positions come open
for random reasons and that certain positions have
to be filled one way or another, which may mean
eliminating a program. He added that in the
future when positions can be filled, the vacant
positions may not be the most critical positions.
He said he would like to be able to reshuffle
which positions to fill and which to leave vacant,
adding that it may not be easy to pass another
ordinance filling positions if they are all
deleted. He suggested if it is not acceptable to
leave the positions that were filled but vacated
in 1992 , to at least leave the position titles in
by ordinance and remove the funds. He added that
there are also morale and labor impact issues that
should be considered.
Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that there
are 14 . 5 Public Works positions affected, 7 . 5 of
which are in the general fund which he does not
have a problem with deleting. He expressed con-
cern about those in the enterprise funds, noting
that they are self-supporting with no impact on
the general fund. He noted that the City has a
lot of infrastructure to be maintained and he does
not have the manpower to do it. He said it is
almost a crisis situation in the water utility,
which is a health and safety issue. Woods stated
that some of the issues raised by Angelo,
Wickstrom and Crawford would better be left
resolved by the Executive Committee and brought
back to Council, and suggested considering the
deletions tonight in an incremental fashion. SHE
MOVED for a substitute ordinance to eliminate the
positions that were created new for the 1991
budget but not filled, and to request that Admin-
istration then bring forward at the next Council
meeting a more deliberative explanation as to
7
August 18 , 1992
BUDGET which positions should be retained and which
should be eliminated, and that it be done in a
manner which gives the department heads maximum
flexibility. White seconded. Wickstrom noted
that he has one position which would be in that
category and it is one he would not want to give
up. Orr offered a friendly amendment that the
positions mentioned be only those budgeted for the
general fund for 1991 and never filled. Woods
agreed to the amendment and Wickstrom said that it
would address his concerns. Mann asked what the
advantage to deleting the positions is, since it
does not affect the budget. The Mayor pointed out
that if the Council deletes positions, it puts the
decision for those deletions in their hands, but
if more positions are created and authorized by
the Council than the City can afford, then Admin-
istration must decide which positions are reduced.
White agreed that one way for the Council to con-
trol the finances of the City is by deleting these
positions and noted that they could be recreated
in future budgets. Mann said it was his under-
standing that it is the purpose of the Council to
set policies, not to get involved in the adminis-
tration. He spoke in favor of leaving the posi-
tions as they are. White disagreed, noting that
this is a budget item and it is their obligation
to balance the budget. Bennett noted that budgets
are based on the economy at the time, and that
times have changed since the budget was created.
He added that if more reductions are to be made,
that those people should be made aware so that the
other 500+ employees can get on with running the
City.
Doolittle noted that during the budget hearings
the talk was of deleting 26 positions, and that
the figure is now 56 . He said he hopes the memos
mentioned tonight and any other presentations made -
would be made a part of the record. He said it is
ironic that less than a month ago when the Human
Resources Director was able to go City-wide, he
pulled 13 people out of the air to be laid off, in
some cases over the objection of the department
managers, because he knew more about every person
working for the City than the people who supervise
them on a daily basis, but that there is no testi-
mony tonight from him on any of these positions
8
August 18 , 1992
BUDGET which won't be filled. He added that Mr. Chow
and the Finance Director also have not spoken.
Doolittle said he would like to know which of the
56 positions the Human Resources Director thinks
are needed and which are not.
The Mayor clarified for Doolittle that the process
to deal with attrition is that when a position
comes vacant it is automatically frozen unless the
Executive Committee determines that it is an
emergency-type position, and that if a department
head thinks it is an emergency he takes it to the
Executive Committee who hears the issue. He noted
that the Human Resources Director is part of the
Executive Committee. The Mayor added that if
discrimination is involved, it is on the basis of
which functions are urgent and which are, not. He
noted that although the Public Works Department
request came in last week, Rose Nelson had stated
that it can be determined soon whether those
requests are legitimate. McCarthy clarified that
the 10. 5 positions are new 1991 positions that
were never filled, and that that is what the
Council wishes to delete. He said that they would
come back later with information on the other
general fund positions. He also clarified that
the positions were not left unfilled because they
were not needed, but because the City did not have
the money to pay for them. He pointed out that if
these positions were filled, then other currently
filled positions would have to be deleted, which
would mean more layoffs . He explained for White
that he submitted a budget which showed salary
credits which assumed that the 26. 5 positions in
the general fund would never be filled. He noted
that some departments and Councilmembers wanted
the positions on the books, therefore they needed
an offsetting amount. He stated that the budget
said there are more positions than the City can
afford to pay. He added that the proposal to get
them off the books would bring the City to a more
realistic number of positions .
9
August 18, 1992
BUDGET Fire Chief Angelo said he has no arguments with
the unfilled new positions. He said that he has
been to the Executive Committee regarding two of
the positions, which is why he listed the four he
did, but that as far as he knows there is no
additional review scheduled for them. He noted
that with respect to cost, he has been paying out
the same amount as he would have if he had
promoted an individual . He said there are some
factors which may be worth considering.
Police Chief Crawford said that he agrees with
what the Council originally suggested by deleting
the positions so that there is no confusion, and
that he is willing to return and debate why posi-
tions should be added. He said his memo was in
regard to the Criminal Justice fund which is
outside the general fund, and he does not want to
see deletion of the Criminal Justice positions.
City Attorney Lubovich noted that Ordinance B-1 in
the packet could be used, if modified as reflected
in Exhibit A regarding the 10. 5 positions . Woods
and White agreed. The motion then carried unani-
mously on a roll call vote. The Mayor noted that
Administration will bring back alternate proposals
based upon the outcome of the Executive Committee
and their findings regarding the other positions
at the next meeting.
HUMAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
RESOURCES Workers Compensation Claims Handling Contract.
APPROVAL of renewal of the claims handling and
payment contract, auditable annual deposit con-
tract payable quarterly. Fees are per medical and
per indemnity claim and per hour of engineering
services for such items as air quality survey' s,
sound abatement studies and the normal Labor &
Industries certified instructor annual training
requirements. The deposit last year was exceeded
because of engineering hours, not claims, as the
actual number of claims and fees were less than
projected.
10
August 18, 1992
HUMAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
RESOURCES REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE
WCIA Interlocal Agreement. ADOPTION of Resolution
No. 1320 which amends the City ' s existing inter-
local agreement with the Washington Cities Insur-
ance Authority. The amendment changes the agree-
ment so that, in the future, a vote of 2/3 of the
70 member cities - rather than a unanimous vote -
would be sufficient to amend the agreement. The
amendment also includes numerous "housekeeping"
corrections.
White asked what condition the City is in
regarding insurance and how Kent is rated with the
Washington Cities Insurance Authority. Ken
Chatwin of the Human Resources Department
responded that the City is in good standing, but
that there are concerns about some of the types of
claims the City has had. He added that it is not
something that has jeopardized the availability of
coverage nor resulted in an unusual surcharge. He
also explained for White that the City has the
highest rate of any city in WCIA because it is the
largest city in the program and the rates are
based on worker hours. He added that the rate per
hour is based on prior experience, and that the
1993 assessment year will be based on 1991 worker
hours. He noted that the City paid a little over
$800, 000 last year and anticipates that the
premium for 1993 would be at least $900 , 000 . He
noted that if the City went to a $250, 000 reten-
tion plan the premium would be $316, 000 for 1993 .
White asked Chatwin to make a report, and
recommendations if changes are needed, at an
Operations Committee meeting in the future. HE
THEN MOVED for approval of this item. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
Budget Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson distrib-
uted copies of Ordinance No. 3065 amending the
budget ordinance as it relates to the City Admin-
istrator position, and MOVED for its adoption.
White seconded. Johnson explained that this ordi-
nance removes the funds for the City Administra-
tor' s position from the budget, and that the
11
August 18 , 1992
HUMAN ordinance would be effective thirty days from
RESOURCES passage. He stated that he offered the ordinance
as the first step in trying to help establish
better control over the budget situation facing
the City and requested the Council 's support.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 3065 carried 5-1, with only Mann
opposed.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
Resolution Regarding Mayor. Johnson distributed
copies of Resolution No. 1321 and MOVED for its
adoption. White seconded. Johnson noted that the
resolution declares the City Council ' s lack of
confidence in the Mayor and his ability to effec-
tively manage the administrative affairs required
of his office and requests that he resign from his
position as Mayor effective immediately. There
was no discussion on the motion to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 1321 and it passed 5-1 on a roll call
vote, with only Mann opposed.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E)
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE
Labor Negotiations. White voiced concern that
Human Resources Director Olson has turned over
negotiation of labor contracts to other individ-
uals in the Department, and asked about the quali-
fications and experience in negotiating contracts
of Alana McIalwain and Rose Nelson. Olson
explained that the Mayor had asked him if Ms.
McIalwain could be involved in labor negotiations,
since she has expressed an interest in this field.
He noted that she has worked in the Personnel/
Human Resources field at a bank in the past, and
that after speaking with her he agreed to assign
her to be the chief negotiator for the Corrections
contract. He added that Police Captain Chuck
Miller is also involved, that he has 15 years of
experience in labor negotiations and that he would
be a valuable help to McIalwain. Olson stated
that Rose Nelson has extensive experience in the
labor relations field, having been Personnel
Manager for a division of the Oregon Retirement
System. He said that her credentials are
impeccable and he has a great deal of confidence
in her. He noted that he would be working with
12
August 18 , 1992
HUMAN and overseeing both individuals in the administra-
RESOURCES tion of the contracts.
White noted that Olson had stated earlier this
year that he would be handling all six of the con-
tracts, and said that a year where there is a
budget crisis is not the time for on-the-job
training in negotiations. He said he takes excep-
tion to the way in which this is being handled.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
RECREATION First Avenue Mural by Roger Broer. APPROVAL of
the selection of artist Roger Broer to complete an
original painting for the City of Kent Art Collec-
tion and mural of the same design to be placed at
First Interstate Bank. Mr. Broer' s work was
selected by the Project Jury. Mr. Broer is an
accomplished Kent artist who has exhibited his
work nation-wide and has worked in the collections
of the Department of the Interior, Seafirst and
Pierre Cardan. The completed mural will measure
613" x 719" .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Drug-Free Zones. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3061
establishing drug-free zones depicting the loca-
tions and boundaries of the area of one thousand
feet of Kent School District schools and/or school
bus route stops and facilities for the purpose of
enhanced penalties for crimes involving the manu-
facture, sale or delivery of controlled sub-
stances.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of a request from
Councilmember Houser for an excused absence from
the August 18 , 1992 City Council meeting since she
will be out of town that day.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through August 14 , 1992 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on August 18 , 1992 .
13
August 18, 1992
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for _vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/1-8/14/92 121256-121721 $2 , 794 , 515. 01
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/20/92 01175821-01176299 $ 675, 689 . 97
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Parking Citation Collection Contract. AUTHORIZA-
TION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Renton
Collection Services to provide collection services
on unpaid parking citations. Requests for propos-
als were received from two collection agencies,
Puget Sound Collections and Renton Collections.
Both offered to provide services that would charge
the individual who had received the parking cita-
tion a fee. Puget Sound Collection offered a 35%
fee and Renton Collection offered a 30% fee.
Renton Collections is the recommended vendor and
was selected because of their experience with
other municipalities. They were highly recom-
mended by the Cities of SeaTac, Renton and Black
Diamond. This is a no cost item to the City.
REPORTS Public Safety Committee. Mann announced that
there will be one Public Safety Committee meeting
in September, and that it will be held at 5: 30
p.m. on Monday, the 14th.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 p.m.
Brenda Jacober CMC
City Clerk
14
6
Kent City Council Meeting
V Date September 1, 1992
\ Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 15, 1992
as the date for a public hearing to consider the 1993 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
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:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
Y
n
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT MEMORIAL FIELD #1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept resources and
funding totaling $5, 000 from the new Kent American Legion
Baseball Association to further 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Kent American Legion Baseball Association Proposal
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Department and Parks Committee (8/4/92
unanimous approval 3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: O 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. 3D
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Sl-' ject: KENT MEMORIAL FIELD #1 - FISCAL NOTE
C�.....Ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/28/92 at 1100.
THE PARK DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED A PROPOSAL FROM THE NEW KENT AMERICAN
LEGION BASEBALL ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE $5, 000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL
TO UPGRADE KENT MEMORIAL PARK FOR HARDBALL DEDICATION AND TO SUPPORT
SPONSORSHIP OF ADVANCED PLAYOFFS. FUNDS WILL PAY FOR SOD AND OTHER MATERIAL
WITH EXISTING PARK DEPARTMENT LABOR MAKING THE IMPROVEMENTS.
WITH NO ADDITIONAL CITY EXPENDITURE, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPROVES THE
BUDGET CHANGE TO ACCEPT THE DONATION AND SPEND IT ACCORDINGLY.
0 (n (n (n <
C (D CD CD
Q.
cn .�+ CD
:3 (D CD CD =$
N :3 :
(D •�«
n n w C
' +. <
O (D
3 m O O FD'
CD '-r -Z C
O
:3 -ti
CD CD 0 CD 0
O- 3 3 Q. (Q Q.
°�. (n n
90
Q. 0 90
cnCD
c� —
3
o o
c O
O n CD U)
CD 3 (D
o `D
n �.
CD
CL
m
3
c� co
0
W CD
O cfl
(Q N CD
FD
n w
Er CD D
o
0 N O cn
N U2 CD
o ai
a�
o
m co o
O
cn
= o �
cQ �O
�- C O
cn <
c O
N
00 :3 _<
(1) cQ N�
o
co
C
� N
3 cQ
N m
3
O
cn
CO
N
n
O N O "s CDCD or
O N (D fD o
c y coQ O� CD
0, N
CD
(n O N CD CD Q° 3 (D0 ,� E 3 m
0 CD = go N CD CD N •
N O O Mi (D -z
-r� CD
a) �. CD
�'
o -j -p N
CO o CD Q C
CD (
!D
D
O CD 0 �•
CD
O Q.
(D (D
� O N CD(D N
c Q
CD
0 (D
n n
CD C
N O O
CD
CD CL
CD 0
..�
3
h �
� D cD
O � �-0
�• CD O 0• r.
CD a) � •c CDC mCD
C.-0 � : = CD
cD �. O � .
°cacn � < � � Bcn
CD (D U)
N
O O O CD CL
w cr O
O ,�+
� CD a'
D O CD CD �n CL �•
. _ X`<
0 c*-I- � CD Cr
* * 0 3 x = 0
:3n' cn cD a2 f D in CD
<_ 0 cam. CD W. � cr
• � � mo
CD
o �. � � 0 oO CDC,
c�n =� � x :3 � o
cQ p• to CL -
7s caCD M
M, cn (D ''* (D -t �'
CD '
n w _ 3 =
< _ O N
O p fi =
(D O -e
(n' 773
h �
I" � � o• y
c.
G) � O 0 D 1 cp
� � .
( t(D �• O A
.-r Q Q. Q O — Q`
t�D fD ,_�. 0
Sy N, CD
CCD N O• N Cl)
.Q O
ari O• n C C
cr
OCD z 0
CD cn
O Z
CD C O o = Q. CD
CD
w = CL (D
O
r.
Mi
n
(D
O
Qo
cr, —► cw o Z7
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 O.
O
FM*
O
� O O n
,�. .,. _ _ .�. ,-� n
Co co co C3 C13 -1 B
N N a) Sy d Q) n
cn o o Cl) cn cn cn c1
CD CD CD CD (1) cD cD �.
h �
�o
o
�o
�.
t.
a�
o
_
❑
:.
. ::
:.: .....::::::::.:.::.::.. ....
.::.::::......::::..... :..::.
� Kent City Council Meeting
1 (; Date September 1. 1992
V \ Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE
2 . NLk— *s recommended by the Public Works
k4qommittee,kadoption of Ordinance No.3pkk establishing procedures
/'a ograms to encourage and increase the procurement of
recycled and recyclable products by the City of Kent
Departments and contractors.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director and proposed
Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: The Public Works Committee (3-0 unanimous)
(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. 3E
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 5
Bid Opening Del Webb Pump Station
Wickstrom stated six bids were received ranging from $60, 000 to
$120, 000 with an engineer's estimate of $73 , 000. Wickstrom stated
he would recommend awarding the project to R.W. Scott Construction.
The project will add some life to our pump station. It is
currently operating beyond its capability. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval to award to R.W. Scott
Construction.
Bid Opening Horseshoe Acres Pump Station
Two bids were received on this project. Wickstrom stated he would
recommend awarding to the low bidder, Omega Construction. The
project would provide a telemetering system for the station. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval to award the project to
Omega Construction.
Procurement Ordinance
Brubaker stated the State legislature has passed a new law
encouraging the use of recycled products by forcing government
agencies to meet certain standards, use a certain percentage of
paper and other products out of recycled materials. From that King
County developed a model ordinance which, if we comply with, places
us in a position to receive some grant funds from the County.
Karen Siegel clarified that the adoption of this procurement
ordinance is one of the criteria for eligibility for this grant
program should we apply. Wickstrom added this is also a
requirement of our participation in the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Plan. A staff committee reviewed the model ordinance,
made some revisions and developed the ordinance submitted to the
Committee. Paul Mann added he had also asked the legal .department
to look into developing such an ordinance. The Committee
unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance.
King County Housing Authority Real Estate Signs
Wickstrom stated that King County Housing Authority has requested
to place directional signs on our East Hill Well property on 104th
and approximately 244th and one at the air injector station at Kent
Kangley and approximately 120th Avenue S.E. These signs would
provide direction to their Glenbrook affordable housing
development. Wickstrom suggested we would want to concur since it
is a public entity making the request and is for a worthy cause.
They would, however, have to comply with all the code requirements.
He doubted if they could do so for the East Hill Well site. After
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 12, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM bto
RE: PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE
One of the responsibilities of the cities participating in the
Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan is to develop and adopt a
procurement ordinance to increase the procurement of recycled
content products. Additionally, RCW 43 . 19A requires cities whose
expenditures for supplies exceed $500, 000 to develop and adopt
procurement policies and specifications to purchase recycled
content products.
To meet these requirements, we have developed an ordinance which
establishes procedures to encourage and increase procurement of
products with recycled content by City of Kent departments as well
as the consultants and contractors with whom they work.
The Finance Department would be the lead department to administer
the policies since the Purchasing Division is under their domain.
All City departments, as well as City contractors and consultants,
will be required to use recycled and recyclable products wherever
practicable. These products are identified in the ordinance and
others may be added as their supply, reliability and price make it
feasible.
The City's letterhead, envelopes, and business cards would all be
printed on recycled content paper, departments are to use both
sides of paper when practicable, departments shall require that all
printing contracts require the use of recycled paper, and
contractors and consultants would be encouraged to use recycled
content papers and to use both sides of paper.
Where recycled products are not specifically required by this
ordinance or by user departments, a price preference of 10% may be
offered to further encourage the use of recycled paper.
We recommend adoption of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 3 O
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, establishing procedures and
programs to encourage and increase the
procurement of recycled products and
recyclable products by City of Kent
departments and contractors.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent finds it desirable to adopt a
procurement policy promoting the use of recycled products and
recyclable products by City departments and contractors, thereby
stimulating the demand for these products and helping to develop
markets for materials that have been diverted from the solid
waste stream; and
WHEREAS, this policy is further intended to meet
requirements of the King County Solid Waste Division Waste
Reduction and Recycling Grant Program and to be consistent with
the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and
Washington State RCW 43 . 19A encouraging the use of recycled
products; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. This policy shall be known as the
"City of Kent Recycled Product Procurement Policy. " Its purpose
is to promote the development of markets for recycled products
and recyclable products by establishing preferential purchase
programs applicable to City departments and contractors, thereby
diverting materials from the solid waste stream.
1
Section 2 . Definitions. The following terms shall have
the assigned definitions for all purposes under this policy:
A. "Compost products" means mulch, soil amendments,
ground cover, or other landscaping material derived from the
biological or mechanical conversion of cellulose containing waste
materials.
B. "Designated recycled product" means a product
designated in this policy, or designated by the Purchasing Agent
of the City's Finance Department, pursuant to this policy, that
meets or surpasses the City's minimum recycled content standards.
C. "Lead Department" means the Finance Department of
the City of Kent.
D. "Minimum recycled content standards" means those
standards established by the Lead Department in accordance with
RCW 43 . 19A that specify the minimum level of recycled material
and/or post-consumer recycled material necessary for designated
products to qualify as recycled products.
E. "Recycled material ' means waste material and by-
products that have been recovered or diverted from waste and that
can be utilized in place of raw or virgin material in
manufacturing a product and consist of materials derived from
post-consumer waste, manufacturing waste, industrial scrap,
agricultural wastes, and other items, all of which can be used in
the manufacture of new or recycled products.
F. "Post-consumer recycled material" means a material
or product that has served its intended use and has been
discarded for disposal or recovery by a final consumer.
2
G. "Practicable" means sufficient in performance as
determined solely by the appropriate City Department.
H. "Price preference" means an extra percentage that
the City is willing to pay for a recycled product.
I. "Recycled product" means a product which, after its
intended end use, can demonstrably be diverted from the City's
solid waste stream for use as raw material in the manufacture of
another product.
Section 3 . Designated Recycled Products.
A. Paper and paper products;
B. Compost products;
C. Cement and asphalt concrete containing glass
cullet, recycled fiber or plastic, tire rubber, or fly ash;
D. Re-crushed cement concrete aggregate and asphalt;
E. Lubricating oil and hydraulic oil with refined oil
content;
F. Antifreeze;
G. Outdoor-wood product substitutes made from recycled
plastic;
H. Remanufactured tires and products made from
recycled tire rubber;
3
I. Building insulation products;
J. Paint; °
K. Remanufactured laser printer toner cartridges;
L. Other products as designated by the Lead
Department.
Section 4 . Policies.
A. All City departments shall use recycled products
and recyclable products whenever practicable.
B. The Lead Department shall be responsible for
coordinating the implementation of this policy.
C. In those instances, where the Lead Department first
determines that it is consistent with the purpose and policies of
this ordinance to encourage the sale and use of a recycled or
recyclable product, the Lead Department may establish a price
preference for any designated recycled product when the
performance of that product is sufficient and a price preference
will significantly increase procurement of that product. This
price preference shall at no time be greater than 10 percent.
D. The City shall require its contractors and
consultants to use recycled products and recyclable products in
fulfilling contractual obligations whenever practicable.
E. The City shall promote the use of recycled products
and recyclable products by publicizing the procurement program.
4
Section 5 . Pager and Paper Products.
A. In those instances where recycled paper is not
specifically required by this policy (e.g. City letterhead paper)
or by user departments (e.g. specific bid requirements) , the City
may offer a 10% (ten percent) price preference for recycled paper
purchased for use by city departments.
B. The City' s recycled paper procurement goal,
expressed as a percentage of the total value of paper purchased,
shall be: not less than forty percent by 1993 ; not less than
fifty percent by 1994 , and not less than sixty percent by 1995.
C. All imprinted letterhead paper, envelopes and
business cards purchased by City departments shall be recycled
paper and shall bear an imprint identifying recycled content of
the paper.
D. City departments shall ensure that all contracts
for printing require the use of recycled paper and shall include
the chasing-arrow symbol identifying the recycled content of the
paper whenever practicable.
E. City departments shall ensure that the title page
of each internal report printed or copied on recycled paper bears
an imprint identifying the recycled content of the paper.
F. Requests for bids and proposals issued by the City
shall encourage contractors and consultants to:
1. Use recycled paper for proposals and for any
printed or photocopied material created pursuant to a
contract with the City whenever practicable.
5
2. Use both sides of paper sheets for reports
submitted to the City whenever practicable.
G. To reduce the volume of paper purchased,
departments shall use both sides of paper sheets whenever
practicable.
Section 6. Responsibilities of the Lead Department.
The Lead Department shall:
A. Designate recycled products that shall be purchased
by departments .wherever practicable. These designated recycled
products shall include, but not be limited to, the products
fisted in Section 3 of this policy.
B. Adopt minimum recycled content standards for
designated recycled products to maximize recycled product
availability, recycled content, and competition.
C. Inform departments of their responsibilities under
this policy, communicate to departments the list of designated
recycled products, provide departments with information about
recycled product procurement opportunities, and from time to
time, assemble a report on the status of implementation to the
City Council.
Section 7 . Responsibilities of City Departments. Each
City department shall:
A. Coordinate with the Lead Department to purchase
recycled products and recyclable products whenever practicable;
6
B. Evaluate each designated recycled product to
determine the extent to which the product may be practicably used
by the department and its contractors;
C. Report annually to the Lead Department on the
progress of policy implementation by the department, including
the results of product evaluations conducted by the department,
types of recycled products purchased by the department and its
contractors, the status of departmental efforts to maximize
recycled product procurement, and the total purchases of recycled
products and non-recycled products made by the department and its
contractors;
D. Ensure that contracts issued by the department
require recycled material content wherever practicable and that
contractors provide certification of this content and report of
amounts used.
Section 8. Exemptions.
A. Nothing contained in this policy shall preclude
user departments from requiring recycled material content as a
bid specification.
B. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as
requiring a department or contractor to procure products that do
not perform adequately for their intended use or are not
available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time.
C. When any emergency requires the immediate
procurement of any item that would typically be subject to the
requirements of this chapter, the Lead Department shall have the
authority to exempt that procurement purchase only after a
7
written finding of the existence of such an emergency has been
certified by the Department Head of the Lead Department.
D. These procurement requirements may be waived by the
Lead Department upon filing a written finding that the purchase
is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source or supply
within the near vicinity, or that the materials, supplies or
equipment are subject to special market conditions. The Lead
Department 's finding must also recite why this situation exists.
Section 9 . Severability. The provisions of this
Ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this Ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance, or the
validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 10. Ratification. Any act consistent with the
authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
8
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
9
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
�) 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 ate-S+-C-H
woo" recommend5that it be sold to the highest bidders (with a
minimum bid beginning at $25, 0001, by advertising a call for
bids.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Norm Angelo, Fire Chief and Public Safety
Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended__
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
fi
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL SHOPPING CENTER
2 . UMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committe cep ance of e 111 of male for- nuous
main enance and operation of approximately 388 feet of water
main improvements constructed for the East Hill Shopping Center
and waiver of the one year maintenance period and the immediate
release of cash and performance bonds.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity Map and Memorandum from Public Works
Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 unanimous)
(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. 3G
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 6
discussion, the Committee voted 1-2 - Jim White and Jim Bennett
dissenting - to deny the request.
South King County Area Transportation Agreement
Wickstrom stated we had previously distributed this material to the
Committee for their review. However, the comment period has
probably expired. Jim White, who attended the latest meeting of
the group, stated a committee called South County Transportation
group comprised of representatives of all the cities and a couple
of County councilmen will be working together to ensure more
federal road funding for south King County.
Bill of Sale for East Hill Shopping Center
Wickstrom commented we have finally obtained the bill of sale from
the property owner. The City had to provide the survey and prepare
the asbuilts in order to get to this point. We are recommending
accepting the bill of sale and releasing the bonds. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval.
other Items
Bill Doolittle requested staff look at the intersection of Meeker
and State and consider installation of a four way stop. He said
most people stop so he thought it would make sense to just go ahead
and put a couple more stop signs in. Ed White stated that it would
not meet any warrants for a four way stop but Council could direct
the installation. Jim White suggested the Committee members take
a look at the intersection to see what they think about it and
bring their suggestions to the Committee. Bill Doolittle also
commented about Canyon Road. Westbound he has observed that
traffic follows the separation of surface types rather than the
buttons. He commented he felt it could present safety problems
especially in the rain. Wickstrom commented that the pavement of
that road is still the responsibility of the State. Gill stated we
have requested the State include it in their next biennial
consideration for overlay projects.
Mrs. Rust asked about the City policy that City employees were not
allowed to use their City vehicles to go to the bank or to lunch.
McCarthy commented that it is part of a vehicle policy being
developed by the Executive Committee. The use of city vehicles for
personal use is considered an inappropriate use.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 17, 1992
TO• PUBLIC: WORKS COMM�TTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: EAST HILL SHOPPING CENTER
As you may recall, Rod Saalfeld of Bell-Anderson appeared before
the Committee last year to request assistance in obtaining release
of a performance bond his company issued to Heutmaker Company for
relocation of a water line in the East Hill Shopping Center. The
complex changed ownership and the new owners were not willing to
complete the survey, prepare the as-builts and provide the bill of
sale necessary for the City to accept the project and release the
bond.
We continued to communicate with the new owners but in an effort to
close ,this issue, the City conducted the survey and completed the
as-built drawings. We have received a signed bill of sale from the
current owners. We are, thus, recommending we accept this bill of
sale, waive any maintenance period and proceed with the release of
the bond.
516 / > SF:
I.
S ,y TmANct.t a <
JrC IVY.^1, I'\IIK se
ND —
r tq 4 �t. 5.252ND T s,: '. ri
1 SE
aw
EAST:HILL w F $E
< y ,*,L CENTER .' o
° CI },�wj •1't..`ti French SE 25STD S .. a ; w ..J -
m < w SE 254TH PLC
° J�.':`fsKinQ Field 515 < 1< F x y
County k
wm y Police.
'qp KENTTMERIDIAN - _ _ x F = -:.. m ... ' SE
iSR.HI. SCHOOL .~. • �Q'Lj021 !--
.SE -_256TiH ST -
y q(� rat
N N ST Dy'�frV W.. w - N. 29 2$
30
my .v J O w - W.
ST i _ 9.ESTth TH.
-,Kent Swim 8 . v. l�.P _ - r ►.
Tennis Club � v �•.qp� s
FNT A: Ova I r
ETERY 4itiii s �> ���� SE 2eoTr+ sr w 26orH kfyr`k�YpcF ZR K sF♦Pp
(� ST Y
�..� SCENI
E EMEA
SCHO� i..
i Z �• (PK)SEQRH
UOIA
N
(n SCHOOL
-
' 7:
d d .Pt - I - N� _ ` _ aD Atield
o ' Field
N
SE, 264TH ST��
'' CITYL/MITS
y a ' x w
F 265TK
A PL O
f - - Water SE-a 6TH -
. rHesery ST -
SE 267TH ST - x - �w SE 267TN
F
WE 268TH 2:two -
1 SE 266TH PL
a T. s
SSE 269T14
SE 270TH lS� _• .:._. ST-
h
PL SE 271ST CTT . `" _
RiYe� 29 28
30 29272
SE. 272ND ST
31 32 32 N H :q
�o
sE: 27
16� - > -
r NE TREE';
ITY LIMITS_
r MENTARY,
1 B:' U R', N I
r ♦.y ! - 00
} 4 r � 4 r i 3- i'. ',i 4 :i..r � � k >r i� R✓. l �i :- �'' + Y
� t ,tl,:^..�.1 er .._�: ♦rl Air-3v...`� l �„,a>.ti� r..(�,S.�y f,s� k :/'YA.it'�*se�ifi:C.x�' .ti .•� �p�•' ♦ +y k.:J•r'.,x`..
♦. f 14. .f ♦ � + ♦ ate. z > > rr J ,.,.>!'.+c•.s a ir.�' t:..G. � ..q Y�^
t wi a nF� y.. +pty�, .r�•t/J.r [e i P @' �`� Jir 1/�fi cr'• 4• '` ♦:� I'' I ' rsS
� �,� � Y r st -.y)''+ 7s iyrt,�,. 'fir Zr�lr F r�{��,4f�,`it` 'i'�'t�✓ �',y�.�r��+'. �f (fir Y .. t( ws
�r♦�»r �'ti � r h 3♦ a r�i`la��^rt�' r a � a�t� `is .�y-,r
��Y�;"14. / ems, x �Ab�416ywsrxA K7�r"P/���- '�'�� ,z.a ri'`�jg, '� � r ♦`.
A _�..4'1.1�F�.1^� t '7 ��(4O+Irf"4N.•A v� -%'{� .h� V��� •. � .._ .. _ �
P
i
X Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1. 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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'
OAM recommendi"g that the project be accepted based upon the
completion of the outstanding items and the letter of agreement
to resolve any remaining audio quality problems.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire and Police Admin. , Public Safety Committee
(vote 3-0 in favor by Councilmembers Johnson. Mann and Orr)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ Final payment will be made
upon the acceptance by the Council
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
l..
Councilmember�MALI moves, Councilmember � seconds
that the Public Safety 800 MHz radio system be accepted and
final payment be processed in accordance with the letter of
agreement.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: � ��
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 11 1992
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS,
COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, JOHNSON, HOUSER, ORR, MANN,
BENNETT
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEMpa—
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Contract for the purchase and installation of an 800 MHz trunking
radio system for use by the City of Kent Fire and Police
Departments was signed on December 15, 1989 with Motorola
Communications and Electronics, Inc. The original contract sum
was not to exceed $1, 120, 000 including tax. Motorola has
complied with the agreement and/or has executed letter of
agreement with respect to audio quality problem resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council accept this project as complete, subject to the mutually
agreed upon terms of close out of the project.
SIGNIFICANCE
This will allow the Kent Fire and Police Departments to use this
essential element in providing life safety and take this project
into the warranty period.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
This project had been budgeted through the bond levy with no
impact on the general operating budget of the department. After
the system has been accepted, final project expenditures will be
completed within a couple of months.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
�J
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1. 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 Planning
Policies.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Growth Management Planning Goals, Human
Services Commission minutes of July 23, 1992 and Planning
Commission minutes of August 24, 1992
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (3-0 unanimous) and Planning
Commission (with 7 members present voted unanimously)
(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
to approvef41saplx=eate the Planning Commission' recommendation
to adopt the Growth Management Planning Goals and direct the
Attorney' s Office to prepare the necessary resolution to be
brought back to the full Council on September 15, 1992 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B J
CITY OF ) LPMIT
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 659-3390
MEMORANDUM
September 1 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: FRED SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS
Attached for your consideration are proposed Planning Goals for the
City of Kent. These proposed goals are based on the planning goals
contained in the Growth Management Act, the countywide planning
policies adopted by the King County Council, and the results of the
Kent Community Forum on Growth Management and visioning conducted
earlier this year. The proposed Planning Goals, once adopted by
the Council, will provide an overall framework for the goals and
policies which will be developed over the next year as part of the
City' s , Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Department conducted two public forums to solicit
input on these proposed goals . The Planning Commission held a
workshop on the goals on August 10, and conducted a hearing on the
goals on August 24 . The attached report contains the Planning
Commission' s recommendation. The Human Services Commission also
reviewed the Human Services goals at its July 23 meeting, and the
proposed Human Services goals reflect the Commission' s
recommendation.
In addition to the proposal, the Planning Commission minutes from
the. August 24 hearing are also attached for your review.
If you have any questions about the proposed Planning Goals prior
to the September 1 meeting, please contact Kevin O ' Neill or myself
at 859-3390.
FS/mp:a:pgoalscc.mem
cc: James P. Harris , Planning Director
Kevin O'Neill , Planner
Anne Watanabe, Planner
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 be
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
i
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 forum
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
i
I
I
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.
i
'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.
i
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,
I
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.
I
i'
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
i
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.
i
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
.. i
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.
I
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 shall assume urban services which
are presently provided by special districts.
10
I
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.
I
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.
I
I
I
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.
i
I
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.
I
1 �
APPENDIX A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
PLANNING GOALS
(1 1) 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)
I
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-91
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-1 1)
1
r
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)
i
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 B
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
i
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)
i
i
' I
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
o 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 (21)
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. (1 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
pgoals2.rep
2
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23 , 1992 MEETING
PAGE 3
recommended that the liquor license be obtained by the business
sponsor rather than the City.
Chair Moschel reported that Barbara Simpson, Acting Director of the
Kent Chamber of Commerce, advised her that the Commission will have
to secure its own business sponsors for a location and
refreshments.
Lin Ball reported that during a prior Commission discussion on the
social, it was suggested that Howard Martin of the United Way be
contacted for information on obtaining a corporate sponsor. Ideas
for a corporate sponsor are Pacific First Bank, Boeing, U. S. West,
Puget Power, and Fred Meyers. Lin stressed the time commitment
needed from Commission members to organize the social.
Dee Moschel will meet again with the Barbara Simpson at the Kent
Chamber to get suggestions for a corporate sponsor. She will also
contact Howard Martin at United Way. In addition, Dee will contact
the food service program instructor at Kentridge High School to see
if he would be interested in having his students cater the event.
Marijean 'Heutmaker will contact Pacific First to see if they are
interested in sponsoring the social.
Those present discussed holding the social in City Hall as a last
resort. Alice Shobe asked the Commission to think if it is worth
the effort to hold the social in City Hall if a business sponsor
cannot be found. She pointed out that the number of attendees last
year who were not City employees was less than 10 people. Alice
also stated that feedback she received from many of the agencies
was they were very disappointed with the low turnout in 1991. Lin
Ball feels it is worth taking another month to approach businesses
rather than expecting businesses to come to the Commission. It was
also decided to go ahead and reserve City Hall.
HOUSING FOR HOMELESS MEN UPDATE
Alice Shobe reported that CCS recently conducted a community
notification process and received a good response.
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER - MEETING WITH ART WILLENSTEIN
Discussion on this item was deferred to the August meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT: HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING GOALS
Lin Ball introduced Planner Anne Watanabe who gave the Commission
an overview of growth management and explained how the planning
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23 , 1992 MEETING
PAGE 4
policies, and specifically the Human Services planning goals, fit
into the overall framework of growth management.
Anne explained that there are 13 planning goals established under
State law, however, they do not include human services goals. The
City takes these 13 goals and uses them as a broad framework for
formulating Kent's comprehensive plan. It is important that the
City's planning goals are consistent with State goals, however,
they must also meet Kent' s needs for the next 20 years. The draft
human services planning goals are based on State law, countywide
policies, and the results of the visioning process which the City
conducted in February and March 1992 .
A review and discussion of the 10 human services planning goals
followed. Lin Ball explained that in creating the goals, staff
looked at the City's current commitment to human services and other
current human services issues or issues anticipated to arise in the
future. It was recommended that planning goal HS-3 be changed to
read, "City shall continue its commitment to human services by
allocating funding, staff resources, and other resources to address
the needs of its residents. "
The planning goals will be discussed at a Planning Commission
workshop on August 10 and at the Planning Commission meeting on
August 24 . Planning staff is conducting a workshop for the general
public on August 11 and August 20 at 7 : 00 p.m. The planning goals
will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration on
September 1.
REVIEW AGENCY FIRST QUARTER REPORTS
Lin Ball asked the Commission to review the reports and call staff
with any questions. The second quarter report will be brought to
the Commission in August.
REVIEW SUMMARY OF AGENCY INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEWS
Discussion on this item was deferred to the August meeting.
REPORTS
No reports were given.
Respectfully submitted,
(5�3 zs�
Lin Ba Secretary
HSMIN92 .JUL
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS
Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department said that the 1990 Growth
Management Act outlined several planning goals that were to provide
the framework for each jurisdiction in doing their own individual
comprehensive plans. The 1991 amendment to that Act required each
county to further refine and adopt countywide planning policies so
that every jurisdiction within the county would be fairly
consistent with certain types of framework policies.
Early this year we went- through an intensive public participation
ity Forum and the Visual Preference
process called the Kent Commun
Survey where we went out to the community and asked several
questions relating to growth management issues and also asked
citizens to respond to the type of development pattern they'd like
to see in the community in the future.
What this process does is fuse those three processes in terms of
proposing framework planning goals for the City which are modeled
after the state and county goals, but also involve some of the
local planning priorities which were indicated throughout the
Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey process.
Mr. O'Neill pointed out that they went through a public process on
these draft goals. They developed a questionnaire which was sent
to each person who participated in the Community Forum. They also
had two public forums where they presented some of these ideas and
got comments from people.
Since staff went through all of the goals in some detail at the
last workshop, Mr. O'Neill proposed to highlight some of the
changes which are based on comments received from the Commissioners
and also from the public during the questionnaire and public forum
process.
The subject categories were selected to follow as closely as
possible the 13 planning goals in the Growth Management Act. Some
additions were made based on issues that are important in Kent,
particularly human services, urban design and economic development.
In the Urban Growth category, a minor change was made to UG-1 to
emphasize that the particular type of urban sprawl that we would
seek to minimize would be the conversion of undeveloped land not
presently in the City into low density urban development.
The last sentence of UG-2 has been modified to say "The Urban
Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate at least
twenty years of residential, commercial, and industrial growth. . .
6
Kent Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
The words "at least" were added because some of the people who
reviewed the goals felt that twenty years was too limiting and
perhaps we should be looking beyond that.
Regarding UG-6, background information was provided to the
Commissioners relating to the specific description of urban centers
in the Countywide Planning Policies. A map was also provided
showing what a conceptual 1-1/2 square mile urban center might look
like.
There are four Transportation goals which emphasize the multi-modal
approach to transportation. They also emphasize the support for
development of public transit and programs which reduce the number
of single occupancy vehicles. People in the Community Forum
process felt strongly about both of these issues.
In terms of Housing, H-1 was amended to emphasize that we would be
preserving and improving single-family and multi-family residential
neighborhoods.
The first word of H-3 was changed from "ensure" to "encourage" and
the second sentence was changed to read "Assure that opportunities
for a diversity of housing are available to all income levels" .
The same type of change was made in H-7 to say "ensure
opportunities for affordable housing" as opposed to just "ensure
affordable housing" .
The human services goals have not been changed since the workshop.
In Economic Development, Mr. O'Neill suggested that the
Commissioners might want to make the same type of change in ED-1
that they made to the Urban Growth section and say "at least the
next 20 years of growth" to make it a little more flexible.
Anne Watanabe said that the first item under Property Rights, which
was intended to be a restatement of what the constitutional law is
with regard to compensation for takings, was deleted. It generated
a lot of comments as far as interpreting the section and because it
was simply meant to reflect existing constitutional protections for
landowners, they felt it was best to just leave it out.
Under the Permits section, the public 's health was added to P-1 in
addition to the safety and welfare being involved.
In the Natural Resource Industries section, an example of clustered
patterns of residential development being appropriate in rural
areas was deleted from NR-4 because the comments received indicated
it was rather confusing.
7
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992 --
Under Open Space and Recreation, OS-1 was split into two sentences
to make it a little more comprehensible. OS-5 was added to address
a request from the Parks Department that there be some language
regarding the regular update of the Comprehensive Park Plan.
There were no changes to the Environment section.
Mr. O'Neill said the Public Facilities goals are meant to emphasize
the goals in the Act and the Countywide Planning Policies about
linking development with services and the ability to pay for them.
Urban Design is a section for which there is no framework under
Growth Management. It has been an emphasis of our planning to date
and these goals make it clear that it will continue to be so.
There were no changes to the Historic Preservation section.
The Growth Management Act :requires early and continuous public
participation and the Community Involvement section is a proposed
local goal relating to that.
Commissioner Martinez asked if there is anything that the
commission or the City has done or the way we are funding our
infrastructure that is absolutely counter to what we're saying in
goal PF-2 . She particularly was thinking of the way we fund LID's
as a reactive mode. She believes the intent of PF-2 is to push us
toward something else and wondered if that was the understanding of
the Planning Department as well. Mr. O 'Neill said it is. The Act
makes it perfectly clear that capital facilities planning needs to
be part of the Comprehensive Plan. This goal would change the way
things are done.
Paul Seely of the Boeing company, 7735 E. Marginal Way, spoke about
the Countywide Planning Policies. He feels communities should have
the right to prescribe how they want to grow.
commissioner Martinez said they are looking at specific language in
the planning goals, many of which are fully supported by our
visioning and our community preference forums. She asked Mr. Seely
what specifically he would like them to consider that they haven't.
Mr. Seely said he would have liked to rewrite the whole thing.
commissioner Martinez asked if he was talking about the county's
part and not Kent's part. He said he was. He would be satisfied
with having us ratify it as-is as long as we ask them to do a
supplementary EIS and financial impact analysis . Fred Satterstrom
said there may be some confusion because Mr. Seely is speaking
largely to the Countywide Planning Policies, some of which have
been appended to the staff report on Planning Goals. That may have
8
Kent Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
given Mr. Seely and others the impression that the Planning
Commission was going to be acting on the ratification process.
There will be a public hearing on that before the City Council on
September 1. Because it is a ratification process, it bypassed the
Planning Commission.
Chair Antley asked Mr. Seely what he would like to see changed in
the section on Economic Development. She said if she understood
him correctly, he didn't really have any problems with our goals as
long as when we get down to objectives and the activities to meet
the objectives which in turn meet the goals, that there are other
things we need to keep in mind. Mr. Seely said that was correct.
Hugh Leiper of American Commercial Industries, 1819 S. Central,
Suite 116, talked about where the boundaries of Kent should be.
Commissioner Haylor pointed out that the Planning Commission has
already approved and passed on to Council their proposed urban
growth area boundary.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Martinez said she would like to have some further
discussion on UG-6 which is Kent designating an urban center area.
She is not convinced that designating ourselves as an urban center
would do a lot for the City of Kent. It may be the only way we get
transit in here, but it seems to her to be using a very heavy club
to accomplish a goal.
Commissioner Heineman said he can see Kent as an urban center, but
he 's afraid that his definition of urban center does not agree with
the county' s definition. He wondered if the Commission really
needs to get into that right now. Commissioner Martinez said it
seems to her that if they incorporate that, it means what the
county has said it means. Chair Antley said she thinks they're
stuck with that unless they want to come up with their own
definition.
James Harris of the Planning Department said that the county seems
to be saying if you want to be an urban city, these are some
parameters within which you have to work. He thinks the cities
that become urban centers are going to get the transit money and
the money to do all these good things and if you don't want to be
an urban center, those kinds of monies may not come to your
community. He feels we want to keep our options open and not cut
ourselves off at this point by saying we don't even want to
consider it.
9
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
Mr. O'Neill said the reason this goal is in the document is because
under the Countywide Planning Policies that have been adopted to
date by the County Council, all jurisdictions of the count will
have to decide by October 1 whether they want to apply
to the
Growth Management Planning Council to be an urban center or not.
The Countywide Planning Policies likely will be amended throughout
the next year, but we don't know what those amendments are going to
be. One action the Commissioners may wish to consider is keeping
the goal of the urban center in there, but passing on any concerns
they have about it to the City Council. The City Council will be
considering ratification of the Countywide Planning Policies as a
whole, as well as these Planning Goals, and can pass on the
Commission' s concerns to King County.
Chair Antley said she shares everyone's concern about the
definition of an urban center, but thinks she would rather err on
the side of saying this is something we wish to work toward. If we
either fail to achieve it due to various other circumstances or we
Dust plain change our minds, we will be far better off by saying
"yes, we' ll play this game" now than by saying "no, we're not going
to play this game at all" . This is our window of opportunity.
Commissioner Ward agreed with Chair Antley. If we say we don't
want to participate, we surely won't get anything. If we say we
want to participate and we decide later that we can't make it or we
don't meet the objectives or the plan, then that' s a different
thing. But if you remove yourself from the competition by
restricting what your plan would be and just stating unequivocally
that you want to be outside that plan of action, then you surely
won't get anything.
Commissioner Martinez said that 30 years ago we decided to play a
game and bring some manufacturing in which we have been trying to
get rid of for 30 years. Twenty years ago we decided to be a
warehouse place and we succeeded mightily and now we're all unhappy
about that. Ten years ago we decided to be a multifamily community
and we succeeded mightily at that. She is afraid that one more
time we will succeed at doing something that is not very well
conceived. The visioning that she saw from the citizens was more
of an urban village than an urban center with 50, 000 jobs within a
mile and a half radius. She has really serious concerns that if we
designate ourselves as an urban center without further thought, the
first thing that will happen is that indeed transit will come and
all of the other things will happen. We will not be in control of
our destiny and what we' ll end up with is a city that no one wants
to live in. We moved to Kent to be in a community like Kent.
10
Kent Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Commissioner Ward said he has the impression that if you're a game
player and there 's only one game in town and you're not a part of
that game, then you're left standing. He believes the county is
not really sure what the final definition of a true urban center
will be, but if Kent is not a part of it, it will be to our
detriment. He feels that the development in terms of warehousing
and manufacturing has been somewhat of a positive thing in the
sense that it is growth. He still believes that a City either
regenerates itself by. growing or it dries up and dies. Kent has
tried to grow a little too fast in some area, but the net result is
still positive.
Commissioner Dahle said that if you go back 35 years, Kent was an
urban center. It has now fallen apart and it takes time to
regenerate and get it . going again. She feels it should be
designated as an urban center.
Commissioner Martinez said she doesn't disagree with what
Commissioners Ward and Dahle said. She is uncomfortable with the
present wording and suggested we may just want to add "in alignment
with the vision of the community forums" or "of the community of
Kent" just to make it very clear that we want to guide our own
destiny. Mr. Harris said he thinks that' s a good idea because the
vision that the citizens had was more of a design vision; what the
community will look like. We would not want to foreclose the
opportunity, but on our terms and design. How this thing's going
to look. Chair Antley proposed adding an additional sentence to
UG-6 which would say "This area will mirror the visioning which was
developed through Kent's public forums" . All the Commissioners
agreed.
In the Housing section, Commissioner Grant thought that again they
could refer back to the public forums because there was a lot of
input from the public concerning housing. Chair Antley suggested
that they add a footnote to the Housing section.
Commissioner Dahle asked if we got any feedback from the people who
received the community forum report. She felt that the conclusions
in the report were not the conclusions reached by the people at the
meeting she attended. Mr. O'Neill said he was not aware of any
comments about the report. The draft planning goals were sent to
all the participants of that process with an evaluation form and
they did receive some comments on the goals, which is the reason
some of the language has been changed. After much discussion it
was decided that rather than adding footnotes throughout the entire
document, the following language should be added to the
introduction: The following Planning Goals shall be interpreted
in light of the vision for Kent which was developed by the
Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, June 1992" .
11
Kent Planning Commission
August 24 , 1992
This would also allow the additional language to be removed from
UG-6.
Under Economic Development, it was decided to change ED-1 to read
"at least the next 20 years of growth" .
Commissioner Dahle said she is still not happy with the Property
Rights section because it still does not say that you shall not
take over property rights without just compensation for the land.
Chair Antley said she does not think this is the document for them
to interpret state or federal law. It is a goals statement and she
doesn't feel we should lock ourselves into a statement which
doesn't need to be stated because it' s a constitutional issue.
Commissioner Heineman didn't feel that they could go any farther
than they have as long as they're talking about goals. They are
not in the business of creating law or defining law. Staff
referred the Commissioners to Appendix A which is the Growth
Management Act Planning Goals. The property rights section is
almost identical to what was in the first draft of the City' s
Planning Goals and it would not hurt to exactly restate what is in
the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to put the
language "Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation having been made" back into the Property
Rights section as PR-1- Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion.
The motion CARRIED with Chair Antley voting against.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to adopt the Planning Goals as amended.
Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the
meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
JiaHari`is, Secretary
JPH/ljh: 82492 .min
12
�� Kent City Council Meeting
�. Date September 1. 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: URBAN GROWTH AREAS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is a recommendation of the Planning
Committee to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the Urban
Growth Area. There are four alternatives attached. The
Planning Commission recommended Alternative 4, which would
extend the Urban Growth Area to include the Covington area.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 9/1/92 to various Councilmembers, Memo
dated 5/29/92 to the Planning Commission members and maps, Memo
dated 8/4/92 to Planning Committee members, Planning Commission
.minutes of 6/8/92 , and Planning Committee minutes of 8/18, 8/4,
6/16
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (3-0 unanimous)
(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 9� �' � seconds
to approve7d4sappr4wv& the Planning Committee's recommendation
to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the Urban Growth Area
and direct the Attorney's Office to prepare the necessary
resolution and bring back to the full Council on September 15,
1992
DISCUSSION• 1A -ir A
ACTION: J 1'j� C--! )
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date 9-01-92
Category Other Business
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Areas
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
This is the recommendation of the Planning Committee to adopt
Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area . There are
four(4) Alternatives attached. The Planning Commission recommended
Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban growth area to include
the Covington area .
EXHIBITS: Memo dated 9-1-92 to Mayor and City Council members, memo
dated 5-29-92 to Planning Commission & maps , memo dated
8-4-92 to Planning Committee members , Planning Commission
minutes of 6-8-92 , and Planning Committee minutes of 8-
18-92 , 8-4-92 , and 6-16-92 .
RECOMMENDATION OF: Planning Committee ( 3-0)
(Planning Committee, Staff , H. E. , Commission etc. )
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Council member seconds
Discussion:
Action:
To approve/disapprove the Planning Committee ' s recommendation to
adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area and
direct the Attorney ' s office to prepare the necessary Resolution
and bring back to the full council on September 15 , 1992 .
r
CITY OF �SOL"juV�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
Septemgber 1 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: FRED SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY
Attached is a memorandum prepared for the Planning Commission
regarding alternatives for an interim urban growth area boundary
for the City of Kent. The Planning Commission considered this
issue at a public hearing on June 8 . After consideration of the
alternatives, the Commission voted to recommend Alternative 4 as
the City ' s urban growth area, which would include the Covington
area. As noted in the memorandum, the staff recommendation was for
Alternative 3 .
The City Council Planning Committee considered this at their June
16 meeting, and asked for additional information on the potential
impacts of increasing the City ' s Planning Area to include
Covington. This analysis is attached for your review (see August
4 memo) . After further consideration, the Planning Committee voted
on August 18 to adopt Alternative 3 .
In addition, the Planning Commission minutes from the June 8
hearing are also attached for your review.
If you have any questions about this prior to the September 1
meeting, please contact Kevin O ' Neill or myself at 859-3390 .
FS/mp: a:ugbcc.mem '
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Dir4ctor
Kevin O ' Neill , Planner
I�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date 9-01-92
Category Other Business
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Areas
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
This is the recommendation of the Planning Committee to adopt
Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area . There are
four (4) Alternatives attached. The Planning Commission recommended
Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban growth area to include
the Covington area.
EXHIBITS: Memo dated 9-1-92 to Mayor and City Council members, memo
dated 5-29-92 to Planning Commission & maps, memo dated
8-4-92 to Planning Committee members , Planning Commission
minutes of 6-8-92 , and Planning Committee minutes of 8-
18-92 , 8-4-92 , and 6-16-92 .
RECOMMENDATION OF: Planning Committee (3-0)
(Planning Committee, Staff, H. E. , Commission etc. )
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS :
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Council member seconds
Discussion:
Action:
To approve/disapprove the Planning Committee ' s recommendation to
adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area and
direct the Attorney ' s office to prepare the necessary Resolution
and bring back to the full council on September 15 , 1992 .
CITY OF 80,Ll!2��
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
May 29 , 1992
MEMO TO: TRACY ANTLEY, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, PLANNER
SUBJECT: INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY
Attached for your consideration are several alternatives for a City
of Kent Urban Growth Area boundary. The designation of urban
growth areas is mandated by the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) .
The following presents some background information on urban growth
areas, - followed by a description of the alternatives.
BACKGROUND
The Growth Management Act mandates that each county required to
plan under the provisions of the Act, including King County,
designate an urban growth area (or areas) within which urban growth
shall be encouraged, and outside of which urban growth and
annexations cannot occur. The Act requires that the urban growth
area contain enough land to accommodate 20 years of projected
growth. Each city within a county must be part of the urban growth
area; however, the Act states that an urban growth area may include
land outside of a city only if this land "already is characterized
by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized
by urban growth" (RCW 36 . 70A. 110) . The Act also stipulates that
future urban growth locate first in areas in which urban services
have already been provided (most likely cities) , and next in areas
already characterized by urban growth and where services are in
place or planned. Finally, the Act states that it is "appropriate"
that urban services be provided by cities as opposed to counties,
which suggests that the intent of the Act is that all land within
an urban growth area eventually be included as part of a city.
Since designating urban growth area boundaries must be done by
counties, King County began coordinating a regional process for
determining the county' s urban growth area in early 1991. This
process involved staff from the County and cities within the
county. The purpose of this process was to agree on criteria for
establishment of the urban growth area, and then jointly determine
where the boundary of the area would be. This process, however,
u
Tracy Antley, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
May 29, 1992
Page 2
was altered with amendment by the State Legislature of the 1991
Growth Management Act, which mandated that each county adopt
countywide planning policies. The countywide policies must
address, among other issues, the process by which urban growth
areas will be implemented, since the designation of urban growth
areas is perhaps the most critical countywide issue in the Growth
Management Act.
Pursuant to the 1991 Act, the King County Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC) was formed in January of this year. The
GMPC is a group of 15 elected officials from Seattle, King County,
and suburban cities who were authorized to develop a set of policy
recommendations for consideration by the King County Council and
local city councils. The GMPC has prepared a draft set of
countywide policies which are now being presented for review and
comment at a series of public workshops. The draft planning
policies developed by the GMPC include the establishment of a draft
countywide urban growth area boundary (see Attachment A) . This
proposed boundary may change as these policies are further reviewed
by the, GMPC, the King County Council, and local jurisdictions.
The City of Kent currently has a Planning Area boundary for the
existing comprehensive Land Use Plan (see Attachment B) . This
Planning Area boundary was designated in 1987, and represents the
city limits, plus the area outside of the City for which the City
prepares or participates with King County in the preparation of
land use policies. In 1989, the City Council also adopted, by
resolution, a Priority Annexation Map (see Attachment C) . The 1989
Priority Annexation Map is the most recent statement by the City
Council regarding the City's future direction on growth outside of
the present city limits. The City Council resolution adopting this
annexation area is also attached (see Attachment C) .
ALTERNATIVES
It is important for the City to begin consideration of its own
municipal urban growth area boundary at this time for several
reasons. In the short term, it is necessary for the City to
determine the boundaries within which the new Comprehensive Plan
will be prepared. The City' s municipal urban growth area will
essentially function as its planning area, since the urban growth
boundary will define the area in which urban development should
occur. In the long term, the growth boundary designation is
significant since the City will be making a long-term commitment to
eventually annex the portion of the urban growth area which is
outside of the City and provide infrastructure and services to it.
Furthermore, the size of the urban growth area, and the way it will
be served by public facilities, have important implications for the
type of growth pattern which takes place in the next 20 years. It
Tracy Antley, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
May 29, 1992
Page 3
should be made clear that a final decision on the City' s municipal
urban growth area does not need to be made until the Comprehensive
Plan is adopted, and that the ultimate decision on the countywide
urban growth area will be made by the County Council; however, it
is important to determine at least an interim boundary at this
time, so that work can proceed on preparing the land use,
transportation, and capital facilities elements.
The following alternatives are all based on existing policies,
including municipal service area boundaries, annexation area
boundaries, Planning Area boundaries, and the urban/rural
designation being proposed by the Growth Management Planning
Council. The issue before us at this point is whether any of these
existing designations fulfill the purpose of the urban growth area
provisions in the Growth Management Act, or whether a new boundary
needs to be drawn.
The four alternatives are described below:
ALTERNATIVE 1
Alternative 1 shows a very tight Urban Growth Area Boundary which
includes only land which is presently inside the City limits, plus
land within which the City presently has both water and sewer
franchises. The proposed urban growth area is much smaller than
either the existing Kent Planning Area or the City's Annexation
Priority Area. The proposed eastern boundary is also further west
than the urban/rural line proposed by the Growth Management
Planning Council.
This alternative would likely result in the greatest emphasis on
infill development and redevelopment to accommodate future growth,
since very little additional land outside of the present City
limits would become part of the City. Water and sewer service is
presently controlled by the City in this area, which simplifies the
process of coordinating public facilities within this proposed
urban growth area. However, this alternative excludes land to the
east and the west which is presently in the City' s Planning Area,
and which King County is likely to designate as urban. As the
Neighboring Interim Urban Growth Area Boundaries map (Attachment D)
shows, the land to the west of the proposed boundary is sought
after by several adjacent cities, while land to the east will
likely be designated as urban, but would not be controlled by the
city.
Alternative lA
Alternative lA is similar to Alternative 1, except that it also
includes land in which the City presently has either water or sewer
Tracy Antley, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
May 29, 1992
Page 4
franchises, but not necessarily both. This proposed boundary
includes more land to the west and east of the city than
Alternative 11 but is still smaller than the existing Planning and
Annexation Areas.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is designed to follow the boundaries of the City' s
existing Priority Annexation Area Map. As mentioned, this
annexation area was adopted by the City Council in 1989 . Prior to
adoption of this map, the City Council adopted the recommendations
of the 1987 Greater Kent Study, which defined 10 and 20 year
annexation areas for the City. The study also recommended a set of
annexation goals and policies which were adopted by the Council as
well. The boundaries of the Annexation Priority Map reflect the
20-year annexation boundary, as does the area shown in this
alternative. The eastern boundary of this alternative is Big Soos
Creek.
This alternative reflects the most current policy direction by the
City Council regarding Kent' s growth over the next 20 years, which
is the same timeframe as mandated for urban growth under the GMA.
This proposed boundary is also very similar to the City's existing
Planning Area boundary. However, this alternative would create a
municipal urban growth area which extends further east and west
than the City' s present water and sewer franchise areas, which
would necessitate a great deal of coordination with the Soos Creek
Water and Sewer District and Water District 111 (see Attachment E) .
Also, land within this proposed area was recently designated as
"Growth Reserve" by the recently amended Soos Creek Community Plan
and Area Zoning, and would now be designated as urban. Therefore,
if the City' s growth boundary extends out to this area, the future
planning and coordination of capital facilities will be
particularly critical to ensure that the future growth pattern
occur in an orderly way, consistent with the intent of the GMA.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 is very similar to the City' s existing Planning Area
boundary. The only difference between this alternative and the
Planning Area boundary is that it includes the Panther Lake area
located between SE 192nd Street and SE 208th Street and between
92nd Avenue South and Big Soos Creek, which is not presently part
of the City's Planning Area. This area has been included in this
alternative since it is presently served by the Kent Fire
Department and is also part of the Kent School District. This area
was also shown as part of the City' s Planning Area boundary in the
1989 Priority Annexation Area map. The proposed eastern boundary
follows Big Soos Creek all the way to SE 192nd Street, which is
Tracy Antley, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
May 29 , 1992
Page 5
from the existing eastern border of the Planning
slightly different
Area. The boundary under this alternative does not go as far to
by the Growth
the southeast as the obin/rural line proposed
Management Planningunc
The effect Of this alternative is very similar that described
oordin
under Alternative 2 , except that more c the
nation would be
required with the City of Renton because of City inclusion of the has
area between 208th and 192nd Streets. growth area, and has
included this as part of their interim urban
a watershed in this area
ALTERNATIVE 4
Alternative 4 shows the largest municipal urban growth area. This
alternative includes all of the area proposed under Alternative 31
but extends the eastern boundary east of Big Soos Creek to
Covington. The proposed boundary east of the existing Planning
Area follows the urban/rural line proposed by the Growth Management
Planning Council.
mendation of
This alternative is the most consistent with the which Kingreco County would
the GMPC. It may also
resses the
thealternative willingness l to ultimately
prefer, since it expresses this
annex a large portion of the unincorporated shift ftarfrom earlier City
alternative would represent owt m since no previous policy has
policies regarding future growth,
of Big Soos Creek. Moving the
envisioned the City moving east of existing planning area and
City' s growth area boundary
annexation area boundaries would further increase the necessity o
nce it would involve coordination
coordinate public facilities, si Soos
with the Covington Water District as well
.aspaleurban growth area
and Sewer District. Also, moving ear contrary to the
further east than the existing area would app as well
intent of the Growth Management Act to reduce urban sprawl,
as the City' s intent to focus future development in the downtown
area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
As mentioned, it is not necessary that a final decision be m it ade on
s
the designation of a municipal urban growth area. However,
important that a decision be made on at least an interim basis, so
rstandf the area in which our
that there will be a clear undeoccuralandoalso so that surrounding
growth management planning
w indication of the City' s intentions
cities and King County have an
for future growth.
Tracy Antley, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission
May 29, 1992
Page 6
Staff recommends that the City adopt as its interim Municipal Urban
Growth Area boundary shown in Alternative 3 . This alternative
includes the Panther Lake area, which, as stated, is presently
served by the Kent Fire Department and the Kent School District.
This area was also included as part of Kent's Planning Area as
shown on the 1989 Priority Annexation Area map approved by the City
Council in 1989 . Soos Creek would be the proposed eastern boundary
of the urban growth area, which is consistent with the Growth
Management Act provision for open space corridors and urban
separators between cities and between urban and rural areas, and
consistent with the Countywide Planning Policy that the boundary of
the urban growth area respect topographical features which form a
natural edge. Therefore, this alternative reflects the 20-year
annexation boundary which was adopted by the City Council only
three years ago, is fairly consistent with the City' s existing
Planning Area boundary, and is also consistent with the eastern
boundary of the urban/rural area proposed by the GMPC.
KO/ljh:ugbalt.pc
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
i
.\ I •"..ate sm��,
5
Z _
n
J 1
u
' ✓9L Y FRE RY � �� l' a f —
�r rvr
lr
— u
NY
b
e m k d !
�` �� � � 0.' 3p '. e M•e'ffi�rt �" `'y a�� r 9 mn ;;.P-fb x:p' r 1' -�
AtL
drD
,_ 1 555 sy. nia ,W'yx`
9 w
F�
n yre �
I C
fjy
k14
s L
}�--�y+
�- 1
1 ��c
l
j z
,
4
x _
Ir
I
Y111LL —�
L x
P i r
—r I
_ �ou _ _ _ JeJP➢ri re ••�`• ��k
j"t �LLNArt-5'` —_t114
LYIF y fir
e
a
4
IAA •-
k +�
off, rY
TO
7a rt f P
tl ,Jl
Auc { (11'vS" 3 t a v
3
it
1�
1 "1
a x r C9
I
713
of
zn-1.
�.� P,,.
[ I1 y ( I t
f n
v L T n s�. �� �F � �•-.
74 mo pr r rr _
II ,
_ L _
—1
j 1 _L i
LWI
•f fe e,r
- s
e
r ,
-
t CD
9 �t ql�, 'I,.i�r[I iolx,ircl PP t LLHri
cr
_s.J,re11 £ i ip ry au
1
t p
10
ry �
ry �
—� m r O
1}
e
„r
lr.I
my
�_ hip”
eC'1j111/j
7 ,
x
— IN -- -
- �— 1
e
�Tl � �
- i
— I
—_
41
� � � - �-a ��'�7 � FrrFl •--
IE
CK
«. IE 11
�`
Ll
s + `r
tta" r "P,�"+e
vn 4i t
,�
f^ J L
rl
` u}1 >a kol.ha�ri�a. tY Diu II � C"i
,w b x y
Y 70
o _ p
` C=
{_L r•
11
f 1 , A
FT
1 -
L
e
l
,x
1: L L
l
Lt
. �.
r .n..
U '4
Y__I
jr 1�
p
tj
T-1
Ji.
U(tj
All
�s 11 ' .
71
....... c7i
1.
I L
4L
44 11 11
i.
-A
o �T Ao —
CD
O
j 3 p
cz
0 3 Z
QJ
o _ 3
v_
O
— — S
3�
D
— m
_ RD
cl+ '
Y
.�i\yJZ
v�
o - 77 ti n
it
— a _
o
m
a
o H
m
o
a
a
z
y
a
� � m
I k'
1
9
-- 3f
� ' C
ai t E - Fy 6 ley 3S e i I
AN"��
#/
�; •• x s �a �-.. f�q F d � 1� � Y - —
�-
7
IS
F y}' �>�,� M9 ��92 � ¢•'�$�gM � � � ! bd� J 5 1 4�� L S
�tt,L' a .✓ t hIy`5 C : r3
S '.h
(y t g 2st 4 k g Fq� ';a L� k
$"1R�y�3��a as,axe€� 4�kEj['':����� �r��i€ 3
r� av `� r�,tr' f� < 4 d" ji" s �lr3aa
w § yE�' �
a�"�� F43 '•e. G13� a � E�-i't3: '. 4 3`�e PynJ,y�„���s i§ � s� v �"� f � � t1
•\1 �fF'3 Sa�Y f � QY t5~�� fi; � 4t^ �� 4� 6 1"11Y f 3�'fi'
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting a priority
annexation map.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972, the City Council of the City
of Kent, by Resolution 718 A, adopted a report entitled "Kent's
Sphere of Interest", and adopted amendments to such report on
December 4, 1978 and December 19, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the growth patterns of the City of Kent since
1972 and the future growth potential of the City require the
Sphere of Interest to be reevaluated and revised; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to achieve the
effective management of impacts associated with new development,
the efficient provision of needed levels of city service, the
coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital
improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential
annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent recognizes that planning and
land use decisions can have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that
governmental cooperation is an effective manner under existing law
to address impacts and opportunities which spread across
jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent adopted new
annexation policies per Resolution W1150 establishing 10 and 20
year potential annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1988, the City Council Planning
Committed- reviewed the Priority Annexation Map and recommended
approval with some revisions; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1989, the City Council reviewed
the Priority Annexation Map at their annual. retreat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed and
approved the revised 1989-1990 Annexation Action Plan in March of
1989; NOW, THEREFORE,
r
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the 1989-1990
Priority Annexation Map as attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit A.
Passed at a regular me ing of the it Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this I day of 1989.
Conqurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of S 'J �-,/ 1989. ��•• .
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JEt�J Eft, CITY CL RK
APPRO ED AS TO FORM:
AND DRISCOLL, 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 f �, 1989.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENqgW, CITY CLERK
7170-250
.Q 1: 1 .J /` • ' i �OI nl III � I � � d � }�1
` EI�
:-r� y it I � .II :I�, �^ jn, % � I�J1��I.{•I I Ill
Va'I � �.{�.,��✓�` ... ♦ -I ' I s✓� ✓.T�..�J� A"I�ir-�Iry{ _L`
•� i�� � � 1.'' 1� r ./ {I � I / I Y S .ram_ e
vE ♦ ,. J r / ��I; 7 .I _I��i .� +. �'r 1.
Ei I F' r• I � / L' � �.I:(�=i' I .,LLB L�-�Fr_ IY � `.,,
\l I / i'�~ �•_� ( I � ; ii 1� I,. 1 �{4,l ii IIr �' � �� �'�l i �
i\ i�F�" 1- I — ._ .V . :.-r.�-..{y-wit ' ,�✓ ��v
7-7
{ 41
i
IN M
y
oF f.'y1 11) � tl f n Y _ y
all
td
q y o
m `a
a ryn'
/
>>>> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > >I FAs
J
#
>
> >
- -�
iS_. VACSY FF�'[p_Y___��— -- I L• � � � I I'
r ..,x
�I
r Q
Y'
— —✓-4 RL[f[ �Y -ju Tr��: i�
1
P re nrGu �� "�yx I
77,
> ci I -1
rfjLrj
p.� I�
�J i ^'�-1 V i /y
� I
Water Service
k�- Areas
Al R r 1lST�11 f i -] r Source:Knp Cuunty DeO;Wt 111 At al r
Works
Executive Proposed Seas Creels
Community Plan Update 1991
is
}
Y } A
CO TO'Ar AT TLF ITT TIIE
t
�': �,�'t rF 411jkt l�Yli(I11M M�tt}rMt111M4: � �
y I �
� k ♦ iV 1 . 1—
Ex st np Kant Giry Gmits
w•a■ E.ktin Kant Planing
g n
�� 2 �•^ r / Area Boundary
�}
�Illt 11M�iI M �' ? '� : t t
�.������y 41i•tYi � ■Mil � •�J
� i
e
! 1 �
,t y
Ar?�Ui�N �1JE�MT14'!(�lU: t e 1 \ spa
171
r
} fr
' 'nos Creel:Community Plannlnll Fllerl
TO
jar ltr r' 1
a in[I Cnunly I I'+n mil anJ
-� IL�•� �. - � 1 Couununily Di ✓cl.q nnunl I�i.'.drn
1991
l i Sewer .Scrv*ce
t
I-- Areas
Source:King County Department of P,Nllc
Works
I; Executive Proposed Sags Crook
Community Plan Update 1991
s s i i
3 3 I
z
v
f :
3 }j
t5 �
t
f I
r y �
� 1
s
qqz Mamma Exisin0 Kant City Llmits I
Area Boundary
jj
1 z ♦ a2
I � t�
t
, f
I -
_ � Eoos Cwcl;Conunu oily I'lenning Nell
i
Kinq County Planning and —_
... Cununw my I)t rtlr pnu:nl h eit.inn
� 1991
LI
CITY Of
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
August 4 , 1992
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O 'NEILL, PLANNER
SUBJECT: INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY ANALYSIS
At your June 16 meeting, you considered four alternative interim
urban growth area boundaries for the City. As you recall,
Alternative 41 which would extend the urban growth area to include
the Covington area, was the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. You asked for further information on Alternative 41
particularly focusing on the potential impacts of providing this
area with city services. Following is a brief analysis of this
alternative.
Land Area
The existing city limits encompass approximately 18 .5 square miles .
The land area for each alternative growth boundary is shown below.
Alternative Area (Sauare Miles)
1 21. 2
lA 27 . 1
2 35 . 9
3 38 . 3
4 41 . 5
It should be noted that the estimate for Alternative 4 is somewhat
sketchy at this point, since the boundaries of this alternative are
dependant more than the other alternatives on the urban/rural line
designated by King County, which is subject to change.
Population and Employment Projections
Using population and employment projections provided by the Puget
Sound Regional Council, following is an estimate of the projected
population and employment for each alternative to the Year 2010 .
1. L
Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary Analysis
August 4 , 1992
Page 2
Alternative Population Employment
1 53 , 751 43 , 659
lA 77, 242 49, 341
2 95, 947 55, 798
3 103 , 947 57, 474
4 111, 256 58 ,744
Again, it should be noted that the estimate for Alternative 4 is
based on an assumed boundary which may change. The proposed
boundary for Alternative 4 represents an increase in the 2010
population for Kent of 7 , 300 people compared with Alternative 3 ,
and 15, 300 people compared with Alternative 2 .
City Services
City departments were asked to assess what the impact to city
services would be should the city limits eventually include the
Covington area. Their responses are summarized below.
Fire: The Fire Department ' s present service area encompasses
a large area outside of the present city limits, which
includes all of the area within Alternative 4 . The Department
states, however, that Alternative 4 would have the greatest
impact on the City, since this alternative would annex all of
Fire District 37 ' s fire stations and would include more than
60 percent of the District's overall area. Under state law,
this means that the City would have to provide fire protection
service to the entire district.
Police: The Police Department ' s service area currently
includes only the existing city limits. The Department
estimates that including the Covington area into the City' s
service area would require approximately 5 additional
officers, 1 correction officer, 1/2 a detective and traffic
officer, and 1 additional car.
Public Works: Public Works presently has water and sewer
franchises located outside of city limits, and provides and
maintains transportation infrastructure within the existing
city limits. Water and sewer utilities are generally self-
supporting through user fees . The department estimates that
it costs between $200 and $300 per acre to provide street
improvements and maintenance (including drainage) . Since the
area encompassed by Alternative 4 is approximately three
square miles larger than the area in Alternative 3 , this
represents an additional cost ranging from $384 , 000 to
$576, 000 .
Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary Analysis
August 4 , 1992
Page 3
Parks: The Parks Department presently provides recreation
programs to the entire Kent School District area,
wh
includes the area within Alternative 4 . The Department sees
advantages and disadvantages to including the Covington area
within the urban growth area boundary. Advantages include a
larger area within which the City would receive tax dollars
and potential impact fees, better coordination of services,
and the city ' s assumption of some already developed parks and
facilities; disadvantages include the need to hire more
maintenance and recreation staff and the need for a new
maintenance facility due to the larger service area.
Soos Creek Community Plan
The updated Soos Creek Community Plan was adopted by the King
County Council in 1991. The Plan designates the Covington area as
an Urban Activity Center. The Plan states "Because Covington is
geographically removed from municipalities on the valley floor and
is physically separated from Big Soos Creek, it is difficult for
valley , cities to provide urban services to the Covington area
efficiently. Incorporation of this area may be an appropriate
option for the residents of this area. ,, The Plan also designates
preliminary urban growth areas and urban separators for the valley
cities; the preliminary urban growth area for Kent does not extend
east of Big Soos Creek (see attached map) .
If you have any questions oncali this
minformate at ion prior to the August
4 committee meeting, please
0 .
KON/mp:ugbalt.mem
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Matthews Jackson, Planning Intern
..,....
i n>>nar
Urban Growtl
Ilentnl +...
Areas
•1•.
w• Urban/Rural Bound:
«__ 1��` Preliminary City Ur
ggg� , , I 'h y,
J ----` Growth Area
r--� Urban Separator
i .r ji j j I Source:King County Community Planr
Executive Proposed Soos Creek
_RENT
i i• , �I Community Plan Update 1991
I
r
°�•oaa \
.• I — oo::see \ \i '-" �_. �
• , ' I C�Lr OE SE.nIf X.lEnSiiEO '
° , 1
,
��
it
• .. .l `/ mil.
i
AUBU - Ni 1II
I :i /
� 1 •� , �� � `� � Soos Creek Community Planning
_.. ................ .e ..__.,....__.
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 8, 1992
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. on June 8, 1992 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tracy Antley
Gwen Dahle
Albert Haylor
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Linda Martinez
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Christopher Grant
Greg Greenstreet
Kent Morrill
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Planner
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARIES
Kevin O'Neill said the intent of this is to try to get a decision,
ultimately from City Council, on what our interim urban growth area
is going to be for the City as we go through our comprehensive
planning process. Designation of an urban growth area is required
under the Growth Management Act. That designation is a countywide
designation, therefore, the ultimate decision on where the
countywide urban growth area is going to be will be made by the
King County Council in conjunction with the cities of King County.
Each municipality is currently going through the process of
defining their own particular planning area boundary. This is
being called an interim boundary because the final decision on the
boundary won't really be made until the overall comprehensive plan
is adopted and that decision is made by the King County Council.
The reason for doing this in the short term is to give us an area
within which we will be putting our plan together.
The five alternatives are based on some existing plans of one kind
or another. Alternative 1 is a very tight boundary which is not
Kent Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
much bigger than the present City limits. The area that is not
presently in the City limits represents those areas for which the
City currently has both water and sewer franchisees. There are
sewer franchises throughout King County, but these are ones over
which the City presently has control.
Alternative lA is similar to Alternative 1 except that it also
includes land in which the City presently has either water or sewer
franchises, but not necessarily both.
Alternative 2 is meant to line up and be consistent with our
Priority Annexation Area. It is also very consistent with the
present Planning Area boundary.
Alternative 3 is meant to be consistent with the Planning Area
boundary. The only difference is that it includes the Panther Lake
area which is not presently part of the City' s Planning Area. This
area has been included in this alternative since it is presently
served by the Kent Fire Department and is also part of the Kent
School District.
Alternative 4 includes all of the area in Alternative 3 , but
extends the eastern boundary east of Big Soos Creek to Covington.
This alternative is meant to be consistent with the urban/rural
line proposed by the Growth Management Planning Council.
The staff recommends Alternative 3 for several reasons. Using Soos
Creek as the eastern boundary of the Planning Area is consistent
with both the existing Planning Area and the Priority Annexation
Area. Soos Creek would be the proposed eastern boundary of the
urban growth area, which is consistent with the Growth Management
Act provision for open space corridors and urban separators between
cities and between urban and rural areas. Including the area
between 208th and 192nd would involve a lot of coordination with
the City of Renton which has identified this as part of their
Planning Area. Staff feels it would be appropriate in our Planning
Area as well because it is in the current existing School District
and Fire District. It was also identified by the City Council as
part of their Planning Area.
Chair Antley asked what we do in the alternatives where the
boundaries are extending into other cities. Mr. O'Neill said staff
is recommending that on the western boundary, we stay within the
present City limits as opposed to going into the incorporated area
of Des Moines. We don't want to go into another city' s
incorporated area. There are areas where there would be some
contention between Kent and SeaTac and possibly Tukwila.
2
Kent Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Mr. Harris pointed out that during the time when Renton was
considering annexing Fairwood,
h ofid a poll in the 92nd said theyafeltbcloser
208th and 192nd. The peo people south
to Kent than to Renton and would like to be associated with Kent.
The people in Chestnut Ridge, which is around Springbrook
Elementary School, are adamant about being in Kent rather than
Renton. We would have to work closely with Renton to resolve these
matters.
Comparing Alternatives 3 and 4, Commissioner Heineman asked if we
went with Alternative 31 what would be the likely disposition of
the panhandle to the east in Alternative 4 . Mr. O'Neill said that
the Growth Management Act and the countywide planning policies
envision anything that's urban ultimately being part of a City.
The two options are annexation into an existing city or
incorporation.
Commissioner Ward said that since this is a plan for growth, he
would be much more receptive to Alternative 4 which provides some
area of possible expansion. Mr. O'Neill said that Alternatives 2
and 3 offer a fairly large area of expansion.
Commissioner Haylor said he did not understand why staff was
willing to leave Covington out of the plan. Since it is already a
problem because of the traffic, we should have some kind of control
over it. Mr. Harris said that after you leave Soos Creek, you're
getting pretty far physically from the City of Kent. His feeling
is that Covington will incorporate. Commissioner Haylor said that
if Covington doesn't have the tax base or political will to
incorporate, the traffic will still continue to move through Kent
without any control whatsoever. Mr. Harris said the traffic isn't
coming from Covington, it' s coming from Four Corners. This is an
awfully big area for a city that' s 40 , 000 today to eventually have
infrastructure and control over possibly sewer and water.
Commissioner Dahle said that we do have a major high school, a
junior high school and another one being built on 164th that are in
the Kent School District. Also most of that area does have sewers.
She thinks it behooves us to protect our interests.
Don Rust, 12719 SE 256th, has lived in the Timberlane area and the
people there feel that they are part of Kent. Ten years ago when
he lived there, it took 11 minutes to get to the valley floor and
when he moved out 4 years ago, it took 35 minutes for the same
trip. He thinks Kent has a strong interest in that area.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
3
Kent Planning Commission
June 8 , 1992
Commissioner Haylor MOVED that the urban growth area Alternative 4
be accepted as the growth plan and presented to the City Council.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Haylor said the reason he is in favor of Alternative 4
is because there are still little pockets of unincorporated King
County on our western boundary. Des Moines and SeaTac have become
very aggressive and he feels we do need some leverage there. By
staking our claim, that lets them know that we are looking at this
area and we're planning on keeping it. He would also like to let
them know in Covington that we are here with our services, because
they do have a dramatic impact on our City.
Commissioner Heineman said essentially Alternatives 3 and 4 are the
same except for the part to the east and he would like to know if
staff has any serious reservations about the adoption of
Alternative 4 other that the fact that it is a considerable
distance from where we are now. Fred Satterstrom said the notion
of each city in the county describing its urban growth boundary is
to try to indicate an area that in the next 20 years it can
accommodate 20 years of growth, as well as conceivably service in
terms of water, sewer, utility, police and fire protection, etc.
We haven't done any studies at all on our ability to carry that out
in terms of going out into the Covington area. He feels the county
and the GMPC feel that the area would incorporate as opposed to
being annexed.
Chair Antley asked if including an area in our sphere of influence
obligates us to annex the area. Mr. Satterstrom said it does not
obligate us to serve it or to annex it, but it does show intent and
the residents would probably expect to be annexed to whatever city
put their urban growth area out there. Commissioner Haylor feels
there is nothing wrong with letting the people in Covington know
that we know they're out there. Chair Antley asked if the City of
Kent provides any services to Covington right now. Mr. Satterstrom
said we do provide fire protection to the western portion of it.
Chair Antley spoke against the motion because she is really
concerned about Kent over extending itself. We're in a phase right
now where we don't have a lot of extra money. We have
infrastructure a lot closer than Covington that needs work. We're
not talking about an area that' s going to bring much money into the
City and it will be a drain on the City to extend services out
there. Commissioner Haylor feels there is a lot out there and the
tax base will grow quite a bit. He is not proposing that we should
go any further than 132nd, but he sees nothing wrong with looking
out there and preparing for what could happen.
4
Kent Planning Commission
June 8 , 1992
The motion CARRIED with Chair Antley opposed.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the
meeting was adjourned at 8 : 00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ames Harris Se ret ry
JPH/ljh: 6892 .min
5
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
Planning Director Harris stated Federal Way and Kirkland have told
the State they will be doing their comprehensive plan one year
late. Des Moines stated they will have trouble with the timelines
too.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS (F SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning
Committee delayed voting on four alternative interim urban growth
area boundaries at its August 4 , 1992 meeting. The Planning
Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban
growth area to include the Covington area. The Planning staff
recommended Alternative 3 , which conforms to the 20 year annexation
plan the City Council adopted three or four years ago and is more
serviceable.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth
area. Councilmember Johnson stated he was in favor of Alternative
3 versus Alternative 4 because he did not think the City should go
out as far as Covington and it did not seem practical or
serviceable. Councilmembers Orr and Bennett agreed. Motion
carried. This item will be placed on the September 1 , 1992 City
Council agenda.
RATIFICATION OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (F. SATTERSTROM)
Prior to the King County Council adoption on July 6 of the
recommended County Wide Planning Policies (known as Growth
Management Planning Council) , the Planning Committee discussed this
item two or three times. Now we are in the ratification process .
This ratification process requires at least 30 percent of the
jurisdictions within the county comprising of at least 70 percent
of the county' s population to ratify the policies.
Ratification can be done either of two ways:
1) Ratification by Resolution or Motion of a city.
2) Ratification by no action of a city. If a city does not
disapprove it within 90 days, it is considered ratified.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that on August 18 , 1992 the City Council
will only be setting a date for a public hearing for September 1 as
an action item to begin the ratification process . The County
recognizes that cities as well as the public may have amendments to
the County Wide Planning Policies that were adopted on July 6 ,
2
3i
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 41 1992 4 : 00 PM
dfiWRPII�R3� ,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF
Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker
Judy Woods Ed Chow
Roger Lubovich
PLANNING STAFF GUESTS
Sharon Clamp Ron Weigett
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. SATTERSTROM)
No update was available.
URBAN GROWTH AREA (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning
Committee considered four alternative interim urban growth area
boundaries at its June 16, 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended Alternative 4, which would extend the urban growth area
to include the Covington area. Planning Committee members
expressed support for Alternative 3 but asked for further
information on Alternative 4, particularly on the impacts of
providing the Covington area with City services. Mr. Satterstrom
reviewed a staff report which showed land area, population, and
employment projections for each alternative compared to current
City statistics. He explained further that the Fire, Police,
Public Works, and Parks Departments were asked to assess what the
impact would be to City service should the city limits eventually
be extended to the Covington area.
The Fire Department' s service area includes all of the area within
Alternative 4 . This alternative would annex all of Fire District
37 ' s fire stations and would include more than 60 percent of the
District' s overall area. Under state law, this means that the City
would have to provide fire protection service to the entire
district.
The Police Department estimates that including the Covington area
into the City's service area would require approximately five
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 4, 1992
PAGE 2
additional officers, 1 correction officer, 1/2 detective and
traffic officer, and 1 additional car.
The Public Works Department stated that water and sewer utilities
located outside the city limits are self-supporting through user
fees. The Department estimates that it costs $200 to $300 per acre
to provide street improvements and maintenance (including
drainage) . The area of Alternative 4 is approximately three square
miles larger than the area of Alternative 31 representing an
additional cost of $384 , 000 to $576, 000.
The Parks Department stated the advantages to Alternative 4 would
be a larger area within which the City would receive tax dollars
and potential impact fees, better coordination of services, and the
City' s assumption of some already developed parks and facilities.
The Parks Department stated disadvantages include the need to hire
more maintenance and recreation staff and the need for a new
maintenance facility due to the larger service area.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the updated Soos Creek Community
Plan adopted by the King County Council in 1991 designates the
Covington area as an Urban Activity Center and designates the
preliminary urban growth area for Kent not to extend east of Big
Soos Creek.
Chair Orr supports Alternative 3 , and Judy Woods stated that she
knows for a fact that Jon Johnson supports Alternative 3 . The
Committee will conduct a formal vote on this item at its August 18
meeting and it will be placed on the Council agenda for
September 1.
Council President Woods expressed concern about the complexity of
the issues involved in the countywide planning goals and the
decision whether to become an urban center and ratification of the
countywide planning policies. She is concerned about the degree of
understanding of these issues by some members of the Council.
Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that Council action on these two
issues will take place separately and agreed to Ms. Wood' s request
of an executive summary for all Council members clearly stating the
issues and how action on these issues will take place. This topic
will also be discussed at the Planning Committee's August 18
meeting as an information item.
SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS)
City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that State statute calls for
an administrative process for approval of short plats. If a parcel
of land meets certain criteria, the owner has the right to
subdivide that parcel. He explained that Kent has an
i
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JUNE 16, 1992
PAGE 3
URBAN GROWTH AREA (K. O'NEILL)
Kevin O'Neill stated that the Growth Management Act requires each
county to impose an urban growth area. The Growth Management
Planning Council has proposed a countywide urban growth area,
however, the ultimate decision on this area will be made by the
King County Council in conjunction with the cities of King County.
The City of Kent needs to look at its own interim growth area
because it is necessary for the City to determine the boundaries
within which the new comprehensive plan will be prepared.
The alternatives are based on existing policies of one kind or
another and are all within the urban area proposed by the Growth
Management Planning Council.
Alternative 1 is a very tight boundary encompassing the present
city limits plus a small area to the northeast. The area outside
of the city limits represents an area which the City currently has
both water and sewer franchises.
Alternative lA is slightly larger than Alternative 1 and includes
land in which the City has either water or sewer franchises, but
not necessarily both.
Alternative 2 is based on the City' s priority annexation area map
which the Kent City Council adopted in 1989. This area is
consistent with the City's current planning area boundary.
Alternative 3 is very similar to the city's existing planning area
boundary. The only difference is that it includes the Panther Lake
area which is not presently part of the City' s planning area. This
area has been included in this alternative since it is presently
served by the Kent Fire Department and is also part of the Kent
School District.
Alternative 4 includes all of the area in Alternative 3 and extends
the eastern boundary east of Big Soos Creek to Covington. The
proposed boundary east of the existing planning area follows the
urban/rural line proposed by the Growth Management Planning
Council.
The Planning Commission considered the alternatives at their
June 8 , 1992 hearing and recommended Alternative 4 . Their rational
in making this recommendation is that Kent needs to plan for the
possibility of the Covington area being designated urban. They
feel the area impacts Kent and many of the residents associate
themselves with Kent.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JUNE 16, 1992
PAGE 4
Staff recommends Alternative 3 because it is consistent with
existing City policies and the Soos Creek Plan.
Fred Satterstrom stated that Alternative 4 was offered as an
extreme example for discussion purposes only. At the Planning
Commission meeting staff did not have a great deal of information
about who provides services to Covington. James Harris questions
if Kent can service the Covington area and wonders if Kent can
provide services that, in time, Covington can provide for itself
with its own tax base. Kevin O'Neill feels the Planning Commission
may have been making a distinction between a planning area and an
urban growth area. He believes the Planning Commission may be
saying that we should plan for the Covington area but may not
necessarily want to annex it. However, the intent of the Growth
Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies seems to be
that the planning area and urban growth area be consistent. James
Harris pointed out that Kent has gone on record with the County as
agreeing with the growth boundary in the Soos Creek Plan.
Council President Woods stated Councilmember Johnson has indicated
strong support for Alternative 3 .
Chair Orr prefers Alternative 3 but would like information on what
it would take for Kent to service the Covington area and if
servicing Covington is even realistic.
Councilmember Bennett favors Alternative 3 and would also like
information on servicing the Covington area.
ADDED ITEMS
Chair Orr stated the work release issue needs to be scheduled for
a future meeting. The citizens concerned about this issue will
contact Chair Orr to advise her of a convenient time for them to
meet with the Committee. This is a separate issue from the
Regional Justice Center. At a recent Public Safety Committee
meeting, it was decided to bring this issue to Planning Committee
to resolve distance and siting issues.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5: 10 p.m.
PC0616 . 92
l
�r
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1, 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION/TRAINING CENTER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: A contract for construction of the East
Hill Headquarters Fire Station/Training Center was signed with
MarJon 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
Department 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, we recommend that the one-year initial warranty
period be satisfied. This does not, however, negate the multi-
year manufacturer's warranty.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Administration Public Safety Committee
(vote 3 0 Councilmembers Johnson Mann and Orr)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ Final payment has been
made to the contractor. Retainage of approximately $158 , 838. 98
is being held.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ^
Councilmember T ,?l.y t/� moves, Councilmember 'tj seconds
to accept the East Hill Headquarters Fire Station/Training
Center as complete, authorize staff to proceed with the process
to release retainage and to accept the first-year warranty
period as satisfied.
DISCUSSION•
r
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D✓
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
September 1, 1992
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS,
COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, JOHNSON, HOUSER, ORR, MANN,
BENNETT
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF w�Ci`-
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF EAST HILL HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION
AND TRAINING CENTER
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Contract for construction was signed with Mar Jon Contractors,
Inc. of Tacoma on June 14 , 1989 . The original contract sum was
$3 , 344 , 958 . 84 including tax.
The Fire and Police Departments took occupancy in December of
1990. The staff has persevered to correct several key
discrepancies. The punch list and a mutually agreed upon
warranty list have been resolved.
Upon receipt of proper notification that all liens have been
satisfied, the Fire Department is recommending processing the
paperwork to notify the Department of Labor and Industries and
Department of Revenue that work has been completed. Upon receipt
of the necessary certificates, we will then be able to release
retainage to the Contractor.
We are concerned that over time other deficiencies with respect
to the original construction of the building will surface.
However, within the limits of the contract we have done all that
can be done to protect the public' s interest and investment. I
strongly believe that none could have done a better job to
represent the public than those who served on the construction
project team. To them and you, I am extremely grateful for the
support during the project.
ehexesum.wpf
Executive Summary to Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers
September 11 1992
Page 2
It should be anticipated due to construction related problems and
the high maintenance exteriors that we will need to do additional
repair and preventative maintenance in the near future. Given
our current budgetary situation, we may be able to defer such
actions for one or two years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Fire Department is recommending that the City Council
approve, subject to the written notification from lien holders
that the liens have been satisfied, and certification from state
agencies, acceptance of this project and authorize the release of
retainage.
SIGNIFICANCE
This is the final phase for the east hill headquarters fire
station and training center and with this successful completion
allows the Fire Department to bring to a close the remaining
projects in a timely fashion.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
This project had been budgeted through the bond levy with no
impact on the general operating budget of the department.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
tcn
ehexesum.wpf
n
aL
• , Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1, 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SEWER EXTENSION MORATORIUM RESOLUTION AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This resolution alters the City's
existing moratorium on the extension of water and/or sewer
service by creating an exemption for governmental agencies,
schools and non-profit organizations; otherwise, it reaffirms
the moratorium as originally imposed by council.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
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: $ -0-
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
^ n
Councilmember moves, Councilmember , d seconds
that the Council adopt its Resolution No. /3,4' which exempts
_gever� schools and non-profit organizations from
"J
the City' s moratorium on extensions of water and sewer service.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City
Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending its Resolution
No. 1275, which declares a
moratorium on the extension of sewer
and water services to property for
development purposes located outside
of its incorporated limits.
WHEREAS, on March 19 , 1991, the City Council of the City of
Kent, adopted Resolution No. 1275, which declared a moratorium on
the extension of sewer and water services to property for
development purposes so as to avoid extension ofthose services
beyond Kent 's primary sphere of interest for annexation purposes as
will be redefined under the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, this moratorium has caused an unexpected and undue
burden on certain governmental agencies.) school systems, and non-
profit or charitable organizations ; and
WHEREAS, the progress of government, the welfare of the
region' s schools, and the welfare of the area ' s non-profit or
charitable organizations should not be hindered from continued
growth in order to serve the public as a result of the City' s
moratorium; NOW, THEREFORE,
The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, does hereby
resolve as follows:
1
Section 1. Effective immediately, the City of Kent shall not
accept new applications from any property owner other for the
extensions of water and/or sewer service to any property located
outside of the City' s incorporated limits for the purpose of
development, platting, short platting and/or rezoning thereof.
Section 2 . The moratorium imposed by this Resolution shall
not apply to�ove'nmental agencies school systems, and non-profit
or charitable organizations that own or lease property reasonably
capable of being served by the City' s water and/or sewer service.
Section 3 . The moratorium imposed on these services by this
Resolution shall continue until such time as the "urban growth
areas" are designated by the County, and any appeals of the City
therefrom are resolved, pursuant to RCW 36 .70A. 110 .
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, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1. 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 3065
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 11 moves, Councilmember kla seconds
j
to overide the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 3065.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION• ro f\ 00
, / Council Agenda
I 4�Y- VAItem No. 4F
l
1
'i
I� I
11
.I
i'.
IiI
ORDINANCE NO. &1 61 5/
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, repealing Ordinances 1494 , 1754 ,
and 2137 relating to the Office of City
i Administrator; amending Ordinance 3011 as it
relates to the budget for the city
administrator position.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance 1494 entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington creating the
Office of City Administrator,
establishing the methods of
appointing and removing said
officers, establishing the duties,
powers and salary for said office. "
is hereby repealed.
Section 2 . Ordinance 1754 entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington amending Section 1
of Ordinance 1494 . "
is hereby repealed.
'; I
I'
I
ii
Section 3 . Ordinance 2137 entitled:
i)
"AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington amending Section 7
H of Ordinance 1494 and Section
I
2 . 08 . 28 of the Kent City Code, j
1! relating to salary and benefits
payable to the city administrator. " •.
I
it
its hereby repealed.
Section 4 . Ordinance 3011 adopting the city of Kent
1992 fiscal year budget is hereby amended by deleting the
position of city administrator from the General Fund effective
thirty (30) days after the effective date of this ordinance. All
unexpended funds for this position shall be transferred to the
General Fund balance as unappropriated funds.
Section 5. Severability. Should any section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances be
declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
ordinance or its applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Section 6 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its
( final approval and passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
i
2
j
; ATTEST:
i
!IBRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I
�j
i
'; APPROVED AS TO FORM:
j
. ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
1
PASSED the / J day of _ (/� 1 (�? - , 1992
APPROVED the day of / , 1992 •
PUBLISHED the day of , 1992 •
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
of Ordinance No. 03 0 &^-'J� , 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
admin.ord
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The project was referred from the August
4th council to the Public Works Committee for a recommendation.
During the interim, a work shop was held on August 17th to
answer council questions on this subject. The matter was then
discussed at the Public Works Committee on August 26th. After
discussion, 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director; excerpt
from FEIS; Minutes of the August 4th Council Meeting and
Minutes of the August 26th Public Works Committee Meeting.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-1 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: N0 _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:$
Councilmember moves, Councilmember / seconds
to proceed with the above referenced project aid pursue the
establishment of the preferred alignment with the county.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
-
Council Agenda
Item No. 4G—
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 28, 1992
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR
Attached is the previous information prepared for your August 4th
hearing along with the minutes of that hearing. Also included are
the minutes of the August 26th Public Works Committee meeting.
The Public Works Committee, has supported, with a 2-1 vote, the
recommendations of the Public Works Department to proceed with the
project and pursue establishment of the preferred alignment with
the County.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
AUGUST 26, 1992
PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill
Jim Bennett Tim LaPorte
Paul Mann Ed White
Don Wickstrom Tony McCarthy
Tom Brubaker Jean Parietti
Mr. and Mrs. Rust, Bill Doolittle, Lloyd Plunkett, Edward
Pawlowski, Ronda Taylor, Bill Joy, Chris Clifford, Robert Whalen,
Connie Epperly
Request for Sewer Service New Hope Free Will Baptist Church
Wickstrom explained the request is for sewer service to property
east of 132nd on the north side of Kent Kangley. It is currently
undeveloped but there are plans to construct a church on the site.
The City has a moratorium for utility service outside the City
limits. The moratorium does not allow for any exemptions. White
asked ,if we have extended utility service for schools outside the
city limits. Wickstrom stated that we have just received a water
and sewer availability request for a new school on 108th just south
of 274th. With this moratorium we have no means of allowing the
extensions without going to Council. White commented that once the
County establishes the permanent urban growth boundaries which has
to happen by July, 1993 , this moratorium would be eliminated.
White asked what would need to be done to allow utility service for
churches, public buildings, etc. Brubaker responded the resolution
could be revised to allow exemptions for government agencies,
schools, and non-profit organizations. Bennett asked about the
cost of extending the sewer service. Wickstrom clarified there
would be no cost to the city but a cost of extending sewer is
approximately $200 per foot. Bill Doolittle asked what would be
the consequences of repealing the moratorium altogether. Wickstrom
responded there would probably not be much impact. The County
already has a moratorium on residential development based on school
capacity. Thus, the impact would be from commercial development
and there is only a limited area of commercial in our service area.
The Committee unanimously recommended amending the resolution to
allow exemptions for governmental agencies, non-profit
organizations and schools.
272nd/277th Corridor
Wickstrom commented that the Public Works Department's
recommendation remains the same to proceed with the project and
pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment with the
County. Mann commented it would seem that we are working with the
assumptions that Auburn would build their portion and that King
County would also extend the road out to Highway 18 . Wickstrom
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 2
stated that we are not working on any assumption that the County
will continue the corridor. That is a separate project. As to
whether Auburn will proceed with improvement of the span between
the freeway and EVH, Auburn has indicated that is their intent.
Wickstrom continued that they could change their mind; however,
once the traffic on that section increases, Auburn becomes more
eligible to receive Urban Arterial Trust funds. There are $40
million available in the Urban Arterial Trust funds over the next
biennium as compared to approximately $15 million in the
Transportation Improvement Account funds. Mann asked if we have
talked with Auburn at all about the project. LaPorte responded
that Auburn has been a member of our technical advisory committee
for about four years so the roles of each entity have been pretty
well discussed. In addition, the City of Auburn and the City of
Kent are both members of the County's technical advisory committee.
Mann asked if the Federal Way School District has been contacted
since the last Council meeting. LaPorte commented that we have not
as yet. Mann stated another assumption is that the project will
cost between $16 to $25 million. He thought these were three year
old estimates and wanted to know if that has changed. It was
confirmed that the estimate is not three years old but only about
9 months to 1 year old and we haven't seen an increase in
construction costs particularly in large projects. Wickstrom
stated the biggest unknown in the project estimate is how much fill
needs to be removed. That $25 million estimate is based on moving
almost 1.5 million yards of material. There are ways we can save
on this item but we need to get into preliminary design to
determine those factors. Mann wanted to know how much it would
cost in four years to move the fill. Wickstrom stated that again
it would depend on how much and how the fill is moved. Wickstrom
continued that giving the approval to proceed now does not
eliminate the ability to later stop the project. There are many
steps along the way at which Council can stop the project such as
allocation of the remaining funds, forming the local improvement
district, etc. We want to proceed to the next stage so that we can
do the engineering necessary to develop a more finite cost
estimate. Bennett asked what the next stage would cost. Wickstrom
explained that the City has a 50% matching TIB grant for a total
project cost of $450, 000 which includes finishing the FEIS and the
next stage. As such, our out of pocket expense could be as high as
$225, 000. Mann asked if we had the City's match available.
Wickstrom stated that we have the $2 million bond issue that we
haven't spent, the original $800, 000 budgeted several years ago and
$600, 000 in mitigation fees. Responding to Mann's question, the
bonds can only be used for roads; the mitigation payments can only
be used for the 272nd Corridor; gas tax funds can only be used on
arterials but it can be reallocated at Council direction; vehicle
registration fees can only be used on the three east-west corridor
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 3
projects; the $800, 000 was budgeted in capital improvement funds
from gas tax funds. All these sources make up the funding packages
for the three corridors. Wickstrom clarified that Council has
authorized $5 million in councilmanic bonds but have only sold $2
million to date. The debt payment for the bond issue comes from
the gas tax funds. The bonding attorneys have stated it is likely
the bonds could be used for other projects but that could be
subject to challenge due to prior court rulings. White commented
that we need a combination of improvements to meet our
transportation needs; the corridors are one part and a transit
system is another part. Wickstrom added that if we proceed and get
the alignment established with the County, Council could still back
away from the project and the County would then have something with
which to work to build the road should they so choose. Mann said
he was concerned that the County has drug their feet on this and
expects the City to move ahead. Mann asked how much money the City
might have to spend in litigation on the project Brubaker stated
that at this point there are no monetary damages that anyone could
ask for. Possibly they could ask that the final EIS be
supplemented or that it be rejected for being inadequate. Legal
fees might be $20-30, 000 - it is hard to give a figure when you
don't know what will be involved. Laporte stated that a common
comment 'we have heard is that the people in the County would like
for their representatives to make the decision. Moving this to the
next step which is to the King County Council would be the best and
cheapest way for opponents to challenge the project rather than to
start a litigation process. Mann wanted to know what the Public
Works Department's track record is for estimating projects.
Wickstrom stated that we have been under budget for our most recent
large projects. We have been off target on a few, mostly smaller
projects. LaPorte added that this project does not involve any
unusual engineering technology or practices. The largest unknown
is . simply the quantity of material. Mike Delles stated that the
level of detail used to establish the cost estimate was much
greater than typically done for a conceptual project so the
estimate will be much more accurate. Bennett confirmed that if we
go to the next phase we would be able to develop a more definite
project cost. White stated that the problem will not go away if we
don't take any action. By the time the road is built, if it is,
traffic will be so bad at Kent Kangley and Benson that we'll long
for the "good old days in 1992" when we only had 56, 000 cars a day
through there. Bennett asked who has responsibility for the signal
synchronization at the intersection of 272nd and Auburn Way North.
Wickstrom commented that now it is Auburn. Bennett stated we wanted
to work in cooperation with Auburn on operation of that signal.
Bennett made a motion to pass this on to the September 1 Council
meeting with a recommendation for approval. White seconded. Mann
stated he questioned the assumption that it will improve traffic
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 4
flow. He felt it was possible it would increase traffic flow by
encouraging new development and encouraging traffic to seek this
new corridor and might make the intersection of 104th and 256th
even worse. He was uncomfortable with the assumption that Auburn
would make necessary improvements on their portion. Wickstrom
responded that the whole SR 516 corridor down through Canyon Drive
is at capacity especially by Jason where we are moving 40, 000
vehicles a day when it is designed for 25-30, 000. That is why we
have a lot of safety problems with that road. If you don't provide
this corridor, you will have similar situations on James Street.
Our existing capacity is full and there is still a lot of growth
potential in the County. Wickstrom clarified the reason we did not
propose carrying this corridor out to 132nd is that we would be
affecting another neighborhood and another major wetland area and
would not be diverting that much more traffic thus we would not get
that much more benefit from the road. The City's project has never
been proposed to extend out to Highway 18 . Gill added that the
County is planning to widen and improve 256th to four lanes minimum
from 116th to near Highway 18, as well as 240th and 192nd. If the
City's east-west corridors can get traffic up the hillside, then
traffic will chose the most convenient route to the nearest
arterial roadway to head further east so it may not all funnel onto
Kent Kangley. A gentleman from the audience asked if there has
been any more discussion with the people on the west hill around
the existing 272nd corridor. He stated there are about 47
residences that have driveways directly onto 272nd, and there are
eight cross streets. He stated he was not against the project but
felt the impact on the west hill should be better evaluated.
LaPorte added that the west hill residents were advised of the
project about three years ago and about 100 west hill residents
attended a meeting at that time. Additionally our traffic analysis
shows that the section of 277th between 167 and 181 will not be
deficient because of this project but may be deficient for other
reasons. If safety improvements need to be constructed for that
street because of existing conditions or reasons other than this
project, the County needs to deal with it. With regard to the
Federal Way School District, while we have not contacted them
recently, the EIS notification was sent to all the different
agencies and we did not receive a response from the Federal Way
School District. We will, however, pursue further cohtact with
them. Paul Mann stated we should follow Jim White's advice and
also put as much effort into other modes of transporting people as
we are putting into this. Wickstrom responded that is a given out
of the Growth Management Act.
The Committee voted 2-1 - Paul Mann dissenting - to forward the
project to the Council with a recommendation to proceed and pursue
establishment of the preferred alignment with the County.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 13, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR
This item has been referred back to the Public Works Committee by
Council for a recommendation. To that end, a workshop will be held
for full Council on Monday, August 17 at 6: 00 p.m. At the workshop
staff and consultants will address questions raised at the hearing
and respond to any concerns or questions Council may have.
As stated in our memo of July 29 , the Public Works Department's
recommendation is to proceed with the above referenced project and
to pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment as reflected
in the FEIS with the County.
1
August 4 , 1992
WATER this meeting. She explained that the Corps, not
the City, attaches conditions to the permit, and
that any additional conditions can be worked out.
She added that Kiefer' s concerns are temporary
construction problems and reminded him that one of
the conditions imposed is construction of a wet-
land, which would be beneficial to the property
owners.
Bennett pointed out that while surrounding coun-
ties and cities are facing water shortages, this
water line is losing water every day and urged
that the bid be accepted. The motion then car-
ried.
TRAFFIC (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
CONTROL 272nd/277th Corridor Project. This date has been
set for the public hearing to gather public input
on the Public Works Department' s recommendation to
proceed with. the project and to pursue the estab-
lishment of the preferred alignment reflected in
the FEIS with the County.
Tim LaPorte, Project Coordinator for the City,
explained that in 1984 a transportation plan iden-
tified three corridor projects including 196/200,
228th and 272/277th. He noted that King County
completed a similar plan which also stated that
the 196th and 277th corridors were necessary to
handle traffic in the 1990 ' s. He said that a
third study, the Green River Valley Transportation
Action Plan also identified 277th as a critical
link to handle transportation. He pointed out
that the Growth Management Act mandates that
transportation problems be solved. He noted that
he has been the public contact on this project and
that in addition to opposition to this project,
there has been a considerable amount of support.
He pointed out that a study done by Hebert
Research indicates that 82% of those polled felt
the City should proceed with the corridor project.
Mike Delles of W & H Pacific, described the alter-
natives, including no action, and noted that
Alternative A has the least impacts to wetlands,
wildlife habitat, right-of-way requirements,
fisheries resources and that it effectively meets
the project objectives, is the most compatible
3
August 4 ; 1992
TRAFFIC alternative with the King County' s corridor
CONTROL project, and has the least impact from the noise
standpoint. He noted that public meetings were
held and all affected agencies and concerned
citizens were given the opportunity to identify
issues regarding the proposed actions . He added
that responses to over 100 letters and numerous
verbal comments from the general public and agen-
cies is provided in the FEIS.
Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, explained
that the issue before the Council tonight is
whether or not to direct the Public Works Depart-
ment to move forward with the project and obtain a
road establishment from King County for the
planned corridor. He stated that the SEPA process
is complete, and noted that the City has given all
affected persons an opportunity to be heard.
Brubaker clarified for the Council that they must
consider environmental impacts during their delib-
erations, but they are not required to avoid all
environmental impacts. He added that although
additional studies might provide more thorough in-
formation, the City must reasonably decide when it
has completed enough research to make an informed
decision. He noted that any concerned citizen has
• the right to appeal the City' s decision through
the courts. He added that the SEPA process has
shown that the environment will be impacted and
affected, that people, families and homes will be
impacted and affected, and that the general public
will be benefitted. He explained for the Council
that their consideration must focus on whether the
regional benefits outweigh the individual impacts .
The Mayor suggested a voluntary three-minute time
limit for speakers, invited additional speakers to
add their names to the sign-up sheet, and asked
the City Clerk to begin calling off the names of
the first people on the list.
Dean Patterson, 10911 SE 284th, showed slides of
the area, noting that it provides an ideal green-
belt which allows animals to traverse a long dis-
tance. He stated that the more roads there are,
the more traffic there is . He urged the Council
to think 20-30 years ahead and leave the area as
it is.
d
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC Bob Keever, 10812 SE 290th, Auburn, commented on
CONTROL the hill-climb portion of the project, noting that
it is a greenbelt, a wildlife corridor and a
visual break between the continuous development.
He pointed out that during the Soos Creek
proceedings, a number of private citizens applied
for variances to allow them to develop within the
urban separator area, and they were all rejected.
He asked the Council to consider what types of
mitigation measures shall be applied on the hill-
climb to avoid destroying the bluff. Bill JOY,
28183 - 109th S.E. , stated that this project would
be in direct conflict with House Bill 1671 (the
Commute Trip Reduction Act) because the addition
of this road will be an incentive for the use of
single occupancy vehicles. He suggested that the
proponents of this project go to the County and
let them take the responsibility for constructing
a road.
Craig Brown, 27118 - 41st Place South, said that
he agrees there is a need for an east/west route
in the Kent area, but that there is an oversight
in the proposed 272/277th corridor FEIS, which is
the lack of research on how this project will
impact residents along 272nd on West Hill . He
noted that page 61 of the FEIS states that the
difference on the West Hill between the "build"
and "no build" alternatives is not significant,
and that on page 17 of the FEIS it says that
according to forecast results, the proposed cor-
ridor would attract significant traffic growth.
He pointed out that there are no provisions for
left turn lanes, although there are eight inter-
secting streets and 47 driveways between Military
and 46th Avenue South. He also voiced concern
about the safety of students crossing the streets.
He asked that the Council instruct Public Works to
do a study and report on the impact of the 272/277
corridor project on the West Hill prior to the
FEIS being approved by the City Council . He added
that pollution to the salmon-bearing stream near
Smith Bros. Farm and to Star Lake, as well as
noise problems, have not been addressed. He said
that although the Public. Works Department has
indicated that all interested persons were given
an opportunity to testify, he and others were not
adequately made privy as to what was going on with
5
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC this project. Chris Clifford, 2721 Talbot Road
CONTROL S . , Renton, said that the 272/277 project is not a
solution to Kent ' s traffic problems. He noted
that people traveling to Renton from 104th and
Kent-Kangley will not go a mile south to use the
272/277 road, and added that the majority of
drivers are heading northwest. He stated that the
grade is too steep, and that SR 167 is already
overloaded and this project would add traffic to
it. He pointed out that the citizens who live
where this project is proposed to be are not citi-
zens of Kent, and said Kent should handle traffic
problems in Kent. He added that this road will
create congestion and encourage urban sprawl. He
suggested that light rail be supported, that King
County build the road in King County, and that
Kent cut through Scenic Hill and complete SR 516
or build a road down 228th. Cheryle Noble, 316 W.
Cloudy Street, stated that this project will not
solve traffic problems, and questioned why over
$30, 000, 000 should be spent on it. Robert Wells,
26006 - 116th SE, agreed that east/west traffic
needs improvement, but that terminating this road
at 116th will create an amazing traffic flow on
116th. He noted that 116th has ditches rather
than shoulders and that a major rebuild on 116th
would be required. He suggested looking at the
long term picture in regard to where arterials are
planned in the County, and the roads that will be
improved. He suggested the road go to 132nd
Avenue SE. John Kiefer, 11048 SE 274th Street,
stated that he has a well which is not identified
on the EIS and asked that that be taken care of.
He noted that the City ' s Six-Year Transportation
Improvement budget gives a total budget of
$30, 000, 000 and that the County' s estimate is
$38 , 804 , 783 . He added that the County states that
the north corridor must be modified to include an
extension to SR 181 which would cost $33 , 014 , 860,
and provided documentation outlining these costs.
He requested a breakdown of the $26 , 860, 000 iden-
tified as local for the project per Resolution
1317 as follows :
(A) City of Kent Funds % (as of 8/4/92)
(1) Utility Tax
(2) Property Tax
(3) Councilmanic Funds
(4) Other (Identify)
6
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC (B) Developer Mitigation % (as of 8/4/92)
CONTROL Funds
(1) Are these funds in escrow or is there
a potential lien on individual prop-
erties? What is the lien amount for
each single-family residence, town-
house, apartment, condominium or
business? Please identify by tax lot
number, address and owner of record.
(C) Utility Local % (as of 8/4/92)
Improvement District Funds
(1) How will the LID be formed and who
will be affected? Please identify by
tax lot number, address and owner
(D) County or State Funds % (as of 8/4/92)
(E) What is the Plan if the $8 , 140, 000 is not
granted by the TIB?
(F) What is the Plan if the City cost
estimate is off by $8, 804 , 783?
Kiefer stated that the FEIS recognizes that there
will be significant traffic noise and that the
only mitigation offered is by the installation of
sound-absorbing plantings and that this has dimin-
ished from those outlined in the DEIS . Kiefer
referred to a letter from Towne, Richards &
Chaudiere, Inc. which states that the noise miti-
gation is very weak.
Kiefer noted that the City states that 13 resi-
dences would be displaced and 43 . 1 acres required
for right-of-way, and that the County approximates
that 27 residences would be displaced and 64 acres
required for right-of-way. Regarding the building
setback, Kiefer stated that the to-foot setback
smacks of irresponsibility and common sense, since
it implies the house would be habitable. He
stated that the minimum building setback must take
into account the design of the structure, the
space required for placement of physical barriers
to attenuate the traffic noise and vibration
caused by truck/trailer combinations. He submit-
ted a letter regarding this project from Chris
... Lehman of the Institute for Transportation and the
7
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC Environment dated 2/14/92 ,' which was apparently
CONTROL not submitted in time for the DEIS comments.
Regarding the railroad crossing on 277th, Kiefer
noted that Union Pacific has 6-12 trains per day
which can cause delays of up to 30 minutes, which
is why they would like an overpass. He added that
Burlington-Northern has 15-30 trains per day which
can delay traffic on 277th up to 15 minutes. He
pointed out that sometime in the future METRO will
have a commuter rail on the Burlington-Northern
tracks . He said the cost for the project would be
$71, 000, 000. He noted that he received a copy of
a letter from Don Wickstrom to Mr. Carleton
stating that there will be an LID and said that
some of his questions were answered in the letter.
He noted that $250 , 000 would be paid by City LID
and felt that should be explained to Kent citi-
zens. He voiced concern about funding and noted
that the figures in Wickstrom' s letter do not
agree with the figures in Resolution 1317 .
Ann Holtzclaw, 10706 SE 225th Street, voiced
concern about the anger and frustration being
expressed by South King County residents. She
stated that the 277th corridor will lay the foun-
dation for the ills that Southern California is
plagued with, such as fires, floods, mudslides,
depletion of natural resources and massive traffic
problems. She noted that this project is at a
crossroads and urged the Council not to make the
wrong decision. Hans Freiwald, 11824 SE 270th,
commented on the damage to the environment and the
noise that would be generated by this project. He
said that studies have not been done on this and
commented that development in the area is caused
by greed. Charlie Kiefer, 10926 SE 274th, distri-
buted a copy of a letter to the Editor from Ronda
Taylor. WHITE MOVED to make all correspondence on
this project a part of the record. Bennett
seconded and the motion carried. Kiefer suggested
using the funds to implement a bus system. He
noted that even with this road, people will still
drive their cars, since there are no HOV lanes on
the corridor. He predicted that in 25 years the
road will have to be torn up, and telephone poles,
gas lines, etc. will have to be moved, and said it
is less expensive to do it right the first time.
Laurie Muller, 28305 - 193rd Avenue SE, said it is
8
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC interesting that with the budget shortfall, the
CONTROL City could pay an independent pollster and asked
where the 82% in favor of the project live and
whether they are willing to pay through an LID.
She pointed out that she had read that this proj-
ect was promoted by the Chamber of Commerce and
County government. She said that the affected
citizens will not give up, and urged the Council
to give up the idea of the 277th corridor. Mike
Muller, 28305 - 193rd Avenue SE, agreed that there
is a traffic problem, and that the EIS shows that
traffic will not be improved by this project.
Ron Allen, 12221 SE 284th, noted that he has lived
in California and agreed with Ms. Holtzclaw' s com-
ments. He urged Councilmembers to visit the area
and enjoy the quiet. He also stated that he is a
member of the East Hill Environmental Citizens
Alliance and that he took a poll at Albertson' s
regarding this corridor, and that 85% replied that
this project is not worth it. He noted that dis-
cussion was held earlier tonight regarding the
layoff of City employees, and urged the Council to
drop this project and keep the City employees .
William Carleton, 10201 SE 270th Place, noted that
the results of surveys can be influenced by how
the questions are asked, and said that this area
should be preserved because it is of great value
to Kent. He suggested looking for the solution
which would be of the most help. Clinton Tullis ,
16300 - 184th SE, noted that the 277th corridor
has been planned since as early as 1967 . He said
that there has always been opposition to it, but
that people need to realize that every alternative
is a trade-off and the best solution must be
found. He said the City, County and State offi-
cials need to make a decision, and noted that
delaying the project increases the cost.
Ed Pawlowski, 27727 - 106th Avenue SE, noted that
he has attended many meetings on this project
since 1978 and there has always been opposition to
it. He questioned where the 82% in favor of the
project were from. He noted that Gary Grant pro-
posed and got the interchange at 212th built, even
though there was opposition from the Chamber. He
added that SR 516 was originally planned to come
9
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC through Scenic Hill but the Mayor and Council
CONTROL opposed it, just as he now opposes 277th. He
stated that documentation is inadequate because
their questions are not addressed. He said that
although the City would like traffic to go through
the County, people who live in the County do not
want it. He added that the corridor project will
cost $80, 000, 000 and that the road will generate
noise.
Mike Nugent, 9220 S. 198th, Renton, stated that
the City of Renton wants to put a route up East
Hill on 192/196, in addition to Petrovitsky and
208/212th, which are over their capacity. He said
that the traffic originates from east of Kent and
the Covington area, and that the traffic from that
area should connect up to 277th. He opined that
the 82% in favor of the 277th project are from
east of Kent and the Covington area. He said that
although he is in favor of preserving the environ-
ment, the traffic problem must be dealt with and
suggested a bridge over the river half way up the
hill. He added that the terminus should be at
132nd. -
Gay Fournier, 28261 - 108th Avenue SE, said that
she has many questions about this project which
were- inadequately answered. She urged the Council
not to vote to move ahead on the project tonight.
She pointed out that the County is having open
houses on their proposed routes, and asked why the
City is contemplating moving ahead when the County
is doing another EIS covering the same area. She
suggested letting King County spend their money on
King County projects, in view of the City' s budget
problems.
John Fenning, 27236 - 116th Place SE, noted that
if the project goes in, his home will be destroyed
and he cannot afford to move even if given fair
market value for his house. He agreed that some-
thing needs to be done about the traffic, but not
in this area. Dave Heutchy, 10925 SE 287th,
stated that if the road is built, there will be
more dense development and more traffic, pollu-
tion, noise and gridlock. He suggested looking
more closely at bus transportation and rail trans-
it.
10
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC Laurie Muller expressed anger over the word NIMBY
CONTROL and noted that she has studied this issue for over
two years and is well educated on it. She said
that these are citizens who are holding up their
responsibilities.
Martin Durkan, Jr. , 22401 Sweeney Road, Maple
Valley, noted that he served as a consultant to
the City negotiating with the County on the 277th
corridor. He stated that the 277th corridor is
urgently needed and agreed that the traffic on
Benson is coming north from Kent. He explained
that the people contacted by Hebert Research live
on both the East Hill and West Hill of Kent. He
said it is time to move forward on this project,
and noted that King County plans to hook on to
where Kent lets off and go clear to Highway 18 .
Randy Judkins, 26303 - 116th Avenue SE, urged the
Council to listen to the public. Clinton Tullis
explained that under State law, people are compen-
sated for the loss of their house or property, for
the extra cost of moving, changing schools and
whatever else is necessary to find something com-
parable. Dave Ekland, 108th and 272nd SE,
expressed concern that other alternatives were not
given a fair shake, and suggested using over-
passes. Ann Holtzclaw stated that all of the
people here tonight have put in hundreds of hours
on this project and that there is a need to separ-
ate the real concerns of citizens from the paid
interest groups that are determined to ruin the
south end of King County. Craig Brown stated that
he is not against the project but that the impact
to West Hill is a very important aspect and the
project needs to be better evaluated.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
Upon White ' s question, LaPorte noted that the
Metro representative had emphasized that HOV lanes
are not warranted on Alternative A or the 277th
corridor since Metro is not planning on extending
the route service along the 277th corridor, and
that they saw the improvement along the Kent-
Kangley corridor as a result of 277th to be their
11
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC major benefit. Mr. Delles stated that the West
CONTROL Hill area was considered adequately during the
process.
WHITE MOVED to proceed with the project and to
pursue the establishment of the preferred align-
ment reflected in the FEIS with the County. Woods
seconded for discussion. White explained that
this project can go no further unless Council
moves it along, that it provides the opportunity
for people to further challenge this, and that
sending it to committee would simply prolong the
situation. He noted that this project may be
killed by the courts but that the problem is not
being solved by doing nothing, therefore he would
like to see the project move ahead.
Orr stated that she cannot support White' s motion
at this time because she would like answers to
some of the questions raised, as well as her own
questions. She voiced concern about the align-
ment, and said she would like more information
about it before voting to move forward. She also
expressed concern about West Hill in regard to
traffic near schools in the area. Mann also
voiced concern about the alignment, noting that he
would like assurance that the project would con-
nect with Highway 18 . He also noted that a way to
accommodate the intersection at Military Road and
272nd should be part of the plan since additional
traffic would be generated because of the corri-
dor. He pointed out that the City is short of
money and now is not the time to do this. He
noted that I-5 and SR 167 are already gridlocked
during rush hours. He pointed out that the
Regional Justice Center in Kent will generate 2000
more vehicles, and if 277th allows vehicles to
enter SR 167 , traffic will be unimaginable. He
said he is convinced that this will be in the
courts for many years, and therefore it should be
stopped at this point. He suggested using the
leftover money for overpasses.
WHITE withdrew his motion and then MOVED that this
matter be referred back to the Public Works Com-
mittee for a formal recommendation. Bennett sec-
onded. White reminded councilmembers that the
12
August 4 , 1992
TRAFFIC number one priority for the city for the past few
CONTROL years has been the 272nd corridor. He pointed out
that when money is raised to build roads, it must
be used for roads or be given back to taxpayers.
He said that councilmembers have an obligation to
the citizens to do something about the traffic
problems being created by County residents passing
through the City. He added that no alternatives
were offered tonight; E.J. Pawlowski disagreed.
The motion to refer this matter to the Public
Works committee then carried.
GROWTH (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
MANAGEMENT Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)
Agreement. APPROVAL of the revised GMPC agreement
to extend the duration of the original agreement
until "completion of the designated duties of the
GMPC" , as recommended by the Planning Committee.
The original agreement between King County and the
City was approved by the City Council on January
21 , 1992 .
CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
ENFORCEMENT Radon Gas Measurement Device Fee. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1319 which establishes a $15 fee
for the provision of radon gas measurement
devices, which the City must provide to certain
new residential construction under a new State
law.
ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
West Hill Island Annexation. The proposed
ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 3049 , which
annexed the "West Hill Island" . The reason for
this repeal is that the City had not completed its
SEPA review of the island annexation at the time
the ordinance passed. The ordinance will come
before the Council at its next regularly scheduled
meeting for reconsideration, at which time the
SEPA process will be complete.
WHITE MOVED adoption of Ordinance No. 3060
repealing Ordinance No. 3049 . Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
13
August 4 , 1992
CITY (ADDED ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER MANN)
POLICIES Layoff Policy- Mann expressed dismay over Admin-
istration' s new layoff policy, particularly as it
relates to the issue of seniority. He noted that
his criticism is not with the layoffs, but with
the way the layoffs were accomplished. He said
that the new policy regarding layoffs without
seniority is extremely detrimental to the City for
the following reasons: It negatively affects
attitudes and lowers morale, it is not fair or
honorable, it generates fear and distrust among
employees, it causes workers to lose trust in
their employer, it leaves room for discriminatory
practices by the Administration, it subjects the
City to possible costly litigation, it gives the
appearance of possible impropriety, it becomes an
easy tool to reorganize and restructure without
having to deal with normal just processes, it hin-
ders new hires because good people will think
twice about working for a city that holds little
regard for productivity and faithfulness, it adds
expense in training new personnel, and it frac-
tures and polarizes the Council and Administra-
tion. HE THEN MOVED that the Council request that
the Mayor reconsider the current layoff policy and
amend it by introducing the principle of senior-
ity, and that that change be made retroactive,
incorporating the recent action on this matter.
Orr seconded.
Orr noted that she had expressed her concern about
this policy with Mr. Chow after it was introduced,
and that she shares Mann' s concerns . She said
that layoffs without regard to seniority are
unfair, and noted that she was extremely disturbed
when she saw the list of names. She said she
feels other things should be looked at. White re-
minded the Council that he submitted to the Mayor,
Councilmembers and Mr. Chow a proposal on the
budget situation which proposed more layoffs than
were made. He predicted that the City will come
closer to 30 layoffs than to 11. He said he is
also concerned with the manner in which this was
done, that the layoffs were made without taking
into consideration the recommendations of their
immediate superiors who run the department. He
defended the Mayor' s right to make decisions, but
said he hopes that in the future department heads
14 "'
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
July 29, 1992
TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DON WICKSTROM AN
RE: 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR PROJECT
The hearing tonight is on the Public Works Department's
recommendation to proceed with the above referenced project and to
pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment as reflected in
the FEIS with the County.
Attached for your convenience is an excerpt relating to that
preferred alignmentc pleteken FEI S documents om the Shave beend in my placed minothe
of
June 29, 1992 ,
Council's Reading File at City Hall for review) .
Throughout the EIS process, public input was sought and is
incorporated in the final document. While much of tonight's public
discussion will probably center around said FEIS and/or its
adequacy, opportunity for further input therein has lapsed.
Further challenges thereto are through the courts. However, in
order to pursue same, an action on the project must occur.
Council's action on the Public Works Department's recommendation
would constitute same.
The Public Works Department and the City Attorney's office will
make a presentation covering the process, the FEIS, its findings,
conclusions and mitigation. The Public Works Department will also
have in attendance its technical experts to answer questions
Council may have.
with SE 272nd Street, then proceed east to its terminus with Kent-Kangley Road at 13)nd
Avenue SE. New intersections may be provided at "I" Street SE, SE 231st Street, SE 274th St _ _,
SE 272nd/108th Avenue SE, 114th Avenue SE, 116th Avenue SE, 124th Avenue SE and Kent
Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE. Alternative C is shown in Figure 2.
Alternative C would result in greater impacts to the environment in almost every element studied.
1
1.4 ADDITIONAL STUDIES
There were issues identified during the comment period for the Draft EIS that the study team
believed should be revisited to present the most current information in this FEIS. Some parties
requested additional information on other issues that were (according to SEPA rules) adequately
addressed in the DEIS. This information was obtained through additional studies and research and
is included in Section 4.2 through 4.10. Areas of additional study focused on compliance with King
County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance, wildlife habitat, fisheries resources, interpretation of
transportation issues, and water well and aquifer issues.
1.5 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In determining a Preferred Alternative, the City of Kent and their consultants sought an alternative
that would satisfy the desired objectives while causing the least impact to the natural and built
environment. With the help of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), several specific evaluation
criteria including transportation operations, environmental factors, engineering factors and cost. The
selection of the Preferred Alternative was made based on the relative merits of each alternative
The TAC examined the potential impact of Alternative C. A number of public comment letters
opposing Alternative C also were received. Other letters highlighted substantial impacts associated
with Alternative C. Alternative C would have significant adverse environmental impact and was
determined to meet the goals of the project less satisfactorily than Alternatives A and B. For these
reasons, Alternative C is no longer being considered. Comments regarding Alternative C - specific
issues, Olson Canyon and Olson Creek will be considered no longer relevant in the following section
on Comment Letters and Responses.
Information presented in the DEIS was used to determine which of the four alternatives would result
in the least impact to the environment while still allowing the project to meet the study's objectives.
As a result of this effort, Alternative A was selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative is shown in detail in Figure 3. The Preferred Alternative would have the least impacts
to wetlands, wildlife habitat, housing and right-of-way requirements and fisheries resources and its
associated habitat. There may be some minor refinements made to the Preferred Alternative to
further reduce impacts. These changes would not be of a magnitude which would warrant the
preparation of a Supplemental EIS.
-7-
East Valley HWY.
En M
llldll�
0 3
0,9
6A
1041h AVE,SE.
1 0
loott,AVE.SE.
Ir
,A 11
40
114111 AVE, EP
(n
1. 4 ol
�--il6lh AVE.SE.
Z3 -`0
m:,
0
m n
CIO
(D
0
0 m
3 w-4
0 -4 >
m
CL N m
0 r-+ z
(D >1
(n <
(D
r-+
a- r-4- m
CL
Section 2
Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative
The environmental impacts and mitigation measures of the Preferred Alternative are summarized
from the DEIS as follows. For convenience, the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative
are also presented in Table 1.
EARTH
Environmental Impacts
The Preferred Alternative would require extensive earthwork in the valley, along the valley wall and
in the upland areas to satisfy road design requirements. In addition, a bridge is required to cross
the Green River and Green River Road.
during construction, especially if construction occurs
Cut and fill areas would be subject to erosion
during wet weather.
Ground water depths and flow patterns would be altered locally by the construction of embankments
over upland depressions and biofiltration swales.
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require substantial cuts in the area of the abandoned
residence where a potentially hazardous material was found.
Mitigation Measures
Much'of the earthwork would be accomplished during the dry season from May to September, when
on-site soils are likely to be usable as compacted fill and when erosion and sedimentation activity are
at a seasonal low.
The fill embankment on the valley floor would be designed with slopes not exceeding 2:1 to
minimize the potential for failure. Staged construction would allow for an increase in strength in
underlying soils and stability of the embankment. Preconstruction embankment settlement would be
minimized by preloading and monitoring the settlement as needed which would also reduce the
potential for liquefaction of foundation soils.
The Green River Bridge would be apile-supported structure to alleviate potential problems caused
the foundation and abutments.
by soil liquefaction. Piles may also be used to support
Sensitivity to erosion in the valley wall would be highest during construction and in the areas with
Impacts of erosion can be minimized by accomplishing earthwork during the dry
the steepest slopes.
-11-
erosion preventing slope cover (such as straw), channel liners, sediment control ponds and energy
dissipators.
Long-term erosion impacts would be mitigated by minimizing the concentration of runoff onto fill,
cut or natural slopes. Creating permanent sedimentation basins, biofiltration swales, a storm drain
system and establishing grass or other vegetative cover promptly after the earthwork is completed
would also minimize erosion impacts. Disturbance to natural drainage courses adjacent [o the
alignment would be kept to a minimum so that the existing drainage stability and flow conditions
etation would be left undisturbed along natural drainage
would not be appreciably changed. Veg
courses to help reduce sedimentation.
In the plateau area, mitigating measures similar to those used in the valley wall area would be used.
Foundation settlement of the bridge structure could be mitigated by using piles. Preloading would
be used to reduce excessive post construction settling in some areas of roadway embankments.
Impacts relating to the construction of the bridge can be reduced by accomplishing foundation
implementing adequate temporary and permanent erosion
construction during the dry season and
control.
The above-ground storage tanks and drums near the abandoned residence would be properly removed
and disposed during site cleanup and excavation.
AIR QUALITY
Environmental Impacts
Dust emissions from construction activities may be generated depending on the level of activity,
disturbed surface area and the soil moisture level. Dust emissions would occur adjacent to the new
roadways.
The new corridor would create carbon-monoxide concentrations in excess of existing ambient
conditions. Results of the CO dispersion modeling show that neither the I-hour nor the 8-hour CO
air quality standards would be exceeded near intersections, or nearby residential receptors in the
forecast years 2000 or 2010. The maximum modeled CO concentrations for the intersections studied
indicate that none of the alternatives would exceed federal, state, or local air quality standards.
Mitigation
During dry weather, construction contractors would implement a watering program to reduce dust
emissions. Also, cleaning vehicles leaving the site would minimize dust generated by carry-out.
Any negative air quality impacts over existing conditions related to the operation of the new roadway
could be mitigated by increased transit ridership, carpooling, vanpooling and by improving traffic
flow through intersections.
-12-
WATER RESOURCES
Environmental Impacts
Construction activities would result in erosion of excavated soil and increased turbidity in surface
water runoff. Pollutants (sediment, oil, metals and grease) in surface water runoff would be
generated from vehicular traffic on the constructed road.
Development of the road would increase impervious surfaces and would create new "source areas"
for direct storm water discharge. Areas that previously contributed only gradual and filtered
subsurface storm flow would be converted to sources of direct and rapid runoff.
The Preferred Alternative would divert about 16.3 acres of the Black River basin from west of 108th
Avenue SE directly to the Lower Green River basin.
This would help storm control in these basins and would reduce the flow in the Mill Creek Canyon
Park during period of storm events.
The addition of impervious surfaces to the project area would not significantly increase flood flows
since mitigation measures would be designed into the roadway.
The displacement of storage volume in existing flood areas would occur in several small swales and
wetlands. Compensatory volumes may be needed and would be included in the drainage design and
the wetland mitigation design. The construction of the Preferred Alternative would not result in a
rise in water levels during flooding events. The runoff from the new roadway would be collected
and conveyed in a closed stormwater drainage system and in biofiltration swales.
Excavation and compaction of near surface soils for road development could modify groundwater
movement.
The Preferred Alternative would impact eight wetlands for a total of approximately 2'/2 acres.
Potential physical impacts include increased turbidity, sedimentation, alteration of local water tables
and changes in water retention.
Mitieation Measures
Proper drainage features would be provided to allow soil infiltration of surface water runoff before
it reaches critical areas, such as wetlands and grass-lined swales located adjacent to the project area.
These methods consist of maintaining vegetative cover, using sedimentation devices to reduce the
volume of discharge water that is high in suspended sediments, and using appropriate "housekeeping
procedures" for handling chemicals and petroleum products during construction.
A county-approved erosion and drainage control plan would be implemented to manage the impacts
during construction and long-term operation. The design and capacity of the permanent drainage
-13-
system for the subbasin areas would be in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design
Manual and applicable City of Kent and City of Auburn regulations.
The four types of mitigation that can compensate for road construction impacts to wetlands include:
1) impact avoidance, 2) impact reduction, 3) impact rectification, and 4) impact compensation.
Specific wetland mitigation would be determined in a mitigation plan which would be prepared for
this project during final design.
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Environmental Impacts
Vegetation would be cleared, resulting in both a temporary and permanent loss of habitat that would
adversely affect wildlife. About 30 acres would be lost under the Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative would divide existing patches of habitat into smaller areas which may
pressure certain species that require a minimum amount of territory. Protective cover, food supplies
and nesting areas would be lost. The Green River would be affected by construction of a bridge,
although the degree of impact should be relatively minor.
Other possible impacts include increased roadkill, degradation of habitat, and possible temporary
disruption of wetlands and breeding sites.
Mitigation Measures
The,design of the Preferred Alternative would require less land than if another build alternative were
selected.
Planting appropriate vegetation along the new road after construction would help reduce net
vegetation and habitat loss. Where appropriate, native species would be used in revegetation efforts.
Construction equipment would be kept out of vegetated areas, where possible, to preserve habitat
as well as minimize soil compaction. Avoidance of large-diameter trees while creating staging areas
would minimize loss of bird habitat.
Staging areas would be kept to a minimal size, and be revegetated with seed mixtures recommended
by the Washington State Department of Wildlife after construction is complete.
ENERGY USE
Environmental Impacts
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require using energy and petroleum products.
Petroleum fuels would be used in constructing, maintaining and travelling on the proposed arterial.
-14-
Electricity would be used to light the road and pathway, as well as operate the traffic signals.
Mitigation Measures
The new arterial is being proposed as a means to reduce traffic delay in downtown Kent, as well as
alleviate congestion on the Soos Creek Plateau. The anticipated overall result is that less vehicle
operating energy would be required for the Preferred Alternative than for the No-Action Alternative.
The savings in operational energy requirements should eventually offset construction energy
requirements. No mitigation measures are proposed for this project.
SCENIC RESOURCES
Environmental Impacts
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require deep cuts into the hillside to achieve the
proposed roadway grades. Removal of existing vegetation within the right-of-way would also be
necessary.
The Preferred Alternative would create a bridge over the Green River which would alter the visual
quality of the valley.
Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures would include planting rows of vegetation along the right-of--way. This
would help to restore these peripheral areas to their natural appearance. On the plateau, plantings
may include street trees such as Norway maple, flame ash and scarlet oak. Groundcover would
include grasses selected for local adaptation and ease of maintenance.
Views of the bridge would be inhibited at any substantial distance from the immediate location due
to the vegetation and meandering river path.
NOISE
Environmental Impacts
It is anticipated that areas adjacent to the project would be exposed to temporary increases in noise
levels during construction due to the use of heavy trucks and construction equipment.
Predicted traffic noise levels for the Preferred Alternative indicate that by the year 2010,traffic noise
would range from 72.5 LEQ to 74.9 LEQ for the peak hour 50 feet from the centerline of the corridor.
Traffic noise along the project would exceed 67 LEQ for 11 structures.
-15- .
Mitigation Measures
Construction hours would be limited to mitigate construction noise impacts.
Traffic noise would be mitigated by the installation of sound-absorbing plantings where adequate
right-of-way would permit. The roadway would be constructed in a 'cut' section near 108th Avenue
SE, this would reduce noise levels in this area.
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
Environmental Impacts
The new road may improve access to areas not yet developed, but development moratoria,
restrictions on sewer connections and/or rezoning of the area, may limit growth.
The Preferred Alternative would displace 13 residences and acquire 43.1 acres. In addition, many
acks from existing and proposed street rights-of-way.
older homes may have inadequate setb
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to property owners
directly affected by the project:
• Compensate owners at fair market value for property acquisition, moving, travel, and other
relocation related expenses.
• Adjust alignments to reduce property acquisition and displacements wherever possible.
• Provide referrals and assistance in locating replacement housing.
LIGHT AND GLARE
Environmental Impacts
Construction of an urban arterial street would introduce light into presently rural areas, particularly
along the valley wall and residential areas on the plateau. The primary source of light and glare
would be from vehicle headlights on the new arterial.
Mitigation Measures
The road alignment would be designed and landscaped to minimize headlight glare into existing
structures, oncoming vehicles and other sensitive areas.
-16-
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Impacts
No impacts to historic or cultural resources are expected to result from the construction of the
Preferred Alternative.
Excavation for roadway improvements could affect archaeological resources if site locations are
found during construction.
Mitigation Measures
If archaeological resources.are found during construction, a more detailed investigation would be
conducted prior to further excavation and grading to determine the value of any archaeological sites
or artifacts within the proposed right-of-way. The state and county officials would be notified and
appropriate measures would be taken to protect these resources.
AGRICULTURAL LAND USES
Environmental Impacts
Development of the Green River Valley segment would impact adjacent farmlands. Acquisition of
additional rights-of-way west of the Green River may reduce the area of farmland in the King County
Farmland Preservation Program on the Wembley Enterprises parcel and Monk Farms. The Program
does not prohibit condemnation of agricultural lands for public purposes such as roadways.
Mitigation Measures
The roadway could be located on the south boundary of the farmlands rather than further north
where it would divide existing agricultural parcels. Shifting the alignment to the south would also
avoid acquisition of protected farmland for the road right-of-way.
Alternative access to roadways and field entrances would be provided for farm vehicles and
machinery if necessary.
TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Impacts
The development of the proposed action would result in changes to the roadway system, operations,
levels of service, and non-motorized vehicle activity.
The roadway would have the following characteristics: five-lanes with separate left-turn lanes at all
intersections; peak hour capacity of 3100 vehicles per hour, each way; 35 mph speed limit; and no
intersection with Green River Road. Signalized intersections would likely be provided at Central
-17-
Avenue, I Street NE, and Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516), all remaining intersections would have stol
signs on the minor approaches. HOV facilities would not be included with the new corridor
According to forecast results, the ed s Pr
opo
corridor, the heaviest travelled corridor attract significant
wouldbe along [hehill climb sec traffic volumes.
section between IStreet NE
g
and the tap of the plateau. In the year 2000 the new road would attract 2,900 PM peak and 32,1
daily trips in the hillclimb section. In 2010 there would be 3,700 PM peak and 40,700 daily trips.
The general growth in traffic volume would cause an increase in traffic accidents.
The new arterial would improve access to the planned 150 stall park-and-ride lot just north of the
132nd Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road intersection.
Under the Preferred Alternative, sidewalks would be provided, allowing pedestrians direct acces.
from the East Hill to North Green River Park and trail system. The Preferred Alternative woulc
provide improved access to Pine Tree Park and, through existing connections, to Pine Tree Schoo
from 116th Avenue SE. The Preferred Alternative would also provide a bicycle path from Aubur:
Way North to the vicinity of 116th Avenue SE.
Mitigation Measures
een
edicte
Introduction of a new roadway creates changes
g sthat intecravel Pectt with the proposed facility terns. These changes have bwouldr equ r
with the transportation model. The roadways
revised geometry, which would be designed as part of the new arterial.
'In addition, the following measures may be require in the future. These measures are not include
as part of this proposed action.
• Separate left turn lanes on West Valley Highway, and separate right turn lanes on a
approaches, were considered for the year 2000.
• Both SR 167 Ramp approaches need dual left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane. C
S 277th Street itself, dual left turn lanes and separate right turn lanes are required at tl-
appropriate intersections in the year 2000.
• The Central Avenue-Auburn Way North intersection needs dual left turn lanes on the nor
and south approaches to accommodate year 2000 volumes.
• All remaining intersections within this corridor alignment operate at an acceptable level
service. No further mitigation measures are needed.
-18-
PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Impacts
Overall growth in the study area would increase the need for police and fire protection. The
Preferred Alternative would create an additional access route for emergency vehicle use.
The project may increase service calls for traffic enforcement and medical aid on the proposed
arterial.
None of the existing schools are adjacent to the Preferred Alternative; however, the Kent School
District has preliminary plans to construct an elementary school on property adjacent to the proposed
corridor on the valley floor. The corridor study area is a pedestrian catchment for students walking
or biking to the local schools which would potentially be affected by the proposed roadway since a
new arterial could present a barrier to pedestrian movements between the schools and residential
neighborhoods.
Although provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the proposed arterial would improve
safety, conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles become a serious problem at high volume
intersections. When young students are crossing, crossing guards may be_required even with
signalization.
The construction of the Preferred Alternative would provide a new road corridor which could be
shared by utility companies wishing to increase supply or capacity. Installation of new utilities
should be completed while the road is under construction, to prevent disruption to traffic and to
minimize, the need to replace patches of road surface.
Constructing the roadway could require temporary utility service suspensions due to relocation or
adjustments to transmission lines. Manholes and other existing in-street utilities would have to be
raised to the level of the new arterial where existing roadways are used. Construction of the new
roadway, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks would provide an opportunity to place the existing above-
ground utilities underground, if required by utility franchise agreements.
The proposed project would have no long-term impacts on utility service.
The City of Kent plans to build the Kent Springs Transmission Water Main through the study area.
The planned water main route is identified in the DEIS (Figure 23). The environmental review,
wetlands delineation and agency coordination for this project has been completed. The Preferred
Alternative would cross the western leg of the water main. The water line would be placed in a
trench, following the contours of several ravines and roadways in the area. Once completed, the
water main would connect with existing water lines in the vicinity of 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-
Kangley Road. These are two separate projects and neither one is expected to have an affect on the
other.
-19-
Mitigation Measures
Preemption devices to automatically give die green light to an approaching emergency vehicle shc,._ f
be installed at all signalized intersections.
The Preferred Alternative would be designed to high safety standards including incorporation of
barriers, signs and appropriate speed limits to reduce the potential for accidents.
Traffic control signs and signalization would be emphasized to increase driver awareness and identify
potential pedestrian crossing areas.
School crossings would be limited to key intersections and identified in school safety programs.
Bicycle routes would be designated as such with signs.
The bridge across the Green River would be designed to allow the trail to pass underneath it.
ided on the bridge to allow access to the trail on the east
Walkways and bicycle lanes would be prov
side of the river.
As-built plans and field surveys would be consulted while designing the roadway and developing
ss accidental. excavation of
construction specifications. Construction specifications would addre
underground utilities and disruption of overhead utility services.
-20-
Table I
Summary of Impacts
ELEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative would require clearing vegetation and would result in exposure
EARTH of soils. Erosion and sedimentation could increase during construction.
:The Preferred Alternative would result in the introduction of carbon monoxide emissions
AIR QUALITY into an area where presently there are no significant emissions.
The Preferred Alternative would increase impervious surface area, increasing stormwater
WATER RESOURCES runoff volume. Some wetlands and their associated functional values would be affected.
Compaction of soils and placement of fill could alter subsurface flows. Traffic on the
new road would produce pollutants, such as oil, metals and grease.
Excavation, fill, grading and roadway construction would require clearing some vegetation
PLANTS AND ANIMALS and loss of some wildlife habitat. Clearing forested areas may introduce non-native
species into forests along roadway borders. Some wildlife may be killed by traffic.
Petroleum products would be used for construction of the proposed roadway and for
ENERGY USE vehicle operation. This use would eventually be offset in fuel savings due to more
efficient traffic flow.
SCENIC RESOURCES The new road would replace the view of trees end/or predominantly residential areas,
with one of a 5-lane urban arterial. The bicycle/pedestrian path would increase public
access to adjoining scenic resources.
NOISE Existing sound levels along the road alignment would increase from low background
sound levels to approximately 70 dBA to 75 dBA approximately 50 feet from the road.
-- The diversion of traffic to the new road would reduce traffic on other area roads, but not
enough to significantly reduce noise levels.
The new road would preclude any other land uses in the area occupied by the road.
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
Approximately 43 acres of additional rights-of-way would be required for the
establishment of the road.
13 residences would be displaced.
HOUSING
LIGHT AND GLARE New sources of light and glare would be introduced.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL No known archaeological sites or historic structures would be affected.
RESOURCES
AGRICULTURAL LAND USES Agricultural land would be taken for roadway right-of-way. Some changes in access to
farm fields may occur.
TRANSPORTATION Extending S 277th Street to Kent-Kangley Road would result in a projected 32,100
vehicle trips per day by the year 2000, and 40,700 vehicle trips per day by 2010. Level
of service at the majority of the analyzed intersections would improve.
PUBLIC SERVICES During construction, response time of emergency, police and fire calls may be
lengthened; however, the road extension is expected to shorten response time to some
locations for the long-term following construction. There could be interruption or
relocation of utilities.
-21-
ce -3 (-J (,-
Kent City Council Meeting
Date SeRtember 1 1992
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: LID 339 - HILLTOP SANITARY SEWERS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was 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 this bid be accepted.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director with a bid
summary
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 -VA4t moves, Councilmember '"It--seconds
the bid submitted by King Construction in the amount of
$73 , 991. 00 for LID 339 be accepted and the contract awarded.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 5, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: L. I.D. 339 - HILLTOP SANITARY SEWER
Bid opening was August 3 with four bids received. The low bid was
submitted by King Construction for $73 , 991.
This project was originally part of the combined project with
L. I.D. 338, Decant Stations and 94th Avenue .Storm. Bids were
rejected for the combined project and each project bid separately.
In comparing bids just received for this project with those
received previously, we were able to secure a bid approximately
$19, 000 lower than originally received.
Since this bid exceeds the estimate used in formulating the L. I.D.
amount, we will be notifying the property owners within the L.I.D.
boundary that they can anticipate a higher assessment than
originally projected. We would hope to have responses from them
available by the time this is brought before Council to award the
contract. We are, however, recommending to award the contract to
King Construction subject to our evaluation of the property owners,
responses.
BID SUMMARY
King Construction $73, 991. 00
Pivetta Brothers Construction 80, 507 . 35
Shoreline Construction 83 , 338 . 89
R.W. Scott 87, 540. 29
Engineer's Estimate $69 , 610. 47
r
�N Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1 1992
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: HORSESHOE ACRES PUMP STATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
n
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum with the bid summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner,. Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL MPACT: NO !\ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recomitended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
�p
Councilmember�"'V�O—moveg, member seconds
A�the bid submitted by Omega Contractors in the amount of
$50, 840. 00 for the Horseshoe Acres Pump Station be accepted and
the contract awarded. ��jj C 0�-sQQ CD c�. - e-
DISCUSSION.
ACTION: r '� �I
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B✓
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 5
Bid Opening Del Webb Pump Station
Wickstrom stated six bids were received ranging from $60, 000 to
$120, 000 with an engineer's estimate of $73 , 000. Wickstrom stated
he would recommend awarding the project to R.W. Scott Construction.
The project will add some life to our pump station. It is
currently operating beyond its capability. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval to award to R.W. Scott
Construction.
Bid Opening Horseshoe Acres Pump Station
Two bids were received on this project. Wickstrom stated he would
recommend awarding to the low bidder, Omega Construction. The
project would provide a telemetering system for the station. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval to award the project to
Omega Construction.
Procurement Ordinance
Brubaker stated the State legislature has passed a new law
encouraging the use of recycled products by forcing government
agencies to meet certain standards, use a certain percentage of
paper and other products out of recycled materials. From that King
County developed a model ordinance which, if we comply with, places
us in a position to receive some grant funds from the County.
Karen Siegel clarified that the adoption of this procurement
ordinance is one of the criteria for eligibility for this grant
program should we apply. Wickstrom added this is also a
requirement of our participation in the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Plan. A staff committee reviewed the model ordinance,
made some revisions and developed the ordinance submitted to the
Committee. Paul Mann added he had also asked the legal department
to look into developing such an ordinance. The Committee
unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance.
King County Housing Authority Real Estate Signs
Wickstrom stated that King County Housing Authority has requested
to place directional signs on our East Hill Well property on 104th
and approximately 244th and one at the air injector station at Kent
Kangley and approximately 120th Avenue S.E. These signs would
provide direction to their Glenbrook affordable housing
development. Wickstrom suggested we would want to concur since it
is a public entity making the request and is for a worthy cause.
They would, however, have to comply with all the code requirements.
He doubted if they could do so for the East Hill Well site. After
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 1992
TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
FROM: Nelden Hewitt, Utilities Superintendent,/ru
THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Maria r ��
SUBJECT: Horseshoe Acres Storm Water Pump ation Upgrade
We have received two (2) bids for the above referenced project, Pivetta Brothers
Construction, Inc.for$55,500.00 and Omega Contractors Inc.for$50,840.00. The
Engineer's estimate was $52,475.00.
1 recommend we accept Omega Contractors Inc., they are the contractors that
built the station for the City. Also, they have done other work for the City of this
nature. 1 think they would do a good job.
NH/map
Attachments: Pivetta Brothers' Bid
Omega Contractors' Bid
Engineer's Estimate
R068C01
1_
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 1, 1992
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: DEL WEBB PUMP STATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was August 18th with six
bids received. The low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott
Construction in the amount of $60,732 . 12 . The Public Works
Committee has recommended acceptance of the bid.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Publit' Works Director with bid
summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: The Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examine, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONN L IMPACT: NO /\ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: R , ommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIONY
Councilmember moveJ, C_oyncilmem er secon
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. z k c-Pr_d29 & Cwl-c9 tr�
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 5CJ
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 5
Bid Opening Del Webb Pump Station
Wickstrom stated six bids were received ranging from $60, 000 to
$120, 000 with an engineer's estimate of $73 , 000 . Wickstrom stated
he would recommend awarding the project to R.W. Scott Construction.
The project will add some life to our pump station. It is
currently operating beyond its capability. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval to award to R.W. Scott
Construction.
Bid Opening Horseshoe Acres Pump Station
Two bids were received on this project. Wickstrom stated he would
recommend awarding to the low bidder, Omega Construction. The
project would provide a telemetering system for the station. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval to award the project to
Omega Construction.
Procurement Ordinance
Brubaker stated the State legislature has passed a new law
encouraging the use of recycled products by forcing government
agencies to meet certain standards, use a certain percentage of
paper and other products out of recycled materials. From that King
County developed a model ordinance which, if we comply with, places
us in a position to receive some grant funds from the County.
Karen Siegel clarified that the adoption of this procurement
ordinance is one of the criteria for eligibility for this grant
program should we apply. Wickstrom added this is also a
requirement of our participation in the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Plan. A staff committee reviewed the model ordinance,
made some revisions and developed the ordinance submitted to the
Committee. Paul Mann added he had also asked the legal department
to look into developing such an ordinance. The Committee
unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance.
King County Housing Authority Real Estate Signs
Wickstrom stated that King County Housing Authority has requested
to place directional signs on our East Hill Well property on 104th
and approximately 244th and one at the air injector station at Kent
Kangley and approximately 120th Avenue S.E. These signs would
provide direction to their Glenbrook affordable housing
development. Wickstrom suggested we would want to concur since it
is a public entity making the request and is for a worthy cause.
They would, however, have to comply with all the code requirements.
He doubted if they could do so for the East Hill Well site. After
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 18, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM������
RE: DEL WEBB SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION
Bid opening was this morning with six bids received. The low bid
was submitted by R. W. Scott Construction in the amount of
$60, 732 . 12 .
It is recommended this bid be accepted and the contract awarded to
R. W. Scott Construction.
BID SUMMARY
R. W. . Scott Construction $ 60, 732 . 12
Tri-State Construction 68, 236 . 87
West Coast Construction 72 , 837 . 00
Jack Johnson Construction 90, 693 . 24
Frank Coluccio Construction 107, 593 . 00
Shoreline Construction 120, 085 . 77
Engineer's Estimate $ 73 , 484 . 03
.a r ' „
NIN
CITYr
_ _ -
m
ml ,,(/ t _ "s it - .« ♦ ; ,� i
JOSTM
W m 12
PL SE
�112 AVE a
lis
CITY Ll Irs m
1 u•r• a
TM
c •
-' •u.r. � � t=..._ .9s ,. m i� ln... a a 7 '1 3E"�
^
1210 AWE
0 -1 SS
SE
w r
rn
s y
m
O 132ND AVE. S.E.
e t�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 12, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO ITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: DEL WEBB PUMP STATION
This project constructs improvements to . the sanitary sewer pump
station located at S.E. 274th and 132nd Avenue S.E. Bid opening
is scheduled for August 18 . We will bring a summary of the bids
received and a recommendation for award to the Committee meeting.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R /
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTE�
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE )
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
QC
Brenda Jacober
City Clerk
PARRS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4 , 1992
Councilmembers Present:
Acting Chair, Judy Woods, Christi Houser, Jim Bennett.
Staff Present: Ed Chow, Barney Wilson, Tony McCarthy, Robb
Dreblow, Patrice Thorell,Elizabeth Gasper, Lori
Hogan, Jack Ball, Karen Ford, Robyn Bartlelt, Carol
Weston, Thressa Alston.
Others Present: Representative, LIONS CLUB, Lloyd Laurin,
15232 SE 272nd; Bill Doolittle, 412 N
Washington #31; Representatives from KENT
AMERICAN LEAGUE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, Rick
Liechty, 17303 SE 238th and Steve Pedegana,
13503 SE 251st Pl.
The meeting was called to order by Judy Woods, Acting Chair in
absence of Chair Jon Johnson, at 5: 31 PM in the East Council
Chambers.
There were three (3) items on the agenda:
(1) First Avenue Mural by Rosier Broer, Elizabeth Gasper,
Recreation Program Coordinator, Cultural Arts Department;
(2) Kent Memorial Park Field #1, Barney Wilson, Parks and
Recreation Director, Jack Ball, Park Maintenance
Superintendent, Representatives from KENT AMERICAN LEGION
BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, R. A. Liechty and Steve Pedegana;
(3) Kent Memorial Park, Representative from two (2) Kent
Chapters, LIONS CLUB, Lloyd Laurin.
FIRST AVENUE MURAL by Roger Broer
[Category: Consent Calendar, August 18]
A color mural by artist Roger Broer has been selected to be placed
on the wall of the FIRST INTERSTATE BANK.
Acting Chair Woods questioned the dimensions.
The dimensions would be 6 ' 3" x 7 ' 911 . This would include a design
in color, framed by a 2 foot wide cedar border. Inset into the
border would be a dozen cast pewter salmon starting out as fry
circling the mural, becoming adults and returning as spawning fish.
The pewter salmon would be securely fastened into the border. The
cedar being used is a northwest material important to Native
Page 2
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4 , 1992
Americans. The cedar would gradually turn a grey color blending in
with fish and side of the building.
This mural project has been approved and recommended by the Arts
Selection Jury and the Kent Arts Commission.
Gasper requested the committee's approval and for the project to be
placed on the Consent calendar for the next City Council meeting.
The 1991 mural initiative has been budgeted and will not require
new funds.
Councilmember Houser questioned the timeline.
Gasper stated Columbus Day as the approximate timeline for
installation.
The City will purchase an original oil painting 31" x 35" wide
with a handcarved cedar board to go inside the city building
corresponding with the First Avenue Mural on the outside.
Wilson questioned the agreement with the building owner.
Gasper stated that the City has a 10 year Wall Lease Agreement [$1 _.
a year] with FIRST INTERSTATE BANK.
A motion was made to accept the group selection and for the item to
be placed on the consent calendar.
Coucilmember Houser so moved. Mr. Wilson seconded and the motion
carried.
The motion passed unanimously.
RENT MEMORIAL PARK FIELD #1
Wilson requested that the Parks Committee consider the request
from the American Legion Baseball Association to convert Kent
Memorial Parks Field #1 into a grass infield with resources and
funding totaling $5, 000.
Wilson commented the City has enough baseball games to warrant this
request. A grass infield would eliminate any bases other than 90
foot baseball.
A skinned infield gives more flexibility but this type of infield
doesn't qualify the city for some state and regional tournaments.
Page 3
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4 , 1992
Wilson further stated that Steve Pedegana and Rick Liechty have
been working with Jack Ball. The Maintenance Department has looked
at other fields to get suggestions and costs of additional
maintenance.
Liechty made reference to the Kent American Legion Baseball
Association Proposal [Appendix #1] . He emphasized the objective of
the Legion is to make this a great community baseball program.
Liechty stressed the tremendous support the Legion Baseball has
from the community. A Board has been formed to work with other
programs/departments in Kent that are supportive of this type of
field configuration and in providing quality programming.
Liechty stated that there are some items that the Legion would like
to do and some maintenance items that would need to be considered
at some point: 1) Cleaning and Electrical Maintenance of Lights
and 2) Outfield Fence Repairs.
Wilson stated that the lights were installed in 1970.
Ball stated that the Department has been working with Service
Electric Company for maintenance needs.
Wilson added that the Service Electric Company has inspected the
lights and some work needs to be done besides cleaning and aiming.
Ball stated that it is expensive and a maintenance item that has
been delayed for sometime.
Leichty stated that this was an item to bring to the committee' s
attention as something that needed to be addressed in terms of
future planning.
Leichty continued with proposed improvement items by the Legion.
[See Appendix #1, pg. 3]
Ball and Joe Hansen have been doing an excellent job checking to
see what is involved in this process. These men have attended a
Seminar at Chenney Stadium to learn and observe what it would take
to develop this project in a quality fashion.
There are things that would have to be done with the dirt and field
preparation to lay the sod. There is a kind of sod with netting
that would not be suitable for safety reasons. The infield would
require a sod that has been grown extra long and overseeded. This
process takes the sod farms longer to grow for this application.
Page 4
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4, 1992
The Legion proposed to grass the infield and areas behind home
plate by installing 7 - 10 tons of "turface" material which would
allow the dirt to absorb more rain and remain playable.
The Legion proposed to construct a scorer's booth behind home plate
bleachers. This is an item that the Legion would like to propose
but wasn't prepared to submit at the time.
Liechty stated that he thought this was an item that the Legion
could incorporate the resources to put in something similar at no
cost to the City. He indicated that the Legion has enough people
who are supporting them to accomplish this task.
Liechty made reference to the community benefits from the proposal
[Appendix #1, pg. 4] .
Wilson stated that the Legion continues to support the Parks
Department on a annual basis. He expressed appreciation and
gratitude for their services to the Department.
Wilson stated a concern about moving home plate out because of some
possible foul balls in the parking lot.
Wilson stated that Kent Memorial Park Field #1 was the site of the
First State High School Baseball Tournament. The Park has not been
improved since 1970.
Liechty made reference to the materials resource needs from the
proposal [Appendix #1 pg. 5] . The Legion is prepared to pay for
those materials in the amount of $5, 000 .
Wilson questioned the "turface" material replacement.
Ball commented that the "turface" material had a life span of
approximately 20 years and recommended periodically adding to it.
Wilson questioned the location of this "turface" material .
Ball responded that it comes from clay mines in Alabama. It is a
material that absorbs twice its size in water. The "turface"
material can absorb two inches of rain in an hour' s time and still
be playable.
Liechty stated that "turface" material is used on 26 out of the 27
major league fields.
Ball responded that only two major league fields are not using the
"turface" material.
Page 5
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4 , 1992
Councilmember Bennett questioned the kind of labor needs.
Ball responded that the Department conducts Fall renovation every
year. The Department is looking at adding the "turface" material
and laying the sod, both tasks should only require minimum labor.
Wilson stated that the Department would have to rework the mounds
by moving the soil back and the sprinkler heads would have to be
relocated.
Ball responded that the Department would have to rework the area
because of the lip that develops around the edge of the infield
every year. In order to remove the lip, the crew would have to
work on irrigation.
Chow questioned the support of the Legion' s participation in the
field maintenance items and/or Legion' s dependence on the City.
Liechty stated that the Legion was not proposing an action on
maintenance items at this time but the Legion would consider the
question.
Liechty commented that the Legion generated a revenue of
approximately $40, 000. Since the Legion has projects with
different contractors, the Legion is exploring the possibility of
getting contractors to support the proposal and offset some of the
cost for advertising.
Liechty stated that the Legion proposed additional lighting but the
field lighting is sufficient and adequate for play now.
Wilson stated that the complication is that the grass infield does
not have the adequate distance between home plate and the back
stop.
Liechty stated that the scorer' s booth would have to be covered.
Wilson stated that the scorer' s booth in front of the stands now
would have to be placed behind the stands of home plate.
Ball stated that the Department is discussing how this is going to
be achieved. The Department is trying to make house repairs on the
outfield fence as time allows. The Poplar trees are forcing a
portion of the fence to be lifted.
Wilson questioned Pedegana on a earlier proposal to place
commercial signs around the fence.
Page 6
PARK COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 4, 1992
Pedegana stated that the Legion could probably have commercial
signs but have resigned to putting up banners during the games.
Wilson stated that some cities use commercial signs. The costs are
expensive for maintenance but it could be a consideration.
Pedergana stated that the main thrust was to convert Kent Memorial
Park Field #1 into a grass infield to meet basic requirements for
having state tournaments and other events. He added that the
maintenance items should be addressed.
Acting Chair Woods stated that these issues would have to be
addressed in order to maintain the facility.
Wilson requested the Parks Committee's approval of the proposal and
that it be submitted to City Council. The project is being planned
for early Fall.
Acting Chair Woods questioned the financial impact.
Wilson stated that some qualified volunteers might ;be available
through the Legion.
Councilmember Bennett made a motion to accept the American Legion
Proposal to convert Kent Memorial Park Field #1 in to a grass
infield.
Councilmember Houser seconded and the motion carried.
The motion passed unanimously
(Consent Calendar, September 1, 1992]
KENT MEMORIAL PARK
Laurin requested in behalf of two (2) Chapters of LIONS CLUB to
rename Kent Memorial Park to Peter C. Baffaro Memorial Park because
of his service record with the city for over 50 years.
Wilson stated that Baffaro was instrumental in purchasing the Park.
He was also a member of the Lions Club. An appropriate facility
or park could be considered for re-naming after Mr. Baffaro. A
conflict of interest issue should be avoided at all cost since the
building had been named for the World War II veterans.
Page 7
PARKS COMMITTE MINUTES
August 4, 1992
Councilmember Bennett offered a counter proposal to rename Kent
Memorial Park Field #1 to Memorial Park/Peter Baffaro Field,
thereby retaining the identity of the park and giving Mr. Baffaro
the recognition.
Wilson stated that Mr. Baffaro should be recognized in the
community in a special way.
Laurin stated that Mr. Baffaro had chartered both LIONS CLUBS in
Kent. The LIONS CLUB request is supported by Chief Norm Angelo and
Mary Berg of the Fire Department.
Acting Chair Woods questioned the present name of the Park.
Wilson stated that the Park was named when he arrived.
Chow requested Wilson to conduct research and bring back
information to the committee.
Parks Committee members were in favor of the request.
Wilson noted as part of the research, a public input section could
be included in the study.
Woods stated that there could be other significant parks in the
city of Kent that don't have a restriction on having been named for
a group or a particular person.
Bill Doolittle stated that there are two (2) Lake Fenwick Parks
located on the West Hill . He suggested that one of these parks
could be considered for re-naming.
Wilson stated that Mr. Baffaro didn't have any association with the
West Hill.
Wilson stated that in researching this project that it would be
appropriate to look at Mr. Baffaro' s history in the school
district, and consider an alternative of naming a school in Mr.
Baffaro' s honor.
Laurin stated that Mr. Baffaro was a Principal at Kent Junior High
School and at Kent Meridian High School , a Teacher and Coach. Mr.
Baffaro' s contributions are numerous to the City of Kent.
Acting Chair Woods stated that the Parks Committee would be willing
to help in the school and park research.
Wilson requested that Laurin report to the LIONS CLUB the favorable
consideration of their request by the Parks Committee. Research
Page 8
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES _..
August 41 1992
will begin in order to prepare a response. The Department will
keep the LIONS CLUB abreast of developments.
Acting Chair Woods questioned a timeline in which this subject
would be an agenda item for deliberation.
Wilson responded that the research would be the determinant.
Wilson stated in his research of the project that he would contact
the School District to see if they would be interested in working
with the Parks Committee, since another elementary school site has
been scheduled for Kent.
Acting Chair Woods emphasized the investigation of looking into
other parks in the area.
Acting Chair Woods assured our guest that he would be notified of
developments.
[Appendix #2]
Memo from Ed Chow, City Administrator
Subject: City Council Minutes, 5/19/58
Section: Request from Kent Coaches Association, School
District No. 415 to rename Kent Memorial Park after
Mr. Baffaro
OTHER: MIDWAY RESERVOIR
Councilmember Houser questioned the status of the Midway Reservoir
Neighborhood Park Project with Seattle Water Department.
Wilson stated that he will check WickstromIs files but the Seattle
Water Department is still aware of the Department' s interest. He
noted that Wickstrom has correspondence on file.
The meeting was adjourned at 6: 32 pm.
N �
�o
Con o'
o � �
v c A.
� cv (D o
n cn cn cn < ti
c cv cv (1)
Q:
N �. cu
a) oo T as
:3 CD cD CD
4% <
CD
0 0 N CD In
�
o CD _<
3 o o 0
CD CD
c�
0
Q .
n
CL 3 3 EL � �
CD 3
Q
ogo
�.
. r+
w
o Q 0 Qo
cn �' CD -�
3
° cc o
o 0 CD cn
ca 3 CD
o fD
0 �.
cD
o. CD
C'
So 3
cQ N
h �
�o
rnLn
o'
0 �
0 (0 O rn A �.
CD
n w
O O
a- CD D
< vi w
m
-� 3
O -�
CD O
CD w
O
CD N
O
CD Q
0 CD
o U
O :3 �.
o
c �p
co
w N
3
N
3
CD
0
N c'p
G O 0 (D o
P r. (D
�• cn CD
mn �-+
'i (D fD (D (D 90 CD
p
o 90 CLn m ((nn
.� O go (D (p r+
c�D N o o D �
m a i nai
CD
p cn
-�
=rai•
CD
O. —
=r (D O = :3
O _.
CL o 3 0 CD
CD CD -
o -D O CL
3CD
O in
CD CD
00
cD O. O
v CD
� o n
CD
CD
CCD CD
m O
CD
h �
�o
o � �
a
CS et)
� �
ai -a a
CD M CD < � o <
= CD _ ID na3 � �' c. cD � 3
CD M-0 .. CD
O O �(QN p Co ..
—. (n
CD 3 o (D
_ C (D
3 a- * 0- x - 3
— cr
0 CD
O 3 �, x`< .-�.
M% 3 C -1 = w
=r � cr
� w
(n 2• c — (D
(f2 T� cn = n Cl)
O (\ ,. CL r.
/( :3 C13
} coD �
\
V W ^+ \H
CD
/�
CD
(D
a' V/ O' ��-r
�,
.� Sy O C) LU �'
CD co
Co 2) o 00 Cn
::r U2 =
CD a�0 w
3
cn
h c�
co �
C o'
CD c n D
CD CD <D —• CL CL
CL G —
c < p N• � O N CD
cD U)
U) U)
r Cl). a --1 .Q O
O n C C
O- :3 (D -t
n
-t
O 2) CD
cl) ( CL
N � Cl)
N ch
0
n
90
� -Efl fA
Cn -60 1 w n wn
O .60 W V) � O W
Cl O O O O O Q.
.
CCD CD (DD CD 0 O M M D
:3 = :3 :3 :3 : n
r.o• r+ r•F r+ = ri+ = r+ .—l- n
r' Q. r' r' 0 0
a) T.' % 3
U) C
U) U)U) U) CDv v
CD
CD CD CD CD
O
:.........:......:::.....:.....::.'.:.: i::: d:}"}}:f'::v�:::;.'}}i%•.:.:x.�f'{:Jj:'i::ti'I,•i`:::i::t>T`:i:{:f y:i'vi}:iv C:is"'}:}}:Y`................$'>:i�:C:.
v.::: ..... ...:�Y,
if
•::
bY`<
;<
d>
. :: .�:: :::::::::
Q
O , ...;. .... ,..i, ....
::.. . ..
cc
UL
■�
ti
O o1 O
,O O
0)
� a
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ED CHOW, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1992
SUBJECT: RENAMING KENT MEMORIAL PARK
At the last Parks Committee meeting a proposal was made to rename Kent Memorial Park. I asked
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk, to research the naming of the park originally. Ms. Jacober was able
to determine that in 1958 -- 34 years ago -- the City Council indicated to individuals that the Park
was to be named in memory of Americans killed in World War I and World War II. Enclosed is a
copy of a portion of the May 19, 1958 Council meeting minutes that referred to that item.
Since their intent was to honor those killed in service to their Country, I hope you will consider
leaving the park as it was originally named.
Thank you for your consideration.
EC:jb
cc: Parks Department
American Legion
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Disabled American Veterans
Vietnam Veterans of America
Paralyzed Veterans of America
fRECEBVE®
A L'
t, AUG 1.81992
CM/AD"NliSTRATION
J�
Kent, Washington May 19, '1958.
'•` f Regular meeting of the City Council present, Mayor Thornton,
Z rCouncilmen; Pozzi, Scott,- Shaffer, Strain, Woodworth; .
;; Minutes approved as printed of *the last regular meeting.
9. '4" Report of officers presenbdand by motion placed on file
%r IreasurerIs, Clerk Is and Budget;/ '
"t ;3 Councilman Strain moved that a residential light be placed
ti at the intersection of Crest Avenue and Chicago Street, and for
1 K,the clerk to notify the Power Company for installation of
"I ieame. motion carried.
P: Councilman Strain announced that the people on Walnut
+` street would like to have a street light about a block west .
of the Reiter Rd. om Walnut Street, but I am not in favor
{until they improve their street for acceptance by the City.
<; Motion passed to install a street light at Walnut and Lane
'because the Lane street was an improved street, with black-
;top and curbs, Councilman Strain voted no on the light.
a` Councilman Shaffer announced to the council that Mr.
'Atkinson of the H.P.Pratt Co was prsent and that we were
;..ready to pass the Bond ordinate for the sale of 4 145,000.
'
I move that Ordinance No. 982, entitled. . ..
4 P ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the
issuance of $145,000: .of water revenue bonds '6f`the city out
to t of the $$870,000. of such bonds authorized by'Ordinance No. 949•A
of the city as amended' by Ordinance No. 956 of the city, for the
' purpose of providing funds to acquire, construct and install a
!: certain extension of the water supply and distribution system of th,
city as authorized by said ordinances; providing the date, form
�1: terms and maturities of said bonds to be issued; creating a
Bond Redemption Fund for the payment of the principal thereof
.d k and interest thereon and a Reserve Account; providing certain
Q covenants and protective features safeguarding the payment of
1 the principal of and interest on such bonds; authorizing the
issuance of revenue bonds of the city in the future on a parity
�i with the bonds authorized herein upon compliance with certain
conditions; confirming the sale of said bonds; amending
o f' Section 13' of said Ordinance No 956; and declaring an
emergency.
i �. be adopted.
(„ Motion made by Shaffer, seconded by Strain and duly passed
the vote of the Council, Yes 5; No 0.
�;✓Letter read from the Kent Coaches Association of School District
.a ± No, 415 requesting the council to name the Kent Recreation Park
after Mr. Pete Baffaro. Motion passed to have the clerk answer
the letter and inform them that the Park has already been
:i. named " Kent Memorial Park " for the war dead of War I and II.
Request received from people living along West Cowe Street
to control parking time but no meters, was turned over to
a ( Police Committee.
Letter read from Star Lake Improvement Club requesting the
n City not to annex the west sddeannexation property, because
t it would cut fire district No. 30 in halftivlotion passed to
J j?4 have the clerk answer the letter, and place on file.
Letter from Hil & Ingman stating thht they have now placed
nYI with the City Engineer complete tracings of the Contract IV
5 and Contract VII, It As-Built" .
List of signatures requesting the council to adopt the
King County Library System. Motion past to place on file,
? and also make a note to the Library Board of the signatures.
Resolution No. 399 by motion duly passed and adopted to
k. :: fix a time and place for a hearing on the " Clifford Pettion
for annexation" Date to be is June 2, 1958.
t+ Ordinance No. 983 duly passed in regard to public office
a. hours of the City of Kent.
Resolution No. 400 duly passed the vote of the council for
t a ten year contract with the Power Co. for street lights.
continued
CITY OF
vy�r
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 4 , 1992 4 : 00 PM
.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF
Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker
Judy Woods Ed Chow
Roger Lubovich
PLANNING STAFF GUESTS
Sharon Clamp Ron weigett
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. SATTERSTROM)
No update was available.
URBAN GROWTH AREA (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning
Committee considered four alternative interim urban growth area
boundaries at its June 16, 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended Alternative 4, which would extend the urban growth area
to include the Covington area. Planning Committee members
expressed support for Alternative 3 but asked for further
information on Alternative 4 , particularly on the impacts of
providing the Covington area with City services. Mr. Satterstrom
reviewed a staff report which showed land area, population, and
employment projections for each alternative compared to current
City statistics. He explained further that the Fire, Police,
Public Works, and Parks Departments were asked to assess what the
impact would be to City service should the city limits eventually
be extended to the Covington area.
The Fire Department's service area includes all of the area within
Alternative 4 . This alternative would annex all of Fire District
37 ' s fire stations and would include more than 60 percent of the
District' s overall area. Under state law, this means that the City
would have to provide fire protection service to the entire
district.
The Police Department estimates that including the Covington area
into the City' s service area would require approximately five
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 41 1992
PAGE 2
additional officers, 1 correction officer, 1/2 detective and
traffic officer, and 1 additional car.
The Public Works Department stated that water and sewer utilities
located outside the city limits are self-supporting through user
fees. The Department estimates that it costs $200 to $300 per acre
to provide street improvements and maintenance (including
drainage) . The area of Alternative 4 is approximately three square
miles larger than the area of Alternative 3 , representing an
additional cost of $384, 000 to $576 , 000.
The Parks Department stated the advantages to Alternative 4 would
be a larger area within which the City would receive tax dollars
and potential impact fees, better coordination of services, and the
City' s assumption of some already developed parks and facilities.
The Parks Department stated disadvantages include the need to hire
more maintenance and recreation staff and the need for a new
maintenance facility due to the larger service area.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the updated Soos Creek Community
Plan adopted by the King County Council in 1991 designates the
Covington area as an Urban Activity Center and designates the
preliminary urban growth area for Kent not to extend east of Big
Soos Creek.
Chair Orr supports Alternative 3 , and Judy Woods stated that she
knows for a fact that Jon Johnson supports Alternative 3 . The
Committee will conduct a formal vote on this item at its August 18
meeting and it will be placed on the Council agenda for
September 1.
Council President Woods expressed concern about the complexity of
the issues involved in the countywide planning goals and the
decision whether to become an urban center and ratification of the
countywide planning policies. She is concerned about the degree of
understanding of these issues by some members of the Council.
Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that Council action on these two
issues will take place separately and agreed to Ms. Wood' s request
of an executive summary for all Council members clearly stating the
issues and how action on these issues will take place. This topic
will also be discussed at the Planning Committee' s August 18
meeting as an information item.
SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS)
City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that State statute calls for
an administrative process for approval of short plats . If a parcel
of land meets certain criteria, the owner has the right to
subdivide that parcel. He explained that Kent has an
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 4 , 1992
PAGE 3
administrative committee made up of various City officials who
review the application to see if it meets certain criteria, and
then either approves, approves with conditions, or denies the
application. If denied, it can be appealed to the Council.
Questions which have come up with respect to the current process
are:
1. Is the committee process internal or open to the public?
2 . Who has the right to appeal; only the applicant or another
member of the public such as a neighbor?
3 . Should the current process be modified or streamlined? To
what extent should the public be allowed to participate? Who
has the right to appeal and to which body should it be
appealed to?
Mr. Lubovich stated that Seattle has a very short administrative
process and has specific public notice guidelines. A notice is
posted on the property and public written comment is allowed. The
Seattle Planning Director makes the decision which can be appealed
to the Hearing Examiner. King County has a very long, elaborate
and cumbersome process. After looking at Seattle and King County' s
processes, a preliminary proposal which provides for public notice
to be posted on the property, an internal review, notices to be
sent to property owners within 100 to 200 feet of the affected
property, and allowing the public 15 days to provide written
comment might be in order. The Planning Director could make the
determination and appeals could be heard by the Hearing Examiner
after which it could be appealed to court. The group of aggrieved
parties that can appeal needs to be identified.
Staff will work on an ordinance for Planning Committee review.
ADDED ITEMS
Chair Orr requested that the Planning Committee start receiving
updates on the Regional Justice Center as appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4 : 40 p.m.
PC0804 . 92
BRENDA JACOBER
(please put in
���� Council agenda packet)
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
August 18 , 1992
d5Y®%cC°IGp
Committee Members Present Guests
Jim Bennett Don McDaniel
Jon Johnson Barbara Simpson
Leona Orr, Chair Mike Spence
Paul Seely
Planning Staff
James P. Harris
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom
CitV Attorney ' s Office
Tom Brubaker
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE F. SATTERSTROM
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Wetlands
Ordinance, which is a requirement of the Growth Management Act, was
scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting in July but there was
lack of a quorum. It is scheduled again for a public hearing on
August 24 , 1992 and hopefully will be coming to the full council
shortly thereafter.
A second agenda item on the Planning Commission' s agenda next
Monday is Growth Management Planning Goals which will help serve as
the framework for Kent ' s revised Comprehensive Plan. IMr.
Satterstrom noted that the concept of an urban center is included
within the context of the planning goals .
It is anticipated that the Wetlands Ordinance, Growth Management
Planning Goals, and Urban Growth Areas will be on the full
council ' s agenda on September 1, 1992 .
Mr. Satterstrom stated other cities are calling to inquire about
the ability of the City of Kent and other jurisdictions to meet the
State mandated deadlines for the Growth Management Act. Mr.
Satterstrom commented that the City of Kent plans on keeping the
deadlines but realizes the layers of tasks that have been added to
this comprehensive planning process could add time as well as
effort in order to meet the July 1 , 1993 deadline .
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
Planning Director Harris stated Federal Way and Kirkland have told
the State they will be doing their comprehensive plan one year
late. Des Moines stated they will have trouble with the timelines
too.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning
Committee delayed voting on four alternative interim urban growth
area boundaries at its August 4 , 1992 meeting. The Planning
Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban
growth area to include the Covington area. The Planning staff
recommended Alternative 3 , which conforms to the 20 year annexation
plan the City Council adopted three or four years ago and is more
serviceable.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth
area. Councilmember Johnson stated he was in favor of Alternative
3 versus Alternative 4 because he did not think the City should go
out as far as Covington and it did not seem practical or
serviceable. Councilmembers Orr and Bennett agreed. Motion
carried. This item will be placed on the September 1 , 1992 City
Council agenda .
RATIFICATION OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (F SATTERSTROM)
Prior to the King County Council adoption on July 6 of the
recommended County Wide Planning Policies (known as Growth
Management Planning Council) , the Planning Committee discussed this
item two or three times. Now we are in the ratification process.
This ratification process requires at least 30 percent of the
jurisdictions within the county comprising of at least 70 percent
of the county' s population to ratify the policies .
Ratification can be done either of two ways :
1) Ratification by Resolution or Motion of a city.
2) Ratification by no action of a city. If a city does not
disapprove it within 90 days, it is considered ratified.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that on August 18 , 1992 the City Council
will only be setting a date for a public hearing for September 1 as
an action item to begin the ratification process . The County
recognizes that cities as well as the public may have amendments to
the County Wide Planning Policies that were adopted on July 6,
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
1992 . During Phase II of the County Wide Planning Policies, there
may be suggestions for amendments to the policies . When the GMPC
reconvenes no later than December of 1992 , they will evaluate the
public comments and other relevant information and prepare
amendments. Then any such recommended amendments shall be subject
to adoption by the County and then go through a ratification
process.
Chair Orr opened the meeting for public comments and mentioned she
had received a letter from the Board of Realtors . Mike Spence from
the Association of Realtors stated the primary reason for this
organization getting involved in this issue is because of the huge
effects that this could have on housing affordability. With this
in mind, they reviewed the County Wide Planning Policies and would
like to see a supplemental environmental impact statement prepared
as well as a fiscal analysis done.
Paul Seeley from the Boeing Company agreed with Mike Spence. He
encouraged the Council to ratify the policies, but is pleased to be
able to make suggestions . He is concerned and has some problems
with being able to meet the criteria as described in activity
centers, urban centers , urban growth boundaries, etc. Some of
these things do not seem to fit in the ratification process . For
example, he said the density requirements for manufacturing require
about 15, 000 employees per acre . With this as the criteria, the
Boeing Company would have to leave the State of Washington for all
of its sites. They would like to be able to keep our options open.
Don McDaniel from Puget Power said they would like to keep their
options open.
Barbara Simpson from the Kent Chamber of Commerce said to take our
time in the process to make amendments .
Chair Orr asked if the full council has to vote on ratification on
September 1 or could they take the comments and considerations back
to Planning Committee, develop our recommendations as far as any
changes or amendments we would like to see, and then bring this
item back to the full council for their approval in 30 days? Mr.
Satterstrom responded that the County ' s ordinance specifies
ratification within 90 days of adoption by King County (October 6)
It was pointed out that October 6 is a meeting night for the City
of Kent full council . Chair Orr suggested this item come back to
the Committee on September 15 and to the full council on October 6 .
Mr. Satterstrom will call the County to find out an answer to this
question. Another suggestion is for this to go to the Planning
Committee on September 15 and on to the full council the same
night . Chair Orr suggested the council give an indication on
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
September 1 as to whether they plan on ratifying the policies and
providing suggestions and recommendations later.
Mr. Satterstrom added the policies designate a specified process
wherein a city can nominate itself as an urban center and forward
that designation by October 1st to the County to be considered by
the GMPC by December 1992 . This process for designation is set
forth in the County Wide Planning Policies which the City of Kent
is being asked to ratify.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that another item coming to the full
council on September 1 is Growth Management Planning Goals, wherein
the Planning Commission will have considered the proposal by the
Planning Department as to whether or not the City of Kent wants to
designate itself as an urban center. This needs to be acted on in
time to get this information to the GMPC by October 1st. It was
discussed that perhaps action could be deferred to September 15 if
additional time is needed.
Mr. Harris reminded the Planning Committee that those cities that
designate themselves as urban centers are going to get the highway
funds, transit funds , and other kinds of funds .
councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a
motion to put the County Wide Planning Policies on the consent
calendar August 18 to set a public hearing date for September 1 for
the ratification. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the
September 1 City Council agenda for a public hearing.
SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS)
Mr. Harris passed out a draft document called "Short Plat Process"
consisting of current procedures and two proposed changes .
Mr. Harris stated in Proposed Change No . 2 questions might occur as
to why would the public would not be invited to come to a short
plat meeting. He stated the reason was because short plats are
administrative by State law. Another question is whether the
public would have the right to appeal ; appeal procedures would need
to be written.
Tom Brubaker from the Law Department had some ideas for the
Committee to think about on these two different possibilities. He
said the short plat procedure as written in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) is to cut red tape and be a fast remedy for
property owners who want to short plat. One extreme is not having
nearby property owners who notified . Another is a more elaborate
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 18 , 1992
notification process, which can defeat the main purpose of a fast
remedy. Therefore, he suggests a balance between the two. One
suggestion Mr. Brubaker made is to provide a very tight limitations
period within which an affected citizen could present an appeal and
enforce it strictly.
Chair Orr asked for this item to be brought back to the Committee
at the next meeting on September 1 as an information item. Chair
Orr asked for council members ' comments and suggested that the
Wards be sent a copy of Harris ' proposal .
ADDED ITEMS:
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER (J. Harris)
Mr. Harris stated that he recently met with other staff members and
Wendy Keller, representing the County, whose in charge of this
project. On August 24 , the County Council will begin to act on
parts of the Regional Justice Center . Another item being worked is
by the Department of Ecology on a remedial cleanup proposal of
contaminates at a level III on one or both of the justice center
sites . In addition, the County Council will soon be approving the
team of architects to design the justice center building. It is
estimated that in October the Planning Department may receive a set
of plans . At that time, the Planning Department becomes the
responsible agency for issuing a permit or a license. The
Department will be reviewing the County ' s environmental impact
statement and statements or comments from anyone else to be used as
input to determine if additional mitigation will need to take
place. Mr. Harris encourages the Human Services Commission to
write to the City Council and the County about any of their
concerns . It is possible that this issue could come to the voters
in November.
Mr. Harris notified the Committee that Katherine Scott will be
giving an update of the regional justice center at the City Council
meeting on August 18 .
PERMIT PROCESS REPORT
Chair Orr requested that the Permit Process Report be brought to
the Committee for discussion at the September 1 or 15 meeting with
staff impacts in the Planning Department and the public. Mr.
Harris suggested to define the overall permit process (the big
picture) in the Planning Department and look at what changes can
occur.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 30 p .m.
PC0818 .min
5
PUBLIC WORKS COMNIMEE
AUGUST 26, 1992
PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill
Jim Bennett Tim LaPorte
Paul Mann Ed White
Don Wickstrom Tony McCarthy
Tom Brubaker Jean Parietti
Mr. and Mrs. Rust, Bill Doolittle, Lloyd Plunkett, Edward
Pawlowski, Ronda Taylor, Bill Joy, Chris Clifford, Robert Whalen,
Connie Epperly
Request for Sewer Service New Hope Free Will Baptist Church
Wickstrom explained the request is for sewer service to property
east of 132nd on the north side of Kent Kangley. It is currently
undeveloped but there are plans to construct a church on the site.
The City has a moratorium for utility service outside the City
limits. The moratorium does not allow for any exemptions. White
asked if we have extended utility service for schools outside the
city limits. Wickstrom stated that we have just received a water
and sewer availability request for a new school on 108th just south
of- 274th. With this moratorium we have no means of allowing the
extensions without going to Council . White commented that once the
County establishes the permanent urban growth boundaries which has
to happen by July, 1993 , this moratorium would be eliminated.
White asked what would need to be done to allow utility service for
churches, public buildings, etc. Brubaker responded the resolution
could be revised to allow exemptions for government agencies,
schools, and non-profit organizations. Bennett asked about the
cost of extending the sewer service. Wickstrom clarified there
would be no cost to the city but a cost of extending sewer is
approximately $200 per foot. Bill Doolittle asked what would be
the consequences of repealing the moratorium altogether. Wickstrom
responded there would probably not be much impact. The County
already has a moratorium on residential development based on school
capacity. Thus, the impact would be from commercial development
and there is only a limited area of commercial in our service area.
The Committee unanimously recommended amending the resolution to
allow exemptions for governmental agencies, non-profit
organizations and schools.
272nd/277th Corridor
Wickstrom commented that the Public Works Department's
recommendation remains the same to proceed with the project and
pursue the establishment of the preferred alignment with the
County. Mann commented it would seem that we are working with the
assumptions that Auburn would build their portion and that King
County would also extend the road out to Highway 18 . Wickstrom
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 2
stated that we are not working on any assumption that the County
will continue the corridor. That is a separate project. As to
whether Auburn will proceed with improvement of the span between
the freeway and EVH, Auburn has indicated that is their intent.
Wickstrom continued that they could change their mind; however,
once the traffic on that section increases, Auburn becomes more
eligible to receive Urban Arterial Trust funds. There are $40
million available in the Urban Arterial Trust funds over the next
biennium as compared to approximately $15 million in the
Transportation Improvement Account funds. Mann asked if we have
talked with Auburn at all about the project. LaPorte responded
that Auburn has been a member of our technical advisory committee
for about four years so the roles of each entity have been pretty
well discussed. In addition, the City of Auburn and the City of
Kent are both members of the County's technical advisory committee.
Mann asked if the Federal Way School District has been contacted
since the last Council meeting. LaPorte commented that we have not
as yet. Mann stated another assumption is that the project will
cost between $16 to $25 million. He thought these were three year
old estimates and wanted to know if that has changed. It was
confirmed that the estimate is not three years old but only about
9 months to 1 year old and we haven't seen an increase in
construction costs particularly in large projects. Wickstrom
stated the biggest unknown in the project estimate is how much fill
needs to be removed. That $25 million estimate is based on moving
almost 1. 5 million yards of material. There are ways we can save
on this item but we need to get into preliminary design to
determine those factors. Mann wanted to know how much it would
cost in four years to move the fill. Wickstrom stated that again
it would depend on how much and how the fill is moved. Wickstrom
continued that giving the approval to proceed now does not
eliminate the ability to later stop the project. There are many
steps along the way at which Council can stop the project such as
allocation of the remaining funds, forming the local improvement
district, etc. We want to proceed to the next stage so that we can
do the engineering necessary to develop a more finite cost
estimate. Bennett asked what the next stage would cost. Wickstrom
explained that the City has a 50% matching TIB grant for a total
project cost of $450, 000 which includes finishing the FEIS and the
next stage. As such, our out of pocket expense could be as high as
$225, 000. Mann asked if we had the City's match available.
Wickstrom stated that we have the $2 million bond issue that we
haven't spent, the original $B0o, o00 budgeted several years ago and
$600, 000 in mitigation fees. Responding to Mann's question, the
bonds can only be used for roads; the mitigation payments can only
be used for the 272nd Corridor; gas tax funds can only be used on
arterials but it can be reallocated at Council direction; vehicle
registration fees can only be used on the three east-west corridor
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 3
projects; the $800, 000 was budgeted in capital improvement funds
from gas tax funds. All these sources make up the funding packages
for the three corridors. Wickstrom clarified that Council has
authorized $5 million in councilmanic bonds but have only sold $2
million to date. The debt payment for the bond issue comes from
the gas tax funds. The bonding attorneys have stated it is likely
the bonds could be used for other projects but that could be
subject to challenge due to prior court rulings. White commented
that we need a combination of improvements to meet our
transportation needs; the corridors are one part and a transit
system is another part. Wickstrom added that if we proceed and get
the alignment established with the County, Council could still back
away from the project and the County would then have something with
which to work to build the road should they so choose. Mann said
he was concerned that the County has drug their feet on this and
expects the City to move ahead. Mann asked how much money the City
might have to spend in litigation on the project Brubaker stated
that at this point there are no monetary damages that anyone could
ask for. Possibly they could ask that the final EIS be
supplemented or that it be rejected for being inadequate. Legal
fees might be $20-30, 000 - it is hard to give a figure when you
don't know what will be involved. Laporte stated that a common
comment 'we have heard is that the people in the County would like
for their representatives to make the decision. Moving this to the
next step which is to the King County Council would be the best and
cheapest way for opponents to challenge the project rather than to
start a litigation process. Mann wanted to .know what the Public
Works Department's track record is for estimating projects.
Wickstrom stated that we have been under budget for our most recent
large projects . We have been off target on a few, mostly smaller
projects. LaPorte added that this project does not involve any
unusual engineering technology or practices. The largest unknown
is simply the quantity of material. Mike Delles stated that the
level of detail used to establish the cost estimate was much
greater than typically done for a conceptual project so the
estimate will be much more accurate. Bennett confirmed that if we
go to the next phase we would be able to develop a more definite
project cost. White stated that the problem will not go away if we
don't take any action. By the time the road is built, if it is,
traffic will be so bad at Kent Kangley and Benson that we'll long
for the "good old days in 1992" when we only had 56, 000 cars a day
through there. Bennett asked who has responsibility for the signal
synchronization at the intersection of 272nd and Auburn Way North.
Wickstrom commented that now it is Auburn. Bennett stated we wanted
to work in cooperation with Auburn on operation of that signal.
Bennett made a motion to pass this on to the September 1 Council
meeting with a recommendation for approval . White seconded. Mann
stated he questioned the assumption that it will improve traffic
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 4
flow. He felt it was possible it would increase traffic flow by
encouraging new development and encouraging traffic to seek this
new corridor and might make the intersection of 104th and 256th
even worse. He was uncomfortable with the assumption that Auburn
would make necessary improvements on their portion. Wickstrom
responded that the whole SR 516 corridor down through Canyon Drive
is at capacity especially by Jason where we are moving 40, 000
vehicles a day when it is designed for 25-30, 000. That is why we
have a lot of safety problems with that road. If you don't provide
this corridor, you will have similar situations on James Street.
Our existing capacity is full and there is still a lot of growth
potential in the County. Wickstrom clarified the reason we did not
propose carrying this corridor out to 132nd is that we would be
affecting another neighborhood and another major wetland area and
would not be diverting that much more traffic thus we would not get
that much more benefit from the road. The City's project has never
been proposed to extend out to Highway 18 . Gill added that the
County is planning to widen and improve 256th to four lanes minimum
from 116th to near Highway 18, as well as 240th and 192nd. If the
City's ' east-west corridors can get traffic up the hillside, then
traffic will chose the most convenient route to the nearest
arterial roadway to head further east so it may not all funnel onto
Kent Kangley. A gentleman from the audience asked if there has
been any more discussion with the people on the west hill around
the existing 272nd corridor. He stated there are about 47
residences that have driveways directly onto 272nd, and there are
eight cross streets. He stated he was not against the project but
felt the impact on the west hill should be better evaluated.
LaPorte added that the west hill residents were advised of the
project about three years ago and about 100 west hill residents
attended a meeting at that time. Additionally our traffic analysis
shows that the section of 277th between 167 and 181 will not be
deficient because of this project but may be deficient for other
reasons. If safety improvements need to be constructed for that
street because of existing conditions or reasons other than this
project, the County needs to deal with it. With regard to the
Federal Way School District, while we have not contacted them
recently, the EIS notification was sent to all the different
agencies and we did not receive a response from the Federal Way
School District. We will, however, pursue further contact with
them. Paul Mann stated we should follow Jim White's advice and
also put as much effort into other modes of transporting people as
we are putting into this. Wickstrom responded that is a given out
of the Growth Management Act.
The Committee voted 2-1 - Paul Mann dissenting - to forward the
project to the Council with a recommendation to proceed and pursue
establishment of the preferred alignment with the County.
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 5
Bid opening Del Webb Pump Station
Wickstrom stated six bids were received ranging from $60, 000 to
$120, 000 with an engineer's estimate of $73 , 000. Wickstrom stated
he would recommend awarding the project to R.W. Scott Construction.
The project will add some life to our pump station. It is
currently operating beyond its capability. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval to award to R.W. Scott
Construction.
Bid Opening Horseshoe Acres Pump Station
Two bids were received on this project. Wickstrom stated he would
recommend awarding to the low bidder, Omega Construction. The
project would provide a telemetering system for the station. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval to award the project to
Omega Construction.
Procurement Ordinance
Brubaker stated the State legislature has passed a new law
encouraging the use of recycled products by forcing government
agencies to meet certain standards, use a certain percentage of
paper and other products out of recycled materials. From that King
County developed a model ordinance which, if we comply with, places
us in a position to receive some grant funds from the County.
Karen Siegel clarified that the adoption of this procurement
ordinance is one of the criteria for eligibility for this grant
program should we apply. Wickstrom added this is also a
requirement of our participation in the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Plan. A staff committee reviewed the model ordinance,
made some revisions and developed the ordinance submitted to the
Committee. Paul Mann added he had also asked the legal department
to look into developing such an ordinance. The Committee
unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance.
King County Housing Authority Real Estate Signs
Wickstrom stated that King County Housing Authority has requested
to place directional signs on our East Hill Well property on 104th
and approximately 244th and one at the air injector station at Kent
Kangley and approximately 120th Avenue S.E. These signs would
provide direction to their Glenbrook affordable housing
development. Wickstrom suggested we would want to concur since it
is a public entity making the request and is for a worthy cause.
They would, however, have to comply with all the code requirements.
He doubted if they could do so for the East Hill Well site. After
Public Works Committee
August 26, 1992
Page 6
discussion, the Committee voted 1-2 - Jim White and Jim Bennett
dissenting - to deny the request.
South King County Area Transportation Agreement
Wickstrom stated we had previously distributed this material to the
Committee for their review. However, the comment period has
probably expired. Jim White, who attended the latest meeting of
the group, stated a committee called South County Transportation
group comprised of representatives of all the cities and a couple
of County councilmen will be working together to ensure more
federal road funding for south King County.
Bill of Sale for East Hill Shopping Center
Wickstrom commented we have finally obtained the bill of sale from
the property owner. The City had to provide the survey and prepare
the asbuilts in order to get to this point. We are recommending
accepting the bill of sale and releasing the bonds. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval .
Other Items
Bill Doolittle requested staff look at the intersection of Meeker
and State and consider installation of a four way stop. He said
most people stop so he thought it would make sense to just go ahead
and put a couple more stop signs in. Ed White stated that it would
not meet any warrants for a four way stop but Council could direct
the installation. Jim White suggested the Committee members take
a look at the intersection to see what they think about it and
bring their suggestions to the Committee. Bill Doolittle also
commented about Canyon Road. Westbound he has observed that
traffic follows the separation of surface types rather than the
buttons. He commented he felt it could present safety problems
especially in the rain. Wickstrom commented that the pavement of
that road is still the responsibility of the State. Gill stated we
have requested the State include it in their next biennial
consideration for overlay projects.
Mrs. Rust asked about the City policy that City employees were not
allowed to use their City vehicles to go to the bank or to lunch.
McCarthy commented that it is part of a vehicle policy being
developed by the Executive Committee. The use of City vehicles for
personal use is considered an inappropriate use.