HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/15/1994City of
CRY Council Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF I JIB r
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
November 15, 1994
Office of the City Clerk
-1�o A
01 o�d
MAYOR: Jim
Jim Bennett
Jon Johnson
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 15, 1994
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Tim Clark Christi Houser
Paul Mann Leona Orr
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Y Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
B. Proclamation - Otillia K. Jury Day
1. Regional Justice Center Update
D. Port of Seattle Briefing
`•RQ55eli H-mles
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
,A� East Hill/Ramstead Annexation Zoning AZ -94-2
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
/A-� Approval of Minutes
Approval of Bills
Saturday Market Advisory Board - Appointment
Human Services Commission - Appointment
,,E: Ratification of Countywide Planning Policies
Resolution
Video Arraignment
Fire Equipment Replacement
Refinancing Golf Course Debt for Golf Course
Improvements
-1: Excise Tax Refund
Capital
43rd Place Sanitary Sewer Extension - Bill of Sale
Soos Creek SWD Future Service Area Interlocal Agreement
Landing Way Street Vacation - Ordinance
,M Mauritsen Access and Utility Easement
4. OTHER BUSINESS
Red Robin Rezone RZ-94-1
1995 Budget - Ordinance
1995 Tax Levy - Ordinance
MCI Metro Franchise Ordinance - First Reading
Meridian Annexation AN -94-7 - 10% Petition
(t e t7� 1 ae P rt raw Ca- 1 -til
5. BID
Downtown Wheelchair Ramps
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7. /DEPORTS
., 7 CUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations
8. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City
Clerk's Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in
advance for more information. For TDD relay service call 1-800-635-9993 or the
City of Kent (206) 854-6587.
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) Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
B) Proclamation - Otillia K. Jury Day
C) Regional Justice Center Update
D) Port of Seattle Briefing
1.
SUBJECT:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Public Hearings
EAST HILL/RAMSTEAD ANNEXATION ZONING AZ -94-2
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the proposed initial zoning designation as outlined
in Attachment A for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo including Attachment A map; Staff report
of 10/24/94, Planning Commission minutes of 10/24/94
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember (moves, Councilmember seconds
to hold the second public hearing on the East Hill/Ramstead
Annexation Zoning on January 3, 1995, as previously set.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
0
M C
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1994
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ZONING FOR THE
RAMSTEAD/EAST HILL ANNEXATION AREA (#AZ -94-2)
Following a public hearing on October 24, 1994, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend initial zoning for the Ramstead/East Hill annexation area. The Planning
Commission's zoning recommendation is shown on the attached map, labeled
Attachment A.
The City Council is required by state law to hold two public hearings on the proposed
annexation zoning. The first hearing is scheduled for November 15, 1995, and the
second hearing is scheduled for January 3, 1995.
JPH/mp:fs:a:ramstead.cc
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Attachment A
RAMS TEAD/EASTHILL
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED ZONING
PROPOSED ZONE BOUNDARY N
RAMSTEAD/EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA
r.TTY LIMITS
-- 277TH CORRIDOR jr
OI
CITY OF L4�LC!2 Z5 CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 24, 1994
MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: LYN KEENAN, CONSULTING PLANNER
SUBJECT: RAMSTEAD/EAST HILL ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING #AZ -94-2
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The current proposal is establishment of initial City of Kent zoning for properties located
within the Ramstead Annexation.
B. History
On July 1, 1994 the City of Kent annexed 594 acres known as the "Ramstead/East Hill
Annexation". Per the requirements of Section 15.03.020E of the Kent Zoning Code, this
area was then given an interim zone of R1-20 (Single -Family Residential, 20,000 sq.ft.
minimum lot size). The interim zone must be replaced by Kent's initial zoning within
six months.
C. Location and Size
The Ramstead/East Hill Annexation encompasses 594 acres situated on Kent's East Hill,
generally south and east of the existing commercial development at the 104th
Ave.SE/Kent Kangley Rd. intersection. A small portion of the annexation extends
westerly to the valley floor.
The northern boundaries of the annexation are SE 264th St. (extended) and Kent Kangley
Road. The eastern boundary is an irregular shaped line extending from 120th Ave. SE
at Kent-Kangley Road to 116th Ave.SE at SE 276th St.SE. The southern boundary is
approximately SE 276th St. SE (extended) and SE 284th St. at 104th Ave. SE (extended).
The western boundary is approximately 98th Ave.SE (extended), the Green River, and
102nd Ave.SE (extended). (Figure 5)
II. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES
A. Topography
The majority of the annexation area encompasses flat and rolling terrain atop the East
Hill Plateau. A few small ravines with narrow bands of 5%-20% slopes are also found
atop the plateau. The western portion of the annexation area encompasses the steep,
west -facing slope of East Hill. Slopes in this area generally range from 30%-40%, with
the steepest slopes at approximately 70%. The small area on the valley floor is flat.
B. Soils
Atop the plateau, soils outside the ravines and/or wetlands are mapped as Alder -wood
gravelly sandy loam. This soil type is considered generally suitable for urban
development. Soils within the ravines and wetlands are identified as the
Norma/Tukwila/Seattle series. These soils present certain hazards to development (poor
drainage, seasonal high water table, and seismic hazards).
The steep, west -facing slope of East Hill is mapped as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very
steep. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF) has mapped these slopes
as Class III landslide, Class III seismic, and erosion hazard areas.
Soils on the valley floor have been mapped as of the Oridia/Briscot/Puyallup/Newberg
series. Potential hazards relate to the seasonal high water table, flooding and poor
drainage.
C. Surface Water
The annexation area is situated within three drainage basins. The eastern portion drains
into Soosette Creek, part of the Soos Creek drainage basin. The southwestern portion
of the area drains westerly and southerly through ravines to the lower Green River. The
central portion of the area drains to Mill Creek, flowing northwesterly to the City of
Kent Upper Mill Creek Detention Basin situated east of 104th Ave.SE., within the
annexation area. From the detention basin, drainage flows northerly through Mill Creek
Canyon to the valley floor and ultimately to the Green River at the Black River pump
station in Renton.
In addition to Mill Creek, the King County SAMF identifies two unclassified streams
within the northern portion of the annexation area and one wetland along the east side
of 108th Ave.SE. The 1991 Draft EIS for the 272nd/277th Corridor Study also
identified several smaller wetlands along the proposed arterial corridor. These small
wetlands were determined to be of low functional value. Some wetlands may also exist
on the valley floor at the base of the hillside.
The Green River is designated as a Class 1 stream. That portion of the annexation area
adjacent to the river is within the 100 year floodplain.
D. Plants and Animals
Vegetation atop the plateau is a mix of urban landscaping, small stands of evergreen and
deciduous trees, and grass fields. A range of small animals, primarily birds, is found
2
in the more developed areas. Within the less developed areas, some larger species,
including deer, may be found. Wetland areas can provide important habitat.
The hillside area is still heavily vegetated. Vegetation consists primarily of second
growth evergreens, such as Douglas fir, with some deciduous species such as big -leaf
maple. The understory consists of ferns, berries, and a variety of shrubs, and smaller
maple and alder trees. The forest vegetation provides habitat for a variety of birds,
including hawks and owls. Evidence of deer, coyote, and mountain beaver have also
been found on the hillside.
The shorelines and floodplain of the Green River are occupied by grasses, sedges,
forbes, shrubs and small deciduous trees. This area typically provides habitat for
resident and migratory birds, as well as some reptiles, amphibians and some mammals.
The river itself provides freshwater habitat for a variety of birds, amphibians, resident
and migratory salmon, and other resident fish.
III. SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL FEATURES
A. Land Use
Atop the plateau, the annexation area contains a mixture of multi -family, suburban
single-family, and large lot residential land uses, as well as one small convenience store
and a portion of an elementary school site. The hillside and valley floor areas are
undeveloped except for one single-family dwelling located at the base of the hill.
Considerable single-family platting activity has occurred in the northeastern and central
portions of the plateau area. Some of these plats are completed and occupied and some
are now under construction. Multi -family residential complexes have been developed
south of Kent-Kangley Rd., along both sides of 114th Ave.SE., and at the southeast
corner of SE 264th St.and 104th Ave.SE. The western and southern portions of the
plateau area are occupied by large lot single-family residences. The City of Kent Upper
Mill Creek Detention Basin is situated in the central portion of the plateau area, but is
not part of this annexation as it was already within the city limits. A new elementary
school is located east of 108th Ave. SE at the southern annexation boundary.
B. Circulation System
The annexation area is served by an incomplete grid pattern consisting of both arterials
and local access streets. The plateau area is now accessed via Kent-Kangley Road
(SR516), a fully improved five lane east -west major arterial. Local east -west access
within the annexation area is provided by discontinuous sections of local streets such as
SE 264th St, SE 267th St., and SE 272nd St. North -south circulation is provided by
104th Ave.SE, 106th Ave.SE, Ave.SE, 108th Ave.SE, 114th Ave. SE, and 116th
Ave.SE. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation is generally limited to road shoulders.
Newer plats include sidewalks.
When constructed, the new 272nd/277th arterial will pass through the southern and
eastern portions of the annexation area and will provide a new arterial connection
3
between the valley floor and East Hill. The new arterial will intersect Kent-Kangley
Road at 116th Ave. SE.
That portion of the annexation area on the valley floor is accessed by the Green River
Road.
C. Water and Sewer Systems
The Ramstead/East Hill annexation is within the City of Kent water franchise area.
Existing lines serve development in the central and eastern portions of the annexation
area. The plan for the Kent water system anticipates serving the annexation area.
The annexation area, with the exception of the hillside and valley floor areas, is also
within the City of Kent sewer franchise area. Existing lines now serve only the central
and eastern portions of the plateau area, but the sewer plan anticipates expansion of
sanitary sewers throughout the remainder of the franchise area.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. King County Planning and Zoning
For purposes of King County planning, the Ramstead/East Hill annexation lies within the
County's Soos Creek community planning area. The Soos Creek Community Plan was
last updated in 1991. This plan designated multi -family, single-family and urban
separator uses within the annexation area. Multi -family areas (9-30 units per acre) were
designated in the following locations: south of SE 264th St. along both sides of 104th
Ave. SE; south of Sequoia Junior High School; and south of Kent-Kangley Road along
both sides of 114th Ave.SE. The remainder of the annexation plateau area was
designated Single-family, 1-8 units per acre, and the hillside and valley floor areas were
designated Urban Separator, 1 unit per acre, clustered. The plateau portion of the
annexation area was identified as within the City of Kent's preliminary urban growth
area.
The 1992 County zoning adopted in conjunction with this Plan reflects the Plan's land
use designations as well as Plan policies related to directing urban growth to appropriate
areas and phasing that growth. (See Figure 1) New residential development was to be
phased in order to time development with the availability of services. The intent was to
encourage efficient use of urban land before opening new areas to urban development.
The Plan identified two phases of development, implemented through growth reserve
zoning. Phase 1 properties were to be zoned Growth Reserve for three years, with
underlying urban zoning to become effective on January 1, 1995. Phase 2 properties
were to remain at a low densities until annexed to a city or a plan amendment would
apply an urban density. These properties would have been eligible to apply for a rezone
in 1995. Anticipated urban density lot sizes would be approximately 7200 square feet.
Within the Ramstead/East Hill area, the multi -family areas, with the exception of the
area at the southwest comer of SE 164th St. and 104th Ave. SE (zoned RM -1800), were
4
zoned RD -3600P. One parcel west of 104th Ave. SE was also zoned RM -2400 to allow
continuation of a clinic use.
Single-family properties already committed to development (primarily in the eastern and
central portion of the annexation area) were zoned SR -7200. The remainder of the
residential area was zoned Growth Reserve 2.5 and designated as part of the Phase 2
area.
The hillside and valley floor portions of the annexation area were zoned Suburban
Cluster, one unit per acre, to implement the urban separator concept. The urban
separator is intended to help preserve environmentally sensitive areas, to provide visual
relief from continuous development and to reinforce the unique identities of communities.
B. City of Kent Planning
The Ramstead/East Hill annexation is located within the City's urban growth/potential
annexation area as established in 1992 through the joint City/County Growth
Management Act planning process.
The City of Kent has both a city-wide Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 1977, and
sub -area Plans. The goals, objectives, and policies of these plans provide direction for
future land use decisions in the City of Kent. The Ramstead/East Hill annexation lies
within the area of the East Hill subarea plan, adopted in 1982. This Plan designates the
existing multi -family area south of Kent-Kangley Road at 114th Ave.SE and an area
south of SE 264th St. along 104th Ave.SE., as MF -12, multi -family. The remainder of
the area is designated SF -6 single-family. A small area on the valley floor is designated
SF -3, single-family.
The City is now revising its 1977 Comprehensive Plan to meet requirements of the State
Growth Management Act (GMA). In September, 1992, the Kent City Council adopted
framework planning goals for the new City Comprehensive Plan. Pertinent goals are as
follows:
Urban Growth
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.
3. Growth shall occur first in areas already served by public infrastructure,
particularly roads, water and sewer systems.
Public Facilities
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
W
which ensure the adequacy of services while at the same time facilitating the
city's land use goals.
Housiniz
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.
4. Ensure environmental quality in residential areas.
Open Space and Recreation
1. The City shall provide 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.
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.
Draft goals and policies for individual plan elements, such as housing, are now being
reviewed. The draft Land Use Plan Map currently reflects County planning designations
for those areas outside the city limits.
V. INITIAL ZONING ALTERNATIVES
Three initial zoning alternatives have been developed, as follows:
Alternative 1. Continue the previous King County zoning pattern.
Alternative 1 would convert the previous King County zoning to the closest equivalent
City of Kent zoning. The conversion would be as follows:
Kins County
SC, Suburban Cluster
SR 7200, Suburban Residential
RD 3600, Two -Family Dwelling
RM 2400, Medium Density
Multi -family (18 units/acre)
RM 1800, High Density
Multi -family (24 units/acre)
GR 2.5, Growth Reserve
rol
City of Kent
RA, Residential Agriculture
R1-7.2, Single-family
MR -D, Duplex Multi -family
MR -G, Garden Density Multi-
family (16 units/acre)
MR -M, Medium Density Multi-
family (23 units/acre)
No equivalent
Inasmuch as the City does not have a Growth Reserve category, and it was the County's
intent that the GR areas would be rezoned to a higher residential density when annexed
to a city, all GR 2.5 properties would become R1-7.2 under this alternative. The zoning
pattern for this alternative is shown in Figure 2.
Alternative 2. Establish the annexation area as an urban single-family
neighborhood, bounded by the natural hillside (functioning as an urban separator)
on the west, while acknowledging existing multi -family development.
This alternative would result in: blocks of existing multi -family development being zoned
MR -G, Garden Density Multi -family (generally consistent with the density of the existing
development); the hillside and valley floor areas being zoned RA, Residential Agriculture
to preserve the natural hillside; and the, remainder of the area being zoned R1-7.2,
Single-family Residential (7200 square foot minimum lot size). Under this alternative,
undeveloped properties previously zoned multi -family in the County would now be zoned
single-family. The 7200 square foot minimum single-family lot size would result in an
"urban density" throughout the annexation area. The zoning pattern for this alternative
is shown in Figure 3.
Alternative 3. Establish the annexation area as a single-family neighborhood with
both urban and large lot densities, bounded by the natural hillside (functioning as
an urban separator) on the west, while acknowledging existing multi -family
development.
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 2 except that a wider variety of single-
family lot sizes would be encouraged. Property west of 114th Ave. SE, adjacent to the
existing multi -family development (proposed MRG) and property at the southeast corner
of SE 264th St. and 104th Ave. SE, would be zoned R1-5.0 (5000 square foot minimum
lot size). Properties in the northwestern portion of the annexation area, west of 104th
Ave. SE and north of SE 272nd St.SE would be designated R1-9.6 (9600 square foot
minimum lot size). This zoning is consistent with existing city zoning to the west and
the proximity to the hillside. Properties adjacent to, and south of, the proposed new
272nd/277th St. corridor would be zoned R1-20 to allow an area of larger lots consistent
with the more rural character of this southern area. The central and eastern portions of
the annexation area would be designated R1-7.2 (7200 square foot minimum lot size).
The zoning pattern for this alternative is shown in Figure 4.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval of Alternative 3. This alternative is
consistent with the Framework Goals of the new Comprehensive Plan, consistent with
the intent of the East Hill Plan, and consistent with the character and nature of the
planned residential development within the annexation area.
7
This alternative will require some minor modifications to the proposed City -Wide
Comprehensive Plan Map. Staff will develop these revisions and integrate them
into the Planning Commission's deliberation process on the Comprehensive Plan.
PREVIOUS KING COUNTY ZONING
KING COUNTY ZONE BOUNDARY
C�
RAM STEAD /EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA N
CITY LIMITS
1
� r^ :
ISI
I�
l :•
D-3600- I r
EFAi
�I
RM-11vOU'P11
Gi-2.5I-P
rh
:
N
t
t
I
v��✓
SR
I
1
I�
(9600)
-P
-
%I
I I hl
i
ED
-11 Fl
�,�111I
I H[fill I
1
RAMS TEAD/EASTRILL
ZONING ALTERNATIVE I
PROPOSED ZONE BOUNDARY
N
RAM STEAD /EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS 11111111°111°1111111: 277TH CORRIDOR
n \
IT Y
1 I r _I i'aatl a.
,1
MRD'—° -II �1tRD� III _�, EI'
r, MRS%
i
I Ic
r—
„ -
I
I r
C lT I r r—
�L w�`-do" I t-�'--_• ITS �_., L—I
�
Twit,
W`„4WIy 1141NYWMNY41141W1411,IIIIIIIIIWMI �_,, ��� �/� rr
I 1
W i I I , rl II 'III II
W1L��`���������
y141y4,y 1111pO11� :�`\
X1,1. ,1 a
I I
PE, �I
FIG
2
RAMSTEAD/EASTHILL
ZONING ALTERNATIVE 2
PROPOSED ZONE BOUNDARY
O RAMSTEAD/EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA N
i
CITY LIMITS nnNNNnNN.NNN 277TH CORRIDOR
vI
uh G
I n
y
sF
R
4 (� �I
1 9. 6 Iif
..
I
If
I. III
�—' I
zees
IrL—
V
i I �� ILII I c
�-
I
\, e+""WNWnwW nwwwntlw+mwsww umwinnw�l l sr III T ( r
WnnsWl 1 I `J�,,
'1 II I 'I I I'iil
uw..... iunwnswswwm I i ; .
I
!
!
I �I L� Imo_
=I1
�1L LJ I I ill
I I ��-,IIIIII
FIG.
3
RAMS TEAD/EASTHILL
ZONING ALTERNATIVE 3
STAFF RECOMMENDED ZONING
PROPOSED ZONE BOUNDARY
RAM STEAD /EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA
�--�- CITY LIMITS ^°°"""" 27 7TH CORRIDOR
\\�\
I. I
\� IINW N11110NIIINUIN111NNU��II?IU�11y1'..1�{1�111''111NIINIU 4 I � � - � \ l =
L �,oW
��NUIUMIW^' I j II
-
Li 1
uWllll
i
I '
FI(
RAMSTEAD/EASTHILL VICINITY
N
RAM STEAD /EASTHILL ANNEXATION AREA
CITY LIMITS
FIG
5
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 24, 1994
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:03
p.m. on October 24, 1994 in Kent City Hall, Chambers West.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kent Morrill, Chair
Janette Nuss, Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Kenneth Dozier
Connie Epperly
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Robert MacIsaac
Russ Stringham
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Raymond Ward
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lyn Keenan, Planning Consultant
NanSea Potts, Recording Secretary
OTHER CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney
Tim LaPorte, Engineering Supervisor
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10. 1994 MINUTES
Additions to the minutes of the October 10, 1994 Planning Commission meeting by
Commissioner Nuss are as follows:
Under Area I: Request for SF -3 designation for a 20 acre site between South 208th and 212th
streets, east of 92nd avenue south (Ross). It was stated that several residents have spoken in
opposition to higher density than SF -1 for this area. It was also pointed out that the principal
from Springbrook Elementary said that upon graduation from sixth grade, these students
currently must be bussed to not only one, but two separate junior high schools.
The commission was also reminded of the resident who stated that if increased density occurred
in this area, he would put his home up for sale and move out of the city of Kent.
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept the minutes of the October 10, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting as amended. The motion CARRIED.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
None
Public Hearing: Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning - #AZ -94-2
Chair Morrill introduced Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, who said the purpose of the
meeting was to designate initial annexation zoning for the Ramstead/East Hill area which was
annexed into the city of Kent on July 1, 1994. He said the area is approximately 600 acres,
with about 1, 800 people, with approximately 50 percent single family housing. Upon annexation
to the city of Kent, an interim zoning designation of R1-20 replaced King County zoning. (Single
family, minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet)
Mr. Satterstrom discussed the process involved to complete the annexation zoning, which
includes this public hearing with the Planning Commission's recommendation, and two
additional public hearings scheduled 30 days apart at City Council meetings.
Mr. Satterstrom introduced Ms. Lyn Keenan, Planning Consultant, and defined her background
and role in supplying the staff report which was reviewed by the Planning Commission during
the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning workshop at the last meeting.
Mr. Satterstrom submitted a letter for the record from Mr. Merrick Lentz, a local architect,
which concurs with staff's proposed zoning for the subject property located at 26125 114th
Avenue S.E.
Ms. Keenan indicated the annexation area on the map, generally defining the annexation area
boundaries. She gave a general overview of the information disclosed in the staff memorandum
concerning the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning (#AZ -94-2) dated October 24, 1994.
Areas discussed included identifying sensitive areas such as wetland areas, steep slopes, and
drainage basins, and the ratio of single family and multifamily. Ms. Keenan described the few
existing commercial land uses and indicated the proposed route of the 277th street corridor.
Ramstead/East Hit! Annexation Zoning 2
#AZ -94-2
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
Ms. Keenan provided zoning background of the annexation area, stating the area was originally
included in the county's Soos Creek community planning area. She referenced page 6 of the
staff report which outlines the comparable Kent zoning designations to King County zoning.
Ms. Keenan reviewed three alternatives for initial zoning of the Ramstead/East Hill annexation
area. The alternatives are: 1) Continue the previous King County Zoning. 2) Establish the
annexation area as an urban single-family neighborhood, bounded by the natural hillside
(functioning as an urban separator) on the west, while acknowledging existing multi -family
development. 3) Establish the annexation area as a single-family neighborhood with both urban
and large lot densities, bounded by the natural hillside (functioning as an urban separator) on the
west, while acknowledging existing multi -family development.
Ms. Keenan said staff's recommendation is to approve Alternative 3, which remains consistent
with Framework Goals of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the intent of the East
Hill Plan, and consistent with the character and nature of the planned residential development
within the annexation area.
Ms. Keenan answered questions from the commissioners. A clarification was made regarding
the City of Kent's allowable minimum lot size. Ms. Keenan confirmed the minimum size to be
R1-5.0 (5,000 square feet), rather than R1-7.2 (7,200 square feet). She also stated Alternative
2 provided for the maximum number of single family homes as the lot sizes are consistently R1-
7.2 which allows more units.
Chair Morrill opened the public hearing to testimony.
Robert Hicks 27108 110 Avenue S.E. - Kent
Mr. Hicks stated Alternative 3 appeared to be to the residents' advantage, and said he did not
want to see condos, apartments or duplexes in his area.
Lawrence Campbell 10024 SE 240th, #102 - Kent
Mr. Campbell testified on behalf of three clients, Mr. and Mrs. Mack, Mr. Crozier, and Mr.
and Mrs. Preikschat asking the commission to allow a higher density zoning designation for their
property. Mr. Campbell said at the time the signatures were obtained for annexations, none of
his clients were informed of the potential down -zoning of their properties. Their properties were
zoned down from the previous county zoning of RD3600, comparable to Kent's MRD. Mr.
Campbell favored Alternative 1, with respect to his client's best interests, allowing a MRD
zoning.
Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning 3
#AZ -94-2
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
Ekhard Preikschat 9048 NE 41 ST, Bellevue
Mr. Preikschat said he was speaking on behalf of his parents and Jim Crozier, who were unable
to attend the meeting. He said due to a City of Kent sewer moratorium, his parents were unable
to develop their property. Also, recently the City asked for an emergency sewer line and a
sewer easement through the property. His parents complied. Mr. Preikschat explained the
amount of buildable property was lost, and reiterated Mr. Campbell's request for a MRD zoning
designation or a cluster housing designation.
Mr. Preikschat stated the location of the property as directly south of Sequoia Jr. High, at the
corner of 108th avenue and 264th street. When asked which alternative he desired, he said he
preferred Alternative 1. He said the acreage lost due to the City's sewer requirements is about
1.5 acres out of 4.8 acres, leaving 3.5 acres, not including the wetlands setbacks of fifty feet.
Mr. Preikschat said he would be agreeable to another alternative if an MRD zoning designation
not be recommended for his property.
Jim Harris, Planning Director commented regarding whether a cluster housing designation had
been developed in Kent. He said it was not in Kent's Zoning Code, but after the Comprehensive
Plan is finalized and depending on deliberations, cluster housing could be included in one year.
Chair Morrill stated that following public testimony, Mr. Satterstrom will categorize the issues
and respond.
Ray Christensen 26626 104th AV SE, Kent
Mr. Christensen said he lives near the holding pond and has seen the pond flooded during rain
storms. He said he was fearful additional housing projects or apartment complexes will cause
the pond to overflow.
Glenn Button 24838 116th AV SE, Kent
Mr. Button said he purchased his property 35 years ago (was 1.75 acres, now 1.6 acres due to
widening of Kent Kangley) and was previous zoned as business property through King County.
There was a store (The Totem Pole) on this property, which was moved directly west. Mr.
Button requested to have a zoning designation of Residential/Commercial. It was suggested his
lot be grandfathered as commercial.
Bill Carleton 10201 SE 270th Place, Kent
Mr. Carleton has owned 1.5 acres for 35 years. His concern was with future growth of the Kent
area, specifically with recent activity regarding multifamily housing, roads, strip malls, wetlands
and tree preservation. He stated he felt the value of single family homes would escalate, and
Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning 4
AAZ-94-2
Planning Commission
Minutes
- October 24, 1994
Mr. Carleton was asked how he felt about the concept of mixed use, allowing businesses below
and apartments on top. He said it was an interesting concept but he still preferred individual
ownership.
Bernadette Epstein 27519 114 AV SE, Kent
Ms. Epstein expressed her concern regarding the quality of life in Kent. She told the
commission she wished to keep apartment housing down, allowing children to grow up in a more
rural environment.
Frankie Keyes 10216 SE 267th St, Kent
Mrs. Keyes asked Mr. Satterstrom, on behalf of Mrs. Doris Ramstead, what effect the proposed
zoning for Mrs. Ramstead's 20 acre parcel would have on her short plat. It was indicated on
the map that the subject short plat is the southern -most area of the annexation area. Ms. Keyes
inquired if zoning regulations had changed so as to allow construction on property zoned
residential agricultural (RA). Chair Morrill said the question would be answered by Mr.
Satterstrom at the end of public testimony.
When asked which alternative she would prefer, Mrs. Keyes stated either alternative 2 or 3
would be satisfactory, provided new apartments would not be allowed. She also said she would
like to see up -zoning so individual property owners could build on their land.
Karen Rehkop 24633 156th AV SE, Kent
Ms. Rehkop is the owner four parcels which include the previously mentioned store, generally
located at 11701 Kent Kangley Road and single family residences. Ms. Rehkop said she wished
the property could remain commercial, but also allow the homes. She suggested a designation
of community commercial would be a more suitable designation for the best use of the land.
When Ms. Rehkop was asked if a designation of MRG (Garden Density, multifamily up to 16
units per acre) would be satisfactory, she said it would, if the commercial use would still be
allowed. It was stated she could grandfather the commercial site. Ms. Rehkop said she was
concerned that she would not be allowed to make improvements to the property.
Tom Lowe 11625 SE 270th St. Kent
Mr. Lowe said he felt in regards to zoning determinations, perhaps a short-term approach was
being taken, and that we should consider the long-term affects of decisions made today. When
asked which alternative he would like to see, he said they were basically all the same, however,
overall there appeared to be a lack of integration, specifically regarding the 277th Street
corridor. When asked if he had recommendations for the plan, Mr. Lowe said he felt the
Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning
#AZ -94.2 5
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
planners educated in their field were the best qualified to present important information and
make planning decisions.
When asked if he agreed with staff's recommendation for alternative 3, with possible
modifications, he replied he still feels alternative 3 is a short term solution.
Hans Freiwald 11824 SE 270th St, Kent
Mr. Freiwald said he is concerned about the environmental impact created by developers who
are building too many homes. He specifically mentioned the wetlands, congested traffic
problems on East Hill and aircraft noise.
John Kiefer 11048 SE 274th St, Kent
Mr. Kiefer stated concerns regarding the marketability of his two year old home, which is
r. He said he felt the multifamily units would not
located in the vicinity of the 272nd St corrido
suffer the same financial impact as would the single family homeowner. Mr. Kiefer stated his
preference for additional property he owns near the corridor at 11016 S 274th, would be a MRG
zoning designation.
When asked which alternative he would prefer, Mr. Kiefer stated the best alternative would
include cluster housing and open space. He also said he would prefer higher density only for
the buffer area next to the corridor to support transit, rather than for the entire area.
Gail Shewey 11217 SE 274th Street, Kent
Mr. Shewey expressed his concern for the impact to the quality of life in Kent, with regards to
the 272nd/277th Street corridor project and the new school in his neighborhood. He asked the
commission to consider the homeowner's needs before making zoning determinations. Mr.
Shewey asked if he would still be allowed to have one grazing animal per half acre.
Jeff Horn 11253 SE 267th PL, Kent
Mr. Horn asked if the city was taking into consideration the need for safety provisions for
children travelling to school near the proposed corridor.
Chair Morrill closed public testimony and called for a five minute recess at 8:45 pm.
Mr. Satterstrom thanked the attendees for coming to the public hearing, and discussed the
difficulty in making zoning determinations to please all concerned. He said both he and Ms.
Keenan took extensive notes of the testimony and had grouped the topics for staff's responses.
The four general categories are: 1) The effect the planned 272nd/277th Street Corridor has on
Land Use and Zoning, 2) The desired commercial zoning on Kent Kangley Road, east of 116th
Ranutead/East Hill Annexation Zoning 6
NAZ-94-2
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
Avenue, 3) The zoning request for property south of Sequoia Jr. High School, 4) The
Ramstead property zoning.
Mr. Satterstrom described the route of the planned 272nd/277th Street Corridor, and discussed
zoning details related to the proposed corridor which passes through the Ramstead/East Hill
annexation area. He stated R1-7.2 zoning was recommended by staff north of the corridor, and
a more rural designation of R1-20 to the south. He also said the City and the school district
worked together for access and safety in planning the corridor. Mr. Satterstrom said Mr. Tim
LaPorte, Engineering Supervisor was in attendance and could assist by answering specific
questions concerning the corridor.
Mr. Satterstrom spoke on the Kent Kangley Road issues. He indicated the properties on the map
located east of 116th Avenue, which have existing commercial/residential land uses. He said the
area is currently zoned single family R1-7.2, the equivalent of the previous King County zoning.
Mr. Satterstrom said commercial uses are classified as legal, non -conforming and would allow
more latitude, allowing exterior improvements to the existing structure, and expansion through
a conditional use permit. He stated this area is surrounded by single family zoning, and staff's
recommendation is to have this area remain R1-7.2.
Questions followed concerning requirements for improving and enlarging a non -conforming use
property. Mr. Satterstrom said the conditional use permit process, which includes a public
hearing would be required if the owner chose to expand the structure beyond the existing
original grandfathered use. He explained if the building burns, providing the structure is less
than fifty percent destroyed, it could be rebuilt to the prior specifications. He offered to check
the City of Kent Zoning Code regulations as they relate to non -conforming properties.
A clarification for the term "conversion" was requested. Mr. Satterstrom said he believed when
the corridor is finished, and heavy traffic is on 116th, further land use considerations quite
possibly will be made for the intersection at 116th and Kent Kangley Road.
Ms. Keenan discussed the previous county zoning related to the properties south of S.E. 264th
Street, east of 108th Avenue, and explained staff's zoning recommendation for this area as single
family R1-7.2 zoning rather than MRD. She explained the zoning of surrounding properties,
confirming staff's recommendation.
It was asked if staff had made considerations since the property owners were agreeable to the
city of Kent's requests for easements. Ms. Keenan said perhaps an RI -5.0 or a future cluster
housing designation would allow the densities requested by the property owners, still keeping
the zoning in the single family category.
It was noted that King County zoning had split the lots; the top part was designated MRD, the
bottom portion was zoned single family residential. Ms. Keenan answered that a wetlands is
located south west of the property.
Ratnuead/East Hill Annexation Zoning
XAZ-94-2 7
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
Mr. Harris commented that staff does not have the right to imply that possible higher density
zoning trade-offs would be allowed to secure easements for sewers or roads from the public.
He said zoning changes can be made after due consideration and through the normal application
process.
Ms. Keenan responded to the question concerning the RA zoning determination for the area
owned by Mrs. Doris Ramstead, saying one unit per acre is allowed under this designation,
consistent with King County. She further explained the topography and staff's recommendation
for RA, rather than considering an R1-20 zoning designation.
Tim LaPorte, Engineering Supervisor answered questions concerning the provision of sound
buffers for the areas south of the proposed 272nd/277th corridor. He said none were identified
in the Environmental Impact Statement, and that King County approved five plats along 116th
which did not provide noise buffers. Mr. LaPorte said the City of Kent has been notifying new
home buyers in that area of the proposed corridor.
Mr. Satterstrom read from section 15.08.100 of the Kent Zoning Code relating to non-
conforming uses. He said as long as a structure is not being enlarged or structurally altered,
improvements would be allowed by authorization of the Planning Director. Therefore,
expansion with structural changes would require a conditional use permit, necessitating a hearing
by the Hearing Examiner.
When asked if adding heating to a structure would be allowed as an improvement, Mr.
Satterstrom stated it would be allowed. Also, Mr. Satterstrom said replacing a wall would be
allowed, but building a new wall would require a conditional use permit.
Comments were made by the Commissioners, and individual preferences to the alternatives were
given. it was suggested to develop a compromise between alternative 2 and 3, which would
allow higher density for the property south of the Jr. High, as indicated on Figure 2 in the staff
report.
Chair Morrill said he felt it was the consensus of the commission to allow higher density zoning
south of the Junior High School, recommending MRD (Multifamily Residential Duplex). Mr.
Satterstrom was asked to explain the difference between MRD and an R1-5.0 zoning designation.
He said if it were all flat land, and all developable, an MRD designation would allow ten units
per acre, and an R1-5.0 would allow about 8 units per acre.
Discussions followed regarding possible building constraints as wetlands and slopes, and the
importance of protecting these areas.
Mr. Harris stated he felt King County originally buffered the blueberry patch, which is a vast
wetlands, and the school with multifamily zoning. He said if a line needed to be drawn to
separate the multifamily area, and the line should remain consistent with King County's.
Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning 8
NAZ-94-2
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 24, 1994
It was MOVED and SECONDED to approve alternative 3 with the area south of the Sequoia
Jr. High school changed to R1-5.0. A friendly amendment was added to include preservation
of the wetlands. The motion FAILED. VOTE: Yea - Commissioners Dahle, Nuss, Heineman.
Nay - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Stringham, MacIsaac, Morrill
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adopt alternative 3 with the same area designated as MRD,
with the same friendly amendment. The motion CARRIED. VOTE: Yea - Commissioners
Nuss, Morrill, Epperly, Dozier, Stringham, MacIsaac. Nay - Commissioner Dahle
CONTINUED DELIBERATION - KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN #CPA -94-1
Chair Morrill said that in light of the late hour, deliberations on the Kent Comprehensive Plan
will continue at the next meeting, November 14, 1994.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The motion CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Harris
Reco ding Secretary
Ramstead/East Hill Annecation Zoning 9
#AZ -94-2
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. city council Action: /
Councilmember �A)eoc� moves, ClllV
/ v �' ��U'
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through�t be--aper-0ved-1
Discussion t C I
Action �y k
vow' �a d �
3A. Approval of Minutes. ry�
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 1, 1994, with the following correction to Consent
Calendar Item 3C:
ACCEPTANCE of the revised contract
with the Kent Downtown Asseeiatien
Partnership for the Saturday Market,
and authorization for the Mayor to
sign.
3B
�FJr
A.proval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 31,
1994 and paid on October 31, 1994 after auditing by the
Operations Committee on November 9, 1994.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date
10/31/94
Check Numbers
148329-148940
Amount
$1,696,375.79
Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through
October 31, 1994 and paid on October 27 and November 4, 1994:
Date
Check Numbers
10/27/94 Checks
198736-198820
Advice
19172-19175
11/4/94 Checks
198821-199167
Advice
19176-19549
Amount
$ 238,470.91
3,490.97
$ 254,480.94
431.452.41
$ 927,895.23
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A -B
Kent, Washington
November 1, 1994
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7:00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett,
Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, Operations Director/
Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director
Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo,
Police Chief Crawford, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Division
Director Miller. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor White
COMMUNICATIONS introduced Georgine Isenberg, his appointee to
the Drinking Driver Task Force.
Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced
that Orlin Klevin has been chosen as Employee of
the Month for November, and noted that he has
worked as a mechanic for the Equipment Rental
Department since 1984. He added that Klevin
gives 110% and is a team player who is happy to
take on additional responsibilities. Public
Works Operations Manager Heydon noted that
Klevin keeps all the different types of equip-
ment going, and is comfortable with all of it.
He said Klevin is very deserving of this honor.
The Mayor expressed the City's appreciation.
Park Orchard Presentation. Kathy Dormeier,
Principal of Park Orchard Elementary, intro-
duced six members of the Student Council and
Mr. Courtney, Student Council Advisor. The
students expressed their gratitude for the
walkway on 112th Avenue S.E., and presented the
Mayor and Council with a banner. Mayor White
thanked the students, as well as Public Works
Director Wickstrom and his staff for their
efforts and the City Council for their support.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through L be approved. Orr seconded and the
motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of October 18, 1994.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
SANITATION Village at James Street Phase II. AUTHORIZATION
to accept the bill of sale and warranty agree-
ment for Village at James Street submitted by
Schneider Homes, Inc. for continuous maintenance
1
November 1, 1994
HEALTH & and operation of 818 feet of waterline, 665 feet
SANITATION of sanitary sewer extension, 633 feet of curb
including 4 street lights all in public right-
of-way and 932 feet of storm sewers, and release
of bonds after expiration of the maintenance
period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. This project is located at 6628 S.
240th Street.
SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Metro Sewer Rate Pass Through Increase.
ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3198 relating to the
Metro Sewer Rate Pass Through Increase.
The City was advised by Metro in June of this
year that their service charge per residential
unit will be increased from $15.90 to $17.95.
This $2.05 increase will become effective
January 11 1995. The Public Works Committee has
recommended that this increase and the corres-
ponding utility tax be passed along to customers
effective January 11 1995.
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
(ADDED)
LID 346 S 212th Street Sanitary Sewer
Extension. Wickstrom noted that bids were
opened on October 28. He said that there is no
financial problem and that funds from the LID
and from the Road Fund would cover the costs.
He explained that they advertised late in the
year in order to let the water table go down
naturally, and that with the recent rain the bid
needs to be awarded right away, although it has
not gone to committee. He recommended awarding
the bid to the low bidder, Aurora Engineering,
in the amount of $195,595.12. MANN SO MOVED.
Bennett seconded and the motion carried.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Asphalt overlay - Budget Transfer.
AUTHORIZATION to transfer the balance of the
remaining asphalt overlay funds within the
Street Operations budget to a Capital
Improvement Fund.
2
November 1, 1994
STREETS Approximately $324,935 was set aside in the
Operating Budget for annual overlays. There are
two projects to do; 212th Street from the
Green River to 42nd and, James Street from W.V.
Highway to Clark Street. 212th Street will be
done; however, due to weather conditions and the
contractor's work schedules, James Street will
be overlayed in May of next year. The Public
Works Committee has recommended transferring the
balance of the remaining asphalt overlay funds
within the Street Operations budget to a Capital
Improvement fund.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
LID 345 - S. 218th Street Improvements At the
October 18th Council meeting, direction was
given to prepare the ordinance creating Local
Improvement District 345 for the improvement of
S. 218th Street (East Valley Highway to SR 167).
In addition, Council authorized that the City
supplement the LID funding with $167,377.13 from
the Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement Fund.
Wickstrom noted that the ordinance has been
revised to include direction made by the Council
at the last meeting, and distributed copies of
the revised ordinance. MANN MOVED to adopt
Ordinance No. 3200 forming LID 345 for the
improvement of S. 218th Street and to authorize
supplementing of the LID funding with
$167,377.31 from the Miscellaneous Drainage
Improvement Fund. Woods seconded. The motion
carried with Clark, Johnson, Mann and Woods in
favor, and Bennett, Houser and Orr opposed.
STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Landing WaV Street Vacation STV -94-1 ADOPTION
of Ordinance No. 3199 vacating a portion of
Landing Way. On January 18, 1994, Council
approved the application for vacation of
Landing Way as set forth in Resolution No. 1374,
subject to compliance of conditions and receipt
of compensation. These matters have been
accomplished.
3
November 1, 1994
FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Lexington Square Final Plat (FSU -94-5). This
date has been set to consider the Lexington
Square Final Plat FSU -94-5. The plat is located
at 114th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 267th Street in
the recently annexed Ramstead/East Hill annexa-
tion area, and is 5.46 acres in size. The
preliminary plat was approved by King County
(File No. S90P0013) and the final plat came
under Kent's jurisdiction upon annexation to the
City.
ORR MOVED to approve the Lexington Square Final
Plat No. FSU -94-5 with conditions according to
King County Ordinance No. 10365 and File
No. S90P0013, and to authorize the Mayor to sign
the final plat mylar, as recommended by staff.
Bennett seconded and the motion carried.
ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
ZONING East Hill/Ramstead Annexation Zoning AZ -94-2.
AUTHORIZATION to set November 15, 1994 and
January 3, 1995 as public hearing dates to
consider the initial zoning for the East Hill/
Ramstead annexation area.
PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Amendments to Penal Code (Prostitution Loitering
and other). ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3196
amending the penal code to add a new section and
making other amendments relating to prostitution
loitering, and by adding a new section relating
to violations of civil anti -harassment orders,
establishing penalties for the same, and by
making other related amendments, as approved by
the Public Safety Committee.
SATURDAY MARKET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Saturday Market Contract. ACCEPTANCE of the
revised contract with the Kent Downtown
Association for the Saturday Market, and
authorization for the Mayor to sign. This is a
five (5) year contract that allows for either
party to terminate with sixty (60) day written
notice.
4
November 1, 1994
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Council Meeting Schedule. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3197 amending Section 2.01.020 of the Kent
City Code relating to the dates of Council
meetings, as approved by the Operations Com-
mittee. This ordinance amends the date for
which Council meetings are to be held in
December of each year by providing that there
shall be only one regular Council meeting in
December to be held on the second Tuesday of the
month.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
RECREATION Lake Fenwick Cabin Demolition. ACCEPTANCE of
the Lake Fenwick Cabin Demolition Project as
complete and release of retainage to City
Transfer of Kent, upon receipt of state
releases.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
Senior Center Mini Bus. Two bids were received
to purchase a bus for the transportation of
seniors involved in activities with the Senior
Center. Bryant Motors, Inc. was the low bidder
at $59,127, plus tax. Budgeted amount was
$60,000. The difference will be made up within
the Parks Department budget. JOHNSON MOVED to
award the bid for the Kent Senior Center Mini
Bus to Bryant Motors, Inc., in the amount of
$59,127, plus tax. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
Drinking Driver Task Force Appointment.
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of
Georgine Isenberg to the Kent Drinking Driver
Task Force. Ms. Isenberg is employed at
Therapeutic Health Services, Inc. in Seattle
and has been involved as a volunteer in several
different organizations. She will fill the
position formerly held by Sue Madsen and her
appointment will continue to 1/1/96.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1995 Budget. This date has been set for the
continuation of the public hearing on the 1995
budget. The Mayor's preliminary budget for 1995
totals $74,604,265 of which $37,110,437
5
November 1, 1994
BUDGET comprises the General Fund. This conservative
hold -the -line budget is balanced without relying
on new taxes or fees except the planned drainage
utility increase which finances Capital Improve-
ments and the annual pass-through of the Metro
sewer rate increase. The public is encouraged
to provide input. Adoption is scheduled for the
November 15, 1994 Council meeting.
Finance Division Director Miller noted that the
General Fund revenue and expenditures are both
up only 3.2%. She added that a fire equipment
replacement fund was established for the first
time. She said that the budget will be reviewed
by the Operations Committee on November 9th, and
that copies are available to the public in the
City Clerk's Office and the Finance Department.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mark Moder
of the Human Services Commission thanked the
Mayor and Council for their support and noted
that money allocated for 1995 will fund 16
agencies and 21 programs, which will in turn
serve approximately 28,000 residents in Kent.
He introduced representatives of the following
agencies: Catholic Community Services, Child
Care Resources, Children's Home Society,
Children's Therapy Center, Community Health
Centers of King County, Crisis Clinic,
Des Moines Area Food Bank, Domestic Abuse
Women's Network, Kent Community Service Center,
Kent Youth and Family Services, King County
Sexual Assault Resource Center, Pregnancy Aid,
Senior Services of Seattle -King County, South
King County Multi -Service Center, Washington
Women's Employment and Education, and Valley
Cities Counseling and Consultation.
Cathy Peters of Catholic Community Services
explained that these agencies work together as a
team. She said that families today have many
problems, and that the social service agencies
and the City working together make a strong
community. She thanked the Mayor and Council
for their funding, the City staff who work with
the agencies, and the members of the Human
Services Commission. Mayor White expressed his
appreciation to the agencies. There were no
3
November 1, 1994
BUDGET further comments and WOODS MOVED to close the
public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through October 14, 1994 and paid
on October 14, 1994 after auditing by the
Operations Committee on October 26, 1994.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/14/94 147859-148328 $1,351,639.85
Approval of checks issued for payroll for
October 1, 1994 through October 15, 1994 and
paid on October 20, 1994:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/20/94 Checks 198394-198735 $ 263,689.25
Advice 18811-19171 439,710.25
$ 703,399.50
REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that Suburban
Cities will meet on November 9th in Tukwila.
She also noted that Senator Patty Murray will
speak to the Suburban Cities Association on
November 10 at Mercer Island City Hall, and that
those interested in attending should contact
Suburban Cities immediately.
Woods thanked the Park Orchard community for
initiating the request for improvements on 112th
Avenue S.E.
Operations Committee. Johnson noted that the
committee will meet on Wednesday, November 9, at
9:30 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Brenda Jac er CMC
City Cler
7
�n
V� Kent City Council Meeting
r Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ;"SATURDAY MARKET ADVISORY BOARDfj
-APPOINTMENT jb
� Jk
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment
of Jo Zumhof to the Kent Saturday Market Advisory Board.
Ms. Zumhof is employed as a Health Advocate for the Headstart
Program in the Kent School District. She has participated as a
vendor at the Saturday Market for the past five years and is
active in Kent Jaycees. She will fill the position formerly
held by Marian Pagarigan and her appointment will continue to
10/97.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5.
.w
7.
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1994
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT SATURDAY MARKET ADVISORY BOARD
I have recently appointed Jo Zumhof to serve as a member of the Kent Saturday Market Advisory
Board. Ms. Zumhof is a Kent resident and works as a Health Advocate for the Headstart Program
in the Kent School District. She has participated in the Kent Saturday Market as a vendor for the
past five years, is active in the Kent Area Jaycees, and has participated in the Cornucopia Days
Parade. She will serve as the Vendor Representative and will replace Marian Pagarigan who has
served two full terms, the maximum allowed as stated in the ordinance.. Her appointment will
continue to 10/97.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISpSI�ON CAPPOINTMENT -ro �
"',C
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appoint-
ment of Judie Sarff to the Kent Human Services Commission.
Ms. Sarff is Vice -President and Manager of West One Bank. She
is a member of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee which is
studying the feasibility of a Performing Arts Center in Kent,
is a member of the Chamber of Commerce,and serves on the Board
of Financial Women International. She will replace Susan
Ramos, who resigned, and will serve as a business category
representative. Her appointment will continue to 1/1/97.
Kim
rN
On
RM
I]
EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL ME RS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYO
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1994
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
I have recently appointed Judie Sarff to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. Ms.
Sarff is currently Vice President and Manager of West One Bank. She is a member of the Mayor's Blue
Ribbon Committee which is studying the feasibility of a Performing Arts Center in Kent, is a member of
the Chamber of Commerce and serves on the Board of Financial Women International. Ms. Sarff will
replace Susan Ramos, who resigned, and will serve as a business category representative. Her appointment
will continue to 1/1/97.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
cc: Jim Harris, Planning director
Lin Ball, Human Services Manager
P
�O
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES -
�l f;_ap
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. 46
ratifying the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by King
County Ordinance No. 11446, and as recommended by the Planning
Committee. A letter (-3-aft ffttftehedt-wkt�
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of draft letter to King County by staff,
resolution, Planning Committee minutes of 9/20/94, 10/18/94,
and 11/1/94, letter from King County and resolution with
attachments.
4
A
rl
7.
RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
CITY OF
November 16, 1994
The Honorable Gary Locke
The Honorable Kent Pullen
400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Ratification of Countywide Planning Policies
Dear Executive Locke and Councilmember Pullen:
5-T
in
For Dlscussln.
Jim White, Magor
Attached is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Kent City Council ratifying the Countywide
Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in August. The City is
supportive of the policy direction outlined in the policies and is appreciative of all of the work
done by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) and others in working on these
policies. The City is also committed to working cooperatively with King County and other
jurisdictions to implement the policies over the next several years.
While we are supportive of the overall framework outlined in the policies as adopted by the
County Council, we do have some specific areas of concern. While these issues did not prevent
the Council from ratifying the policies, we would like to outline our concerns for your
consideration.
Wetlands Protection
Policy CA -2 states that all jurisdictions work to establish a single countywide classification
system for wetlands. The City supports this policy. However, the preceding policy (CA -1)
states that all jurisdictions shall use the 1989 Federal Manual for delineating wetlands. There
is currently widespread disagreement on how to best delineate wetlands. According to the
Washington State Department of Ecology, federal agencies and some Washington counties and
cities, including Kent, are using the 1987 wetlands manual, while state agencies and other
Washington counties and cities are using the 1989 manual. In 1992, Congress commissioned
the National Academy of Science to study wetlands delineation methodology and report back to
Congress later this year. Given the current status of this issue, establishing a specific manual
for use by all jurisdictions in the county seems unreasonable at this time. We also believe that
this policy is too specific and exceeds the intent of countywide planning policies as established
in the Growth Management Act.
220lih AV F. SO./ FEST. AAVSISGTON 98)11- X95 / IELEPII()\E I100IF \N x 859-1114
Ratification of Countywide Planning Policies
November 16, 1994
Page 2
Urban Growth Area Boundaries
The Framework Policies (FW -1) describe the process for countywide growth management,
including the establishment of an urban growth area. Step 8 of FW -1 states that "minor
technical changes not to exceed 300 acres may be made to the Urban Growth Area
recommended by the GMPC in the King County Comprehensive Plan. We are unclear as to
whether this means that the total area of these changes cannot exceed 300 acres, or whether
several changes could be made, each one individually not exceeding 300 acres. Furthermore,
the term "minor technical changes is not defined. Our concern regarding this language was
exacerbated by the recent decision by the Growth Management Committee of the Metropolitan
Council to redesignate two parcels in the Green River Valley from agricultural use to industrial.
These parcels have been designated for agriculture not only in the Executive Proposed King
County Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan, but also in the Urban
Growth Area map adopted and ratified in 1992 as part of the Phase I countywide planning
policies. We are unclear as to whether this change is considered a "minor technical change",
but if so it signals a disturbing precedent, particularly considering that the. Committee made this
change without consulting the City of Kent.
On a related issue, Policy FW -6 was amended subsequent to the GMPC recommendations to
state that the countywide establishment of the Urban Growth Area was a policy planning
boundary to be used as a framework for the adoption of the King County Comprehensive Plan.
While we recognize that the GMA gives counties the authority to establish urban growth area
boundaries, we feel that the presence of Seattle and suburban city representatives on the GMPC
ensured that the GMPC's recommended Urban Growth Area boundary reflected the concerns
of cities. We would be opposed to significant changes made to this boundary unilaterally by the
Metropolitan Council
Despite these concerns, I would like to again emphasize our appreciation for the work you and
others on the GMPC have done on these policies, and we look forward to working with you in
the future on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Judy Woods
City Council President
JW /KON/mp: a: woodscpp. Itr
Attachments
cc: Mayor Jim White
City Councilmembers
City Department Heads
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
CITY OF ) V ED2
dRYY7II(C4�
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
November 1, 1994 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
Plannina Staff
Chris Holden
Kevin O'Neill
Fred Satterstrom
City Attorney's Office
Laurie Evezich
Other Citv Staff
Other Guests
RATIFICATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager reminded the Committee the reason for this special
meeting was to obtain answers on concerns regarding the conflict
between the 1989 or 1987 Federal Manual on Wetlands. The
Countywide Planning Policies adopted by King County has chosen to
go by the 1989 manual and the City of Kent adopted the 1987 manual
in the City's wetlands ordinance.
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, responded to this concern
brought out by Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, at the last meeting
of October 18, 1994. Mr. Lubovich's concern was that if a City was
required to plan under the Growth Management Act (which is a
mandatory requirement to cities under the State statute) and the
County concomitantly has to adopt Countywide Planning Policies with
which the City is required to be consistent, then there may be
conflict. Roger's concern was that there may still be a problem
even if there is a difference between a policy and an ordinance and
a city's ordinance has more weight and authority than a policy.
This is because the City's ability to enforce our ordinance may
somehow be preempted by State law.
Laurie researched this issue and she believes this is an untenable
argument and explained she doesn't think it is anything the City
needs to worry about and she explained why. She discussed this
issue with Mr. Lubovich prior to the meeting. According to RCW
36.70A.210, under the heading called Countywide Planning Policies,
the requirements for adopting Countywide Planning Policies does not
even include a requirement that Countywide Planning Policies have
a critical areas component in them, it says, "cities shall adopt".
She said as far as the County taking the initiative to do this, in
a lot of different areas, the County has gone well beyond what they
were required to do.
Laurie quoted another sentence at the end of that first paragraph
which says, "nothing in this section shall be construed to alter
the land use powers of cities". She said if you take this language
and read it with the basic premise that all code cities have what
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 1994
PAGE 2
is called "section 11 powers" under the Washington State
Constitution, that would be the power and authority to regulate for
the public health, safety, and welfare. She explained the City has
actually adopted policies and ordinances that are consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Growth Management Act, but in this
particular section when the City previously adopted the 1987
Manual, the City has just exercised its legislative discretion to
provide for more, or arguably a different type of protection, for
citizens than the Countywide Planning Policies. She said just
because it is different does not mean it is not consistent. This
is the key the City needs to focus on.
Nothing in the Growth Management Act requires that we adopt a
critical areas ordinance or wetlands policy that is a mirror image
of what the Countywide Planning Policies are. It simply requires
that they be consistent. Even if the City was challenged by a
citizens' group to one of the Growth Hearings Boards saying that
because we don't have the same manual, the City is not consistent
with the Countywide Planning Policies. They would have a very
difficult time proving that the 1987 Manual was scientifically not
consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. Ms. Evezich said
she does not think this should be a reason why the City should
hesitates to enforce the City's adoption of the 1987 Manual within
the City's wetlands ordinance or continue to enforce it on the
basis that it is part of the City's ordinance. Evezich concluded
with the advice that having the 1987 manual as part of our wetlands
ordinance or even adopting it as ultimately a part of our
Development regulations down the road is not inconsistent with the
Countywide Planning Policies.
Fred passed out a draft letter addressed to King County requesting
the Committee's approval that this letter accompany the Resolution.
The letter addressed two specific areas of concern in the
Countywide Planning Policies regarding Wetlands Protection and
Urban -Growth Area Boundaries.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a
motion to recommend ratification of the Countywide Planning
Policies by a Resolution and to approve the letter mentioned above.
Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS:
IMPACT FEES
Chair Orr has been asked about the issue of impact fees and asked
if this item should come to this Committee. Committee members
agreed to discuss this item at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
mp:c:pco1101.min
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
October 18, 1994 4:00 PM
d�®II(C1t�
Committee Members Present
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
Planning Staff
Margaret Porter
Kevin O'Neill
Fred Satterstrom
City Attorney's Office
Roger Lubovich
Other City Staff
Other Guests
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (Fred Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom updated the Committee on the
progress of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not expected to be
brought before the City Council for at least a couple of months.
The Planning Commission has held three public hearings. They have
inventoried all the public testimony, comments, and letters and
have been deliberating on these issues meeting regularly two times
per month. After the Capital Facilities and the Transportation
elements are brought before the Planning Commission, which are not
finished yet, it is anticipated the final public hearing may be
November 28, 1994.
Manager Satterstrom reported the Public Works Department will be
presenting the Transportation Plan at the October 18th meeting
under Public Communications. Since there is no backup material in
the Council agenda packet, Mr. Satterstrom said the Planning
Department is hoping for a copy of the written report. If the
information is not provided, the deliberation meetings will cease
until this material is provided to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Satterstrom reported a letter was sent to the State over 60
days ago about the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner
Kevin O'Neill stated the requirement says a City must notify GMA at
least 60 days prior to notification and they are suppose to respond
back to us within this 60 -day period. As of October 18,1994, no
response letter has been received. Mr. O'Neill stated his
impression from the State is that the City's Comprehensive Plan is
pretty good.
RATIFICATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom
Mr. Satterstrom reported the Countywide Planning Policies were
recommended to the King County Growth Management Planning (GMA)
Council on May 25, 1995. The Metro King County Council adopted
them on August 15, 1994 with some revisions. Mr. Satterstrom
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 2
stated the City has ninety days to act -on ratification. Again, he
said if the City does not act to approve or disapprove the
Countywide Planning Policies, the City will be assumed to have
ratified them.
He passed out the same three-page document that was distributed at
the last meeting regarding the impacts to the Planning Department's
work program. Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. O'Neill presented
information on the four(4) main issues on the work program:
1. Population and employment target issues (K. O'Neill)
Mr. O'Neill reminded the Committee that about a year ago the
Committee discussed this issue and the City Council adopted
population and employment targets to comply with Phase I of
the Countywide Planning Policies. This was needed in order to
prepare a land use plan. These adopted targets are what is
reflected in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Since then, as
referenced in the table in Appendix II, the GMPC have changed
the target numbers to ranges with a high and a low for both
households and jobs. The State has raised some concerns about
this idea. It is possible allowing for too much growth is
just as not in compliance as allowing not enough. The concern
is that if a City goes with a range and cities shoot for the
high end of the range, a City would be targeting greater
population according to the County but according to the Office
of Financial Management the figure would be lower. It is
possible the State may raise an issue with the County. Also,
each city was asked to do a target for its existing city
limits. The city limits of Kent are pretty dynamic right now,
and it is something Kevin asked the Council to think about.
Perhaps the next amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be
addressing this issue.
2. Urban growth area (K. O'Neill)
Mr. O'Neill stated the central issue the GMPC was dealing with
in May 1994 was how big this boundary should be. A couple of
things occurred that the City possibly should be concerned
about and should be addressing if a letter of ratification is
done. One concern is the idea that someone can urbanize rural
land if an exchange is made for every acre that is developed,
four(4) acres need to be dedicated for public open space. Mr.
O'Neill said he thinks if there is a hearings board challenge
to the urban growth area boundary, this idea could be thrown
out because it allows for potentially unknown amounts of rural
land being urbanized in the next 20 years.
Secondly, the other concern is what the Metropolitan King
County Council can do with this idea once they get this
information from the GMPC.
One item that the amended Phase II policies say is that the
Metropolitan King County Council may make minor technical
changes not to exceed 300 acres to the urban growth area
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 3
recommended by the GMPC. It is unclear if this is a one-time
change of 300 acres or if this is a series of changes. This
language would allow the Metropolitan King County Council to
make unilateral changes to the already GMPC policies that have
been setup during the GMPC process.
Also, another language change occurred by the King County
Council after the policies came back from the GMPC. This is
stated in Ordinance No. 11446 on page 19 (underlined): "Urban
Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be
designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted.
This includes Countywide establishment of a policy planning
boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall
establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide
Planning Policies which are to used as a framework for the
adoption of the 1994 Metropolitan King County Comprehensive
Plan." Mr. O'Neill stated he interprets this to mean that the
GMPC will take Kent's recommendation as a framework but the
Metropolitan King County Council has the final authority on
what the UGA map will really look like.
3. Center Designations (F Satterstrom)
Mr. Satterstrom again mentioned Kent was selected as one of
the 14 urban centers (all 14 submitted were selected). The
ultimate policies of the County are two tier. Fred said it is
an advantage in keeping the urban center designation rather
than withdrawing it, even though Kent's Comprehensive Plan is
going the route of a mixed used approach. Fred quoted
language in policies on page 34: "Two approaches are used to
set guidelines and track the growth of Urban Centers. First,
the Countywide Planning Policies establish levels of
households and jobs needed to achieve the benefits of an Urban
Center. Some Urban Centers will reach these levels over the
next twenty years, while for others the criteria set a path
for growth over a longer term and provide capacity to
accommodate growth beyond the 20 year horizon. Basically,
some will attain it in the next twenty years, some are already
there, and some will attain the growth beyond 20 years and
will set a path for growth. This language covers the existing
centers and the emerging centers, which Kent falls in the
emerging category. However, with the above policy statement,
Mr. Satterstrom thinks Kent can have both because the urban
center designation will be emerging over the next 20 years.
Also, Kent will be able to participate in the regional pot for
infrastructure, capital facilities, or public improvements
that might benefit urban centers.
4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation (F Satterstrom
Mr. Satterstrom reported the GMPC confirmed the following
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and
Ballard/Interbay in Seattle, and the Kent Industrial Area.
Fred remarked it is hard to tell what the benefits of being a
manufacturing center will be. The policies give the
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 4
impression that these areas will be favored in regards to
transit, regional infrastructure, grants or monies, economic
development, and fiscal incentives, but it is undefined as of
yet. Kent's nomination was a "can't lose" approach because
the City already has an area that meets the criteria (i.e.
10,000 employees and an area zoned) for an industrial center.
One of the main objectives of an industrial center designation
is to limit non -industrial uses, under the theory that it's
hard to find industrial sites in King County. It would be
even harder if cities opened up manufacturing zones to
commercial or non -industrial uses that could pay more for the
land. Then, industrial uses would have to keep moving out of
King County. Kent already has zoning for M1, M2, and M3,
about 4,500 acres of it that already excludes most of the non-
industrial uses. Mr. Satterstrom added that the Comprehensive
Plan proposal only includes the M2 and M3 zones.
Mr. Satterstrom stated he is recommending the Planning Committee's
endorsement of the Countywide Planning Policies and to forward this
item to the full Council. Additional concerns were brought up
again about the adopted 1987 Federal Manual for Wetlands versus the
1989 manual, which the Countywide Planning Policies have adopted.
City Attorney Lubovich expressed concern too. He was asked by
Chair Orr to contact King County to get some answers. After these
questions to this issue are answered, Chair Orr recommended the
Committee hold a special meeting on November 1, 1994 and to forward
this item to the full Council on November 15, 1994.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
mp:c:pco1018.min
ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Comittee Minutes of 11/1/94
IMPACTS OF COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
ON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM
Development regulations
"All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement
the countywide planning policies and their respective comprehensive
plans through development regulations. (December 1994 target date)
Comprehensive Plan amendment
"All jurisdictions shall amend comprehensive plans as needed by
July 1995 to be consistent with adopted and ratified Phase II
amendments." p. 7
Household and Employment targets
"Each jurisdiction shall report to the GMPC or its successor the
household and employment targets adopted in its comprehensive plan,
and the estimated capacity..." p. 7
"Jurisdictions containing Urban and/or Manufacturing Centers shall
report household and employment target ranges both for Centers and
areas outside Centers... and... shall evaluate the availability of
infrastructure ... to ensure that capacity is available to
accommodate a six-year estimate of ... growth." p. 7
"The GMPC or its successor shall establish a growth management
monitoring advisory committee which shall recommend information to
be reported annually to serve as indicators and benchmarks for
growth management policies." P. 8
"The GMPC or its successor shall establish a Land Capacity Task
Force to accomplish the work program prepared in April 1994." p. 8
Minimum density ordinance
"All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt minimum density
ordinances and review and, where appropriate, remove regulatory
barriers to accessory dwelling units and manufactured homes on
individual lots ... (within one month of ratification) p. 12
Environmental protection
"King County shall establish a technical committee by January 1995
to ... evaluate and comment upon new development regulations proposed
by jurisdictions..." P. 16
Designation of potential annexation areas
"In collaboration with adjacent cities and King County, .each
city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential
annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential
annexation areas shall not overlap." p. 29
Coordination with other -jurisdictions
"All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive
plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and
ATTACHMENT A - to Planing Committee Minutes of 10/3.8/94
with the countywide planning policies." p. 30
Urban and Manufacturing Centers L
within designated manufacturing and Industrial Centers, fast -trach
permitting shall be implemented. p. 33
Urban Centers
Should the City of Kent maintain its Urban Center designation, a
number of tasks will need to be accomplished, including:
1. Establish targets for population and employment growth
within the Center and monitor achievement of these
targets
2. Infrastructure and services shall be planned and financed
consistent with the expected rate of growth
3. The City shall identify transit station right-of-way in
their plans and reserve right-of-way and potential
station sites
4 Strategies for land assembly shall be established
5. Establish a streamlined permit process and simplified
administrative appeal process
6. Establish a zoning bonus program pp. 34-37
Manufacturina/Industrial Centers
Should the City of Kent maintain its designation as a Manufacturing
Center a number of tasks will need to be completed, including:
1. Develop a plan to preserve and encourage aggregation of
vacant parcels for manufacturing use
2. Identify transit station areas and right-of-way and
preserve these sites
3. Conduct detailed SEPA review to minimize site specific
environmental review for projects pp. 38-40
Activity areas
"To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish minimum
and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the
single -occupant vehicle (in activity centers). p. 42
Infill development
,,All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design
processes to encourage infill development and enhance community
character and mix of uses." p. 45
Transportation
There are a number of tasks related to transportation planning,
including coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, setting of LOS
standards between and among jurisdictions, and integrating
pedestrian and bicycle systems with transit and motorized vehicle
systems. While these tasks are not the principal work of the
Planning Department, they will involve considerable coordination
and work with several city departments, including Planning.
Historic resources
"All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to
identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources including
ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Committee Minutes of 10/18/94
continued and consistent protection for historic resources and
public art works." p.53
Open space
"All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect
open space corridors of regional significance." p. 54
Affordable housinu
"Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing county -wide
housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low
and moderate income households who currently do not have
affordable, appropriate housing." p. 57
Jurisdictions shall revise "land use regulations as needed to
remove any unreasonable requirements that may create barriers to
siting and operating housing for special needs groups." p. 58
"All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within
their jurisdiction and determine the total number of new and
redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing
types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential
growth." p. 60
Economic development
"Jurisdictions shall... monitor the land supply for commercial,
industrial, institutional, resource and resdiential uses. Local
jurisdictions shall, in five year increments, for the next 20 years
identify the amount, character, and uses of land needed to achieve
the jurisdiction's job growth coals." p. 69
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 `
PAGE 2
normally issued over the counter. In addition, this could create
an appearance of unfairness and inconsistency, as an exempt project
might well appear to the lay person to be identical to one
requiring a permit.
Bob reported the staff recommendation is that the existing
requirements and system be retained, as the limited exemptions
possible are more likely to work to the overall detriment of our
customers than to their benefit. This item was for information
only.
RATIFICATION_OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom
Enclosed in the agenda packet was a copy of the "Recommended
Amendments to King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies Adopted
by the King County Growth Management Planning Council May 25,
1994". Mr. Satterstrom passed out King County Council Ordinance
No. 11446 adopting and ratifying amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies. Fred reported Ordinance No. 11146 mentions the
ratification process as follows: "The King County 2012 Countywide
Planning Policies adopted by this ordinance shall become effective
when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least thirty percent
of the city and county governments, representing seventy percent of
the population of King County according to the interlocal
agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the King County
2012 Countywide Planning Policies unless, with ninety days o=
adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves
the King County 2012 Countywide planning policies" (pace 3). Mr.
Satterstrom clarified that if the City of Kent does nothing, the
City would have been assumed to have ratified it.
Fred prepared and presented a three-page highlighted list (Exhibit
A attached) of impacts of the Countywide Planning Policies that
directs the Plannina Department to do something in regards to the
Department's work program for the remainder of 1994, 1995, and
beyond. Other City departments' work programs are also affected
but the main implementation is the Planning Department's
responsibility. Planning Director Harris mentioned there is an
extended work program in regards to the potential annexation areas
and he is working on this.
Council members raised concerns that the City of Kent adopted the
1987 Federal Manual for wetlands in their wetlands ordinance versus
the fact that the Countywide Planning Policies identify the 1989
Federal Manual for wetlands.
Mr. Harris reported he sent a letter to Mr. Jim Reed in Kinc County
requesting a meeting to assist the City on the final annexation
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
PAGE 3
boundary in the Soos Creek Planning area and also help out with the
details for the type of services that the City might be expected to
provide there.
Fred stated more discussion will occur at the next meeting
regarding the urban center designation. The proposed Comprehensive
Plan is not an urban center designation proposal but Fred would
like to discuss the idea of keeping this designation so not to
reduce the priority for transit or other regional funding.
ADDED ITEMS
1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - (B Czark)
Planner Betsy Czark informed the Committee the proposed 1995 CDBG
Program that the Planning Committee recommended for approval on
September 6, 1995 needs revising. She reported one of the
agencies, Grace Fellowship Church, has withdrawn its human service
application. This frees up the $8,316 that was allocated to that
program. Betsy reported staff recommends that this money be
reallocated according to the contingency plan the Committee
recommended for approval on September 6, 1994. This included two
human services projects, Community Health Center and YTACA Domestic
Violence Housing, are to receive $2,500 to $2,000 more,
respectively, and would be funded fully. The remaining $3,753
(this figure was corrected at the meeting from the memo that was
passed out) would go to King County Housing Authority's Nike
Housing Community's capital project. This project replaces the
roofs cf Kent's valuable emergency and transitional housing serving
Kent families and elderly.
Staff recommended that the Planning Committee take the following
action:
1. Approve the revised proposed 1995 Community Development Block
Grant Program.
Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Ccuncilchair Woods SECONDED a
motion to approve the aforementioned action. Motion carried.
ADJOURNYENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
PC0920.MIN
� 3
King County
September 9, 1994
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White:
Re: King County Countywide Planning Policies - Ratification by Cities
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the amended Countywide
Planning Policies.
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) were first adopted in July of 1992. After an
exhaustive review process, amendments to those initial policies were adopted by the
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) on May 25, 1994. In accordance with our
interlocal agreement that established the GMPC, the Metropolitan King County Council
adopted and ratified the amended CPPs on August 15, 1994.
The King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by at
least thirty percent of the city and county governments, representing seventy percent of the
population of King County. A city will be deemed to have ratified the policies unless by
legislative action it disapproves them by November 21, 1994.
To assist in your review of the CPPs, you will find that amendments proposed and approved
by the GMPC are underlined and subsequent changes added by the Metropolitan King
County Council are shaded.
The proposed amendments represent significant compromises by the representatives of the
County, Seattle, and Suburban Cities to establish a new framework for managing growth in
King County. We hope you will join us and ratify these policies on behalf of our region.
1
The Honorable Jim White
September 9, 1994
Page Two
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us, Rebecha Cusack, Lead Staff to the
Metropolitan King County Council's Growth Management Committee at 296-0330, or
Craig Larsen, Acting Director of the Parks, Planning and Resources Department at 296-
7503.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
P
Kent Pullen, Chair Gary L e
King County Council King County Executive
C'��L�w✓
Chris Vance, Chair
Growth Management, Housing
& Environment Committee
cc: Cynthia Sullivan, Vice Chair
Growth Management, Housing
& Environment Committee
Rebecha Cusack, Legislative Analyst
Robin Appleford, Intergovernmental Relations
Cliff Petersen, Council Coordinator
Jerry Peterson, Council Administrator
Craig Larsen, Acting Director,
Parks, Planning & Resources Department
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, ratifying the countywide planning
policies adopted by the Metropolitan King
County Council pursuant to the Growth
Management Act.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.210)
requires the adoption of countywide planning policies by the
legislative authority of King County, and that said policies are to
provide a county -wide framework from which local comprehensive
plans are to be developed; and
WHEREAS, King County, the City of Seattle, and the
incorporated suburban cities and towns in King County established
a process for the development, adoption, and ratification of
countywide planning policies by an interlocal agreement, which was
approved by the City of Kent, and that said interlocal agreement
established the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a group
consisting of elected officials from King County, suburban cities,
and the City of Seattle, who were authorized to develop a set of
recommended countywide planning policies for consideration by the
King County Council; and
WHEREAS, the GMPC recommended a set of countywide
planning policies to the King County Council that were adopted
pursuant to Ordinance No. 10450 on July 6, 1992, as required by RCW
36.70A.210; and which furthermore were ratified by the Kent City
Council as outlined in the interlocal agreement pursuant to
Resolution No. 1326 on September 15, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the King County Council and the Kent City
Council expressly conditioned its adoption and ratification of the
of the policies, generally referred to as Phase I, upon completion
of a Phase II Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, fiscal
analysis, and more analysis of affordable housing issues, an urban
growth area boundary, and designation of urban and
manufacturing/industrial centers; and
WHEREAS, since 1992, the GMPC, working with task forces
to address the specific issues outlined for Phase II analysis,
developed recommended amendments to the Countywide Planning
Policies adopted in 1992; and
WHEREAS, these recommended amendments to the countywide
planning policies, set forth in a report entitled Recommended
Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies,
were adopted by the GMPC on May 25, 1994; and
WHEREAS, these countywide planning policies, with minor
amendments, were adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council
pursuant to Ordinance No. 11446, on August 23, 1994; and
WHEREAS, as outlined in the interlocal agreement, the
City of Kent has ninety days to ratify or disapprove the Phase II
policies as adopted in Ordinance No. 11446; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed the
amended countywide planning policies on September 20, October 18,
and November 1, 1994, and approved a motion recommending
ratification of the amended policies; NOW THEREFORE
^.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
Interlocal Agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the countywide
planning policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King County
Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 11446 attached hereto as Exhibit
A and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The countywide planning policies adopted
herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the
Planning Department and made available for public inspection.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this of , 1994.
day of
ATTEST:
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _
1994.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
3
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1994.
GMPC.RES
E
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
July 19, 1994
orcppllmmc/rc.719
Introduced By:
Proposed No.:
R F F A
Jane Hague
Chris Vance
94-386
ORDINANCE NO. 11446
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies pursuant to RCW
36.70A.210; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
Policies for unincorporated King County; amending
Ordinance 10450, adding new sections to K.C.C. 20.10,
and repealing Ordinance 10450, Section 3 and K.C.C.
20.10.030.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The council makes the following findings.
A. Beginning in the fall of 1991, King County, the City of Seattle and the
Suburban Cities of King County met jointly as the Growth Management
Planning Council to develop and recommend Countywide Planning Policies
for King County, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.210.
B. In July of 1992, the King County Council adopted the Countywide Planning
Policies recommended to it by the Growth Management Planning Council.
The Countywide Planning Policies adopted at that time have generally been
referred to as Phase I. At that time, the Policies as adopted contemplated
completion of a Phase II of countywide policies, to address issues not dealt
with in sufficient detail in Phase I.
C. The particular issues to be addressed in Phase II included designation of urban
centers for purposes of pursuing a regional transit plan, affordable housing,
economic development, rural character, the preparation of a detailed fiscal
analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies, and completion of a draft and a
final Environmental Impact Statement.
D. Since July 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council, working with
task forces to address the specific topics identified for further work in Phase
11, has developed recommended amendments to the adopted Countywide
Planning Policies.
E. On May 25, 1994, The Growth Management Planning Council took final
action recommending Phase lI amendments to the Phase I Countywide
Planning Policies. The GMPC recommendations can be found in the
document entitled Recommended Amendments to King Cnunty 2012
County vide Planning Policies. Adopted ed by the King CountyGrowlh
Manappemot Planning Council May 25, 1994, Urban Growth Area maps
provided in Appendix 1 are intended for policy planning purposes. The Urban
Growth Area contained in these policies is a dynamic policy line which
provides general guidance to the Metropolitan King County Council when it
adopts the final Urban Growth Boundary in its 1994 Comprehensive Plan.
M:\amhe\erdmot\oreppII=c/re 3:04 PM 7/29/94
- 1 -
:.
ZI1
F. The Metropolitan King County government finds that any pertinent growth related
2 issues not addressed in these Countywide Planning Policies, such as proposed urban
3 growth areas for newly incorporated cities, shall be handled in a manner pursuant to
4 State law, until or unless they are proposed by the GMPC or its successor as
5 amendments to these Countywide Planning Policies.
6 G. The Metropolitan King County Council finds that the final report ofwhicthcyV imImoact
7 v d i D v loom nt I sk Force May 4. 1994
8 transmitted to the GMPC on May 4, 1994 meets the requirements of county
9 Ordinance 910450, and RCW 36.70A.210.
10 H. The Metropolitan King County Council finds that the existing environmental
the supporting addendum
11 documents adopted by King County on May
ment 1 Fn ironmental Impact Statement for
12 issued on June 18, 1992, the Draft
13 de Plannine PoPolicies issued by King County on January 12, 1994, the
14 Su _1993-1994 for the SuonleR+ental Er1ylrOnm.�Il13i
. ._, Impa... atate,. of for
15 IMP= Sta_ tement. and the Final
m
16 the Countywide Plannine_P_41i9.ieS issued by King County on May amendments to the
18, 1994, are
17 adequate under SEPA for the purposes of the county's adoption of a
18 . Countywide Planning Policies.
19 1. The amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies adopted
20 herein are substantially consistent with the recommendations of the GMPC, but make
21 technical corrections to further clarify the Countywide Planning Policies.
22 J. With these amendments, the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
23 Policies are further enhanced and refined, and provide clearer direction to all
24 the jurisdictions in the county concerning the location and extent of Urban
25 Centers, approaches to affordable housing and economic development, and
26 the treatment of rural areas. As such they bear a substantial relationship to,
27 and are necessary for, the public health, safety, and general welfare of King
28 County and its residents.
29 S ,TC IQN 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are each repealed and
30 the following is substituted:
31 The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies
32 attached to this ordinance are hereby approved and adopted.
33 SFCTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 hereby each amended
34 to read as follows:
35 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified
36 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
37 B. The amendments to Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 are
36 hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
39 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11061
40 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
n:\9mhe\ordmot\orepPI r rune/rc 3:a4 PM 7/39/94
- 2
1.1446
1 D The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countv_wids Plannine Pic es
2 adopted by this ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the norulat n-Qf uibcnmorated
3 Kin unto
4 SF .T� ION 4. Ordinance 10450, Section 5, and K.C.C. 20.10.050 are each amended to
5 read as follows:
6 A. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 shall become
7 effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least thirty percent of the city and
8 county governments representing seventy percent of the population of King County
9 according to the interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
10 Countywide Planning Policies unless,,,vithin ninety days of adoption by King County, the
11 city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policies.
12 B. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10840 shall become
13 effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least thirty percent of the city and
14 county governments representing seventy percent of the population of King County
15 according to the interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
16 Countywide Planning Policies unless, within ninety days of adoption by King County, the
17 city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policies.
18 C. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 11061 shall become
19 effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least thirty percent of the city and
20 county governments representing seventy percent of the population of King County
21 according to the interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
22 Countywide Planning Policies unless, within ninety days of adoption King County, the city
23 by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policies.
24 D The King County 2012 CounZmide Planning Policies adol2ted by this ordinance shall
25 become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least thirty percent of the
26 Situ and county governments Npresenting seventy percent of the population of Kine
27 County according to the interlocal agreement A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
26 KingCounty 20U CountYyJdQ Planning Policies unless within ninety days of adoption by
29 King County. the city by legislative action disapproves the King Com 2012 Countywide
30 planninaPolicies
M:\gmhe\ordmot\orcpp II—c/rc 3:04 PM 7/29/94
3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
SF .TTIQN 5. Ordinance 10450, Section 6, and K.C.C. 20.10.060 are each amended to
read as follows:
20.10.060 Implementation. ((
Thl
k '
. r -
b
Of t4lp
reguiatiens impleme )) i and caoacity availability and
a v loprml atsumntions that underlie the recommended Urban Growth Ara Fill .e
cjoselvmQjjjjQred yiheMQtIQj2QIjjan 'in o ntv ) mm nt sub5eauent to adootion of
the finial Urban Growth Area IbrouEh annual benchmarking and monitoring reoora An
affudable bQu5. o rnmmittee a land ca a i task force and a growth monitvrin' advi5ory
M:\gmhe\ordmot\Ort-f PII=c/rc 3:04 PM 7/29/94
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
114410
council intend5W-PromPtlY
on land gap city .r(i hQusing.offordability.
COMMSuch yr .5- 1he
cmure that.
pu=s- of wbh is
r4.ir Msnavemcw
to review .,
Art
ta
. . ,•
..r Growth being
Mct To filrther -rr.r
r
"tabliahrd.Lv
i.� rr •ou
. r ra r
protection.shall .e
Kino ounty.
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this day of
19yj.
ASSED by a vote of // to D this /5Aay of -,VI- 19 -
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Chair
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Council h
APPROVED this day of 19
XKingCounty7Eecutive
Attachments:
A. Recommended Amendments to King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies
Adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council May 25, 1994
(Revisions by MKCC Staff 7.19.94)
B. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Countywide Planning
Policies
C. Summary of Public Involvement 1993-1994 for the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement
D. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Countywide Planning
Policies Proposed Amendments
E. Fiscal Analysis and Economic Development Task Force Final Report, May 4, 1994
M:\gMhe\ardM0t\orcppjje c/re 3:04 PM 7/29/94
- 5 -
INCORPOPATES AMENDMENTS ADOPTED 8/15/94 BY MECC
1 Recommended Amendments to King County 2012
2 Countywide Planning Policies
3 Adopted by the King County Growth I%Unagement Planning Council
4 May 25, 1994
5 {Rcvisionsbyv MKCC staff-119,94
6
7 A. The Problem
e King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic
9 human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities:
10 The county's attractive lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region.
11 But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities.
12 An additional 325,000 people will live here by the year 2010 (State of Washington Offic
13 of Financial Management), bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth
-14 fuels the area's strong economy, the absence of effective management of that growth
1: threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life.
16 The effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth are obvious. King County ha
1' the fifth worst traffic mess in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding
18 aggra%ated by development, and escalating housing costs. Many of the schools are over-
19 crowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for services
20 to control crime and to provide critical human resources.
21 The need facing the County and State is to provide the incentives necessary to
22 promote a vigorous. sound, and diversified economy, while reducing, controlling and
23 managing the potential adverse effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth.
24 The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in
25 1990 and strengthened it to 1991. to address these problems.
26 B. The Process
27 Growth management involves planning for economic and population growth,
28 determining where new jobs and housing should go and then locating and phasing
29 population growth in accordance with the ability to provide infrastructure and services.
3o This should include economic development, a workable transportation system, quality
31 drinking water, affordable housing, good schools, open space and parks and, at the same
32 time, protection of our nattrral environment.
33 King County and the 34 cities within it are addressing growth management
34 problems together and in their local jurisdictions. Planning at both levels is called for b)
1
x,446
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
the Growth Management Act.
All jurisdictions arc 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 elomed officials
from Seattle, the suburban cities, and King County, ((+:es)) considered ((hese)) draft
policies in May 1992, and based on public input, ((veijl-rr+e3ce)) made a recommendation
the King County Council for adoption. Kine County Council adopted the initial
C'ountvwide Plannina Policies in July, 1992 by Ordinance #10450 The Ordinance adopt
the Phase I Policies and initiated a Phase IT work pro ram which called for environtnCnl
and fiscal analysis and additional work on economic development rural character.
transportation and affordable housing. The Phase I Countywide Planning Policies were
raiified by Seattle and the suburban cities in October 1992 ((
Tht GrnUth Mana ement Planning Council initiated the Phase IT Work Program
October 1992 and formed three Task Forces comprised of elected officials and citizens l!
deve Ion polic% recommendations and a Transportation Caucus to develop transportation
rate ies These included the Affordable TIousing Task Force Rural Character Task
Force and Fts/Ed (Fiscal Impact Analysis and Economic Development) Task Force Thr
Fis/Ed Task Force was responsible for conducting the fiscal analysis required for the
Countvwide P12nnino Policies as well as developing policy recommendations on econom
development At the completion of the Phase It work on Mav 25 ((4))1994 the GMP(
made police recommendations to the Metropolitan Kine County Council Kine County
will adopt ((tom)) policies and then submit them for ratification to the cities.
The Countywide Planning Policies, as amended through the Phase IT work. ((will
serve as the framework for each jurisdiction's own comprehensive plan, which must be
consistent with Countywide Planning Policies ((in pleee)) by lecernber"31."1995 (( -
-199(1,3}}�j)). These individual comprehensive plans throughout the county, then, will b
.consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County.
C. The Growth Management AM
cppph1-. 07119/94
2
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
The GMA fundamentally changes the xray 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, 'in fiastructure, and finance. If resources are
inadequate to realize the vision, then the strategies and land use must be revised. The
GMA rcquire((s))d Countywide Planning Policies to be adopted by July 1, 1992. At a
minimum, the policies ((trntI5t)) ,w RL fQ_address:
a. Implementation of RCW 36.70A.110 (Urban Growth Arras);
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
I
In. Analysis of fiscal impact.
I
Special emphasis is placed on transportation. Future development activity will be
constrained b} 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 coumy 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 eflecuve 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, w a[er 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 afar 1992 first occurred in the areas where there was existing
capacity. Growth then occurred where existing infrastructure could be easily extended or
cppphl. 07/19/94
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
,5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
enhanced. Lastly, arras 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. 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 employment opportunities for their residents. This includes retail,
educational and social services for city residents and surrounding rural areas. Businesses
to rural cities provide employment opportunities for local residents.
The enure urban area is increasingly characterized by superior urban design and ar
open space network which defines and separates, yet links the various urban areas and
jurisdictions. Countvwide 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
eppph2. 07119/44
4
1 .because of the high quality of life, the emphasis on providing a superior education, and
2 the predictability brought about by the management of growth and the effectiveness of the
3 j public/private partnership in these areas as well as the mutually beneficial partnership in
4 economic development:
5 Housing opportunities for all incomes and.lifestyles exist throughout the county,
6 and with the balanced transportation system, access to employment is assured.
7 The needs of residents are attended to by a social service system that emphasizes
8 prevention, but which stands ready to respond to direct needs as well.
9 The -urban area is located within the incorporated cities, which are the primary
to urban service providers. Where appropriate, sub -regional consortiums have been created
11 for certain services, and the county government is recognized as a regional service
12 provider.
13 Through a clear understanding of growth management, residents and businesses
14 have recognized that all problems will not be cured quickly, but clear and reasonable
15 timelines and financing commitments demonstrate to them that problems will be solved.
16 Residents and businesses trust in their local governments because the plans and promises
I
17 .made to manage growth in 1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in
18 an orderly fashion based on the growth management plan.
19
20 E. The Framework Policies
21 The Gh1A gives local officials new tools for planning and, for the first time,
22 mandates that the county and cities work together to establish an overall vision. Through
23 a collaborative process. the local jurisdictions of King County have prepared the following
24 ((dfe t)) Counnv.ide Planning Policies. ((U These policies rely on local
25 choice to determine the density/intensity and character of each area. All jurisdictions
`26 must recognize that the smart, long term choices for the region will require compromises
27 in local self-determination.
28 These policies represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone
29 concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to establish a vision for the
30 county which builds on existing land use patterns. The policies are organized by topics in
31 separate chapters. At the beginning of each chapter is a framework policy which
32 establishes the overall direction for the following policies. The Countywide Planning
33 Policies can only be realized through local plans and regulations. A decision made locally
cppph'_. 07/19/94
5
1.11446
1. must become a commitment that the region can rely upon. The following framework
2 policies outline the countywide planning process.
3 statcsthat-asomcthinr
4 such a wlicv Teouires the iprisdichcrnt "cc mpreher s ve"olan'to eontiin'a policy that'is
5 uTittcn to-iccompZish'the ntm,ii� tTiYhc•cotmtvwidevolicy.' •When•a-cotmtvivide viilicv
6 statCS-that a-luriuliction""should"ado somcthme.•sdch a•nolicv rcautres'thc nmsdtction3
7 cqrnbrrhins "' tlan•tnl6iiti!6' , Ii6i-batt,written to accomolsh thevuio ofinc�
a countic ibjimv uti)ecc tt;e i�*ritritction ideirti#ics snncavfty it ha3 not done so. Wticr
9 . a countywide nolicv states that` tvrisrlict on "tna v" zip somerhtn such a roT cvy'92csa
v >
10 the iudsdiction3 tcomprchens tztbn corttarn a �li�v°sviiftcn maccoinphsh`tho�un
11 the countywide w1gyv if it is in th6rintuen.
12 FW -1. Countywide growth management is a m 1 i ((ft -step process:
13 STEP 1: The Countywide Planning Policies ¢come ((she;!tee)) effective
14 October 1992, upon adoption by the King County Council and ratification by at least
15 thirry percent of the city and county governments representing seventy percent of the
16 population in King County. (( _ ))
17 STEP 2: The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) reconvened io
1E conduct environmental and fiscal impact analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies anc
19 to consider polic\ amendments developed through implementation of tasks specified in tht
20 Ccxmrvv.ide Planning Polices V✓hen adopted by the Metropolitan KinEr County" Omn
21 and ratified (()) these actions are considered the Phase 11 policy amendments and
22 include
23 a Confnnation of Urban Centers according to the procedures and criteria
24 established in r)ohcies LU -19 and LU -40
25 b Confirmation of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers based on the procedure
26 and cntena established policies in LU -51 and LU -527
27
-52-
27 c Adoption of 20 year targets of projected household and employment .
26 growth countywide and target ranges for each jurisdiction according to the procedures anc
29 criteria in policy LU -67 and LU -68:
30 d. Confirmation of the Urban Growth Area based on criteria established in
31 policy LU -76 .((-.)) The Urban GrOwIb Arca in-th o nW!jdePlanninO Policcc `ic
32 planning policv framework tv tv by the meii•000iitan Kin- Cnunty'Coudl whcn'it
33 adop s the final Urban Growth Armin its '1994= otnpjsIMsi c`Plan and
eppph2. 07/19/94
6
1 S Adoption of additional policy amendments based on the r=mmendadons
2 of the Rural Character Task Force the Affordable Housine Task Force the Fiscal 3mtrdc
3 *Aif; , i and E?zQonmic DcvcIQDM nl Tack Fnttx, and public comments on the
a Countywidc Planning Policies
5 (( (G);pG) Shall
r a
6 !99_ ..,..
5 end
9 a y
10 fro.vth and_.
11
12 eemrrtiite_. r,___._b _ 1992. " 71
"-r d=
13 a
14 f. .. ..
16 m"-ef9bef hff�-et " a-•-'))
1 % f ((c-)) Housing and jobs to accommodate King County's ((pre}ee!ec
is pr+xt egp growth targets shall be planned in the context of carrying capacity of the
19 land. Housing density and affordability shall be considered co -equal objectivcs.
21 r r n
222 ))a _ g
23 STEP 3: The Counivwide Planning Policies shall be implemented as follow
24 a All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the
25 Ccunww,de Plannm= Policies into their respective comprehensive plans. (it}�
26 inn.
27 b All Jurisdictions shall make the decisions reouircd to implement the
28 Countvwide Planning Policies and their resprrtive comprehensive plans throyeh
29 development resularions ((Deeem---'^^"
30 ((
31Ehfet!gh ;eeal plan imp!
32 _
0
33 Gettn ,, ide nl Pel..'e5 The GMFG shell McOfnffr fld re,eisiOM5 es -tree,,! to
cppph2_. 07/19/94
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1£
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
46
((b ))The GMPC yr tts sutx�SS9I shall establish a process for resolving
conflicts between local plans and the Countywide Planning Policies.((t� r—by ]eget
((e )) Phi Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies shall be
subject to ratification by at ]east thirty percent of the city and county governments
representing seventy of the population in King County. All jurisdictions shall amend
pomprehenstve plans as MdZd by
3
4
:995 to be consistent wilt
adonted and ratified Phase 11 amendments (Wt';)'gh
))
((
Felieies end
c
STEP 4: Following adoption of comprehensive plans, the GMPC or its successor
shall review adopted household and employment target ranges and estimated capacity for
each jurisdiction to ensure sufficient capacity within the Urban Growth Area.
a Each jurisdiction shall report to the GMPC or its successor the householt
and employment tareets adonted in itt comprehensiyc ratan and the estimated capacity fog
household and emplmment vrQwth f0' the next pt) years Jurisdictions containing J an
and/or Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall rcpon household and employment target
ran es both for Centers and areas outside Centers Fgch jurisdiction shall also evaluate
the asailahilirn of infrastructure as adopted in six-year capital improvement plans. So
ensure that capacits is available to accommodate a six -veer estimate of household and
employment growth.
b The GMPC or its successor shall review growth targets and capacity for
each jurisdiction to assure that local targets are within the adopted ranges and counrvwidt
capacity is sufficient to meet 20 year growth targets if a discrepancy exists between
growth targets and capacity, either within an individual comprehensive plan or for the
County—as a whole the GMPC or its successor shall recommend amendments to
Coimtvwide Planning Policies or local plans to ensure that growth targets can be achieve,
by planned zoning and infrastructure capacity.
EP 5 The GMPC or its successor shall establish a Land Capacity Task
cppph'_. 07/19/94
8
10
11
12
13
14
1
16
1-
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
125
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
Countywide Plannine Politics -
a,
Tl e GMPC or its successor shall establish a erovlth manaeemcnt
monitoring advisory committee which shall rccomm�nd information to be rem3rd
annually to ee as scrindicatorsd h nrhmarkt for growth manaocment policies The
annual repontn shall incorpo t theconomic d v lopment policy Indic=tors deyeloDed
bs the Fiscal Impact A lv " and Economic Developmcnt Task Force and other indicator
as adoptcd by the GMPC or i15 allcCCUOT, and 'tali consider housing indicators specified
in .wghcv AH -5, Kin Col!nlv shall rrnnrt the adopted growth management benchmarl
annually.
b The GMPC or its successor should conduct a comprehensive evaluation tc
assess implementation of the Countvwide Plannino Policies The evaluation should be
initiated as indicated by results of the monitorin- program but no earlier than five years
after adoption of the Phase 11 Amendments to the Countvwide Plannine Policies. The
e aluatior sh�'I include opportunities for public involvement.
c If the purposes of these 1lannin- policies are not being achieved as
evidenced by results of b nchmarks and monitorin reports the GMPC or its successor
will reconvene at the requ st of a o ry to discuss evaluate and recommend actions to
achieve the purposes of the policie
STEP 7_ The Countvwide Plannine Politics arc based on an urban centcrs
concent mwth 2hasin strafe v and establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Kine
County shall acnvels pursue dedication of open space alon- the Urban Growth Area
boundary with a aoal of creating a contiguous band of otxn space north and south alone
the Urhan Growth Ara boundary %klhen future emwth requires additional capacity
beyond what exists in the main urban arca iurisdictj^ns should look first to TIC main
:.:.:...:.............
urban area and then to the rural cities and thcir o ns;nn arras to ari•pmmOdati new
vrowth This pro mm shall follow the 1994 adoption of the final Urban Growth Area'bs
the MetropQlitan Kine County Count
z Rural land excluding agriculturally zoned land may be added to the
.Urban Growth Area only in exchanee for a dedication of permanent oMn space to the
King County Open Space Svstem The dedication must consist of a minimum of four
cppph'-. 07/19194
9
STF,p .
The
9and
„.
benchmarks
•a ar•M
t• Uscss • ••a
Countywide Plannine Politics -
a,
Tl e GMPC or its successor shall establish a erovlth manaeemcnt
monitoring advisory committee which shall rccomm�nd information to be rem3rd
annually to ee as scrindicatorsd h nrhmarkt for growth manaocment policies The
annual repontn shall incorpo t theconomic d v lopment policy Indic=tors deyeloDed
bs the Fiscal Impact A lv " and Economic Developmcnt Task Force and other indicator
as adoptcd by the GMPC or i15 allcCCUOT, and 'tali consider housing indicators specified
in .wghcv AH -5, Kin Col!nlv shall rrnnrt the adopted growth management benchmarl
annually.
b The GMPC or its successor should conduct a comprehensive evaluation tc
assess implementation of the Countvwide Plannino Policies The evaluation should be
initiated as indicated by results of the monitorin- program but no earlier than five years
after adoption of the Phase 11 Amendments to the Countvwide Plannine Policies. The
e aluatior sh�'I include opportunities for public involvement.
c If the purposes of these 1lannin- policies are not being achieved as
evidenced by results of b nchmarks and monitorin reports the GMPC or its successor
will reconvene at the requ st of a o ry to discuss evaluate and recommend actions to
achieve the purposes of the policie
STEP 7_ The Countvwide Plannine Politics arc based on an urban centcrs
concent mwth 2hasin strafe v and establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Kine
County shall acnvels pursue dedication of open space alon- the Urban Growth Area
boundary with a aoal of creating a contiguous band of otxn space north and south alone
the Urhan Growth Ara boundary %klhen future emwth requires additional capacity
beyond what exists in the main urban arca iurisdictj^ns should look first to TIC main
:.:.:...:.............
urban area and then to the rural cities and thcir o ns;nn arras to ari•pmmOdati new
vrowth This pro mm shall follow the 1994 adoption of the final Urban Growth Area'bs
the MetropQlitan Kine County Count
z Rural land excluding agriculturally zoned land may be added to the
.Urban Growth Area only in exchanee for a dedication of permanent oMn space to the
King County Open Space Svstem The dedication must consist of a minimum of four
cppph'-. 07/19194
9
I acrd of oven soacr dedicated for every one acre of land added to the Urban Growth
2 Arra calculated in Prost acct s The oocn soatx land shall be dedicated at the time the
3 application is approved.
4 b Land added to the Urban Growth Area adopted in the 1994 Countywide
5 pLannino Policies must br physically contiguous to the existing Urban Growth Arta and
6 must bP able to be served by sewers and other urban services
7
8 c The total area increased as a result of this policy shall not exceed 4000
9Ca res.
10 d. Development on the land added to the Urban Growth Area under this
11 policy shall be limited to residential development and shall be at a minimum density of 4
12 units to the acre Proposals shall meet King Countv Comprehensive Plan density and
13 affordable housin-goals
14 e Open space areas shall remain in rural designations and should generally
15 he dedicated in such a way that it can connect with open space on adiacent properties
16 Open space areas should generally parallel th^ urban -rural lint accordiri2 to criteria in k
17 below
18 f The minimum depth of the open space buffer between the oro sr i
19 addition to the Urban Growth Area and the Rural Area shall be at least one-half of the
I
20 property width
21 i 0 The minimum size of property to be considered will be 20 acres which
22 includes bosh the proposed addition to the Urban Growth Area and the land proposed for
23 or)en space dedicaimn Smaller proyenies may be combined to meet the 20 acre criterion
24 h Imnal proposals for open space dedication and urban development must b
25 received between July I 1994 and lune "l0 1996 Review by King Countv shall coneluc
26 by June 10 1997
27 i. Where applications are adiacent to city boundaries or potential annexation
28 areas King Countv shall consult with and solicit mcommendations from the city,
29 i. The King County Executive will evaluate proposals for quality of op&n
30 space and urban development The highest quality propgsa}s will be recommended by tht
31 Executive to the Metropolitan King County Council for adoption This adoption will
32 constitute an amendment to the Urban Growth Area If th 4,M acre limit on land addt
33 to the Urban Growth Area is not rzachfd reachin the first round of proposals d tr to citt r
cpPPh-1. 117119114
10
I insufficient number of proposals or proposals of insufficient cuality. additional rounds of
2 applications may he accentedKing County will set the application and review periods fa
3 any additional rounds
a k Criteria for evaluating proposals shall include
5 1 the quality of wildlife habitat arras:
6 2 connections io regional open Space systems:
7 3 protection of wetlands, stream corridors and water bodies-
8 4 unique natural features
9 5 the amount of dedicated open snare and conn=ions betw=n
10 dedicated open space lands along the urban rural boundary; and
11 6 ability to provide efficient urban govemmenml sgvices to lands to b^
12 added to the Urban Growth Area.
13 1 Proposals which add more than 200 acres to the Urban Growth Arra Shall
14 include affordable housing consistcni with King County policies for urban planned
15 developments As an incentive for additional affordable housing development the
16 required open space dedication shall be 3 5 acres for each acre added to the Urban
17 Growth Area for proposals smaller than 200 acres that provide 30 Pment affordable
is housing units or for large developments that exceed 30 percent affordable housing units
19
20 STEP 8 a The citizens and jurisdictions of King ounty arc committed to
21 maimainine a permanent Rural Area The Q%IPC or its successor shall review all Urban
22 Growth Areas 10 years after the adol2ti2n and ratification of Phase 11 Am ments to the
23 Countywide Planning Policies The review shall be conducted utilizing monitoring reports
21 and benchmark eyaluat on As a result of this review the GMPC or its successor may
25 recommend to the Metronolimn King CQuntv Council amAndments to the Urban GrOV4h
26 Area. Allematively, King Countv may initiate consideration of Urban Growth Area
27 amendments. Amendments shall be based on an evaluation of the following factors
28 the criteria jn policies LU-26 and 11-27
29 - the sufficiency of vacant developable land and redev lopable land to
30 meet proiect needs
31 the actual and proiected rate of development and land consumption by
32 calegory of land use including both devPlopmcnt on vacant land and redevelopment
33 projects:
cppph'-. 071191W
I1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
the Capacity of 222MPdatc ' urisdid!2ns 10 provide infmstructurc and
i
service to the urban Growth Areas
the actual and nroiccted Proncss of iurisdictions in mecdne their
addoptcd 2Q year goals and'tarects of number of bouscholds and cmvlovc-s per acrco
the actual and proiected rate of_oopulation and emolovmcnt emwth
compared to adopted 20-yearPnal5 and target ranges and compared to revised'proiections
from the Washineton State office of financial management:
the actual and Dmiccted trend of economic devdopmcnt and
affordable housing indicators as lzported annually through the adopted monitoring and
benchmarks program.
indicators of environmental conditions, such as air Quality. water
quality wildlife habitat and others
b The Urban Growth Areas of the following cities which are in dispute as of
May 25 1994 and illustrated on the attached mays are now acknowledged as Joint
Planning Areas (See Appendix 1)By December 31 1995 King County the cities .
citizens and property owners will have completed a planning process to determine land
uses and the Urban Growth Area for each .city. The King County Executive will
recommend amendments to the Urban Growth Area for each city for adoption by the
Ntetmpolitan King County Council The Urban Growth Area for each city will be
amended in a separate Council ordinance. These amendments are not subject to
ratification under this r)nlicy.
Redmond (map #1) - 15 acres
l5saguah (mar) #2) - 100 acres
Renton (mar) #31 - 238 acres
Nnrth Rend (mat) #4) - 480 acres
Black Diamond (mar) #5 titled• Black Diamond Urban Growth Area/Chxn
Space) - maximum 3.000 acres
Snogua)mie (map #6 area labeled Joint Plannine Area• the time frame for
completion of ioint planning shall be that identified in the agreement betwe:n City of
Snooua)mie. Kine County and SnoAualmie Ridge Associates regarding S.noaualmic's futur
annexation of propcnv on the take Alicc Plateau )
c. In the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan the Kine County Executive ma;
propose for adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council minor technical changes
cppph'. 117/19/94
12
I not to ccc�d 700 acres to the urban Growth Arca recommended by the GMPC in the
2 Countywide Planning Policies These minor technical changes are, not subiect to
3 ratification under policy FW -1.
4 STEP 9 Amendments t4 the Coumvwidc Planning Policies may be developed by
5 the GMPC or its successor or by the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided in
6 this policy, Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies not including amendment
7 to the Urban Growth Area pursuant to Step 7 and 8 b arid'6 above shall be subject to
8 ratification by at least thin percent of the city and county governmcnts rcpt-cscridng
9 I seventy percent of the population in King County Adoption and ratification of this
to - policy shall constitute an amendment to the May 27, 1992 interlocal agreement among
11 King County the City of Scattle and the suburban cities and towns in King County for tt
12II Growth Management Planning Council of King County.
13 F%V Countywide Planning Policies are effective after King County adoption an
14 city ratification for the purposes of updating comprehensive plans, and providing a polis)
15 framework for other governmental actions of all jurisdictions. Significant planning
16 options will be precluded if interim actions are not taken to assure capacity and ditut
17 growth in the Urban area. and to protect the Rural area from the impacts of growth. Th,
I
18 following interim actions will be taken by all jurisdictions no later than one month after
15 atifcation.
20 a. King County shall adopt interim rural zoning consistent with the
21 designation of rural for the "new- Rural area adopted through the Countywide Planning
22 Policies to ensure rural character is not threatened by additional subdivision activity.
23 b. All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt interim minimum density
24 ordinances and re�teu and. where appropriate, remove regulatory barriers to accessory
25 dwelling units and manufactured homes on individual lots, to ensure that urban land is
26 used efficiently.
27 II !4e existing
28 _ .))
29 FW -'1 The final adopted household and emplovment tar -pet ranges shall be
30 monitored by Metropolitan King f nunly annually with adjustments made by the GMPC r
31 its successor organization every six years utilizing the process established by FW -1. St4R
32 .6.
33 I. CRITICAL AREAS
Cppph'-. 07119194
13
J
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
is
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25-
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
kj
Most jurisdictions in King County have sensitive areas ordinances in place or
under development. These regulations are tailored to the speck needs of each
jurisdiction and are nor likely to be modified based on another jurisdiction's regulations.
it is.important to promote regional policies that do nor erode exisring regulations while
providing guidance for achieving consistency and compatibility among them.
A. Overall Environmental Protection
FW -((3))4. All jurisdictions shall protect and enhance the natural ecosystems
through comprehensive plans and policies, and develop regulations that reflect natural co
straints 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))5. Puget Sound, floodplains, rivers, streams and other water resou=
shall be managed for multiple beneficial uses including flood and erosion hazard reduc-
tion, 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. \1'etlonds Protection
CA -1. All jurisdictions shall use as minimum standards, the 1989 Federal Manu2
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
countvwtde classification system for wetlands.
CA -3. Within each basin, jurisdictions shall formulate their regulations and other
non -regulators 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, isolat
wetlands in exchange for a larger connected wetland system can achieve greater resource
.protection and reduce isolation and fragmentation of wetland habitat.
C. Aquifers
eppphl. 07/19/94
14
1 Currently, inert arc fttir Ground Water Managenteru Pians ((+x�sn.aY))12G1�1
2 prmuc in King County: Redmond, Issaquah, East King County, South King County, ar,
3 Vashon. Mov hu/ not All impnr7ant aauifrrs ore contained within these arra£. The sta
4. Department of Ecology has designated Seaitle. King County Drportmen/ of Public Health
5 ac the lead agency. Each plan is prepared in conjunction with an advisory committee wi
6 representatives from suburban cities,
water utilities businesses, private well owners,
7 environmental groups, and stare agencies. 7-ne plans Aill.identify aquifer recharge areas
8 and propose strategies far prntecrinn of i rc ((-t)) through pre ervation an
g proreainn of Qrnundwpler
Incal goti mmenrs are renuired to adopt pr
10 Amend rPFlrlaAnnS ordinances.
12ndlor Programs in order to implement the Plans fnllowit
11 cenificarion by Ecoloev in accordance with WAC 173-700-720.
2 CA-5. All jurisdictions shall adopt iii (( )) to Protect the quality
13 and quantity of groundwater where appropriate:
14 a. jurisdictions that arc included in Ground Water Management Plans shall
15 support the development• adop[ion• and implementation of the Plans; and
16 b. The Seattle-King County Depanment of Public Health and affected
_- i iunsdictions shall develop countywide policies outlining best management ptacuccs withit
is aquifer recharge areas to protect public health. and
19 c Kin County and groundwatcr purveyors including cities snecia_l 129=9
20 dinrncls and others should jointly
2i I Prepare roundwater re"haree area maps usino common criteria an
22 mcorporann mfnrmanon enem&d by Ground Water Manav^ment Plans and purveyor
23 studies:
24 Develop a process by which land use jurisdictions will review, const
25 with and implem ni as annropriate purvevor Wellhead P-otection Pro,rams renuired b
26 the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act:
27 Determine which portions of mapped recharge areas and Wellhead
28 Protection Ares should be designated as critical and
29 a Ipdate critical areas maps as new information about mchar�e areas
30 and Wellhead Protection Areas becomes available.
31 CA-6. Land use a tions should take into account the potential impacts on aquifer
32 determined t0 serve as water supplies The d pledon and de-radation of aU fcrs needed
33 for potable water supplies should be avoided or mitigated' otherwise a proven feasible
cppph'. 07/19/93
is
!. �.
1 rcolaccment source of water 5U12121y lv should be planned and devclorxd to com=satc for
2 p9tential Io51 531PPlieS
3 D. Fah and Wildlife Habitat G
4 CA-((6))2. Adjacent jurisdictions shall identify and protect habitat networks that
5 are aligned at jurisdictional boundaries. Networks shall link large protected or sig7ufican
6 blocks of habitat within and between jurisdictions to achieve a continuous countywide
7 network. These networks shall be mapped and displayed in comprehensive plans.
8 CA-((;))$. All jurisdictions shall identify critical fish and wildlife habitats and
9 species and develop regulations that:
10 a. Promote their protection and proper management; and
11 b. Integrate native plant communities and wildlife with other land uses wher.
12 possible.
13 CA-(($))9. Natural drainage systems including associated riparian and shoreline
14 habitat shall be maintained and enhanced to protect water quality, reduce public costs,
15 protect fish and wildlife habitat, and prevent environmental degradation. Jurisdictions
16 within shared basins shall coordinate regulations to manage basins and natural drainage
17 systems which include provisions to:
16 1 a. Protect the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems
19 maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and restore and maintain those natural
20 functions:
21 b. Control peak runoff rate and quantity of discharges from new developmet
22 to approximate pre-development rates; and
23 1c. Preserve and protect resources and beneficial functions and values throug
24 maintenance of stable channels, adequate low flows, and reduction of future storm flows,
25 erosion. and sedimentation.
26 CA-((9))j_Q..Jurisdictions shall maintain or enhance water quality through control
27 of runoff and best management practices to maintain natural aquatic communities and
26 beneficial uses.
29 CA-((49))1 I. The Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and th
30 Indian Tribes both manage fish and wildlife resources. However, local governments hav,
31 authority for land use regulation. Jurisdictions shall coordinate land use planning and
32 management of fish and wildlife resources with affected state agencies and the federally
33 recognized Tribes.
cppph—'. 07119/+
16
I E. Frequently Flooded Auras
2 The Stare adopted comprehensive flood legislation in 1991 (Senate Bill 5411) that
3 makes the GALA requirement for coordination and consistency on flood hazard regulation
4 much more *explicit. According to the new legislation, counries are to develop flood
5 hazard control management plans with the full participation of jurisdictions within the
6 planning areas. Once adopted by the county, cities within flood hazard planning areas
7 must comply with the management plan. The ((c?raj)) Counrywtde Flood. Hazard
s Reduction Plan wo reviewed by at%cted jurisdictions ((3efere
9 .. ....... .__..
10 the Kine, C'n2ntv'Cotincil on'Nnvrniher 15 "I993 (Or$inancc 21.
1 1 CA -((44))12. The cities and the Countv should closely plan and coordinate
12 implementation of their Flood hazard reduction activities within the major river basins (th
13 Snooualmie Skykomish Sammamish Cedar Grein and White). ((4iljt iet�ene
14 5. ell .,. o ..
15 - r. ... �..'. �.. _.. ..
16 Plan. n ` L.r�
17 a Comprehensive plan poljcies re-ulations and pro -rams of iurisdjgtions i
18 any ni the six maior river basins should be consistent with the KinT County Flood T-Imr
19 Reduction Plan (FHRP) Policies.
20 b Each iurisdictiont policies regulations and ps2tams should effectively
21 prevent new devclopmem and other actions from causing significant adverse impacts on
22 i major river flondm-erosion and natural resources outside their jurisdiction.
23 E. Redttee Peed m9paei5
2 . .'-.e
25
26 0 _ funetiens,
27 Be elep aft enfaFeefRemi pfegfaff�-.�
26 F. Geologic Hazard Areas
29 CA -((-P-)) 1-1. All jurisdictions shall regulate development on certain lands to
30 protect public health, property, important ecological and hydrogeologic functions, and
31 environmental quality, and to reduce public costs. The natural features of these lands
32 include:
33 a. Slopes with a grade greater than 40%;
wpph2. 17/19/94
17
1141,46
1 b. Severe landslide hazard areas:
2 c. Erosion hazard areas:
3 d. Mine hazard areas, and
4 e. Seismic hazards.
5 Regulations shall include, at a minimum, provisions for vegetation retention,
6 seasonal clearing and grading limits, setbacks, and drainage and erosion controls.
7 G. Air and Water Quality
6 CA.(( -13))14. All jurisdictions, in coordination with the Puget Sound Air Pollutiot
.9 Control Agency and the Puget Sound Regional Council, shall develop policies,
10 methodologies and standards that promote regional air quality, consistent with the
11 Countywide Policy Plan.
12 CA -((4.4))x- All jurisdictions shall implement the Puget Sound Water Quality
13 Management Plan to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of the Puget.
14 Sound Basin.
15 H. Implementation
16 CA -((43))16. King County shall establish a technical committee 12„v January 1995
17 to facilitate environmental protection which is to include representatives of the county, tht
16 cities. the federaliv recognized Tribes, business community, environmental community,
19 public utilities. special districts, and interested citizens. The committee will serve as a
20 depository of regulations and policies adopted by jurisdictions in King County.
21 (( t)) The committee shall
22 hieh addresses)) evaluate and comment upon new
23 develonment re ulaiicns proposed by Jurisdictions pursuant to FW -'1 CA -1 through 15.
24 J. -U-1 throe h s In r vteµin th proposed regulations the technical committee shall
25� consider the consistency and compatibility of regulations and designations, and cumulativ
26 and lona-term impacts. (( o reii should be desigfted-+5
27 es5i5i de -el me! eenststeftey-ftme".
26the ))
29 The committee shall also recommend environmental benchmarks.
30 11. LAND USE PATTERN
31 A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral
32 The prnrecrion and munagemenl of resource lands in King County is a regional
33 concern and a mojnr objective of the Countywide Planning Policies. The vast majority OJ
eppph'_. 07/19/43
18
1 v `
1
resource lands are located in unincorporated King County. These areas were idenrified
2 and protected under the 1985 King county Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
3 community plans and rcgulations.
q FW'-((3))�. • The land use pattern. for 'the County shall pro=t the natural
5 environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. Urban
6 Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary
v implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a wl4
8 plannine boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these
9 land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies whit;h•are To use$_^a5la
10 framework for the adooti2o of the 1 994Metrsrolitan i{m>'S '" Com svc Plan.
11 LU -1. Agricultural and forest lands are protested primarily for their long-term
12 productive resource value. However, these lands also provide secondary benefits such as
13 open space, scenic views and wildlife habitat. All jurisdictions should encourage
14 utilization of natural resources through methods that minimize the impacts on these
15 i secondary benefits. Resource lands also contain an abundance of critical areas that shall
16 be protected in accordance with adopted State and local regulations.
17LU-'. All jurisdictions shall protect existing resource lands within their
1s boundaries that have long-term commercial significance for resource production. Any
19 designated agricultural and forestry lands shall not be considered for urban development.
20 Jurisdictions are required to enact a program authorizing the transfer or purchase of
21 development rights for designated forest or agricultural areas within Urban Growth Arras.
22 At the request of any cit}'. King County will work to reinstate the King County Purchase
23 of Development Rights Program and/or establish an interjurisdictional transfer of
24 development rights program to protect these resource lands in accordance with the GMA.
_,25 LL'-+. Extsnng mineral extractive and processing operations or designated sites
26 may be annexed or incorporated to a city only if there are policies and regulations in plat -
27 to protect the long term viability for continued operation and ensure adequate reclarnation
26 and enhancement of the site once operation ceases.
29 LU -4. All jurisdictions shal! encourage compatible land uses adjacent to natural
30 resource areas which support utilization of the resource and minimize conflicts among
31 uses. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing the plat and permit notification
32 requirements for properties within 300 feet of the resource land, as specified in RCW
33 36.70A as amended. Jurisdictions will consider an increased distance for notification and
cppph'_. 07/19/94
19
11 46
1 + notification to titles to property within or adjacent to the resourcelands.
I
2 i LU -5. All jurisdictions shall require mineral extraction and processing operation!
3 and agricultural practices to implement best management practices to reduce
4 environmental impacts and mitigate any unavoidable impacts.
5 B. Rural Areas
6 The vast majority of rural areas are located in unincorporated King County. Tne
7 areas were identified and regulated through the 1985 King Caunry Comprehensive Plan
8 and subsequent community plans and regulations. While counties are the jurisdictions
8 specified by the GMA as responsible for designating and regulating rural areas through
10 their comprehensive plans, the protection of King County's rural area is a regional issue
11 and a fitndamental objective of the Counrywide Planning Policies.
12 FW -((6))7. Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be
13 designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes
14 Countywide establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish
15 these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
16 FW -((-7))8. All jurisdictions acknowledge that rural areas provide an overall
17 benefit for all residents of Kin- County. Strategies to fund infrastructure and services in
is rural areas may be needed to support a defined rural level of service. Towns and cities
19 the rural areas play an important role as ((aetl)) trade and community centers.
20 FW -9 A fundamental component of the countvwide planning stratcgy is the
21 maintenance of the traditional character of the Rural Area with its mix of forests. farms.
22 high-eualtty natural environment, rural cities unincorporated rural centers and variety c
23 lo"-denstry residential uses. The basic elements of this rural character are:
24 a NATURAL FEATURES .... such as water bodies and significant
25 weilands sceni; resources and habitat areas should be afforded long-term protection
26 minimizing lane -term environmental deemdation and enhancing environmental quality
27 where previous degradation has occurred.
28 b. RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIES .... Commercial and non-commcrci�
29 farming forestry, primary forest products manufacturing mining and fisheries activities
30 shall be encouraved to continue and to expand as possible
31 C. RURAL TOWNS Valued attributes of small towns such as- public
32 .,safety- historical continuity- small independent business• and local availability f goods
33 and services shall be encouraged to continue
cppph'. 07!19/93
20
h ::1. I .>
1
d RURAL INFRAc ruilC 1 URE AND SERVICES Rural residents
2 outside citi should anticipate lower levels of public service5 and infrastructure than those
3 available in urban areas maxiz n self sufficiency and indeXndence
4 e OPEN SPACE SYSTEM Significant components of King unrv'
5 Oven Space System are found in Rural Areas Trail corridors habitat networks.
6 recreational areas and scenic resources should be linked wherever possible to cpm Tete the
7 system. Active recreational facilities shall be rural in character. Where a traditional
8 landsca of fields cleared for a ricultural purposes exists new development should e
9 clustered at the edaes of fields to minimize the consumption of agricultural land and
10 possible flicts with current or future farming activity.
11 f RURAL HOUSING The Rural Areas shall offer important alternative
12 and qualitative housing choices but shall not be considered a quantitatively significant part
13 of the county's residential growth capacity'
14 g. RURAL ECONOMY.... The Rural Areas make a unicue contribution to
15 King County's economy In addition to farming fisheries and forestry, cottage industries
16 shall be reco nized as making a si nificant economic contribution in Rural Areas, nd
17 should be encouraged.
is h CITIES Rural cities shall encourage where appropriate business
19 opportunities which support the full range of rural activities occurring in their adjacent
20 Rural Areas includin support services for agriculture and forestry Cities should also
21 provide a place for shopping, education social services and other community functions at
22 a scale consistent with the maintenance of rural character as well as the cities' household
23 and employment target ranges.
24 FW 10 To achieve and maintain rural character, King County and the cities,
2'5 as appropriate shall use a range of tools including at a minimum• land use designations.
26 development re ulations level of service standards (particularly for infrastructure), and
27 incentives.
28 LU -6. Through the Countywide Planning Policy process, King County, with
29 the cooperation of the cities, shall be responsible for designating rural areas consistent
30 with GMA. In designating long term rural areas, King County shall foster better use of
31 limited public funds by allowing service providers to establish distinctly rural facility and
32 service standards. -
33 LU -7. Designated rural areas are considered to be permanent and shall not be
cppph2. 07119/94:amend 8/15/94
21
14
I redesignated to an Urban Growth Area until reviewed nur.;llat'-IQ l ,rowth
2
Ma nvement ACI (RCN 3 5 70" 130 r3r) and rxrlicv EE- :. Future growth should be
3 accommodated to themaxim^ ^ �xtrnt feasible by efficient use of ecisting urban land
. 4 . within the Urban Growth. Area. Annexation of rural area, to =hies shall be prohibited.
5 When annexation of rural areas is necessary to link two urban areae, that intervening rurz
6 area shall be designated as permanent urban separator at low rural densities._
117-8 Retention of r*�� �rcc bad uses and Cron �^ ion of natural recour a tont
a are itnwrtanj to MainmininP IhZ traditional character. environmental functions and valuers
9 the Run] Area, Kine County shall identify 3pDS4Pnat tl'srr- "'thin the Rural Arra whet
to farming and foreSLry are to bZ rcouraged anhali to
11 by December 31 1995 Areas to be considered should include'
id •fib
12 a Large bi pCkS Of IanC', cli�ici itciiii cd ty u;no County or yropgscd
13 the property owners with rcsonrce land characteristics or aeri ulturc or forestry producd
14 potential:
15 h Land enrolled in the current use assessment program as farm and agr
16 cultural land or timber land under RCµ' 8414 or enrolled for tax purposes as timber lar
17 under RCµ' 84.;13:
is c Land in proximity to designated APriculture and Forest Production Di;
19 tracts offering mutual bufferin benefits and low potential for conflicts with adiacent use
20 and
21 d Land with valuabl environmental features such as wildlife habita
22 around water rcchar-e salmonid streams or high-value wetlands.
23 LUQ Permitted land uses within designated Rural Area farming and forestry distric
24 should be limited to residences at very 1()w densities and farming or forestry-relit use
25 Institutional uses or puhlic facilities should not be permitted except for the siting of utili
26 lines where no feasible alternative exists and the siting of K-12 public schools ander
27 uhiic school facilities in conjunction with K-12 Public Schools Development of adiacc
28 lands should be conditioned to minimize land use conflicts and conversion pressures utx
29 these districts.
30 LU 10 The Rural Arca shall have low densities which can be sustained by minim
31 infrastructure improvements such jU septic sy,4Ym5 and rural roads King County Citi
32 adjacent to Rural Areas and other aycncics providjn services to Rural Areas shall adc
33 standards for facilities and services in Rural Areas that protect basic r'uhlic health and safes
cppph2. 07/19/93
22
IIJ
facilities and soviets should not be vrovidcd t
I
and —e h;incc the envlronmc
other mfTa
t[TLCILTe Im4r0"ementt mnv only be -----de
2
R-Ula Arrest Ulilitira Toads,
3
th z "Ural areas to s rvc existing urban
areas. `
4
(( 3))LU 11 CorrlDreh naive plans
covering nearbv Urban Areas shall consider tF
5
Mentlai Impacts of urban devy]opm nt Qn
the adjacent Rural Are= Devdopmcnt in Urba
6
Areas shall not significantly ing o sc =k
flows or vohution in Rural Arca streams. _Urbar
7
Pencrated rMfflg.�homld not causc rural roads
to be upgraded to urban standards Whcrrr
8
run] arterial must be upgraded to accommodate
urban eenerated traffic it should include fc
9
tures such as screenin and limited access
` ithin the Rural Arca to lessen the road's impa
10
pn_ slirrounding rural lands incl nressorr
to convert them to higher-intensity user
11
Fundinv for such improvements Should
be primarily the rest miUity of the benefin
12
jurisdiction.
13
L u-12. Plannin for Rural Areas should
comply with the following density guideline:
14
p one home per 20 acres
ro vrotecl forest lands when designated in ascot
15
dance with Policy LU-8
16
b one home per 10 acres
io protect lands for small-scale farming whe
17
designated in accordance with Policy LU-8:
1fl
c one home per 10 acres is
also appropriate if the predominant lot size is 1
19
acres or lar er and the lands are within one-quarter of a mile of a detivnaled Fore-
20
Production Disinct or lower-density Agricultural Production District with livestock-base
21
a riculture or a legally aoproved Ion term mineral resource extraction sit^ or the lane
22
contain si nifcani environmentally constrained
areas as defined by county ordinance c
23
federal or state lain,
24
d one home per 5 acres
where the land is physically suitable and can Y
25
supported by rural services and
26
e development on existing
sub-standard lots in the Rural Area shall t
27
permined when annlicabie development standards
such as Board of Health regulations ft
26
on-site sewage disposal can _be met.
29
LU- I 3w To maintain rural character
and to minimize the need for additional
30
infrastructure very large lots (five acres
or morel are the preferred residential
31
development pattern To further the goals
of rural protection clustering of development
32
that will sustain rural land uses require only rural levels of service and be designed,
33
scaled and sited to be consistent with Rural
Area character may be reouircd
cppph'. 07/19194
23
.I- -A- `JL v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 .
32
33
whore • • not resUll 1 2 PrcalcTnllmbcrof • 1'! units than
woul
bc ! l 1l ! Under 2 convolional lotting •• 11unless either:
• .Il• •e• rl•l of land • 1' ..1 0. .•
is • jOc4 and tht impactsgf theaddilgoal dwelfinE urlil5!
protection, 511•1K 11• 'la- •lr. ••
exi�ti1 . ■rd for ;I significantnatural a as
farming or fomarry lands wol!ld. •-
from • • non -resource based
b. where cl.- of df-welopment would:
provide L,a4 - protecdon forC: l .. gr environmentallv
sensitive features:
2. reduce the consumption of agricultural or forestry lands for residents
3 minimize potential conflicts between residential and resource-based
actiyrites.
1 11 14 Kino County may allow transfer of density from Rural Area prom
to other Rural or Urban Arca properties inorder to (1) secure a substantial dedication of si
nificant land to the King County Open Space System' (2) provide permanent protectson whi
is oreater than that available through existing regulation to a significant natural resource:
(1) encourace retention of resource-based uses in the Rural Arca The countvshall devel
a mechanism io accomplish these objectives and provide that:
a lands dedicated are first determined to be suitable for inclusion within t
Kin^_ Count\ Open Space System:
b the protected natural resource is first determined to be of siEnificance
King Count% citizens and the protection afforded is materially superior to that provided
existing regulations:
c. the resulting development is located in proximity to the lands to be da
cited to public ownership or where it can otherwise be shown that the residents of this dev
opment will share in an overriding public benefit to be derived from the preservation of t
dedicated lands or the protection of the natural resource
. and
cppph=• 07/19/94
d. the resultine development within the Rural Area maintains rural champ
e. there shall be no net increase in density within the Rural Area as a res
24
2.
3
of this density ttansfcr
LIT -15. Rural Areas should retain a high browrdon_Qf_�,,n
LL 6
i turd soils to maim
Pround water recharee high water duality and river,
and_=t1n—t)asc flows esscntiai
4
a{on ♦ccreation and the survival of wildlife and
fish _done --tear integrity of Ru
5
Area eco5y5tcms should be a guiding principle in establish,U_.�hc
location and intensity
6
land uses and public facilities in Rural Areas the oxmi�_.e
v.-indards for resource -bas
7
a
9
activities and rural facility standards.
LU -16. Rural dcvclopmcnt standards should be
d^signed to protect the natural en
ronment The tools to achieve this include: seasonal
and maximum clearing limi
10
impervious surface limits• surface water management
standards that emphasize preservati
11
of natural drainave systcros and water euality, ground
water recharge and best managemt
12
13
14
practices for resource-based activities.
LU -17 Rural Areas shall be recognized as si
nificent for the recharge and story
of groundwater and as areas necessary for the maintenance of base flows in rivers and natu
15
levels of lakes and wetlands. Measures to protect these
areas shall include:
16
1
a. A rural section within the King County
Surface Water Design Mam
rcckimne runoff be infiltrated except where potcntialgroundwatcr
contamination cannot
1 s
prex ented by pollution source controls and stormwater pretreatment. and
19
20
b infiltration as the preferred method of
volume control with other meths
allouahle onts after infiltration has been ruled out for
technical masons
21
22
LU -18 Kine Countv's Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to preser
opportunities for mining and to assure extractive industries maintain environmental Qual
23
and minimize impacts io adiacent land uses The foal
shall be to facilitate the efficit
24
tuilizauon of valuable mineral oil and gas deposits
when consistent with maintaini
25
26
27
environmental ouahiv and minimizing impacts
LU -19 Rural level standards for struts should
be refined to minimize clearin a
pradino. and avoid conflicts with the natural landscape
Pavement width should be no wic
28
than needed to mee[ safety considerations and accommodate designated bicvcle/ esti
29
30
31
routes.
LU -20 Standards for rural water service to
be developed through the rural desi
manual should assure aftcuatc Quality and ouantity for
domestic supply consistent with h
32
33
neral residential densities and existing infrastructure commitments
LU -21. Regional public facilities which directly
serve the public shall be disroura-
cgpPh'-- 07/19/94
25
.
1
from Iocalm° to nrai ai caa_
farming a
2
Lj] Kme Counshould _. , . 2dditioDill
ways that
small -gal
3
]gnd w1d watershod st ti rdshiv can be encouraged
through
landowner
inccnti
pr ,ams and community b •I r bOn This should
r
include;
tin n rtuniiies and inccntives
for voluntary
coopctativc
managcmc
6
or woodlots and open space that is currently in separate
ownerships:
7
__hjlic l _ si.t. ncc alld
o providing'
information to
landowner
groupsa
8
community associations seckin° io imPIC cnt stcwardabip
habitat
restomli0n
and mann:
.g
ment plans:
10
c providing Qptrtach and assi mice to
small landowners
wishing
to participr
11
in oven space lax incentive programs:
12
d onaoino evaluation of existing lax
incentive pro°rams
including 1
13
County's Public Benefit Rating Syslcm and the timber
and a riculturai
current
use 2ssessmc
14
pro Came to ensure they meet the needs of rural character
preservation:
e implementation of "richt to farm"
and "ri°ht to forestry"
ordinances:
16
f development of expedited permit review
processes and/oi
-unit
exemptio
17
for activities complying with cooperatively develorv.d
strwardshiD
habitat
restoration a
16
resource mann emem plans that include "best mana°ement
practices".
15
cooperation with Stale and Tribal AgencjCs
in expcditin°
re°ulatory revic
20
and technical assistance to cwmr-atine landowners.
21
!(
22
27
< < __
))_
24
2 Sl
_
26
27'
28
Aeteber 1. 199 a r tit! _ _si,,__ _ _al
e....::_ _l .
_nb
_ and
...t__ too!
29
ie pFeteet ftifel 2haFeeief. _.!M6' -e5 to be eensidertd
inelude!))
31
b. rfteiiiia!eb
b
32
foresf, wetlands,
33
b
CPPPh'-. 07/19194
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1;
1�
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
J-1146 y
e.
b b
LIJ+4.0))23. Rural areas designated by King County shall remain rural.
Additional. rural areas shall be designated by King County through adoption ofa land ust
map authorized by the Growth Management Planning Council. These additional arras
meet at least one of the following criteria:
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 fi
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
hes 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.
Crite'nu %p(,cilird to LU-((-lG))23(h) permirs the redesignation of urban lands in
Kin, Curtin it, rurcd. Thar urrer.N huvr not received a full range of services, such as
srtvro, find urr drrrh,prrl u, drn.citirs which arc' ton low to support cost-effective
prtnision ,rf ull urhun %rrirtcc.t. The inclusion of these new rural areas will carry out
regional pnlicrc\ In fi)c 11.%ing ne,%r development to urban areas that are planned to have f
urhun services.
LU -((2.4))L4. Low-density urban areas meting the criteria of
((s#rH)) may 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 Kin
County code.
HIFFES..Fuettife, hil a
o of be required an all existing,
cppph2. 07/19/96
27
2eheraeter))
3 LII -25. in County, in collaboration with affected govcrrrments agencies and
4 citizens shall prepare the foliowine vroducts:
5 a A manual on rural infrastructure design fingluding an examinarion of ahcrnati
6 sewaac treatment iechnolo its) fire/wildfiro yrotection and service standards•
7 b.' Recommended revisions to Kine County's land dcvclopmcnt rc-ulations
S address issues such as incentives for reconsoliddon of nonconforming and unbuildable to
g application of current regulations if discretionary extensions of preliminary plat approvals
10 allowed and subdivision site design to minimize conflict with nearbv farming and forest
I
11 activities:
j
12 c A strafe v to persuade the bankine industry and its regulators to revise
13 lending criteria to remove obstacles to affordable housing on large lots, and to invest in
14 environmentally sound land management practices: and
15 d A strategy to persuade the federal and state bovernments to devise domes
16 water euality standards and monitoring re0uirements that protect the environment and pub
17 health at a reasonable cost so as to avoid financial pressure to convert Rural Arras to high
1s densities.
19 thet 5tjf:FeLtn�ed b)
20 _ ed _ _Bi— _166 - _,.ce .tie, .ideser.iees to fural efeas shall feffn_a
21 b
22 .))
23 C. Urhnn Areas
24 Tne %llowinp pnlicir.s rstuhli.th an Urban Growth Area (UGA) and methods to
25 phase derelopmrnr within this urru in order to bring certainty to long-term planning and
26 developmrnt ,vuhm Me counn. The Urban Growth Area is a permanent designation.
27 -Lund outside the Urban Growth Area i.s designated for permanent rural and resource
28 loses, except./or the cities in the rttrul area. Counrywide policies on rural and resource
29 arcus are %und in Chapter 11A. Resource Lands, and Chapter IIIB, Rural Areas.
30 Thr cupucin• in the Urban Growth Area for growth, based on adopted plans and
31 regulations, meas ((e{eee,ds)) the 20 -year minimum requirement of the GMA according t
32 the current population forecams. In the future, all urban growth is to be accommodated
33 within permanent urban areas by increasing densities. Phasing is to occur within the
cPPPh?, 07/19194
28
I
Urban Growth Area to ensure that services are provided as growth occurs. All cities are
2 to be within the Urban Growth Area. Cities in the rural area are to be UGA islands.
3 FW -(($))11. The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural
4 environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. An
5 Urban Growth Area, Rural.Artas, and Resource. Lands shall be designated and the
6 necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes countywide establishment of a
7 boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions
8 based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
9 FW -((9))12. The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate
3.0 future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure
11 efficient use of the growth capacity within the Urban Growth Area shall be instituted.
12 1. Urban Growth Area
13 The GMA requires King County to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in
�I
14 consultation with cities. The Cnunmvide Planning Policies must establish an Urban
i
15 Growth Area that contains enough urban land to accommodate at least 20 years of new
I�
16 population and employment growth. The GMA states: "based upon the population
i
17 forecast made for the counn, be the Office of Financial Management, the Urban Growth
18 Areas in the count shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit urban growth that
19 is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding rwenty-year period. Each Urban
20 Growth Area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space
21 areas. " A UGA map is arruched ac Apnendix 1 which euides the adoption of the 1994
22 i Metropnlirun Kine CounnCornprehencive Plan.
23 �' LU -((44))26. The lands within ((the)) Urban Growth Areas (UGA) shall be
24 ! characterized by urban development. The UGA shall accommodate ((etesSE)) the 20 -year
25 III projection of ((population)) household and employment growth with a full range ofhp ased
26 urban governmental services. The Countywide Planning Policies shall establish the Urban
27 Growth Area based on the following criteria:
28 a. Include all lands within existing cities, including cities in the rural area and
29 !I their designated expansion areas;
30
31
32
33
b. The GMPC recognizes that the Bear Creek Master Plan Developments
(MPDs) are subject to an oneoing review process under the adopted Bear Creek
Community Plan and recognizes these properties as urban under these Countywide
�I
I Planning Policies. If the applications necessary to implement the MPDs are denied by
cppph'_. 07119194:amend 8/15194
29
1
2
3
a '
5
6
7
8
9
1D
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
„y.. ..Y.. ..Y.. .-- \
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 Policia 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 charactenud by urban development which can
be efficiently and cost effectively served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm
drainage, schools and other urban Fvernmental services within the next 26 years;
c. Do not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, which
impede provision of urban servtees;
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 arra
are designated as an urban separator by interlocal agreement between jurisdictions.
LU -U-1-3))27. Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little developmer
tta i-Rt;,btp within the Urban Growth Arca. Urban separators shall be defined as
permanent low density lands which protect adiacent resource lands rural areas. and
environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urbar.
areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. (Mteee
lams)) Designated urban scoaratnrs shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20 year
planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban
s arwors is a regional as well as a local concernTherefore no modifications should b
made to the development re ulations governing these areas without King County review
and conctirrengp.
2. Phasing Development within the Urban Growth Area
Development in the urban area will be phased to promote efficient use of the land
add cerrainn, to infrastructure planning, and to ensure that urban services can be providt
to urban development. The minimum densities required by LU -((34))¢¢ help ensure the
efficient use of the land. Phasing will further ensure coordination of infrastructure and
development. Urban areas in jurisdictions which do nes have urban services and are nes
eppph—. 07/19/94
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
.L — `I -� U
scheduled to receive urban services within 10 years shall be subject to phasing
requirements.
LU -((4-6))25. Within the Urban Growth Arca, growth should be directed as.
follows: a) first, to centers.and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity; b)
second, to areas which arc already urbanized such that infrastructure improvements can t
easily extended; and c) last, to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements.
LU -((-1-7))29. All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with
applicable cavital facilities plana ,Q mainjain an nrhnn area served with adeouatc vublic
facilities and services to maintain an urban area to mat at least the six year intermediate
household and r
,!Doloymcnt lgrg.l mn-cs consjclrnj with LLl-67 and LLL
a
_ .)) These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally
adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State
GMA requirements. The (( t )) phasing plans for cities shall no
extend beyond their Potential Annexation Areas. Interlocal agreements shall be develope
that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation an
future annexation for the Potential Annexation Areas.
LU-((l-S))L0. 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 available. and
b. Establish a process for convening land to urban densities and uses once
services are available.
3. joint Planning and Urban Growth Areas around Cities
Thr GMA rtrlwre.� eueh county to designate Urban Growth Areas, in consultation
with cities. Within the cuunrvwide• Urban Grnwth Area, each city will identify land need,
Jnr its grmvth Jnr the nrrt nventy yeurs. Although the GMA does not explicitly equate
Urban Grnwth Arcus with municipal annerution areas, the Urban Growth Areas around
dries mm, he considered potential expansion ureas for cities.
FW -((4)))j_3. 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 services shall not be extended through the use of special
cppph'-. 07/19194
31
I purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation arra the
2 extension is proposed. Within the urban arra, as time and conditions warrant, cities
3 should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts.
4 LU -((4-9))31. In collaboration with-adjacrstt counties and cities and King County
5 and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a
6 potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city.
7 Potential annexation areas shall not overlap. Within the potential annexation area the cit
s shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with Countywide Planning
9 Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential
10 annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King
11 County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between
12 cities.
13 LU -((?9))2. A city may annex territory only within its designated potential
14 annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the ci
15 to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed.
16 LU -((-'-4))33. Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed
i
17 accordine to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands
16 adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a
1° full range of urban services. Subsequent to establishing a potential annexation area, infii
20 lands within the potential annexation area which are not adjacent or which are not
21 practical to annex shall be developed pursuant to interlocal agreements between the
22 Counts and the affected cit}. The interlocal agreement shall establish the type of
23 development allowed in the potential annexation area and standards for that development
-2; so that the area is .developed in a manner consistent with its future annexation potential.
25 The interlocal agreement shall specify at a minimum the applicable zoning, development
26 standards. impact mitigation, and future annexation within -the potential annexation area.
27 LU-((-2-?))34. Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local
28 governance options. Unincorporated urban areas that are already urbanized and are wit}.
29 a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive
30 urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered.
31 Development within the potential annexation area of one jurisdiction may have
32 impacts on adjacent jurisdictions.
33 A jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its
cppph-'. 07/19/93
32
11446
1 potential annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the
2 designation process the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development
3 proposals under consideration by other jurisdictions^in the impact arm.
a The 'GMA has a provision granting counties the discretion to disband the Boundan
5 Review Boards after comprehensive plans and development regulations are adopted. The
6 following policy provides direction for considering whether to disband the Boundary
7 Review Board for King County.
8 LU-((]24))26. Upon the adoption and ratification of the Countywide Policies, the
9 King County Council shall convene a meeting with municipal elected officials to
10 determine a process for disbanding the Washington State Boundary Review Board for
11 King County and establishing criteria to overset municipal and special district
12 annexations, mergers, and incorporations in King County. Until the Washington State
13 Boundary Review Board for King County is disbanded, it should be governed in its
14 decisions by the interim urban growth area boundary and the adopted and ratified
15 countywide planning policies. The criteria shall include, but not be limited to:
16 a. Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies;
17 b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to
is provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers;
19 and
20 C. Annexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands of
21 development.
22 The GMA ieelwrv.� thar cin and county comprehensive plans be coordinated and
23 C'011SI.1IPnl wifh on' allolllr'r GrnsislenC\' Is required 'where there are common borders o
24 rrluied regional euu< " (RCµ' 36. 70A. 100). Joint planning is_fundamenial to all the
25 (rantr'work pohe'Ir.N.
26 LU-((?3))?7.. All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans
27 which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the countywide planning
26 policies.
29 4. Cities in the Rural Area
30 The cities and unincorporated towns in the rural areas are a significant part of
31 King Cnunry'.s die•rrsin• and heritage. Cines in this category include: Bldek Diamond,
32 Carnation, Duvall. Enumclaw, North Bend, Snoqualmie and Skvknmish. They have an
33 important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the
eppphl. tnnv/vs
33
I appropriate providers of local rural services for the communiry. They also eontribure to
2 the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the county. As
3 municipalities, the cities are to provide urban services and be located within designated
4. Urban Growth Areas. 'The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses ma
5 differfrom those of the large, generolly.western Urban Growth Area.
6 LU-((-26))N. In recognition that cities in the rural area are generally not
7 contiguous to the countywide Urban Growth Arca, and to protect and enhance the optior.
8 cities in rural areas provide, these cities shall be located within ((an)) Urban Growth
9 Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands separate from the larger
10 Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the county. Each city in the f$ura
11 aArea and King County and the GMPC shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban
12 Growth Area for that city.
13 Jftffe&pt-1-.499)) The Urban Growth Area for cities in the Rural Area shall:
14 a. Include all lands within existing cities in the rural arca;
15 b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support ru:
16 cite growth without major environmental impacts;
17 c. Be contiguous to city limits:
1g d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, topo-
19 graphical features. and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development;
20 a Be maintained in large lots at densities of one home per five acres or less
21 with mandarnn clustenno previsions until such time as the city annexes the arca:
22 f Be implemented through interlocal agreements among King County, tthe
23 cities and special purpose districts as appropriate to ensure that annexation is phased
24 nearby open space is protected and development within the Urban Growth Area is
25` compatible with surrounding Rural and Resource areas' and
26 g Not include designated Forest or Agricultural. Production District lands
27 unless the conservation of those lands and continued resource-based use, or other
28 compatible use. is assured.
29 ((I=L4 27Gitie5 in the rural
..-__- -hall :_a a_ the r,.n _..: _- _h_-__.___ties.
30 e.
31 indiiistries,_, ..lift,. _ _ _,industrial, and . .., de-e,,.pment ,. se—le_ ,h-,
32 ---r..___- .t_ - _ _a•__ rural
33 d small lot single
eppph=• 117/19/93
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
125
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
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.
Urban Centers are designed to 1) strengthen existing communities, 2) promote
housing opporrunities close to employment, 3) support development of an extensive
transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, 4) consume less land with
urban development, and 5) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and
services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and
mitigate environmental impacts.
Mamcfacruring/Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional
ccnnomv. These areas are ehuracrerized hp a signfhcunt amount of manufacturing ((sr
l?"heF)) indmurial and advanced technnlnev employment. They differ from other
enip/mmenr areas• such as Business/Office parks (see FW -13 and LU -58-62), in that a
land hate and the ceereearion of major non-manu(acrurint, uses are ((tf anJ) essential
elemenr.s of their operation.
FW -((44))14. Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Cents
which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locall
designated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following:
a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
b. Intensiiv/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 An
residents;
g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and
h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
FW -((4-2))j5. Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies
eppph'-. 07/19/94
35
1 shall assure the creation of a number of localiy((-designated)) detcm'Mcd
2 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria ((n--L4e
)). The Manufacturing/Industrial
3
q Cen1ers.((wi11)) shall be ((and-aft)) characterized by the following:
5 a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
g
6 b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing ((astd))
7 industrial and advanced tcchnol_oe,
g c. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway
9 system for the movement of goods;
to d Provisions to di5ggurage large office and retail development: and
11 r Fast-track proiect permitting.
12 FW-((43))j&. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complementec
13 by the land use pattern outside the centers but within the urban arra. This area shall
14 include: urban residential neighborhoods, activity areas, business/office parks, and an
15 urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in
16 scale and intensity to support the countywide land use and regional transportation plan.
17 1. Urban Centers Designation Process
18 LU-((?g))39. The location and number of Urban Centers in King County ((will
19 ge)) were determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on
20 the following steps:
21 a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban
22 Centers:
23 b. ((
24 .)) Jurisdictions electing to contain an Urban Center provided
25 (( )) the GMPC with a statement of commitment describing the
26 citv's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these policies and a
27 timetable for the required Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or
26 identification of existing environmental documentation to be used; and
29 c. The C3 PC reviewed the Centers nominated ((Bi DeeefAbef1992, ih
30 G h * c m _c r __a _gall -_ _ and ___firm 6._ Genithat ar
31 eleeted)) by local jurisdictions consistent with Policy FW-1, and the followino criteria ((e
32 )):
33 1) The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a
cppph'-. 07/19/9.7
36
I countywide system of Urban Centers;
2 2) The total number of centers in the county that can be realized over t
3 next twenty years, based on twenty years projected growth;
4 3) The type and level.of commitments that each. jurisdiction has
5 identified for achieving Center goals; and
6 4) Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused u
7 Centers is assured.
8 d The GMPC ggnfirmed the foliowine Urban Cgnicrs•
9 tirtleylle CBD
10 Federal Wav CBD
11 Kent
12 Kirkiand Tolem Lake
13 Redmond CBD
14 Redmond Overlake
15 Renton CBD
16 Settle CDD
1 ; Seattle Center -
16 First Hill/Capital Hill
19 University District
20 Northgate
21 SesTac CBD
22 Tukwila CBD
23 '_. urban Centers Criteria
24 llrban Centers vary substantially in the number of households and iobs they
_ 25 contain today. The intent of the Countywide Planning Policies is to encourage the grow
26 of each Urban Center as a unique vibrant communily that is an attmetive place to live
27 and work will suoporl efficient public services including transit and responds to local
26 needs and markets for lobs and housing.
29 Two approaches are used to set puldelines and track the erowth of Urban Center
30 First the Countywide Planning Policies establish levels of households and iobs needed t
31 achieve the benefits of an Urban Center Some Urban Centers will reach these levels o'
32 the next twenty years while for others the criteria set a path for erowth over a longer
33 term and provide capacity to accommodate growth beyond the 20 year horizon
cppptt. 07119/94
37
IX ,-A`tU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
1;
16
1E
C stablish 20 year household and emnloym of mr b tareet
ran Ees
for eh Urhan Center T`hc taT=MMlMLMfl=-1k diversity of the Centers.
n „nit,etto envi ett ehanpe- over the n 20 years and plan for needed
S'�r
Amicec The target ranyleS
-_ a pgli . for the levet of Yrowth envisioned for. each Cer
that not only considers lard "'^'^"" but 'lso the timing and funding of infastrycturc.
Reaching the target ranPes will reouire planning public investment, and incentives for
lrivate investments Over time the Centers will move toward the development pattern
envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies.
Within the County Urban Centers are exmk to account for up to one-half of
emolovment grpwth and one ouarter of household growth over the next 20 vears.
Additional capacity for household and employment growth is provided in the Urban
Growth Areas outside of designated Urban Centers to ensure that Countvwide. 20-vcar
growth proiections will be accommodated.
LU -((39))40. Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adoy
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. Infrastructure and services shall be planned and financed consistent with the
expected rate of arowih. For the purposes of achievine a lone -ranee development patter
19 that will provide a successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support high
i
20 j caoac,tp transit. each ((Eee-h)) Center shall have planned land uses to ((be oned-ta))
I
21 i accommodate:
22 a. A minimum of 15.000 jobs within 1/2 mile of a transit center;
23 b. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and
24 c. At a minimum, an average 15 households per gross acre.
25 i W-4 1. In order to be designated as Urban Centers jurisdictions shall demonstr
1
26 both that an adeouate supply of drinking water is available to serve projected growth
27 within the Urban Center and that the jurisdiction is capable of concurrent service to neu
28 development.
29 { LU -((38))42. Jurisdictions which contain Urban Centers, in conjunction with
30 METRO, shall identify transit station areas and right-of-way in their comprehensive plan
31 Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are withih walking
32 , distance (one half mile) of a station.
33 LU -((34))A3. In order to reserve right-of-way and potential station areas for
eppph'-. 07/19/94
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
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 iesttict 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 propertyowned by.the jurisdiction.
LU -((30)44. To encourage transit use, jurisdictions ((shell)) should establish
mechanisms to limit the use of SOVs for commutineDti uses: such mechanisms could
include charge for lone -term single -occupancy vehicle parking and/or ((a lifni! en
limiting 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))4,x. 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;
c. Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, such as street
improvements. Schools, parks and open space, public an 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 conte
and
g. Include facilities to meet human service needs.
LU -((-.A4))46. The system of urban centers shall form the land use foundation for
regional high capacity transit system. Urban centers should receive very high priority fc
the location of high-capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. (See also LU -((47))2
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 he established.
cppph'_. n7119/94
39
JL i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1:
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5`
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The pmvision'of high-capacity transit (HGT) is one such incentive. others include
funding, and streamlined permitting.
LU -((33))47. Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC f
its Successor. ((by4uly4—, �)) which:
a. Identify regional funding sources; and
ib. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including
social and human services, and subarea planning efforts, in Urban Centers.
LU -((36))4B. Each jurisdiction electing to contain an Urban Center (( iftd-.�e
1:16; 28)) shall prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for each
proposed Center. The PSIS shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner and shall
I
address probable significant adverse environmental impacts from and reasonable
alternatives to the proposal. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to subjec
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
analvzed in the PEIS. Examples of project -specific direct impacts include local traffic
impacts, site aesthetics. and other issues not addressed by.the PEIS.
LU -((?4))49. In support of Centers, additional local action should include:
a. Strategies for land assembly within the center, if applicable;
b. Intrastructure and service financing strategies and economic development
strategies for the centers:
c. Establishing expected permit processing flow commitments consistent wiL
the PEIS: and
d. Establishing a streamlined and simplified administrative appeal process
with fixed and certain timelines.
LU -((38))50. Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development
within Urban Centers such as:
a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to perm.
in Urban Centers:
eppph'-. 07/19/94
40
JL . ._Y-. A. a N.O
1 b. Policia to reduce or eliminate impact fees;
2 c. Simplifying and stre.amlinin of the administrative appeal processes;
3 d. Eliminating project -specific requirements for parldng and open space by
4 providing those facilities for. the Urban Center as a whole; and
5 e. Establishing a bonus zoning program for the provision of urban amenities
6 4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation Process
7 LU -((39))5_. The location and number of regional Manufacturing/Industrial
8 Centers in King County ((%ill -be)) we determined through the joint local and
9 countywide adoption process, based on the following steps:
10 a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for
11 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers;
12 b. ((
is shall determine i
13 a .)) Jurisdictions electing ((meet)) to
14 contain a Manufacturing/industrial Center provided the GMPC with a statement mdfvi
15 11, n r)) how the Center will meet the intent of the Countywide Policies, includit
16 plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other commitment to implement
17 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers:
1S c. ((B. Management
19Fe 1c and een —)) The GMPC reviewed the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers ((that
20 ere)) elected by local jurisdictions consistent with Policy %W-1, ((of make edjummenu
21 based efr:)) and the following criteria;
22 I. The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing ar
23 proposed transportation facilities and its potential for promoting a countywide system of
24 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers:
25 The total number of Centers in the county that are needed in the
26 county over the next twenty -years based on twenty years projected need for manufacturi
27 land to satisfy re.-ional projections of demand for manufacturing land assuming a ]0
28 percent increase in manufacturinEjobs over this period;
29 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has
30 identified for achieving Manufacturing/Industrial Center goals;
31 4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused tt
32 Manufacturing/industrial Centers is assured; and
33 5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation
cppph-l. 07/19M
41
.8..JL. --;jt -JL U
1 ' facilities.
2 d The CMPC confirmed the following Man�ufac[urinp/industrial Crnters
3 North Tukw la Duwamish and Ballard/Interbay_in Seattle. and the Kent Industrial Area.
4' S. Manufacturing/industrial Center Criteria
5 1-13-((48)),52. Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing/Industria
6 Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the
7 exact geographic boundaries of the Center. ((Efieh Gentef shaH be zefted W.))
8 jurisdictions with Manufacturing/industrial Centers shall have zoning and detailed plans i
9. place to achieve the followine goals by the year 2010
10 a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non -
11 manufacturing/industrial land parcels sized for manufacturing/industrial uses;
12 b. Discourage land uses ((other Sher+)) which are not compatible with
13 manufacturing, ((and)) industrial and advanced technology; ((and))
14 c. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs' and
15 d Limit the size of offices and retail unless as an accessory use.
16 LU -((44))53, All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial
17 5111^g policy (fie r -1 h ..a_ .- _ r..... ....... r'., a,. _.,..t e _ ime the _^b _ _„t
b
18 network e! to promote industrial activity.
19 LU -((4-'-)))54, Jurisdictions shall design access to the regional
20 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers to facilitate the mobility of employees by transit, and th,
21 mobility of goods by truck, rail or waterway as appropriate. Regional comprehensive
22 plans shall include strategies to provide capital improvement projects which support acres
23 for movement of goods.
24 LU -((44))55. Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing/Industrial
25` Centers in conjunction with ((9)) transit agencies, shall identify transit station area
26 and right-of-way in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. ((-Transk `eedef _;_ie
27 . E"K
28 .)) Where transit stations exist or are planned, jurisdictions in conjunction
29 with transit apencies shall identify various options such as feeder systems bicycle routes
30 and pedestrian systems to link the Center with its transit stations
31 LU -((44))5(. In order to reserve right-of-way and potential station areas for
32 .high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers,
33 jurisdictions shall:
eppph'. 07/19/94
42
1 a. Upon adoption of specific high -rapacity transit alignments by METRO,
2 adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the
3 high-capacity transit system;
4 b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified
5 for potential transit use; and
6 c. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction.
7 LU -((4-5))L7• Y shall establish i"Cehanisins
B D D
9 D D
b
10 b D
11 .)) Transit agencies shall strive to provide convenient and economir
12 mass transit service for the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that will result in a decrease
13 in single -occupancy non-commercial vehicle trips within the Centers.
14 LU -((46))2. Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for regional
15 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria. In orde
16 to promote manufacturing/industrial growth, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan for
17 each jurisdiction shall establish strategies:
16 a. To provide capital facility improvement projects which support the
19 movement of goods and manufacturing/industrial operations;
20 b To coordinate vlannine with serving utilities to ensure that utility facilities
21 are available to serve such centers:
22 ((13-))c. To provide buffers around the Center to reduce conflicts with adjace
23 land uses:
24 (te:))d. To iacihtate land assembly; and
25 ((& ))e. To attract the type of businesses that will ensure economic growth at
26 stability.
27 LU -((4P))59. Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs
28 and having sufficient employment densities to support HCT should be served by HCI'. )
29 is recognized that by their nature Manufacturing/Industrial Centers may not achieve
30 densities necessary to make HCT service viable. Nevertheless. Manufacturing/Industrial
31 Centers which are located on the regional high capacity transit alignment and which mee
32 the transit -friendly criteria in policies LU -((42))54 through LU -((46))_5$ above ((shall))
33 should receive one or more high capacity transit stations and/or transit centers.
cppph-1. 07/19/94
43
1 6. Incentives for Manufacturing/Industria) Centers
2LU-((48))f4• Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC s
I'
3 its s„c es or which:
4 -a.Identify regional. funding sources; and
5 b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including
6 social and human services in regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and subarea
7 planning efforts in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
g LU-((49))Ll. Jurisdictions shall consider conducting detailed SEPA review for ti
-g regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center at the planning stage so that project-specific
10 environmental review is minimized.
11 LU-((38))L2.. To reduce or prevent conflicts, jurisdictions shall develop policies t
12 establish and support normal manufacturing/industrial practices such as notices on
13 development permits for properties adjacent to a manufacturing/industrial center.
14 E. ((4)) Activity Areas
15
16„
17
is
19
20 1T>r..
21 Aclvv/n Arru, urr• em•icinned us arras conroinine mndcrate enncentrorions of
22 commercial derrinnmenr and housine that function as a focal noinr fnr the local
23 (wmmunin ictivinAran rrnntoin u mix n(land uses such as rerai!, recrearinn areas.
24 puhhc fucilitirs nards and nprn snacr Althnueh smaller in scale thon Urban and
25` Manufacntrinellndustrial Crmcrs Activiry Areas con(ain a sufrcirni densiry and mix Of
26 usrs m provirlr similar henr(trt Activin• Areus are designed to II provide housing and
27 em lovmenr nnporrunirirs 2) provide retail services and business nppnnuniries 31 redu
28 uurnmohile usr and sunnort efficient tronsir service and 4) consume less land with urba
29 deyeMpn)em EncnurU eine compucr d(welonment within Activiry Areas is on imporTonr
30 Purr nfthr Counrvsvide Plannine Policy vision prommine Infill develnnmrnt and nrevenri.
31 sprawl.
32 Activiry Areas are designaied in local comprehensive plans. The size n rhe Actis
33 Arco and rhe mix and density orlond uses ore locally derermined in meer cnmmuniry
cppphl. 07/19/94
44
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
6
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
pnol . Examples of Activity Areas Omti&)) include the central business districts of
Kirkland, Burien, and Des Moines: East Hill in Kent: and a number of business distsicr.,
in Seattle, such as Lake Ciry, Wallingford, and west Seattle Juricrion.
FW:17 Within the Urban Growth Area iurisdictions may locally designate one
more Activity Areas characterized by the following:
a An array !2f land uses including commercial development housing vubli
facilities and vubiic pier svaccs:
b intensity/density of lane 115r,5 sufficient to 0000rage fmQuent transit:
c Pedestrian emphasis within the Activity Arca:
Fmphasis on suMrior urban design which reflects the local community:
and
e Disincentives for single occupancy vehicle usage for commute vu=ses
during teak hours.
Jurisdictions shall designate the boundaries, ((miam"PRern densities,)
and uses within all activity areas to provide for local employment, a mix of housing tm
commercial activities, ((and)) public facilities and open space.
All Activity_ Areas that achieve sufficient eml)lovment and househo
densities should receive frequent peak hour transit service. Activity Areas may contain
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 -(147))05. To encourage transit use, jurisdictions. ((shall)hs ould 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.
F. Urban Growth Outside of Centers
A varier• of land uses and concentrations of growth occur withitr the Urban Groi
.Areu and outside of the Urban Centers and Manufacturing/industrial Centers. Local lai
use plans will be responsible for the designation, character, and utilization of urban are
cppphl. 07119/94
45
I outside of centers. However, Counrywide Policies are presented below to provide
2 guidance for these areas to ensure that they support the Getters growth concept. These
3 policies do not apply to the rural cities whose land use pattern is described by policy LLL
4 •
5 Households and rmnlovmrnt career ranges by iurisdiction are described in this
6 s,ectinn in order to establish the obillry Cllr nrvwide to accommodate the proiected 20 vg
7 nonulation and emnlnvmenr growth The counrvwide population growth has been
$ established by The Store PI u.r L
_Wayhiact .n office o f zFinancialcial onogemcnl M
na reguired , the
9 Growth Monaeement Act Thr crnmrywide employment growth has been derived from
10 proiecrions vrenared by the Pum Sound Regional Council For purposes of this section
11 tarect ronees are defined as.- The commitment by each iurisdictinn to ensure the abiliry rr
12 accommocrnte at a minimum growth within the next 20 years in housing (expressed in
13 househnlds) and employment (exnressed in employees) This commirment implies nor only
14 the nnlin• and reeulaton, framework (comprehensive plan pnd ronine), but the commirmel
15 for funded infrnstrucrurr as well consistent with the iurisdicrinn.t fnonein2 conaeirv. leve
16 of wmcr siondords and cnncurrenn, reouiremenrs. -
17 1. Urban Residential Areas
1$ Urban residential ureas_form the bulk of the Urban Growth Area, and are home tc
19 u Irurer• portion of the counts population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have
20 different charuorri.sncs in different neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form,
21 pre.wri-atunn and development of these areas is a local jurisdictional responsibility.
22 Hrnvetci. the• rcmdemiul arras nerd in support rhe Centers concept and provide sufficiew
23 appnnunin Jnr growth within the UGA. A substantial mujoriry of new residential units
24 will hr cnnstructed !within rrrhan residential areas.
v
25 Ll -((44))L6. in order to ensure efficient use of the land within the Urban Growtt
26 Area, provide for housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infrastructure,
27 each jurisdiction shall:
2$ a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net new
29 •
((d•Q,. g unii )) households the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20 years_
30 ((sod)) Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and commit to fund infrastructure sufficient
31 achieve the target number:
32 b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new
33 construction in each residential zone: and
cppphl 07119/X4
46
1 C. Establish in the comprehensive plan a xtrget mix of housing types for neu
2 development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix.
3 LU-((3_?M7_: The targets and regulations in` LU -((31-)) ((shell be))r�bascd c
4 the following steps:
�;; t))The GMPC (01401})) adoptSd ((B)) Lha target
6 number of net new ((4wellirrg-tsnit5)) households to be accommodated countywidevo er tl
7 next 20 years as 195.000;
s b• (( � �1^,� t))The intedurisdictional staff committee ((iMH
9 repent)) reported to the GMPC or its successor target ranges (( )) for
10 net new -e,.� e� ;ts)) households for each ((
11 and jurisdirdQn based on the following criteria:
12 1. The capacity and condition of existing and forecast
13 capital facilities and utilities
14 2. Proximity to major employment centers,
15 3. Access to existing and projected regional transit.
16 4. Capacity of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment given
17 the character of existing development,
18 5. The need for a range of housing types,
19 b. Each jurisdiction's share of affordable housing as required by
20 Affordable Housing policies.
21 7. Consistency with the countywide numbers;
22 c The taroei ranges as shown in Appendix 2 were recommended by the
23 GMPC. adorned and ratified pursuant to volicv FW -1. Step 4c.
24 (te-))d- The target ranves in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall bf
25 consistent with the target ranges in Apixndix 2 ffell " jihin the rsnge",)) or shall state tl
26 reasons for deviating from the target ranges ((range));
27 ((d -))e. Through the process established under FW -1 Step 4b, if the
28 jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target, the GMPC may recommend
29 amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans; and
30 ((e -))f,
31
32 pct6l Monitoring should follow the process described in policyFW-1.
33 2. Urban Employment Growth
eppph-. 07/19/94
47
41L JL
1 A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in activity areas and
Ties employmeru growth will support the Urban
2 neighborhoods in the urban area.
3 Centers, while balancing local employment opportunities in the urban area.
4 LU=((33))-$. Target ranges for employment growth outside Urban Centers ((shaF
5 ! be)) were established for cities and for unincorporated ((' )) King Count
6 through the joint local and countywide adoption process based on the following steps:
7 a. (($y-Deee b t))The Growth Management Planning Council ((sltedl
8 adopted the 20 year target number for employment growth ((and efnplayfnelit
9 instireentem)) as 'i47 4 . ((By Getebef i992 f))!he
10 interjurisdictional staff committee ((ehfiR)) developer preliminary recommendations for
11 target ranges for ((eft) employment growth ((err$-eepeeity)) inside and outside urban area
12 ((in)) for each (( )) iurisdictio
13 based on the following criteria:
14 I. Consistency with the countywide numbers;
15 ?. The need to direct growth to urban centers based on consistency wit)
16 I1 the multiple centers strategy:
17 3. Access to regional rapid transit and existing highway and arterial
18 capacm:
19 4. Availabilities of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment
20 given the character of existing development;
21 5. The willingness of local jurisdictions to implement policies which
22 encourage transit such as S.O.V. parking charges and/or limits, transit, bicycle and
23 pedestrian supportive design. and the adoption of policies that encourage clustering of
24 commercial and residential areas:
25 b The tar -et ranges as shown in Appendix 2 were recommended by the
26 GNIPC adopted and ratified pursuant to Policy FW -1 Step 4
27 ((b ))c. As part of their comprehensive plans, all jurisdictions shall indicate
28 planned employment capacity and targeted increases in employment for 20 years inside
29 and outside urban centers and shall show how their plans reflect the criteria in this policy
30 and
31 ((r.))�. Through the process established under FW -1 Step 4((b)), if the
32 .jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target ran? , the GMPC oris successc
33 may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans.
eppph=-07/19/94
48
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
3. Infill'Devel opment
Urban growth occurs both in 'new' neighborhoods arrd in existing neighborhood
Erisring neighborhoods have a history of development patterns which haw created a sen
of identity. At the same time a viral neighborhood adapts to change and develops its over
image. New development in these neighborhoods should build on the existing patterns in
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 oporrment buildings.
LU-((34))fQ. All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design
processes to encourage infill development and enhance the existing community character
and mix of uses.
4.((5:)) Business/Office Parks
Business/Office Parks are areas where low-density office development is collected
at locations seporated from an identified retail commercial care. These parks tend to ha
lnn drnsities and thus tend nor to he supportive of transit or pedestrian circulation. The
eniplgvment opponuniries generally do not require extensive land for their operations, ar
cnrdd he, accommodated in Urban Centers. Because the further development of these
urea.) Mur cnmpetr ivith the employment growth that is planned to support Urban Center
mvni/icaM fwurr enrphlrment will nor he encouraged in these areas.
LU -(($8))70. Office building development is directed primarily to Urban Center
Office building development outside Urban Centers including businessloffice parks shout
occur within activity areas which can be supported by and promote transit, pedestrian a
23 hicvcle uses.
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
4tirisdietion5 hallne! expand existing land aree zoned c
. Jurisdictions where consistent with their land use plans should
provide incentives for the development and redevelopment of an adequate supply of land
suitable for mixed light industrial/commercial and high technology. .
LU -((6A))72. All jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to encourage transit us
Examples of potential mechanisms include a charge for S.O.V. parking and/or a limit or
the number of parking spaces for single occupancy vehicles within each existing
business/office park. Bicycle and pedestrian supportive design should be encouraged.
LU -((6+))73. ( ))Jurisdictions `
((salwl establigh
CPPPK-I. 117/19/44
49
1
2
3 Gem)) arc _ _ to Kite b..rneSS/Office harks where they can be servea oy
4 adequate surface transvortation and transit Where transit is available and can result in
5 decreased demand for oarkine hiehei- density devdnnment should be considered.
6 LU -((62))74. All jurisdictions should develop planning mechanisms to assist in ti .
7 conversion of business/office parks to mixed use arras. Jurisdictions should ((eneeufage
8 provide for inclusion of residential and neighborhood commercial land uses and open
9 space within existing business/office parks.
10 III. TRANSPORTATION
11 A. Transportation Overview
12 RCW 36.70A. 070(6) (Growth Management Act) fundamentally changes the way ti
13 comprehensive planning will he done within the State of Washington. The Act places
14 special emphasis on transportation making it unlawful to approve development for which
15 the approvin; jurisdiction cannot demonstrate the availobility offacilities, strategies and
16 services which art needed to accommodate the growth in traffic at the adopted level -of -
17 service n•ithin six vears. Future development acriviry will be constrained by a
18 turodtrtron's ahiliry to finance and provide transportation improvements or strategies.
15 I Thi, tun Inn mmir ve ry siinifrctmt implications for all jurisdi,tions which are dependent
20 upon the rrvmn'% transportrttinn systems hecause:
21 1. Proir•cred traffic growth an the jreewav and arterial system within the
22 1-C911m greuNc exer•e•ds the' foreseeable collective ability io finance and construct the
23 onnrosr•nuvu% herded to return histnricu/ levels -of -service.
24 2. Mainwining the, current level of personal mobiliry by single occupant
2S' vehicle.% will hr a ro.sth• puh/ic investment that will negatively impact the regional qualit
26 of life. creute severe impuc•ts to sensitive areas• degrade environmental quality, and
27 increuse energy use and the consumption of land.
28 3. Development within any one jurisdiction can be severely impacted by
29 decisions and actions he-vond that jurisdictinn's control:
30 •WSDOT ora). be tenable to program improvements concurrent with a
31 jurisdiction's approval of a development permit.
32 •Metro may not he able to respond to transit levels -of -service adopted by
33 local jurisdictions.
cppphz. 07/19194
50
1
2
3
4.
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
29
30
31
32
33
*A jurisdiction may adopt level -of -service standards far arrerials within its
jurisdiction and decline to accept improvements necessary to nu tigare rransporrarion
impocrs from a proposed development in an adjoining jurisdiction.
'•cumulative growth throughout the region -will cause trafftc.growth on the
esisring 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 i
undertake a dramatically different approach for both transportation planning and land u
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 imple-
menting ordinances. In order to limit sprawl, create the desired urban form, and provic
some measure of predictability for landowners and developers, the region's scarce
resources fnr transporralion capacity improvements must he used prudently to foots on
ureas where zoning and densities support a multi -modal tronsporration system. System
cupacin intyumi •nis shnuld be targeted first to those ureas where the existing land use
and transponution syvem provides .tome hope Df achieving the desired multi -modal Ievei
nf-.service within sir tears.
R. Transportation Policies
FW-u-14))IS. The land use pattern shall be supported by a balanced transportatic
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 t
centers and to the nnn-center urban areas, and non -motorized travel options.
II FW -((-H))19. All jurisdictions in the county, in cooperation with Metro, the
IIMetropolitan Planning Organization, and the State, shall develop a balanced transportatii
system and coordinated financing strategies and land use plan which.implement regional
mobility and reinforce the countywide vision. Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies
IIshall be recognized as the framework for creating a regional system of Centers linked b;
High Capacity Transit and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicl
(HOV) lanes, and supported by a transit system.
FW -((4-6))20. In recognition of the fact that King County is the regional freight
distribution hub and a major international trade gateway, and that freight transportation
eppph'. 07!19/93
51
I one of the state's most important basic sector economic activities, goods mobility by all
2 modes shall be included as a component of comprehensive plans.
3 T-l. The countywide transportation system shall promote the mobility of people
4 and goods and shalt be a multi-modal system. based on regional priorities consistent with
5 adopted land use plans. The transportation system shall include the following:
6 a. An aggressive transit system, including High Capacity Transit;
7 b. High Occupancy Vehicle facilities;
8 c. Freight railroad networks;
9 d. Marine transportation facilities and navigable waterways;
10 e. Airports:
11 f. Transportation Demand Management actions:
12 g. Non-motorized facilities: and
13 h. Freeways. highways, and arterials.
14 T-2. King County, its cities, adjacent counties, Metro, and the Washington State
15 Department of Transportation (WSDOT) shall support the continuous, comprehensive an
16 cooperative transportation planning process conducted by the Puget Sound Regional
17 Council (PSRC) pursuant to its Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designation.
18 The primary forum for the development of regional transportation systems plans and
19 strateetes shall be the PSRC. as the MPO.
20 T-3. The annual update and approval of the six-year Transportation Improvemer
21 Program (TIP) by the PSRC should be the primary tool for prioritizing regional
22 transportation improvements and programming regional transportation revenues.
23 T-4. The GMPC or its successor shall have the ongoing responsibility for the
24 followtna:
25 a. Developing and maintaining coordinated level-of-service standards and a
26 concurrency system. for countywide transit routes and arterial streets, including state
27 .facilities:
28 b. Developing regionally consistent policies for implementing countywide
29 Transportation Demand Management actions and the Commute Trip Reduction Act
30 including, but not limited to, parking policies, with an examination of price as a
31 determinant of demand: and
32 c. Developing and recommending transportation financing strategies,
33 including recommendations for prioritizing capacity improvements eligible to receive
eppph-l. 07119r44
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
federal funds available to the region under the Inter -modal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
L. High Capacity Transit/Regional Transit Project (HCT/RTP)
T-5:.Each-Urban Center will be providing for a minimum of 35,000 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 compreh;nsive plans. The land use and trdttsportation-
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 HCI. 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 representa
tives 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 pan 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. Free" ays/Highways/Ar7erials
T-8. In order to maintain regional mobility, a balanced multi -modal transportatior
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/need's:
a. Arterial HOV treatments,
b.. Driveway access management for principal arterials within the Urban
cppph'-.[17/19/41
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Growth Arca; and
c. Improvements needed for access to manufacturing and industrial centers,
marine and air terminals. u
'FW -((4-7))2l. 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 -((4$))22. 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 -((49))23. 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 -or -Service (LAOS)
T-9. Level -of -service standards shall be used as a "tool" to evaluate concurrencN
for long-range transportation ((trensperta tion)) 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 t
the region's transportation problem. Mode -split goals will vary according to developme
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-seryice 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
epppiV• 07/19/94
54
1 congestion, shall be established for urban centers. Transit LOS standards may focus on
2 higher service levels in and between centers and decrease as population and employment
3 1 densities decrease
q •T-14. Metro should develop transit level -of -service standards which provide. the
5 county and cities with realistic service expectations to support adopted land uses and
6 desired growth management objectives. These standards should consider that route
7 spacing and frequency standards are necessary for differing service conditions including:
8 a. Service between designated centers served by High Capacity Transit;
9 b. Service between designated centers not served by High Capacity Transit;
10 j and
11 c. Service to areas outside centers.
12 S. Reassessment
13 T-15. Local governments shall work together to reassess regional land use and
14 transportation elements if transportation adequacy and concurrency cannot be met. Shoup
15 funding 'fall short for transportation improvements or strategies needed to accommodate
16 growth, the following actions should !be considered:
17 a. Adjust land use and level -of -service standards to better achieve mobility
is and the reeional vision:
19 b. Make full use of all feasible local option transportation revenues authorize
20 but not yet implemented: and
21 c. Work with WSDOT. Metro, and the private sector to seek additional state
22 transportation revenues and local options to make system improvements necessary to
23 ((=)) accnmmodate projected employment and population growth.
2: 6. Financing
25 T-16. Transportation elements of Comprehensive Plans shall reflect the
26 preservation and maintenance of transportation facilities as.a high priority to avoid costly
27 replacements and to meet public safety objectives in a cost-effective. manner.
26 T-17. Developer impact fees shall be structured to ensure that new development
29 contributes its fair share of the resources needed to mitigate the impact on the
30 transportation system. Adjoining jurisdictions shall execute interlocal agreements for
31 impact fees which recognize that traffic generated in one jurisdiction contributes to the
32 need to make transportation improvements across jurisdictional boundaries. Impact fees
33 shall not be assessed to cure that portion of the improvement attributable to correcting
cppph-1.07/19/94
55
114-10
1 existing deficiencies.
2 T-18. Existing local option transportation funding shall be applied within King
3 County as follows:
q a. Employee -tax base = reserved for city street utility development;
5 b. Commercial parking tax — defer action, pending development of a regior
6 TDM strategy;
7 c. HOV acceleration financing — defer until after High Capacity Transit vot
8 and
9 d. Local option gas tax — consider as potential source to address
10 transportation "concurrcncy" needs of county and cities only after vote on High Capacir.
11 Transit.
12 T-19. Regional- revenues (such as Inter -modal Surface Transportation Efficiency
13 Act funds) which provide discretion should be used to address regional mobility projects
la and strategies, including such strategies as creating centers or enhancing transit/HOV-SC
15 mode split.
16 7. State Transportation Role
17 T-20. Consistent with the countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate
18 kith the State on land use and transportation systems and strategies which affect state
19 facilioes and pro^ -rams.
20 T-21 . State capital improvement decisions and policy actions shall be consistent
22 with regional and countvwide goals and plans. The State shall ensure its transportation
22 capital improvement decisions and programs support the adopted land use plans and
23 transportation actions.
24 T-''_'. The State and local governments shall use the same capital programming
25 and budgeting time frame that all local governments and the county use, a minimum of
.26 years. for making capital decisions and for concurrency management.
27 8. Siting Regional and Countywide Transportation Facilities
28 T-23. King County, the cities, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the State,
29 Metro. and other transportation providers shall identify significant regional and/or
30 countywide land, acquisition needs for transportation and establish a process for
31 prioritizing and siting the location of transportation facilities.
eppph'-.07/19144
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
.AL. .1.. .X 1 V
IV. COMMUNM CHARACTER AND OPEN SPACE
A measure of the success of planning for'growth is the extent to which wr restore
maintain and create good places to live, work and play. We must encourage growth wh:
improves nus neighhnrhoods 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 promou
good community character.
FW -(09))24. 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 -((x4))25. Each urban area shall be characterized by superior urban design a
locally defined.
FW -((-22))2-6. Significant historic, archaeological, cultural, architectural and
environmental features shall be respected and preserved.
A. Historic Resources
Historic resnurcer creme a sense of local identity and history, enhance the quali.
of lift•, support comnurnin• vitalirY. and whenvise enrich our lives. Historic resources a
nun-rrnewuhle: thrr r•mhodv the unique heritage and evolution of particular places.
Thtm.V nfal nionagement of these resources contributes to economic development and
mwdera>e.s .sono• of du• hurmfid eflects of rupid growth. Planning for historic resources
includes protecting arehaeult) ical sues and historic buildings and landscapes,
encouraging expression of diverse ethnic and folk traditions, and supporring activitiesf(
children and vnuth.
CC -l. All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to identify,
evaluate, and protect historic resources including continued and consistent protection fol
historic resources and public an 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 he leaders in providing structures, public spaces, parks anc
eppph—'• M119194
57
I streets which support the quality of our region. Civic design should express the region'.,
2 values and vision, and should provide landmarks which contribute to our sense of place.
3 Additionally, individual jprisdictioru can nurrure their individual character by developin;
4. a clear ser•bf goals and policies -which Outline the public interest in the design'of privatt
5 development in the urban and rural communities.
6 CC -3. All jurisdictions shall promote a high quality of design and site planning i
7 publicly -funded construction (such as civic buildings, parks, bridges, transit stops), and i
8 private development.
.9 C. Human and Community Services
:to Human and community services are: social and health services; emergency
11 shelters; meeting places; performing arts and cultural activities; schools; libraries; park-
3.2
ark12 and recreation; and fire and police protection.
13 CC -4. Human and community service planning activities shall support Countywi
14 Planning Policies and the countywide land development pattern.
15 CC -5. All jurisdictions shall identify essential community and human services at
-16 include them in land use, capital improvement, and transportation plans:
17 D. Open Space
18 Open space lands are essential to the communiry character of King County. The
19 pniride visual -•urien, and rrli�f fain developed areas, protect environmental quality, an
20 pro vidr %vildlifr• huhitctt and fnster opporruniries for outdoor recreation. Open space
21 cnrridnrs phtuicolh• and_fitnctinnally link open space lands.
22 The chullengr.for jurisdictions is to establish programs that contribute to the
23 protection. Oe•ra sihilin and stctrurdship of open space lands and corridors. The GMM
24 reilmre.c ltrrodaiton.s to harm linkages henveen and within populatinn centers with lands
25 usrhd for rrrrrmton, truih, wildlife habitat and connection of critical areas. These opt
26 space lunds and corridors nrgrermvays should be selened and preserved io form an
27 interconnected .nevem reginnally and within jurisdictions locally and should be siewarde.
28 to ensure c•ntntinuint; environmental and ecological significance. Where appropriate, the
29 regional nevem and its local components should provide for multiple benefits and
30 functions, which will require curefid planning and management to ensure compaiibiliry t
31 long-term viability of the henefrrs and functions.
32 Open space lands and corridors have significance at both the local and regional
33 scale. Identification and protection of local open spaces will be considered within the
eppph=. 07/19/94
58
diction. On on individual basis, jurisdictions should
of each jurisdiction. nsfve fansJ .
am rehe p
1 c p
protect open space lands of local significance that also
2 strive to identify, establish and p Pe P
ional stem.' The regional open space system
3 compliment, adjoin or enhance the reg system.' g
a A includes open space lands and corridors_thm have importance beyond jurisdictional
5 boundaries and will require multi jurisdictional coordination to identify, protect and
6 steward.
'l
7 FW -((?3))27. All jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify, establish, protect and
8 steward urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance.
9 CC -6. A regional open space system shall be established to include lands which:
10 a. Provide physical and/or visual buffers such as open spaces which help to
11 separate incompatible uses, distinguish the urban and rural areas, define urban growth
12 boundaries, or establish the character of a neighborhood, community, city or region;
13 b. Provide active and passive outdoor recreational opportunities which are
14 I compatible with the environmental and ecological values of the site; and/or
15 c. Contain natural areas, habitat lands, natural drainage features, and/or othe
16 environmental, cultural, and scenic resources.
17 CC -7. All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect open spat
16 corridors of regional significance. This process shall include:
19 a. Identification of regional open space lands and corridors which form a
20 functionally and physically connected system with environmental, ecological, recreational
21 and aesthetic significance and which is readily accessible to our urban populations;
22 b. Identification of implementation strategies and regulatory and non -
23 regulatory techniques to protect the lands and corridors, including collaboration and
24 coordination with land trusts and other land preservation organizations; and
25 c. Development of management plans and strategies to sustain the corridors'
26 open space benefits -and functions of the preserved lands and corridors.
27 CC -8. Water bodies and rivers of the Puget Sound region form an important .
28 element of the open space system. Jurisdictions shall work to protect visual access to
29 water bodies and rivers, and provide for physical access where appropriate.
30 CC -9. Countywide funding shall be available for the acquisition, maintenance ane
31 stewardship of parks and open space, a) advancing the development of the regional open
32 space system which has been cooperatively identified by the jurisdictions, and b) ensurin€
33 the ready access of our citizens residing in Urban Centers to the regional open space
eppph'-1. 07/19/94
59
J_1�4 4-1K)
system.
2 CC -10. The conceptual map of open space systems contained in the 1988 King
3 County Open Space Plan shall be used as the planning basis for regional open space land
i
q - and corridors. -All jurisdictions -will work cooperatively t6 revise and supplement this m:
5 to direct the protection of these valuable resources throughout the county.
6 CC-] 1. All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open space
7 are provided as development and redevelopment occur.
6 CC -12. All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land
6 preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space syste
10 which has been cooperatively identified.
11 CC -13. All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level of service standards for
12 the provision of parks and open spaces.
13 V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
14 Adequate housing, ,far all economic segments of the population, is a basic need of
15 Kine Counn's residents and an is.ttre of counrvwide concern. Affordable housing needs
16 muv he addressed hr local governments working in cooperation with the private sector
17 i', and nonprofit housing egenci.es.
16 ! Thr GMA requires counn,wide policies to address parameters for the distribution
19 affordable horsing, including hnttsing.for all income grnups. This complex issues require
20 adequarr infiunratian regarding current housing resources and housing needs, which is
21 heing developed Jnr comprehensive plan housing elements, as well as in-depth discussion
I
22 of values and prioririrs fnr housing development.
I'
23 Providing sufficient lund for housing development is an essential step in promoting
24 gf/ordable hntaine. A.fjordahle housing can he encouraged by zoning additional land for
25 higher recidrntial densities, which helps provide needed capacity for growth, reduces ]an
26 development cost per unit((s)), and allows fnr lover cost construction types such as
27 attached dwellings. Highrr denciry housing includes a range of housing types: small -lot
28 single family, attached single family, mobile home parks, apartments and condominiums.
29 In addition, zoning changes that permit additional housing in established areas, such as
30 accessorY units. carriage houses, and residences built above commercial uses, increase
31 affordable hnucsing opponirnities.
32 FW -((24l)28. All jurisdictions shall provide >r a diversity of housing types to
33 meet a variety of needs and vrovidc for housine ovoortunities for all economic seements
ropph2. 07/19/94
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
to
19
20
21
22
23
2,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
of the pooulatiod. ((4ne0r^G7))• All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a process t•
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.
Aii1 All iurisdictions shall plan
for housing to meet the needs of all
economic
segmrnis of the population Each itinsdiction
shall E=ify, based on the projecteti
number of net new housing units anticipated
number of units which will be affordable
in in comprehensive plan the estimated
for thr f llowinc inrnm: vvments'
Q t0 SQ
percent of the countywide median hour.hold
120 percent of median and above 170 pgr=nr
income 50 to 80 pmcal of median
indian The estimates for housing
80 to
affordable to households below 80 vcrcent
of median income shall be consistent
with
countvwide obigctives for low and moderate
income housing in Policy AH -2.
The
estimated number of units for each income
segment shall be reported to the GMPC
following adoption of the comprehensive
plan for the purpose of countywide
monitorin¢
ni capacits for holising development.
tfrkH3)). Within the urban growth area, each jurisdiction shall demonstrate
n +mee)1 its ability to accommodate sufficient, affordable housing for all economic
s monis of the population Local actions may include zoning land for development of
sufficient densities revising development
standards and permitting proc6dures
as needed
to encourage affordable housing, ((-
d a ,)}-reviewing codes f
redundancies and inconsistencies, and providing opportunities for a ((1)) range of
housing types, such as accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes ((en indi--idu
kms, 1t 2rntm hnmes and faster care facilities, apartments, townhouses and attached sing![
ianuls hnusm�_.
AH -_(t+)) 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 lo,
and moderate income households shall ((>e -fleet)) take into consideration the need for
proximity to lower wage employment, ((and)) access to transportation and human
services,((-)) and the adeouacv of infrastructure to support housing development:
recognize each jurisdiction's past and current efforts to provide housing affordable to los
and moderate -income households; avoid over -concentration of assisted housing; and
increase housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households in
cppph2. 07/19/94
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
1�
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
2;
25�
26
27
28
29
30
31
communities throughout King County. Each jurisdiction shall give equal consideration tc
local and countywide housing needs.
AMD7i1iT�t:IsT�FlL]IIAll7emNl■V
-"IIIF'
pro -T -ams to
assist the large1
1 •. of • and moderate
inc•me hou5cholds
currently ..
not have . ...
aportmriate housirm.
rl T. co ittv-wide e...
Tcvem current
trends1 1
concentmic lowincome
1• 71' •P,MH 1 / 1 cerm
commu . nities.
and achieve a
more gQuitable participation
�y local iurisdictions in
low
income housine
develonment
and act -vices, CounW�jde
efform should give priority
i
assisting households
below 50
•. of 11•• ,1 income
thatneed
. .
communities
with high proponions
of low and moderate
income residents.
By October,
1994- the
GMPC or its successor
shall apWint elected and commyni
representatives
to develop recommendations
fpr providina
low and moderate incom
housine and
related services.
Within one
_ q
GntPC or its successor
1. new countvwide funding source(s) for housing production and services w
a plan to establish this funding within three vears;
2. vanicipation by local governments including appropriate public and priv;
financing, such that each iurisdiction contributes on fair share basis; and
3 nhiectives for housing and related services including measurable levels o
hnusing production and costs to provide necessary related service
Countywide programs should provide the following types of housing and related
sen•tcM
I loH income housing development including new construction acgiicitinr
and rehahiluauom
'_ housing assistance such as rental vouchers and suI22Qrlive cervices'
't. assistance to expand the capacity f nonprofit organizations to develop
housing and orovide housing related services:
4. programs to assist homeless individuals and families'
5. programs to prevent homelessness' and
6. assistance to low and moderate income home buyers
cppph=- 07119/14
62
1
2
3-
4.
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
i7
12
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
B Future Needs for Affordable Housing
Each jurisdiction shall specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low z
moderate income households to be accommodated in its comprehensive plan.
iurisdirtiQn shall plan for a*numbcr of housing units affordable -to households with incon
bctw=n 50 and 80 pgrccnt of the County median household income that is equal to 17 Mrc
of its projected net household growth In addition each Jurisdiction shall plan for a numl
of housing, units affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of median inco
that is either 20 percent or 24 percent of its projected net household growth. For t
housino the target percentageshall be determined using the Affordable Housing Job/Housi
Index developed urine Census -based information which is contained in Appendix 3
(61,1; 2:)) Each jurisdiction shall show in its comprehensive plan how it will us--
policies,
sepolicies, incentives, regulations and prograrns to provide its share of housing affordable
low and moderate -income households ... .))
Each iurisdiction should apply strategies which it determines to be most appropriate to tl
local housing market. For example, units affordable to low and moderate income
households may be developed through new construction, prpjects that assure lone -term
affordability of existing housin-, or accessory housing units added to existing structures
Local actions may include:
a. Identifying the costs to develop and preserve subsidized housing and othe-
lou-cost hotism2 not provided by orivate development in the local housing market_ and
tdentifyine sources of funding
b Revising land use regulations as needed to remove any unreasonable
reautrements that mai create harriers to sinric and oyeratin housing for special needs
unups. Srxcial needs housing serves ncrsons who by virtue ((YiF+ttW) of disabjljty_,or
other circumstances, iace difficulty living independently and require supportive services
a transitional or Ione -term basis: and
c Adopting land use incentives programs or other reauLatory measures to
encourage private and nonprofit development
Small fully built cities and towns that are not planned to erow substantially unde
QNIA may work cooperatively with other iurisdictions and/or suhregional housing
agencies to meet their housing targets
In areas identified as city expansion areas. King County and cities should plan
gooperatively for affordable housing development and presctvation
eppphl. 07/19/93
63
15
iped
heusimg
16
;; Fale
hetfsin-c
17
o:
19
b
b
c
c
20
.
21
I
I
-
b
22
b
23
#teitst»d
ar+d
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
b
G• o Funding,
for aequisition end feliabiliEetion to
c fible b b
hous b legal
I sti6jeet to it
it .))
dAH -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, deteriorating housing conditions, or public policies or actions. Where
feasible. each ((Eaeh)) jurisdiction shall develop stratcgies to preserve existing low -incur
cppph'. 07119/93
64
L i1. `7: .i "
I
1 housing ((where femible)) and provide relocation assistance to low income residents who
2 may be displaced.
3 AH -4 The CMPC or its successQr shall identify ways to expand technical
4 assistance to local inrisdiclions in affordable housing technieuec Technical assistance
5 should include proicct case studies and model ordinances covering such tonics as
6 development and financing of nonprofit housing provision of housing -related services
7 incentives programs for affordable housine. reeulations_that encouraee welkes1encd
8 higher density housing, improvements to development t>ermit processing and standards tc
9 reduce development costs. and bublic education and involvement. The Affordable
10 Housing Task Force Report. dated March 1994 contains a summary of actions that local
11 governments may use to encourage affordable housing
12 AH -5 ((4)). All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their
13 jurisdiction and determine annually the total number of new and redeveloped units
14 receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining
15 capacity for residential growth. Housing prices and rents also should be reported based
16 on affordability to four income categories 0 to 50 percent of median income 50 to 80
17 percent of median 80 to 120 percent of median and above 120 percent of median Kinl
18 County shall report annually on housing development, the tate of housing cost and price
19 increases and available residential capacity countywide in its annual rowth reporting.
20 The Affordable Housing and Data Technical Forums, which are comprised of city
21 and county staff and private housing indusiry representatives shall develop a uniform
22 approach for monitoring housing permit activity construction and affordability, Where
23 feasible. the Affordable Housing and Data Technical Forums shall consider collectin
24 staiist,cs such as housing units receiving buildin permits by income category, total unit
25 constructed bs income category low and moderate income housing acquired or preserves
26 households receiving rental assistance and other local housing activities in addition
27 where feasible planning and monitoring for affordable housing should use the median
28 household income for King County indexed by household -size. published annually byte
29 U S Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentCalculations of affordable hou
30 prices should assume standard Federal Housine Administration lcndine criteria and
31 minimum downpavments.
32 AH -6. Every five years. beginning in 1999 1hL_QMPC or its successor
33 organization responsible for monitoring growth management implementation shall evaluat
cppph-. 07/19194
65
I arhtcvcme r n n 1 for ho tsin for it economic scgmcnts of the
2 p hsp 01 its sucssor shall coli5ider annual reports prepared under
3 Policy A well as DBACI onditions and other factors affecting buainuv
g dcvclooment If the Gh'PC or its slr�Cessor determines that housing vlanned for anv
5 g onomic segment falls short of the nee. for h housing the GMPC or its successor
6 may mal,; ommend additional actions
7 As part of its evaluation the QMPC or its successor shall review local
e
rformanco in meeting low and modeTatc, incom ti sing nerds The basis for
be _ j5ajCjjQna participation in countywide or
9 determining local perfon
to subreeional efDrrs to address existing housing needs and actual development of the ta.ree
11 percentaee of low and moderate incQ1Te housing units as adopted in its comprehensive
12 plan In establishing plannin targets to addre5a f,u rP affordable housine needs, it is
13 rero nized that success will be dcmndent in pan upon regional factors beyond the coniro
14 of anv sin le iurisdiction Any one iurisdiction active alone or even in concert with oth�
15 local government5, may or may not be able to achieve its ((OK-fe)l targets in these
16 policies despite its best efforts Success will require coonrration and support for
17 affordable houSina from the state federal and local governments as well as the private
16 sector. The si nificant role of the market must also be recognized Tn determining
19 performance the GMPC or its successor shall therefore use reasonable iudament, and also
20 shall consider these market and other factors as well as action taken to encourage
21 development and preservation of low and moderate income housing such as local fundint
22 development Inde chanties and creation of new programs.
23 Vi. CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY. DEVELOPMENT And PROVISION
24 OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
25 Chapler 11. -Lund Use Pattern.' contains policies for phasing development within
26 the Urban Growth Areu. An integral cnmponent of the phasing process is ensuring that
27 development is accompanied by a full range of urban services. Equally imporrant is.
28 ensuring that infrastructure improvements are not provided in advance of development
29 which could undennine the counrvwide development pattern. This chapter provides
30 policies which .support phasing within the Urban Growth Area and ensure the integrity ql
31 the counrvwide lurid development pattern.
32 FW-((-'-13))29. Planning for and financing of services shall be coordinated among
33 jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the
cppph'_. 07119/94
66
,.L. .. rY. .11..
1 countywide politics.
2 F W_((6))1g. Jurisdictions shall identify the services needed to achieve adopted
3 service levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified.
q .FW -(G -7)W. Protection- of public health and safety and the environment shall be
5 given high priority in decision-making about infrastructure improvements. County
6 residents in both urban and rural areas shall have reasonable access to a high-quality
7 drinking water source meeting all federal and state drinking water requirements.
8 Management and operation of existing on-site septic systems shall not result in adverse
9 impacts to public health or the environment.
10 A. General Policies
11 To ensure that land use is accompanied with the maximum possible use of existing
12 facilities and cost-effective service provisions and extensions, and to encourage
13 development of strong, interrelated communities, policies are needed which integrate a fui
14 range of urban services with land -use planning and environmental protection. Urban
15 srn ic'e drfinirinn.s .shnuld he ,hided by "public services,' public facilities, " and "urban
16 governmental services' as defined in RCW 36.70A (GMA).
17 Cmmnwnin and hurnon services policies are included under Chapter IV,
18 "Crmnuurrr Chmaner and Open Space,' and transponarion policies are included under
19 Chupter Hl. 'Transpiwienion. ' Several countywide planning efforts provide direction for
20 achieving the integration of services, aquifer and natural resource protection, and land
21 use planning. These include the Coordinated Water System Plans, Seattle Regional
22 Cnmprehenlir Wunv Supply Plan, Groundwater Management Plans, Basin Plans, Chelat
23 Agreement Re -¢anal Wotrr Resources Planning Process, Flood Hazard Reduction Plan,
2: Wu.strirurrr 2020 Nits. Htmmn Srnicr.s Strategies Report, and the King County Sewerage
1 25 General Pion. Furthrroutrr. there are stoic mandates which affect the provision of
26 Sen7Ces. For e.rample, wuter resource allocation must accommodate all reasonable
27 nut-nf-stream nerds and mainruin sit cieni flows for in -stream uses.. The following
28 policies transcend Urban and Rural land use designations and apply countywide.
29 1. Urban Services Required as Growth Occurs
30 CO -l. Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they
31 plan to provide them.
32 2. Conservation, Efficiency, Cost Effectiveness and New Technologies
33 CO -2. Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and
cppph2. 07/19194
67
I manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, conjunctive use of
2 resources, and sharing of facilities. lntcr urisdictional planning efforts shall evaluate
3 approaches to share and conserve. resources.
4 •. CO -3_ Service provision shall -be coordinated to rnsure'the protection and
5 preservation of resources in both rural arras and in areas that are developing, while
6 addressing service needs within areas currently identified for growth.
7 C04. All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface wate
g management system which crosses jurisdictions boundaries and identifies and prioritizes
9 program elements and capital improvements necessary to accommodate growth and prow
10 the natural and build environment. The GMPC shall develop and recommend a financin
11 and implementation strategy to meet this need.
12 CO -5. Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable econon
13 source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors.
14 The region should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water
15 demand needs of all agencies and water purveyors.
16 CO -6. Aggressive conservation efforts shall be implemented to address the need
17 for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, protect natural resources,
1S and achieve improved air quality. Efforts shall include, but not be limited to, public edt
19 cation, water reuse and reclamation, landscaping which uses native and drought -resistant
20 plants and other strategies to reduce water consumption, small lot size, low -flow
21 showerheads. conservation credits, and energy efficiency incentives in new and existing
22 buildings.
23 CO -7. Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large
24 commercial and residential developments. and for high water users such as parks, schoo
25 golf courses. and locks.
26 CO -8. When planning for the future demand on wastewater treatment and
27 conveyance. alternatives to the expansion of the Metro centralized system such as
28 decentralized treatment and other treatment technologies, and wastewater reclamation an
29 reuse shall be identified and incorporated into plans as viable options.
30 CO -9. The presence of tightline sewers or availability of sewer pipeline capacity
31 and water supply above what is required to meet local needs shall not be used to justify
32 development counter to the countywide policies, and any such land use development
33 proposal shall be denied by the permitting agency.
eppph'_. 07/19/9-0 _
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
B. -Urban Areas Identifiecl for Growth for the Next Ten Yeats
The designation of the Urban Growth Area establishes the service arta for the
county. 777c detailed arrangement and timing of services and the installation of
infrastructure improvements is 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 ore essential to support growth
anticipated in the Urban Area over rhe nim ren years. Urban water systems are define
as a network of pipes which arc designed to meet all user needs and provide fire
protection. Urban sewer systems are defined as a system of pipes providing eonveyancr
a ,Sewage trearmeni faeilir)'.
I. 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 lou and shall bt
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 jurisdiction
and management keeps the systems operating properly and safely.
C. Urban Areas Designated for Growth Beyond 2002
In urban urrac dr.%ignurrdfar growth heynnd 2002, there will be -a mix of existir
service.% which may or niuy not he vi urban service levels. The appropriate infrastructu
iniprmvnwni� !ter ower onrl water .rvsiems will vary according to existing site condition
Nen• develnpmr/11.% should neerrr cnmiguous in rxis» ng, fully -developed areas so that
r rvrn.%iun n/ srr•rcet occur in un orderly and cosi-effective manner.
I. Phased and Cost Errective Extension or Urban Water and Sewer System
CO -11. To the extent practicable, all new plats shall be contiguous to the areas
identifted.for growth for the next ten years. The phased expansion should respect basir
boundaries or other natural landscape features.
CO -12. Preferred sewer and water systems in arras designated for growth beyc
2002 are community drainfields and water systems which are professionally managed.
These systems shall be designed, sited, and built to facilitate eventual conversion to urb
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
eppph'-• 87/19/94
69
1 permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage General Plan,
2 countywide policies, and the policies of the jurisdiction in whose potential annexation area
3 the extension is proposed.
4 D: Rural Arras and Resource Lands
5 Residents in rural areas and resource lands need to have many of the same types of
6 services as urban areas. However, the service standards in rural areas and resource
7 lands are not at Urban levels. Rural water systems are defined as individual or
8 community wells or piped water systems designed to meet all user needs bur, in most
9 cases,not providing for fire protection.
•10 1. Limited Extension of Urban Water and Sewer Systems
11 CO-14. Sewer expansion shall not occur in rural areas and resource lands except
12 where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening structures
13 permitted before July 1, 1992 or the needs of public facilities such as schools. Sewers
14 may be extended only if they are tightlined and only after a finding is made that no
I
15 alternative technologies are feasible. Mechanisms to reduce cost and limit the number of
16 i individual hookups shall be explored and actions recommended to the GMPC.
17 CO-15. ((
18 o a
19 ,
20
21 exten5ien. Urban water system extensions are not preferred in rural areas. However.
22 Group A (WAC 246,290,020) water systems are permissible under the following criteria:
i
23 af(e)1 water quality or Quantity problems of eYtshnet ystems as'of I3ecernbcl
24 311944 that threaten public health ((tmst-w2n)) can best be solved by Group A service:
25 9r ((ttnd))
26 b((a)l Group A service is financially feasible at rural densities and shall not be
27 justification for any increase in residential densitT. a*6 prior to approval the specific number
28 of rural connections shall be specified for the line or system for the ((W41)) total rural area
29 being served and ((b- ))the area has either been approved for Group A service through a
30 King County-adopted coordinated water system plan or has been designated for Group A
31 service through prior establishment of a utility local improvement district or other financial
32 mechanisms((=.--er)),
33
34 CO-16. o sereiee areas a
I
cppplt'_. 07/19/94:amend 8/15/94
70
1be pfafessienqly
2 6
3 Rural water cysts ms should be provided through private wells or small public systems, JT-
4
Ir4 the Rural Area all new (( )) Caja A water systems should be (i+twneetelp iineizt~'tc
5 by a ( )) i ertifed water system oWrator and newa'Gmt
systems th�ihli("lie
6 If the are
7 io`e`seived is included in the planning area of an existing water purveyor as identified in
8 Coordinated Water System Plan, the water system ((tel)) iIi66ld be gperat by the
9 purveyor through either satellite management arrangement or by direct service.
10 VII. SITING PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITIES OF A COUNTYWIDE Or
11 STATEWIDE NATURE
12 Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature generally have
13 characreristics that make these facilities extremely difficult to sire. Such characteristics
14 include the number of jurisdictions affected or served by the facility, the size of the
15 facility, and the facilin"s potential adverse impacts, such as noise, odor, traffic, and
16 pollution generation. The facilities can be either desirable or undesirable to jurisdictions.
17 Some of rhe facilities are privately owned and regulated by public entities. Facilities also
18 can be owned by the state and used by residents from throughout the stare, such as
19 universities and their branch campuses.
20 The cnmmn and the cities need to develop a process for siting public capital
21 facilities with these types of churucterisrics, including bur nor limited to, utility and
22 transportation corridors, airports, wastewater treatment plants, solid waste landfills,
23 higher educarionulfiaciNie.s, correctional and in-patent trearmeni faciliries and energy-
24 generating facilities.
25 FW-((2£))32. Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature shall be
126 sited to support the countvwide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate
27 environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs.
28 Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhood sljurisdictions.in which facilities
29 are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an
30 intepurisdictional process established by the GMPC or its successor.
t
31 S-1. The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall establish a
32 process by which all jurisdictions shall cooperatively site public capital facilities of a
33 countywide or statewide nature. The process shall include:
34 a. A definition of these facilities;
35 b. An inventory of existing and future facilities;
eppph-'. 07119/94:amend 8/15/94
71
1 c: Economic and other incentives to jurisdictions receiving facilities;
2 d. A public involvement strategy;
3 e. As that the environment and public health and safety are protected
4 and
5 f. A consideration of alternatives to the facility, including decentralization,
6 demand management, and other strategies.
7 VIII. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ((ANR-E))
e Jurisdictions shnuld cooperatively create an environment which sustains the
9 economic r4faliry of the region and which contributes to manageable economic growth.
10 Jurisdicrinar shall recognize that King County is pan of a larger regional economy, whic
11 is strongly linked by trade to the natinnal and international economies. Infrastructure
12 investments should be focused info urban centers and manufacruring/industrial centers
13 which are supporred by transit. Countywide pnlicies shall be integrated with economic
14 development.
15 FW -((219))33. All jurisdictions shall contribute to the economic sustainability of
16 the county in a manner which supports the countywide land use pattern. This is to be
17 accomplished by providing cost-efficient quality. infrastructure and public services at an
is adopted level -of -service specific to the local situation, providing affordable housing,
19 promoting excellence in education, and protecting the environment.
20 FW -((49))14. All jurisdictions shall act to increase work training and job
21 opportunities for all residents and communities.
22 FW -((34))35. All jurisdictions shall support the development of a regional
23 economic development strategy consistent with the countywide land use pattern.
24 Definition orEc000mic Develnnnienr
25- Economic DereAiPmem is ernwrh and chanef, in the, ecnnnmv wherehv the
26 cconnntic hrabh nfrhe reeion--its people, its business, its eovernmenrs—is enhanced. A
27 imnnriani romps mens of aehievine Ecnnnmic Develonment is thrnugh the Purposeful
28 tmderrakine of mehlic and Private actions desirned to achieve:
29 --rhe mrlinrrnance of a srrone economic hose:
30 --a diveraifictninn nfrhe economy•
31--imprnved ioh rroinine and rdycorinnal oryporrpniries.
32 -the protection of the nunrml rnvimnmenr:
33 --rhe empnryrrmrnr of rcnnnmicalh, disadvantaeec ciri ens and neiMbnrhnods.
eppphl. 07/ 19x94
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1-
is
19
20
.21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
_ part a in her,,en rhe nrivare and public sector
_
_the, mainfenaga and crearinn of high r Aamilvl wage iobs_
This element of the C'ounnwide Planning Policies is intended to nroyide a vision
and nnhcv dirccrinn for Kine C'nunry iurisdicrinrrs
EW 36 Tne Growth Manaeement Planning Council or its successor and iuris-
d ictions jhglI.develoP monitoringand evaluation systems including benchmarks. by whit
they can evaluate verformance in achieving the coals of their C gM12mhensive Plans.
ED -1. ((i3} Bch
-11-,)) The GMPC ((s4e4l)) has adopted 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 arras to target public resources promoting econom
development:
f. roster job training opportunities to maintain a highly educated work
iorce.
Protect the natural environment as a key economic value in this region
h. Consider the special needs of economically disadvantaged citizens and neighborhoods
and
t. Include the assistance of private sector.
ED By July I. 1995((3)) regional planning shall produce a regional industrial
siung policy baser 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.
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 b
accommodated in the jurisdiction during the next 20 years.
ED -5. The county shall work with Snohomish and Pierce Counties to develop a
eppph-1. 07/19/44
73
.L JLI I.J
1 joint 2() -year regional 'economic development strategy.
2 1. Strengthen, Expand, and Diversify the Economy
3 . F 1 iur1isdictions plans shall include policies that actively suovort_thc
4 retention and expansion of the economic base of the mulkounty region. Local
5 iurisdiclim and the o n Shall work C002=6vely on a regional basis and invite privy
6 r pailicination to evaluate The ndc opportunities and weaknesses of the existinE
7 economy and to anal onnmir netS15 of kCy indUSTriGS.
8
I tical jurisdictions' m h i s shall incl de nnheiet intended to foster:
9. a the development and retenlign of those businesses and industries which
10 export their goods and services outside the region These businesses and industries are
11 critical to the economic strength and diversification of the economy.:
12 o a business climate which is supportive of business formation. expansio
13 and retention and recognizes the imt>ortance of small businesses in creating new Jobs.
14 EQ -7. Jurisdictions shall cooperate to establish economic diversification and
1, deielonmeni ooals for the multicounty region Jurisdictions shall in Dr cess of
16 comprehensive planning identify the contribution they will make to the regional divrJ3
7 fication and development goals. _
1s EDS Where appropriate Jurisdictions' plans shall include policies intended to
19 at and retain industries firms and jobs within their locally determined or zoned
20 manufactunno and industrial areas.
21 ED -9 Jurisdictions shall recognize businesses facilities and institutions within
22 their houndanes that provide opportunities to maintain economic stability and realize
23 economic ro"-Oi fwr)he entire region These include maior educational facilities.
24 research inswunons health care facilities high value added manufacturing facilities and
25 port facilines anion others The County and local iurisdictions shall encourage these
26 insntutions husinesses and facilities to thrive while maintaining the environmental and
27 other goals of the local comprehensive plans.
28 2. Environment
29 ED -10 Jurisdictions shall adopt economic development and other Dolicies which
30 will resp nize and help protect the environment as a key Economic value in the region.
31 Local policies shall seek to achieve an appropriate balance between the needs for
32 economic growth and the need for protecting the environment Local governments are
33 encouraged to look for ways to work cooperatively with businesses to hciD them compll
cppph'—. 07/19193
74
1
2
3
4,
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27,
28
29
30
31
32
33
s-- ..x.. A tf
with environmental repulatig205I to develop pgjigies thatroult in environmen Y.
l2roteclign throughl'gulatorypr(=sses jhgj .l I p: •.•
1 •.• •.HF 1 • 1 witit mmirr • I • !•11/ h f providers. l•.p / ! • i
including kwcr vind water di5tTicts. shall encouj�ge programs f-Qr water and Mwer
consmatim in public Y: • in the • /
ivate swor.
3. Human Resources: IEconomically CitiI
Neighborhoods, Job Training and Education
FD -12 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans shall address the historic disparity in
income and employment opportunities for minorities women and economically
disadvantaged individuals Jurisdictions shall develop sttateeies and support community
based actions to involve minorities women and economically disadvamazed individuals i
improving their economic future The plans shall recognize their special needs and each
jurisdiction should commit based on their plans resources in human services communis
develoomen[ housing economic development and the public infrastructure, to address th
inequalities referred to above.
ED -13. lob training retraining, and educational opportunities are critical to
develop and maintain a highly skilled workforce. Jurisdictions shall cooperate in efforts
to meet these training and educational needs on a countywide basis by facilitating the
implementation of programs to meet the educational and training needs and to identify
partnerships and funding opporlunttles where aDproprlate.
a. Direct Governmental Actions: Land Supply, infrastructure, and
Per -milling
ED -1-1 Jurisdictions shall cooperate on a countywide basis to inventory. plan for
and monitor the land simply for commercial, industrial, institutional• resource and
residential uses Local jurisdictions shall, in five year increments for the next 20 years
identify the amount character and uses of land needed to achieve the iurisdictions' iob
growth goals
ED -I5. Local comprchensive plans should include policies which foster a climau
supportive of the siting needs of industrial users and that recognize the important role tht
play in creating high -wage jobs Local plans are encouraged to include policies desienu
to ensure that industrial use of industrial -zone land is not unduly encroached upon or
limited by non -supporting or incompatible uses.
Local policies and plans are encouraged tO support the continued availabilitv of
cppph'. 07/19/94
75
..,L. —
1
];tnd for those induslij s tp clip or nm tible activities de�ndrnt on critical
in 1 --1 coma hrnsiv Pi ns Iurisdictions should consider
2
infraif L
3
no or other means IO Provide �+tiec for th0� LSes in areas where infrastructut
4
facilitieS - n ihed to Cz2structure.
-
5
ED 16 Jurisdictions are rncouraged 10 pmmote the siting of resource-based
and
6
U ultural based industrial activities close to the location of the natural resource
whethe
7
outside or inside the urban growth boundary JPrlsdietions are encouraged to t,
cognize
• 8
forest land as a 5licroinhle economic resource.
9.
ED 17 Wherri�trisdictions i cl dine water and sower districts have
to
r
n i' ii'ly IQ provide nn_--_._tune and/or ervices or to plan for them they
shall
11
include th Pals of aonomic development a5 an important Part of their dxision
making,
12
proccu.
13
ED 18 Jurisdictions shall cooperatively develop funding, strategies for
14
infrastructure which take into account economic development goals
and
,ovemmental
15
consider the costs and benefits for the jurisdictions, and the region.
16
ED-] 9Jurisdictions shall seek state legislative approval of state funding
and
17
re ulatdrystrategies to fund environmental clean-up of industrial sites. Jurisdictions
shal
18
wort: together on a collaborative basis to develop alternative local county and
state
19
Financina and re ulatory strategics to assist with the funding of environmental
clean-up o
20
industrial sites.
23
ED-20 Jurisdictions shall identify Eeoeranhic areas that can be developed
or
22
redeveloped into manufacturing/industrial areas and coordinate with utility providers
to
23
build the necessary infrastructure Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide public
24
incentives io promote basic employment associated with manufacturing.
25
ED-2I To maintain the economic vitality of King County, regulatory
rcform mu
26
occur with the implementation of GMA reouirements To•carry out this goal,
iurisdictio
27
shall adopt permitting processes with defined milestones for prompt approval of
proiects
28
that conform with the local jurisdictiont development roeulations. To cam out
this
29
policy the following actions shall be taken:
30
a No later than January 1996 jurisdictions shall identify to the
GMPC o-
31
its successor current permit process timeframes and barriers to speedyMrmit-approval
32
.including discussion of operational and cost eonsideratjons
33
b Eliminate redundant permit reviews and appeals
cPPph'--• 07/19/94
76
I c. Establishing continent mitreation requirements containine clear stan-
z dards. and facilitating projects that meet thee^ established standards:
3 d. Focusing the scope of public atrocal processes for a proiect to those
4 13sues Phar relate odirectly to spxiftc impacts of the project: and -
5 e. Adopting procedures to perform concurrent permit review whenever
6 Ro.Ssible,
7 ED-77 Jurisdictions mayprzpare non-projxt environmental impact statements tc
8 address in a comprehensive manner the probable significant adverse impacts of future
9 development.
10 FD-23 Jurisdictions are encouraged to establish a master utility permit process it
11 conjunction with approval of land use permits such as §hors plats subdivisions and maste
12 planned developments Utilities may include both publicly and privately owned utilities
13 for electricity natural gas, water sanitary sewer. surface water manaecment and
14 telecommunications All utility extensions and required new construction may be
15 reviewed as Dart of the master utility permit.
16 S. Private/Public Partnerships
17 ED-24. Jurisdictions shall foster the development and use of private/public
18 partnershios to implement economic development policies, prourams and proiects
19 IK. REGIONAL FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE
20 (($:))A. Finance and Governance Plans
21 A -fiscal unuh•so i.s required by the GMA. The Purpose of the fJSCal analysis is for
22 Kine Cnann, m reolistically ussess the fiscul cnsta and constraints nfimnlementine the
23 CPP( and ll7ereh% to cnNriblae In the desien n%an ellrecriye ttroleey to nyerenme th0 e
24 rnnvrainm n _
25
26
27
28 j>F+lieirs.)1
29 In order to evaluate the Fiscal impacts of the initial Countywidc Planning Policies
30 adopted by King County in 1992 and Phase 2 Amendments pursuant to GMA. and King
31 County Ordinance 1110450 the QMPC creatod the Fiscal Impact Analysis and Economic
32 Development (Fis/Ed) Task Force The QMPC dirxted this Task Force to perform the
33 required fiscal analysis and recommend appropriate policies to the GMPC The GMA
cppph'-. t171191W
77
119:46
1 { T=UireS an ana)V5u of the fi 1 impacts to he completed when adopting countvwide
2 n li i s King o m Ordinan tl104i0 noires that an in-depth analysis
3 conducted to evaluate the -�1 arta ^^^^" imr,ars ^f the CPPB on governments.
q bujncsses and individuals The 1492 CPP Policy FW-32'reauires that iurisdictions
5 cgovetativrjy identify-tcgional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies
6 Fiscal analy;' r the CPPs c onrains discussion of anriripated fiscal impact on the county
7 and cities The Fis/Ed Task Force completed the work program adopted by the GMPC .
8 accomplish the legal requirements for the fiscal analysis and transmitted their findings to
9 the GMPC in a Final Report on May 4. 1994,
10 The Fiscal Analysis Chapters.] through $ of the Final Report of the Fiscal
11 Analysis and Economic Development Task Force which was transmitted to the GMPC o
12 May 4. 1994 is hereby incorporated by reference as the Fiscal Analysis for the
13 Countvwide Planning Policies.
14 FW -((36))17. To implement the Countywide Planning Policies, jurisdictions shal
15 j cooperatively identify regional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies
16 by July 1, 199((3))-6. Such strategies shall consider the infrastructure and service needs
17 Urban Centers, Manufacturing Industrial Centers, Activity Areas, Business/Office Parks
is other activity concentrations, and rural areas. Such strategies shall also provide incentiv
r
19 to suppon the Countywide Planning Policies and should:
20 a. Make existing and newly identified funding sources respond in the mo:
21 flexible way to meet countvwide needs:
22 b. Ensure that a balance of services is available countywide to meet,
23 among others.'human service, public safety, open space and recreation, education, and
24 transportation needs: and
25� c. Evaluate current revenue and service demands and the potential for more
26 effective coordination of service delivery.
27 FW -38 in order to implement the Countywide Planning Policies, key invesimcr
28 need to be identified and implemented Public resources shall include countvwide.
29 regional, state and federal funds King County and its cities shall develop a Regional
30 Financing Plan including sources for the key investments by July. 1996.
31 a. The Regional Financing Plan should establish priorities for regional
32 infrastructure investments including transportation. water, sanitary sewer. storm water.
33 parks and open space.
eppph=• 07/19/94
78
I b Thr R n 1 Finan in Plan should emph2size stratcgiu to achieve
z environmenial Clean-up, redev lopment affordabl ho tsin and reeulatotvssfom
3
r The Rcgjonal Financing Plan should' consider the recommendations on
4 reaional infrastructure investmems which rnav be contained in the Foundations for_thc
5 Future: Regional Economic Strategy§ Action Plan due out in late 1994.
6 .t lx1 jurisdictions' eligibility for shared funding through regional agencie
7 and consortia shall be dmcndeni..upon collabora[ion in development and execution of this
a work program.
9 FW 39 In order to implement the Countvwide Planning Policies. a Regional
to governance Plan shall be adopted by King County and the cities This plan shall be
11 developed in a collaborative process with local iurisdictions special districts, citizens an
12 business ruresentino a broad range of stakeholders This proposal shall
13 a Fvaluate opportunities for govemment consolidation.
14 b Match service responsibilities of jurisdictions With the fiscal capacity to
15 maintain services at the level desired by taxpavers: and
16 r Define appropriate regional and local responsibilities for service delivery.
17 RF -1 Kina County and its cities shall setk authority from the State Uvislature t
is iaciluate public sector assemblage of land for the purpose of redevelopment.
19 RF KinR County and its cities shall s=k authority from the State Legislature t
20 estahltsh special "Urban Center Districts" where increments of new revenues resulting
21 irom redevelopment can he allocated ((fleeted)) for infrastructure financing
22 RF -3 All iuri,d,ction, shall adoo, pohcies to stimulate construction or
23 prewraiinn or afiordnhlc humin- in centers infill and redevelopment areas.
2: , RF --1 Each cels "Wi a potential annexation area shall enter into an interlocal
25 a reement with the Counic for defining service delivery responsibilities A financing ph
26 for investments in the annexation areas shall be included in the interlocal agreement for
27 capital facilities and service delivery. Level -of -service standards and financial capacity
28 should be considered for each area toeether with density issues and phasing of
29 developments.
30 RF -5 In order to transition govemmentat roles so that the cities become the
31yrroyider of local urban services and the county becomes the regional government
32 vrovidinc counivwide and rural services unincorporated urban growth areas arc
33 encouraged to annex or incorporate within the 2C1-vear timeframe of these policies To
cppph2. 07/19/94
79
4 •-
9.
to
11
12
13
14
16
17
1E
19
20
21
22
23
nchieve this IML�Plrl�m
•.✓_. alt 11 �1t 1 • 1 '
• 1LMjbaLincJ6dcs a i2lanfor develagm t smndards
f 1 1 ' • K• I
In 11 f :l11 1 1 1 ivif�.n nfo mif•4fi r ri-Mmi
1
Cnunrvwide Planninc Policies are intended rn offeet direct/v only Incol
rmmnrenrrGli.-c
ViOns Howe.yer. the GMPC recognizes than indirectly, Counrywide
Planninc Policies will lrlrimotels have a broad roneine impact nn mnine__erisrin9 uses,
in and smicrures rhrrnrehnur thf. odontion of develnomenr re>'ularions rhar are consister
,virh incol enrripfC.hrnsive plan it is nor; ^�f:rfle r^ f^°r Jan on a eounrvwide basis rule:
of rransirinn rhar will accounr for these impacts Cities and the Counry need flexibiliry rr
adow pries rhar gni-ern'rronsirion iTvucs^rl^w ,Ig local imnlemenrarion to occur in an
orderlt fair and predictable manner, Anricipathle underarandine and providing
rear nnahle rules to enlern the conirnion from old to new GMA plans and development
rr dettinm is hen addressed in local plans and develnomenr reer+larions.
TP -1. All Jurisdictions shall implement these countywide planning policies throu:
adontion of comnrehensive plans Countywide planninv policies will affect existing lega
7onjng uses strucntres and lots only.through hrough locally adopted development regulations th,-
arc consistent with adopted comprehensive plans.
TP -2. Local plans and development regulations may provide rules of transition
rneming such matters as zoning yeeftfell and existing legal uses stntctures and lots
Including pending applications for development approval.
cPPPh'. 07/19/94
80
1
2
S
6
L _1 t E, V
APPENDIX 1
Urban Growth Areas Map
1! 11 1 a. • 1 1Vfol owed bv tho aI 1 •J .•
.aq1 11 1. 6P.1 0 1 a T. I I•.
.u•11 1 •1
cPPPhl. 07/19/94
81
.f�
o�
g'
1
4i�.4YSV•i ei1
S7i'ti}y�i40•
1
O. pYr.•p •4�
40•yP O
•id`s Of �:�• •� �: ,
A <
r
qgqg
.f�
o�
g'
1
4i�.4YSV•i ei1
S7i'ti}y�i40•
1
O. pYr.•p •4�
40•yP O
•id`s Of �:�• •� �: ,
A <
r
v
c.
.f�
o�
g'
1
4i�.4YSV•i ei1
S7i'ti}y�i40•
1
O. pYr.•p •4�
40•yP O
•id`s Of �:�• •� �: ,
A <
r
1
2
cppph2. D7119/94
APPENDIX 2
Household and Employment Ranges
82
0
Proposed Growth Targct Ranges for flouscholds and Employment
rce: Gromh Management Planning Council, May 14, 1994.
Net New Hhld Ranges
Net New
Net New Emp. Ranges
Net New
Low High
CITIES
Households
Low lulgh
Employment
Algona 404
346 462
350
.300
.400
Auburn 8,082
6,553 9,610
11,100
9,000
i 13 200 i
Beaux Arts 0
0 0
0
IBe]]ewt 8,575
7,680 9,550
28,250
25300;
31,200;
(Black Diamond 1,033
947 1,119
1,200
1,1001
1:100 i.
(Bothell (KC part) 1,931
1,448 2,413
2,900
2,150.
3,600;.
IBurien 1,796
1,596 1,995
450
400
5001'
I Carnation 404
404 404
0
0
Oji
!Clyde Hill 12
12 12
0
0
0
(Des Moines 1,796
1,437 2,155
2,500
21000
3,0001
I
I Duvall 1,886
1,563 1,759
1,700
1.600
1,800
Enumclaw 2,626
2,182 2,667
1,000
900
1,100
l Federal Way 14,996
13,425 16,566
14,800
13300
16,400
!iHunts Point 4
4 4
0
0
0
Issaquab 2,694
1,879 3,508
4,300
3,000
5,600
'Kent P 735
6,120 7,500
11,500
10,450
12,550
':Kirkland .''5,837
5328 6346
8,600
7,8001
9300
I! Lake Forest Park 135
101 168
200
150
250
I`.Medina 17
17 17
0
0
0
:.Mercer Island 1,122
1,056 1,188
1,700
1,600
1,800
'Milton 18
18 18
0
0
0
Normandy Park 135
135' 135
0
01
0
North Bend 1,527
1.266; 1,787
2,050
1,700
j 2,400
Pacific 1,212
606 1 1,818
100
.101
150
.Redmond 11,458
9,6371 12,760
29,509
29,500'
'34,7501
Renton 8,890
7,7301 10,049
23,000
20,0001
26,0001
SeaTac 3,592
3,546 7.500
15,800
15.6001
26,900
Seattle 53,877
48,2331 59,520
132,700
118,800
146,600
'Skykomish 27
271 27
0
0
0
Snoqualmie 2,784
1,9421 3,625
4,500
3,100
5,820
'Tukwila 5,388
4,7611 6,014
22,250
19,000
24,000
Woodinville 1,796
1,7501 1,842
1,950
1,900
2,000
Yarrow Point 18
IS 18
0
01
!
0
City Totals 150,803
131.768 172.558
322,409
288.700, 370,620
Uninc. KC 44,897
40,048 50,000
25,000
23,3001 28,700
GRAND TOTAL . 195,700
171,8161 222,558
347,409
312,0001 399,320
rce: Gromh Management Planning Council, May 14, 1994.
1
2
S
11 cPPPh2.07/19/94
APPENDIX 3
Affordable Housing Index
83
I
The Jobs/Housing Index was developed by the Affordable Housing Technical Forum as a way to adjust housing
targets based on each jurisdictions existing concentrations of low-cost housing and low-wage employment. A
Low -Wage Jobs Index greater than one indicates that the proportion of lower wage employment is mate than the
county average; a Low -Cost Housing Index greater than one indicates that the proportion of lower cost housing is
kZ than the county average. The Jobs/Housing Index is computed by multiplying the jobs and housing indexes.
together.
Policy AH -2 establishes planning targets for housing affordable to households with incomes between 0 and 50
percent of the county median income. Based on the Jobs/Housing Index, jurisdictions should planfor a number of
units that is either 20 or 24 percent of projected net new housing units, as follows:
Jobs/Housing Index greater than one: 24 percent.
Jobs/Housing Index less than one: 20 percent.
Jurisdiction for which Index could not be computed (shown as NA): 20 percent.
Sourcc: King County Planning and Community Development Division, 1993.
Notes
1. Low-wage jobs are estimated using Puget Sound Regional Council employment data for five sectors,
converted to lower income quartile households. King County Planning and Community Development, 1992.
2. Proportion of low-wage jobs relative to the county average.
3. Rental housing units with rents less than $700 per month, plus owned housing units valued at less than
5100,000, in 1990 dollars. 1990 Census.
4. Proportion of low-cost housing relative to the county average.
5. Low-wage jobs index (2) multiplied by the low-cost housing index (4).
0.61
0.52
Algona
73
0.85
406
Auburn
51362
0.83
9,245
0.65
0.54
Beaux Arts
NA
NA
3
20.74
NA
Bellevue
22,297.
1.08
12,801
1.39
1.50
Black Diamond .<
59
1.28
259
0.73
0.93
Bothell
1,691
1.19
1,704
1.2
1.43
Carnation
64
0.85
248
0.81
0.69
Clyde Hill
31
0.52
21
26.07
13.56
Des Moines
1,564
1.27
4,473
0.74
0.94
Duvall
56
0.87
229
1.74
1.51
Enumclaw
1,174
1.17
2,106
0.65
0.76
Federal Way
6,384
1.26
14,107
0.89
1.12
Hunts Point
0
0'
7
14.14
NA
Issaquah
1,676
1.17
1,594
1.01
1.18
Kent
8,D67
0.78
11,526
0.69
0.54
Kirkland
5,472
1.17
6,955
1.17
1.37
Lake Forest Pk.
554
1.2B
251
2.98
3.81
Medina
25
0.91
54
10.67
9.71
Mercer Island
1,697
1.11
1,227
3.21
3.56
Milton
NA
NA
77
1.08
NA
Normandy Park
352
1.23
488
2.68
3.30
North Bend
506
1.15
595
0.84
0.97
Pacific
147
0.85
1,107
0.67
0.57
Redmond
7,296
0.96
5,103
1.34
1.29
Renton
9,675
0.77
11,999
0.75
0.58
SeaTac
4,497
0.91
6,528
0.69
0.63
Seattle
129,451
1.02
134,526
0.87
0.89
Skykomish
NA
NA
72
0.63
NA
Snoqualmie
444
1.18
426
0.74
0.87
Tukwila
10,875
0.85
4,256
0.65
0.55
Yarrow Point
0
0
17
11.2
NA
Cities
219,489
1 1.00
1 232,410
0.91
0.91
Uninc. KC. _
32,885
1 1.03
1 66.775
1.32
IF 1.36
KC TOTAL
252,374
I 1.00
1 299,185
1 1.00
7 1.00
Sourcc: King County Planning and Community Development Division, 1993.
Notes
1. Low-wage jobs are estimated using Puget Sound Regional Council employment data for five sectors,
converted to lower income quartile households. King County Planning and Community Development, 1992.
2. Proportion of low-wage jobs relative to the county average.
3. Rental housing units with rents less than $700 per month, plus owned housing units valued at less than
5100,000, in 1990 dollars. 1990 Census.
4. Proportion of low-cost housing relative to the county average.
5. Low-wage jobs index (2) multiplied by the low-cost housing index (4).
1
2
cppph2. 07/19/94
APPENDIX 4.
Land Capacity Work Program
84
M
DRAFT WORK PROGRAM
Improving King County Land Capacity Data
'
King county jurisdictions have prepared estimates 0f land capacity to
ate future growth
accommodto the year 2010 and beyond. Land capacity
refers to:the additional ..d,
gellinmerc9alnorsindustrdresidential uses) rquare
aluses).thatcanbe
feet ofi floor space (for
built in a particular geographic area 95ractices�f�c assumptions about
zoning, the land base, and development p
This work was initiated in the summer of 1991 to meet the requirements
of Countywide planning and comprehensive plan revisions called
for in
the state's 1990 Growth Management Act (GRA). 9 y
tions
came together to form a Data Resources Technical Forum, which developed
common methods to guide the work.
After extensive work using King County Assessor parcel data,
supplemented in several cases by local surveys, jurisdictions finished
preliminary estimates of land capacity in the summer of 1992. In the
fall of 1992, members of the Data Forum began meeting with individuals
from the private sector with extensive knowledge of King County land
development practices. These meetings continued into the summer o' 1993
and resulted in the Forum recommending additional refinements to the
land capacity estimates.
i
P its initial capacity work, Data Forum members prepared estimates for
bcth Vaca -t land and redevelopment potential. Jurisdictions started by
est,ma.inc the theoretical yield under current zoning and then
c:scounted for environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands or steep
slopes, richt-of-way, and land needed for other public purposes such as
parks or schools.
Discussions with the private sector led to recommendations that an
acc:.Iona l discount be made for "market factors" because not all lands
wl.1 be available for development durina the 20 year horizon specified
for olanninc by *heGMA. The Forum also recommended jurisdictions add a
2S:. cusnion to their revised zoning capacity to allow markets to work
efficier.:ly, without undue pressure on land prices. A prooram to
monitor land capacity was also recommended to ensure a continuing source
of information erEne-:apacnty of land to accommodate future growth;
The land capacity estimates have been reported in the Draft Supplemental
Environmental impact Statement on the Countywide Planning Policies
caned for by the GHJ.. They have also been the subject'of briefings to
the Affordable Housinc and Fiscal Analysis and Economic Development
(Fis/ED) Task Forces se. up to advise the Growth Management Planning
Council or possible refinements to the Countywide Policies.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
APPENDIX 5
TRANSPORTTiQj 2.
nmttref32.2 (3
3 Pnlicirc for rorrnn wide Tran snnridlinn facififirr grid tii-niroi cc 7r
(rte
_ 4 Policies for ininr counry and ciry plannin viihin`emwrh areas' 47 2'l27
P2L-
S An unah lis of /he fiscal impact l 2 2 (3i
6 Lrvel of 4rn'irP ronrurrrMand rwrkw7e priliry ruideli n�iirPd
he Cmmrvwide Plannine Policy T-41
Comprehensive Phins (RC11' 36.70A.070)
Thr tratuporraliorr elrmenl of comprehcruive pions adopted by the county or cures
will he, measured aruinsr rhr nolicirs and slandurds approved and rot0ed as part ofd
cnnnnwidr fromework plum 8r July ! 1994 the counry and cirirc ore reouir�d to adnnra
cnmprrhensive nlan with o mandmory rranmortation e/rmrni'that irldudes the `lnsvrtig
lith-clem, w
1 Land use assumptions used i `srimarrng f6iliL a "4
2 Facility and senicr nerds for altdiiiinr and custdmin1 1 of TPrvi
standards for arterials and rransir rowel -
3 Sir -year finanrino ,;ton hosed u_ h i
l Pf r he comnrehP,icivr
reassess land use element if level-of--Ten%i a siandards can -wThe mer tier , tm in'
L rnrrces• ibis plan will be utxlOrrd and udopred annually
c PPPh_'. 07/19/94
85
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
md,Ll fiieeN -
strateeies within Six i�vrT.
Other Laws and Resiflations
Frderal lmv requires an on-going co6piiddvr.-
rronsnoriarinn p7onnink, process as a condition of feder67 irakpnrrada prams' °r(5
romph, with rhis reniii mem.' the desienared Afetropolira)y jOi&iiiirine rft)56
is rrsnon:cWr for Ione -ranee transmr7arinn n7annine and shnrr-ran
impriji-oneni prnLwonniine (TIP).
The MPO Planning, and Pmerammine rrspnnTihiliric.T a7r 'Trrenjrhenee and
enhane-rd tindcr the rrmy rr-aythorization of thr Federal SirufZcF Trani, nrraif6 Act 7-ni
Inirr-morel Sw7racc Tronspiwatinn Efficirnry Act of 7991 (IS7FA) diminws veve
reflcv)ricell fimelint! Procrams and creams o rim flexible Surface., Lea 6rtqiinit 'Pi jia'7'n
(STP) and a nrw Contestion Mirivorion Pmeram. Funds ovdildhIr in rhe, .Yrgioii.0 der
fhese rwo hiellwen, prot!runrs may he used for multi -modal solu6rrj^ and rhe "MPO"h
nrnieci scIrcrion vurboriry for these r7rnprams. as well as rhL&du
for thr recion. In addition, Washiumn State DcTarrment'trant7i'(RZ
nroieci selections under the Inremare Mainrenancr., j3ridgc.' qnd
(NHS) nrocronis mu -sr he made,' in cooperg 0ri uirh:rhempo
reelona7 Transnortarion Improvement Promm (TIP).
77?e, Federal Clean Air Act Amendmenr (CAM)
Lcdiwfinn nf emissions from the Transnnrlation &rcrar, Snurtd Rejlbn61-CW Vc
rrans oriorinn Nam and Proiects miuf cu6 "iii P r'e"s-
containrd in the Stare 7mnlrmrnfajfon PIG?7 pg- if:5n4Aid-k
cppph2. 07/19/94
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ittrrsdicrion.s.
Stare low provides for rhe desrlo mr enr orfa'i4 a Coacid rrartsir f1NCTl sC sy tem
within the PugerSound Area. The law reauires thartransit agencies (Mean. Pierre
Transit, Snorran. Community Transit and Everett Transit) iointiv`nlars rhe'`imnlementdtion
of such a sysirm. For rhar lruposr. the Joinr Regional Policy Committee was formed and
chareed irirlr rhe responsihilin, of recomnrendine a system plan and financial nrogmm`7hdr
.. ...... ........ .
Would implement the HCT sysrem. This Plan is being develgped in sunnortof the'Vision
2020 Regional Growth Straircies; rhis vision calls for crearion-0 a`regionat m. of
cewral places linkrd by High Capacity Transit,facilines. and an interconnected system of
frernrn, High Occlpancv Vehiclr (HOVI lines.
77rr 1990 Starr LrOslaturr pus ed various legislation grandne Wal gpvernments
ainhonn• to esrobli.sh a nranher of razing progroms for fitndine rranrtrortation [elects atPd
Programs. An imennr and infornwl group called rhe Local OprionrSrratel'v DeWlttpment
Srrrrine Commirfee was fomwd to recomnrrnd how Mese fundiryy ourhorides should be
e.rerrised. This initial weak was comploed in September of 1991 with a comprrhensive
rec•ommendatioa us to how tach fimdine source should he assigned. As local iwisdictions
rake actions on fleece recommendations it world he usrfid to reconvene this Steering
Commirree or a similar group for coordinarine rronsporlarion fundinx decrsians
Countvwide Level or Service Framework
The followino Countvwide Level of eua ramework GuidingPdnci�les we
adomed .y iht-GUPC on JuIv 21. 1993in
They ..vided as advisoEy guidelines for loml iurisdictionso comider
cPPPh2. 07!19!94
87
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
1 .1 / • IP 71 • • 11 1 11 •.•v :up i1 .1 .1 U • 1 ' C t
tint a,
• 1 AY !1 • •II 11 -• 7. +111 1 t • • -11 +'�
., 1 • . i• 11 • 1 .• Y•. '( 1 t tial 1Y•_/ 7,•I/✓ � •�1 • 1 • 1 •
K 1 -
PSRC to develop regional mode split goals
Develop (sapply side) transit performanCe measares
3 Metro should develop supply-side transit OS measures that include
service availability and service quality. Transit service availability descTibes the• "` s of
service available (rail regular bus and express bus) and its orientation'(serAce to
desi n„ cried centers and service to areas outside centers) Service quality describes the
minimum route coverage frequencies and headways Transit travel times and on-time
Mrformance standards are optional appmpriate iurisdiction policies and actions shall
accompany their use.
Develop demand -ride transit performance measures
4 In order to achieve non -SOV mode split goals jurisdictions should'adiitit
policies and implement actions that support transit investments Transit suppprtive
policies create the oneranno environment to promote increased transit mode shaTe,.
Simnortive policies and actions include but are not limited to the following: Parkin
minimums and maximums provisions for transit facilities transit -oriented development
guidelines provisions for High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) and Transportation System
Management (TSM) treatments Transportation Demand Management (TOM) and
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinances.
Develop regional LOS swndartls and thresholds
30 5 Local iurisdictions the state and transit agencies should work with'the
31 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to develop LOS standards for regional facilities.'
32 Local Jurisdictions and apencies should provide on_poini g review of the PSRC's regional
33 LOS studies and make recommendations to the `Grovnh'Mannement Planning Council
cppph'_.. 07/19/94
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2e
29
30
32
33
34
35
Strnnort the countvrvide land use vision
S. Each jurisdiction should devise theirLOS approach in ways that sl4wit
the countywide land use vision For example jurisdictions may use LOS facture that
measure relative trip lengths or travel time in suotort of the countywide land use vision"
Develob a nonmatorized LOS comaQnent
9 Local jurisdictions should develop a nonmotorized component f their
LOS standard For example.jurisdictions may use a checklist that indicates whether `or
not fundamental nonmotorized policies standards and facilities are in place,
Include state facilities in LOS evaluation
10. State facilities are an integral element of the transportation network
Therefore, it is important to include state facilities in long-range planning LOS
evaluations.
Detennine LOS thresholds at the local level
11 Each iurisdiction will determine LOC thrrsholds andweights anpEQp
for their jurisdiction that are consistent with the culntywide vision For example, onIi city
may set a LOS threshold at LOS D citywide and an adjacent jurisdiction may per LOS
E threshold for its urhan center and an I nS n thresh..tA for It, oder of the city.
Estahlish interlocal agreements
12, Apnlying LOS standards may us„ inter loMl agre-.mentc with adjacent
jurisdictions to coordinate LOS methodologies and resolve different
cppph-1.07/19/94
89
r•I71ate
.1 '.
h :.... .
►� •n 1
i 7�1._.n
1.1
b
•1• lrte7..•• 1111
11
1 - 1 R
r• f
B
1 ••-
rl •1�
11
•
1• !11 1L!
f 1
.1
Iy tll 1
-r
L •4U.1!Ii
•
.•fp•11F . 11!7.0
• r•
1 1 .� 1.1
1_• •
I• •
.1•
r• .n�.
1 •
r••
..
1•
r. •I
-,1 �
..1 ....4 •I .,1
1• E1. r. 1
• -1 .r
.,•
- 1 • .
..t- f11 1
STEM,
Mw MHOMM"If-ToToM1,
!
I• B 7 ! (.I
. 11 I
I / I I
11 i/ ( H
I ( I
•
•
it
1 Ile 1 . 1{ 91
i _,.1 • ,
. •
1 , . •
..-to
.. I .
• 1
t 1 vm
t
t •. 171
q. it 91 •:.� RII
V. • .1 • • - Y
------------
.
91•-
.1 1.
roll
• 7.1••11 tF•.
Strnnort the countvrvide land use vision
S. Each jurisdiction should devise theirLOS approach in ways that sl4wit
the countywide land use vision For example jurisdictions may use LOS facture that
measure relative trip lengths or travel time in suotort of the countywide land use vision"
Develob a nonmatorized LOS comaQnent
9 Local jurisdictions should develop a nonmotorized component f their
LOS standard For example.jurisdictions may use a checklist that indicates whether `or
not fundamental nonmotorized policies standards and facilities are in place,
Include state facilities in LOS evaluation
10. State facilities are an integral element of the transportation network
Therefore, it is important to include state facilities in long-range planning LOS
evaluations.
Detennine LOS thresholds at the local level
11 Each iurisdiction will determine LOC thrrsholds andweights anpEQp
for their jurisdiction that are consistent with the culntywide vision For example, onIi city
may set a LOS threshold at LOS D citywide and an adjacent jurisdiction may per LOS
E threshold for its urhan center and an I nS n thresh..tA for It, oder of the city.
Estahlish interlocal agreements
12, Apnlying LOS standards may us„ inter loMl agre-.mentc with adjacent
jurisdictions to coordinate LOS methodologies and resolve different
cppph-1.07/19/94
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
I oil 1-11 ) • 1 11 ( I Y rNl
11 •. 1 ' 9MARMAT&I•.✓.•
AO 11 1 1
IP 1 V.UI� 41 J •11 .. 1 1 X11 h . 1
.1.� .1 1 11 u�' •1 1 . '
•••
I •
1• y• 1 1 1
1. 1 •.1111' '. 11 l 1 1• i • 11 yw.
•P 1Y•. 1 .J It'• • 1 •+ 1 1� h. l tl ► 91 h l• 1
C017clusionS
and County.
Introduction
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide for the consistency and coordination
of transportation and land use plans by local planning and'transpottation aeencies oyiihin
King County so that the county will be served by a balanced. multimodal € ttanmortatiorl
system that functions effectively and efficiently under the guidance of the Countywide
Planning Policies. Autos (SOV and HOV), public transportation (rail. bus, naratransit and
ferry services). freight (rail, truck, ship, and air). and non-mptoriied`modes of travel, as
well as demand management strategies
should be
planned'tomeet 'the urban'and rural
travel needs of King County and to supnort
the land
use policies
of the County and its
cities. Local transportation elements should
balance
their land
use level -of -service
standards travel needs and financial expectations
so that plans
can be implemented and
used as the basis to determine the transportation
concurrency
of
individual development
r�ICCts.
Growth Afanagement Act
The Growth Management Act
(GM A) reduires that the
comprehensive pians of
cities and counties he consistent with
and coordinated
with the
comprehensive &rts`'of
other cities and counties with which they have common
boundaries
-(36,70A.100) The
GMA also requires that counties_ prepare
countywide
planning
policies (CPP) so that
required consistency will he achieved
Such policies
for coantywide'ttansoortat
on
facilities and strategies are required by
section 36
70A'210(3)(dl
of the GMA
cppph2. 07/19/94
90
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
.q. ..%.- " Cojtj?tVt6dj"7)jojrni)7g olicies
concurrency,
Consistency and Coordinatioi? Guidelines for Local Transportation Aihand
Development Concurrency
1. Definitions
The terms consistency, coordinationand concurrkmfiould bg�J2�4ftfilfie
... ...... ....... ....
Meanings described in the Washington Adminimti - n Code (WAC 165-19L 6`
RCW. These definitions are as follows:
r
-Concurrency" mens that adequate public facilities are available whey thd,'jm�s
of development occur. This definition includes two concepts of "adequate public
facilities- and of -availahle public facilities" as defined elsewhere in the WAC.' mi '.ffie
RCW states that 'concurrent with the development" as applied to transportation Tnc:an
that `improvements or strategies are in place at the time of devejopmentor that a
financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six
years.- (36.70A 070(6)(e))
`Consistency" means that no feature of a plan or Tc.guladon is inco.mpaffble th
-anv other feaTure of a plan or regulation. Consistency is indicwjveof a capacity
orderly intezmtion or operation uith other elements in a,z
ystem.
"Coordination" means consuliatiojn. ud cobjxmtjori jjjjo6g! iudsdictims.
2. Land Ug. and Growth
The amounts, timing, and locations bf vbwtfi that are 61aimedb-
al
iurisdictions should be consistent with :the 'forrastcf&
Kine County and with the growth targets and vision aw6pledtiy the(,M-pc.
(:ppph2. 07/19194
91
2 .......... ...
I Na�
4
5 . bisibaared jyra7n
6 -4. "Level of v*�p'StandaTds
7 The LOS ........
.9 _local -jurisdictionsLTbe,LO
10 improve*Tiieriiiisi66atedwith concurrency'
,�
12 The new and improved transportation 66H66S i02
13 transportation dais should be q6naWek."Mih f
14 should be cpgrdinated. Facilities shouldinclude
15 facilities. 5tratepies should include transportation>demand mi6iiiihcniand —syste'm
16 management measures.
17 6. Funding
The sources and funds to pay for the transportation
19 meet LOS standards should be consistent with federal: stafc.fregigbLind IOU-funding
20 T)olicics. Proiecq.needing regionally administered funds shmld't�-- ghordiiiiiid&
21 the PSRC planning and funding approval process. 7b� fun di nj of'fran sRbhj
22 should include the Consideration of the timing and availability or antj6jated*f6ndL
23 7. Concurrency
24 Concurrency anplies to the regulation of individual land useactims as
25 described in RC.W 36.70A.070(6)(e). It should be derived' from the:cobrdination':ind
26 balancing of land use, LOS standards , transjortatJ6n ng6dj,..and �tinan61 in the
27 comprehensive plans of local iurisdidm-
28 8 Monitoring and Evaluation
29 The local jurisdictions and
30 toether to establish performance benchmarks s c6unt�idej rzri=nzjbplsyke m
31 that each can monitor its performance and cLduaWtbe iie iojmprove:it- Mfiid
32 should include the exchange of information technical anai`yses
33 -9. :,Certification and Review
cppph2. 07/19/W
92
4
5
6
.7
8
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
develop parking policj
Preamble
The purpose of these Luidelines is to provide a framework for local
use as they review and revise their parking pglicies. WhUcit is recognind'thev may' need
some tailoring to fit the needs of individual juri5dictions. they am stron2ly-m&6rnend •L
a means to achieve consistencv among Wal -ovemments in . ihe drahiTle of their' an rldnQ
policies.
Revision of parking codes is seen as a proms Muiring evaluation and modification
4
on an iterative basis . Local elected officials should review parking Policies and c6d
few years and adjust them as transportation alternatives improve and cxgzri"6i tfi`ilii*rr
impacts gained. To implement these policy recommendations.' jurisdictions %OLK i
monitor parking demand, perhaps on a biennial basis. The extent to which local govemrneiits
constrain parking supply will ultimately depend on theavai lab i I ity of a) temativetmnsbortifion
modes.
The incremental nature of these, policies should increase the willingness of dcLelooers
and lenders to consider reduced parking supply.' The success of jhne i?Qlielesvhll be
*
measured, in part, by local agencies' ability to work
with the 'financial communif#o
encourage lender approval of pmiecis with ?i less than traditional Darling supDlv.
Policy Guidelines
1. It is recommended thateities and th( Coumy'id6t*ptheir
comprehensive plans to TedUCC reliance 06
cppph2. 07119194
93
I wall
MINIM TIO
develop parking policj
Preamble
The purpose of these Luidelines is to provide a framework for local
use as they review and revise their parking pglicies. WhUcit is recognind'thev may' need
some tailoring to fit the needs of individual juri5dictions. they am stron2ly-m&6rnend •L
a means to achieve consistencv among Wal -ovemments in . ihe drahiTle of their' an rldnQ
policies.
Revision of parking codes is seen as a proms Muiring evaluation and modification
4
on an iterative basis . Local elected officials should review parking Policies and c6d
few years and adjust them as transportation alternatives improve and cxgzri"6i tfi`ilii*rr
impacts gained. To implement these policy recommendations.' jurisdictions %OLK i
monitor parking demand, perhaps on a biennial basis. The extent to which local govemrneiits
constrain parking supply will ultimately depend on theavai lab i I ity of a) temativetmnsbortifion
modes.
The incremental nature of these, policies should increase the willingness of dcLelooers
and lenders to consider reduced parking supply.' The success of jhne i?Qlielesvhll be
*
measured, in part, by local agencies' ability to work
with the 'financial communif#o
encourage lender approval of pmiecis with ?i less than traditional Darling supDlv.
Policy Guidelines
1. It is recommended thateities and th( Coumy'id6t*ptheir
comprehensive plans to TedUCC reliance 06
cppph2. 07119194
93
2
3
4 Background RrsP
5
6 Parlan n rtv mus(nnt stand 'ln but must nem ort h r nt tr n trate n ....r
7 7*
8 maxrmitm narkiitn renurrmrnts......
20
11 an np77ornmI_ajn:,TfOri M
12
13 A. Encourage cities to coordinate on a subre--i6raF' JL161i6 ilkkf i
14 reouirements for office, industrial institutional and ebf
15 required supply better matches demand, It is j2rOQOZJ that �UPPIY bluddevmirt�centers
16 be adjusted jut ID fit existing demand at this time and drop tie16' demand on]v'`at such
17 .time when adequate transportation alternatives are in pjnclt 1s 6c6iiiJM66d. jfia jrt7
as within urban centers be set below existino demand wheTI
I
19 alternative modes of tranmoriation are in place, Reduction of supply may be
20 accomplished by eliminating minimum re quiremcnts,alzQgrther -Teducing minimum
21 reguirements, and/pr by establishing maximum rNuirements,
22 (B(,Ck-,.,roj,nd- it is recommended char porking.anlicy chongfu be ourf,ed
23 cotinrvividr Iri-cl and they a common framrivork for cndr changes he ci ordinorrd
24 stibreciontil Icirt, wnrkint, ihmituh already extuh7islied orconizatinns iuch as ETP nn the
25 EtursitIr and SCATBD in thr south rnd. It should be noted that the anlicv
26 recommoularinns do nor dral with reloil or rcsidenrM land uses, nnlv with office:
27. Mdustrial, inuirytionol, and mulrijue development,
28 1 , Adjust minimum parking requirements outside iiban:'cEdrLtd:fififi
29 level of existing demand. Reduce this Teguiremtnt as'iraiisportatton options
30 increase with development of enhanced transit sek6'gndl& ii"demand drops i
31 achievement of CTR goals,
32 `(Bqckxrnund. The CTR *74M inb)76t6 thloo 0r m6ii
33 rmp7ovrrs irduct!.the numHrr of SOV fthwr to their wnrkstresljTS°b bv''7995 `25 `10 by 1997
cppph2. 07119/94
94
2
3
4 y MY
5 stibiAaLiwir-'.CBD Qiib-li N`bj'-4W:h 11 p 01999 -
It rs6
.. ........
7 Gu
8 recommended jhjjj.jjjfi.cdjcfinn.T re(jlii7e li�k66i tai 'd ir
9 freallmd.
10 ..:,2. ': Sct Ibc mini Mum
11 enhanced transit service below the level of existing mark
..........
12 would be to use the level of demand based 66 the°achtevementW1995commute trig
-
13 reduction goals.
14 (BqrkQroynd, /js noird chnvc, fnrparTring is eznrctrd in iron the
is CTR /ow is iml2lemenfed. Parkinq.surmh can he righrened more M firboii cinririwhere
.
16 public transontyGrion alter,10filfs are (11rc6ov available Ir`'thnuld'he noted that rhu nail cv
17 is rnt intended to (ano7v ro nark -and -ride lois. )
16 3. Estahlish a maximum parkjn2 rB6Q f with
for employee 122Tking
19 administrative flexibility to allow exceptions to the mgZim TP if jpproprjatg.
20 (Bac Around- Even when minimum parking =Wrr.me.nLq arr. reduced,'
21 vienificant pe-rcentave will trill pmvide, porkine ohovf the Minimum
22 reauir, 177ent if tht t heliry the metrk-c( demand is there. The Stare C77? aidflin&Pd ;ii
23 Poliry Rronri re(ommendv that m(LViniums he set 10 meet actual dfmgrld, including
24, r1tvInon of 10 to 15 r)(,r(-(,nt for practical capacir), to guard against spillover. )
25 4. Evaluate and revise parkin- standards on a mnlavbasi5, 519dr,0161991
26 based on assessed impacts and effectiveness at ft,du6rje reliance o - n SQVS..
27 (Bockeromid- This will enable jurisdicTings to dctermiyjO how ihe''revised.
28 park-ine standards are working and fine -rune lre(lflfremfnty "inml�ichwl& based nn actiial
29 experience.)
30 B. Make it easier to adjust parking to a Tafio less thwthc required minimum for
31 office, industrial, institutional and mixed-use land usr5,
32 1. Streamline the process for new:deyej=ment to provide less than
33 minimum where the demand for employee nail6nQ'is'below normal
cppph2. 07119194
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
1 25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
CommutetriQreifuctioti
Back'einirnd Sirice`nnrkrn,�cndec tvr'J7 irnnly ;nlvm new':�nd rsiiaitdrii„e
drlrinnmPnt ihev'udll nnr affectexirrildrvrin�ir�rPr7PaclPd by the`CJR ia}vthout`a
�rnvisi'nn''like this;')
3 Allow parking -to bgPrm6ded below tht minimum wfiere there''are
incentives to redevelop existing sites in centers supported by'Ytan$it and whero i& h
actions do not Present a situation where "spillover" nine Lga t4elv'tmpacts adjacent
land uses.
(Backeround• Dcr•rinnnrrnrs in areas with cand troncit`cenvet th uldiir a$7e
to prm•ide Irsv Aran thr mininnun even if other choractrrisrics of the develonmtrrt would
nor normally indicatr a Im+rr than normal drmond.I
C In addition to the code revisions suggested above. insure the °following
common elements are included in individual local Parking codes:
1 Encourage shared parking (Shared parking iefers`'to parkinEjjpaces tint
can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict.)
(Backemund• Mnst iuriulictinm olreadv`have prnvisinncfor shared parkiaprn
their codes- this would nrrrrh• insure that all hoisdictions encouraer reduced'parkine
rerrrrirrmcnrs rhrour ,h this mrans, )
n Reouire reserved parking hivh-occupancv vehicles clok to`t6e front
,entrance of a building
(Backeround • Requirements to reserve a certain rano of the total Padang-' a
.for HOV pmkine ore bec•nmine morr c•nmmnn 77iis may appear as a requiremenCf all
drvelnnment in a cerrain land use coteenry or o an nptinnfor developers who V tsh`to
reduce their parkine srrpoh, Wow thr jurisdictian'srandard:°)
3. Set standards for bicycle pafkim
Bnckemrmd • EoKline hat: rhe omen& In `ie Pa re"asnndble aliernatrve ro
cppph'_: 07/19/94
96
•
r
�� , o.
, , d /. . •Vu I If _ •
In.Il 7.
I
'f!1 t • L.ut Ld ce
r - 7n
u ! • ..
,
y , q, . . . _ _
.
r I
• c.t
1 1 r, AI' •/ �.=_r..i tea .1 LST
y_ • /.��
CommutetriQreifuctioti
Back'einirnd Sirice`nnrkrn,�cndec tvr'J7 irnnly ;nlvm new':�nd rsiiaitdrii„e
drlrinnmPnt ihev'udll nnr affectexirrildrvrin�ir�rPr7PaclPd by the`CJR ia}vthout`a
�rnvisi'nn''like this;')
3 Allow parking -to bgPrm6ded below tht minimum wfiere there''are
incentives to redevelop existing sites in centers supported by'Ytan$it and whero i& h
actions do not Present a situation where "spillover" nine Lga t4elv'tmpacts adjacent
land uses.
(Backeround• Dcr•rinnnrrnrs in areas with cand troncit`cenvet th uldiir a$7e
to prm•ide Irsv Aran thr mininnun even if other choractrrisrics of the develonmtrrt would
nor normally indicatr a Im+rr than normal drmond.I
C In addition to the code revisions suggested above. insure the °following
common elements are included in individual local Parking codes:
1 Encourage shared parking (Shared parking iefers`'to parkinEjjpaces tint
can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict.)
(Backemund• Mnst iuriulictinm olreadv`have prnvisinncfor shared parkiaprn
their codes- this would nrrrrh• insure that all hoisdictions encouraer reduced'parkine
rerrrrirrmcnrs rhrour ,h this mrans, )
n Reouire reserved parking hivh-occupancv vehicles clok to`t6e front
,entrance of a building
(Backeround • Requirements to reserve a certain rano of the total Padang-' a
.for HOV pmkine ore bec•nmine morr c•nmmnn 77iis may appear as a requiremenCf all
drvelnnment in a cerrain land use coteenry or o an nptinnfor developers who V tsh`to
reduce their parkine srrpoh, Wow thr jurisdictian'srandard:°)
3. Set standards for bicycle pafkim
Bnckemrmd • EoKline hat: rhe omen& In `ie Pa re"asnndble aliernatrve ro
cppph'_: 07/19/94
96
SOV
2
3
4 Sri
5 x� .
6
7
8 - IE-an
9 10 pedestrians:'
10 Bnckerriiind Tonically sit patrons have hied to walkyhmueh wase
11 rrnonses of parkjne to eet fjoni
12 rj7j.c sirliorion is f()'jocoie enlplO%ICC Parkin W the Tear'OWI ifC6ei 4fdbliildin e
13 in front of the hiiildinQj
:14 5, Allow Parking gi2ply. to exceed the maximum standard :gi Provide Aonu
15 such as increased density for developments that provide a portion of-thejr.jte fbrAR
16 use or other public uses This would apply primarily to now retail protects
17 sites that have an excess parking supply.
18 (Bark-Cround.- Pqrk-ond-Rick ccinaciry in Kine Cnumv is in shorr
19 construrtion -)(new t?cirkint, cosf.sapproximarrly N0,000 per:Tpqcc, :-Prmiding'
an
20 incentive in nff-vrpt,j parkinQ ctxdps for the private, sertor to lyase mace to rro ?y it
21 ovencirs wonld help a(-cnnvnoJafc this need, The addirional norkine supply o0d m . Wk
22 Im'd hN. rhe (Irveloonirnt ar nif!171 and nn svcck(,nfJs. I
23 6. Review on street short term parking supply as p means of accAommo&jne
24_ cities' economic development needs.
25 (Bockeround- Thr rrcommrndarinn.s containrd in this parer drql with lnne-
26 tonn commurer narkinf, supply Purk-ine supply for email uses should he addressed
27 -separately by jurisdicrinns.
28 7. Agree on a re2ionallv consistent set of measures for cstablishingpar)dn
29 ratios.
30 (Barkeround - It is often difficult to comwrc' tiurkiyie standards nf Inca!
31 iurisdictions bCcousr different nifqxzired -rarios, For most "laird
32 uses, rhi.7 measitre should b�qC<u ryr 7. OX s&qrr feato( gross leasohle CLW*
33 Howrver. consistent measures for arch jj.Te.v jzsj&hooLj; and churchpx need hib
cppph2. 07/19194
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
o' h nb otil (J,(1
annropriale in urban crnrer.T
Technioues such as the fQllowin. coOld bc considered-,
A. Provide tax incentives and other credits
parking subsidies.
(Backeround.- Decidint, ro rake adygmake:of
voltovan- on thr purr of the employrr nr deve.7oper. SrirrO cities
have
in Provieline Stich incentims.
B. Char2e for parkin.
fflurkvrminel.- There is currenit), no enahline Irvislotion dllowinr`lrictil
illrisdictionv ro require a charge fnr parking at ai,Trine dryelooment.
;Hmgwr.'tRij
ration that rar? he Mirvile'd thrnueh the SEPA proress OS 6 Mirie(ViOn
nle.GITUrf. regiiised of
C. Impose a parking tax on privately provided, non -comm
ercjO Rarking,
(Backunund.- Vie 7990 Local Option Commercial
rn conunri-cial parkinc, bysinessr.c. which are rare
which charL,, for parkint,. Because the Lkal Option ':Comni
to target free Parkineit dilutes the rffrcl7vrnrsF Of the` rax as' ;TDM
rooj.)
D. Encourage employers who subsidies eco2ployee jjarldni
io provide :cmpl6y"="
the option to give up their parling space and receive a Wb-lmo66ic4oivalenf
-641h
pjAiDa subsidy.
(Backeround: 7771sporkint, pricing:tdWabe
fa
cppph2. 07/19/94
98
1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
n A r=am -s
a n..` .i.,.:......
12F-tylervi
i
!&W
ON
13
_. ...,
_..1 T 0.,�... ,,:..,.
14
e
.,....
._ ..mom.. .....
15 j
• .e
.,._.e _ ...
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
cPPPh'. 07/19!94
loo
..T.
ON
..
r. ..
cPPPh'. 07/19!94
loo
..T.
..
r. ..
cPPPh'. 07/19!94
loo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
�}
wAiR Me
0
Ggennitemif)
T�wnii; and
Eve.
:e
heimf
cPPPh2. 07119/94
101
�.o
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT 1
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of video arraignment for Kent
Municipal Court.
The current arraignment process for City Correctional Facility
inmates entails transporting inmates to the Municipal Court.
Costs of this process include officer travel, overtime, and
increased security risk. A project team has evaluated options
and recommends video arraignment as the best solution. Project
team members include representatives from Police, Municipal
Court, Operations Administration, Law, Finance and Information
Services.
3. EXHIBITS: Report to the Operations Committee
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee Police Municipal Court
and others
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_�_ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $52,672
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Seized Assets Fund
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION
TO: Operations Committee
FROM: Ron Spang, Information Services Division Director�
PREPARED BY: Dee Gergich, Telecommunications Analyst
COPY: Distribution
DATE: November 4, 1994
RE: Video Arraignment
,M N A' XIC It is recommended that the Operations Committee approve
£iie'vicTeo arraignment project, as outlined herein, subject to subsequent
approval by the full city council. This project is budgeted at $ 52,672
and is funded from the Police seized assets fund. Representatives from
the following departments and divisions have participated in and support
this project: Police, Municipal Court, Operations Administration, Law,
Finance, and Information Services.
The FCC has already received the City's license application for operating
a microwave radio video arraignment system. The FCC application process
takes 90 days for completion. Our time frame has begun ticking; obtaining
approval and funding as soon as possible will aid in the timely completion
of this project.
37lkCt7 The search began about a year ago for a transmission method
that would allow for video arraignment between the City's new municipal
court and the Corrections Facility. The intent included lowering security
risk and reducing police officer overtime costs in transporting inmates.
Desired highlights included reasonable cost, reliability, and good quality
video/audio transmission. Researching various options, such as TCI, US
West Communications, and Electric Lightwave Inc., were found to be very
expensive and the regulatory environment made some options unsuitable for
the City's purpose. For example, one of the options reviewed would have
cost the City about $79,000 over a five-year contract period. The City
building its own fiber optic cable link between the two sites was estimated
to cost the City between $120,000 and $180,000. Thus, after sifting
through it all, utilizing microwave radio for video arraignment offers up a
more practical and cost-effective solution.
For your additional information, please refer to the map.on attachment A
and the diagram on attachment B, illustrating the two site locations and
the conceptual design for the microwave radio video arraignment system
linkup between the two locations.
?t !`€H iEt ! ' The total project budget is $ 52,672 with available funds
, i ii:: ::.....:.i x:•.i'......-.
coming from*the Police seized assets fund. This budget includes a 10 per
cent (10%) contingency.
2 -
Getting this project off the ground, installed and operating will incur a .,
large expenditure up front, but over the long term monthly operating costs
will be low or nil. Saving police officer overtime dollars for transport-
ing inmates and having police officers utilize their time more efficiently
are advantageous to the City when considering this budget. Also, using
video arraignment reduces the security risk for the Court.
Distribution: Brent McFall, Director of Operations
Bob McSeveney, Judge - Kent Municipal Court
Kelly Brown, Court Administrator
Chief Ed Crawford, Police
Capt. Chuck Miller, Police
Mary Ann Kern, Admin. Asst. - Police
Bob Olson, Computer Operations Supervisor
J. R. Simmons, Consultant - TMC
Attachments: Attachment A - Line of Site Map
Attachment B - Diagram of Microwave Radio Signal Path
ATTACHMENT A
ql 1 J �I
!'i � �I I {--fir 1 �7`i• �.�.' � '� �;
-z �i
n 6
7 �' I .I Eas Hil
EM _'
1:� li ��f1I'] .) %� 20--•�je�
_ Park-. r7r .. y
/. I I LCv.. .. r-''1 ,;I � •�:.
��_ I a
i I_ iI z �•�
I I it \;-• rl at'll�u�h o
I I �.�
11 1 j�- _ �'
IIMemonal � te_ • • -_-_-_ -_ COF�
:1 Park /� II•. I ■ i
■'- ::: F -
I I •'.: ` �r Sdall i.: [ ii ''
!�Waley Pk •"it R„ '''
•{ :I c t TanKs -' [ :{C ' i9 'r �•• ■ '� �� I I a
N_
- '- r C I . i •. r''
I� • --■I •i •Park• I ill•.rfI
-_I
•-• .. 4
Eg
Hr9 `• �11:-:.L• r-. •� -. .. 5cti'HII IE85t Hill]�� co.
i 11 c
.
- CENTENNIAL 24, 1,
r
CENTER ■
�
:�! \�� : :�{cls " Subsatlon'•
--
�� i ■
::� \
20
�>?9E i Pd.Nil : � r. :., -I
� __ ___.. ,��,,h�r .I_I rye i•• 11: •. i. BDt'.�
..
I �•�� e - _ . �\.� \. 9 I Il I I
Pa�'k PIC
E.
OI 5 : :' �r
M 135 Fly II=
'\ '% *1 la^ 1515E u _
' K n M¢n_.H 20
h•l� tri
' f ,r ri — ani � \i \� l� `; ��=�� I ' — �•� � s h =r—;
Ir, rCemetery
r v sr _ y o
CORRECTIONS `,= ' .fir Pk\\`; \ KENT r
FACILITY - i
ti0 Scenic Hillraver h
,o II� I
••�1 m
•�
•� \- %9. Is
S\
�`..
30
_r -r LI' t t I. III ` • -^ \ 1 t a , I
i L: IBM 165, ¢'
1
•'t 1 \` \
z
_f: it II =
�
� - fff
I.2 �,14 .I 5 .. III
^'I 13
—. ��. .... '. Nr. ''I�
, - I -- if \. \. -:1 •
:37
r Il.l . Q r
` \ • •f
.
I� P.DY 5 II' a nrrrr• r>�a
��
Il I
sr v
- - - r� 1
TSI
L Thn..,ac
1 Dnve-in _
SCALE 1:25,000
0 KILOMETERS
1 2 3
O MILES
1 2
AVE
MAP SWINGLINKUP
HATFIELD & DAWSON
BETWEEN CE TENN AOLWCENTER AND
CORRECTIONS FACILITY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CITY OF KENT 8/94
-----------------I
I
I
I
o
I
LLJ
O
rn
LL C)
OwU
O
r
orfQ
I _O
I O
W
O
O
I
r-
J
F- O
I Q
O
O
i
U
UU
,�
O
,
-----I
W
-
�¢
LL -
z
--------------
I
Z Z
O
I
L` -I C~�
COAX
//%
,
¢�
///
p0
--------------
C)
� o
Z
C��¢
W
O ¢
O
W
_Z
L w
Ow
Jz0
W
ONO
O(-) O
WF
Zz
a
C�Zz
WON
��N
>_�
UU
WLi I-
OCr-d
-
JW
Y
��W
U)
mF_
¢ U
ro
Nn:2�
>W5D
F- O
0L
W O
C)
C;
OWLi
N
O
Z W
'=
¢
J-
-J
W
W
Q W
Z
(n >-
Q I'"
¢Z
= W
OU
~F-
}
a.
W W
mm
ZU
O
�
W
(n
Z
Ljj
UW
c Q o
W3
W O
oc
Za�CD
NO
0<(1)
W0-
O
LJjZO
OfON
>�U
WLiF a
O_z�
(nW
F
n]�N
r7
NNS
>F w�O
�m
U
QUN
/ UWL,
O
Z W
HO
-F
jl W
_
Q
>
Z
_
- ------------,
Xd00
o
F O
Z of
>
- O
(If
Do
------------
O
z J
- i z
-
z
-
o
o
i
�
YZW
OW
>
¢
L
i
W
�F-z
I ¢
>
E
r LU
I
\
w
UD
U U
i
r3
O
------------------
�\
�,
1. SUBJECT: FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
M
SUMMARY STATEMENT: /As recommended by the Operations
Committee a their November 9th meeting I au orizatio ve-
to approve the five-year Fire Equipment Replace-
ment Fundp7lAuthoriza ion & also r*ec este to proceed with
i ing-of the apparatus and equipment in accordance with
the plan, and establish the Fire Equipment Replacement
Fund and rates 1°f
This will provide financing for all fire equipment
replacement for the next five years with funds being
allocated from the Capital Improvement Fund per the plan.
The rates will range from $450,000-$600,000 per year and
will be reviewed each year as part of the Capital Facility
Plan and annual budget process.
3. EXHIBITS: Policy Statement and Five Year Plan
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $831,600 in 1995 Budget
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fire Equipment Replacement Fund
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S•-bject: 5 YEAR FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN AND POLICY
L. ..... -ator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/03/94 at 1810.
TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MAYENE MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR �M\�
NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF
THE POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND RATES HAVE
BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL
AND FINANCE.DEPARTMENTS. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED IN THE POLICY AND RATES THAT ARE ATTACHED.
THE PLAN IS FUNDED AT 800, AS IT IS EXPECTED THAT 20o OF THE TIME VEHICLES WILL
BE EXTENDED OR WILL BE UNDER BID. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITIES AND OUR
OWN EQUIPMENT RENTAL POLICY. BY ALLOCATING FROM $450,000 TO $600,000 FROM OUR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND EACH YEAR, WE WILL BE ABLE TO REPLACE 10 LARGE PIECES
OF EQUIPMENT DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THIS WILL BE REVIEWED EACH YEAR
DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BUDGET.
THIS FIVE-YEAR PLAN ENSURES THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE YEARS IN
WHICH EQUIPMENT IS READY TO BE RETIRED AND PROVIDES A CONSISTENT FUNDING
MECHANISM TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN. IT IS THROUGH COMBINED
EFFORT THAT WE BRING YOU A PLAN FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL LET THE CITY KNOW
WHERE, WHEN AND HOW FIRE EQUIPMENT WILL BE REPLACED.
W ...... RECOMMEND YOUR APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN,
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEEDING WITH BIDDING OF APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
FUND AND RATES. STAFF WILL REVIEW THE PLAN, FINANACIAL ANALYSIS AND RATES.
GOALS: e.
" Based on the Council's goal to establish a system for the replacement of fire apparatus. A policy
and procedure has been established. The intent being to spread the costs of fire apparatus
replacement over the life expectancy of vehicles. Thereby minimizing the need for large
supplemental funding through Council authorized or public voted bonds. City Finance has
calculated that 80% funding of the total projected costs will be adequate to fund the purchase of
apparatus when they are due for replacement. This is based on their estimates that 20% of the
replacement vehicles may either experience a longer life expectancy due to preventative
maintenance or may experience inflation rates lower than expected. Periodic (annually or bi-
annually) evaluations and adjustments to the funding estimates will be made as the inflation rates
become known.
POLICY:
The Kent Fire Department shall utilize standard definitions and procedures to the extent practical
to track: The condition and cost of maintenance of assigned apparatus; the replacement schedule
for fire apparatus; the need to evaluate and adjust rates of inflation/contribution rates;
refurbishing and insurance of fire apparatus, and the effectiveness of the preventative
maintenance program and continue to evaluate the cost effectiveness of internal versus external
maintenance for major repairs. The results of this tucking shall be considered in establishing
replacement and maintenance scheduling and budgeting for apparatus. The maintenance and
replacement program will cover all Fire Department apparatus currently covered by the
apparatus maintenance program (1994). It is the intent of this process to level out and predict as
closely as practical the future costs of apparatus replacement/maintenance and related major
equipment systems.
PROCEDURES:
Fire Apparatus Replacement Fund
Phase 1
Appendix A is the financial projections of annual/CIP contributions needed to keep the
replacement fund viable. In order to be kept effective, the funds in the account and the
respective interests earned, shall remain in these accounts to offset necessary rate
increases. Appendix A is also a cash flow of the current funds available and balance of
funds needed for the next five (5) years. This schedule will be reviewed annually for
necessary changes and will be included in the budget process.
Appendix B reflects a summary of age, status, mileage and engine hours of Fire
Department apparatus and equipment.
Appendix C outlines Fire Department apparatus definitions.
Expected Life Span of Fire Apparatus: There are three (3) categories of apparatus. They are
Front Line, Second Line, and On Line apparatus. Detailed definitions are listed in Appendix
C. Briefly, Front Line apparatus are used daily as primary response units. Second Line
apparatus are used to substitute for Front Line equipment on a routine basis and are frequently
used during extended or large scale emergencies as Front Line equipment. On Line apparatus
are used in the same fashion as Second Line apparatus. The difference is that On Line
apparatus is still useful and needed to delivery 24 hour emergency services however it no longer
makes replacement contributions.
* Replacement of this vehicle alternates between City and District every five (5) years.
As part of the replacement schedules, the Fire Department shall annually review the conditions,
maintenance and use (mileage, hours, age) of each specific apparatus to determine if the life
span can be extended or needs to be shortened. Adjustments will be made according to the
replacement funding contribution schedule.
The department shall also take into consideration other options for extending the life of the
apparatus. As a part of ongoing program evaluation of apparatus, the potential of refurbishing
will be considered. This will be based upon condition, hours/mileage, compliance with
mandatory standards and maintenance history.
The above schedule to be reviewed with the Office of Finance and joint recommendations
provided to City Administration prior to proceeding to Council for review and budget approval
for increases. Decreases will be done administratively.
2
Years
1995
1995 1995
Apparatus
Life Span
Front Line
2nd Line On Line
Engines
15
4
2 1
Aerial Ladder
15
1
1
Aid Car
7
2
Mobile Air
15
1
1
Haz Mat
15-20
1
Mobile Command
20
1
Maintenance App.
7
1
I
Maintenance Tractors
10
2
Maintenance Trailers
15
2
Firefighting Foam Trailer
15
1
Public Ed Trailer
15
1
Mobile Generator
15
1
Shift Commander Vehicle
10**
1
—
19
3 4
* Replacement of this vehicle alternates between City and District every five (5) years.
As part of the replacement schedules, the Fire Department shall annually review the conditions,
maintenance and use (mileage, hours, age) of each specific apparatus to determine if the life
span can be extended or needs to be shortened. Adjustments will be made according to the
replacement funding contribution schedule.
The department shall also take into consideration other options for extending the life of the
apparatus. As a part of ongoing program evaluation of apparatus, the potential of refurbishing
will be considered. This will be based upon condition, hours/mileage, compliance with
mandatory standards and maintenance history.
The above schedule to be reviewed with the Office of Finance and joint recommendations
provided to City Administration prior to proceeding to Council for review and budget approval
for increases. Decreases will be done administratively.
2
Fleet Expansion Fire Apparatus: This apparatus is needed to meet the expanded demand for
service. It may be a Front Line or Second Line Apparatus. In either case, such expense must
be approved by City Administration and Council in concept and through the budget process.
It must also be accompanied by an approved schedule for replacement apparatus contributions.
Insurance Contributions: The Risk Manager from Human Resources will track the insurance
fund for adequacy of coverage on each apparatus for full, current replacement value, deductibles
and coverage of damaged or lost equipment. The Fire Department will meet annually or as
needed with the Risk Manager to update the needs of the funds.
Replacement Date: The replacement date is computed based on vehicle condition, mileage and
engine hours, cost of maintenance and age. After the initial program is at an established level,
replacement will be based on the need to move apparatus out of front line service. Front Line
Apparatus will be moved to Second Line status in accordance with the schedules. The
replacement takes place when the new apparatus is accepted, equipped, trained on and is ready to
go on front line. One of the older, Second Line or On Line apparatus will be declared
surpiused after a replacement unit is in place, unless the apparatus is deemed to be needed On
Line.
Condition: Overall demand for services, types of incidents, response conditions, etc. wil,
impact the actual condition and type of apparatus. Through an aggressive and consistent
preventative maintenance program, it is anticipated we will be able to maximize the life
of an apparatus. The actual condition of the apparatus may justify extension or reduction
of the apparatus' replacement schedule.
Mileage/Engine Hours: It is anticipated that in the case of fire engines, 12,000 engine
hours would be equivalent in wear and tear to 600,000 road miles which would equate to
15 years of service life.
Cost of Maintenance: If the cost of maintenance - due to heavy use, recurring serious
mechanical/function.al problems, or difficulty in meeting certification - becomes high, it
may cause an adjustment to the replacement date.
Age: At a certain point, even with lower mileage and engine hours, the cost and
availability of replacement parts, preventative maintenance or certification may be
prohibitive and require an adjustment to the replacement date.
Ordering Date: This date shall take into consideration the lead time of development of
specifications, design, construction, acceptance, outfitting and training. This in turn will be
considered in establishing the funding schedule.
Starting Life Span of Fire Apparatus: The life span of the apparatus will be calculated from
the year it goes in service.
3
The life span will include the Front Line and Second Line unit categories for a given
apparatus. The apparatus shall contribute an annual replacement rate during its Front
Line and Second Line status.
Annual Contribution Rate: This rate shall be based on replacement and projected major
overhaul or repairs for achievement or extension of the estimated life span. The rate shall also
consider recovered salvage value and program interest earned.
With program start up, the apparatus will contribute at an annual/CIP rate based on the
calculated full life span of the apparatus.
Annual contribution rates may be reduced where the life span of an apparatus can be
extended due to realistic data of such a life expectancy.
Annual rate for each apparatus will be based upon the projected costs as of the date of
replacement. The assumption is that the apparatus cost will experience an annual
inflation cost of 5% over the life of the apparatus. This assumption will be checked bi-
annually to determine if there needs to be an adjustment to the projected rate due to
inflation. Any adjustments to the rate of inflati
Finance and City Administration. on must be reviewed and approved by
Contribution rate shall consider replacement cost of apparatus, all related equipment to
make the apparatus operational, installation, delivery, acceptances procedures and taxes.
It will also consider the cost of power train rebuilds and replacement of major equipment
such as emergency warning devices and safety equipment. It shall also consider life
expectancy of the warning devices that may not last as long as the respective apparatus.
It is recognized that emergency radios/NMT's life expectancy will be shorter than the life
of their related apparatus. Finance Department will evaluate whether to add funds to the
f �e equipment replacement fund or create a separate method to fund fire and police
radios/NMT'S replacement.
Salvage value of surplus vehicles will be figured at 10% of the original price as of date
of purchase of the salvaged vehicle. As an apparatus moves within two (2) years of
surplus, a revised estimate should be prepared.
Program Procedures
Phase 2
Computer Pro graw: It will be an objective of the Fire Department to begin implementation of
the vehicle maintenance software program in 1995. The purpose is to allow for future analysis
and tracking of apparatus condition and maintenance.
0
Operational Budget: The Fire Department in cooperation with the Finance Department will
relocate various accounts relative to fire apparatus maintenance so that they appear in one
program code within the Fire Department budget.
Two (2) to three (3) years after implementation of the vehicle maintenance software an analysis
will be performed to determine the maintenance rate to be charged per apparatus. Repair and
maintenance costs will be spread equally to all similar vehicle types. Overhead costs not directly
attributable to specific equipment will be distributed equally over all vehicles in the fleet.
Explore Opportunities: During Phase 2 the Fire Department will also explore costs, benefits
and possibility of offering fire apparatus maintenance services to other fire departments.
Major Repairs: Given there is no earlier indications for need, Front Line apparatus will be
evaluated prior to 80,000 miles, or 8,000 engine hours for the need to perform major drive train
overhaul. At the time of such overhauls, an evaluation will be made as to the cost effectiveness,
time required and liability of having such work performed by an outside agency. Ongoing
evaluations on how to best deal with major repairs will be based on costs, timing of providing
such repairs (inside vs outside) and meeting manufacturer's requirements and warranties.
Bidding: The Fire Apparatus Maintenance Division shall be an integral part of apparatus
specifications and acceptance. The purpose being to help identify functional apparatus that will
allow for efficient/effective delivery of services and the balancing of apparatus capital and
maintenance costs. Where operationally practical, specifications will be written to encourage
multiple bidders, as long as it does not compromise functional and operational needs.
The Fire Department will make contacts with other departments to determine if other fire
departments are considering going to bid on the same type of apparatus. Along with this, the
replacement schedule will be set up to encourage replacement of two (2) or more similar
apparatus wherever practical to improve the competitiveness of the bidding.
E
APPENDIX A
CITY OF KENT
1994 - 1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
REVENUES
1993/94 1995
1996
1997
-'
CIP ALLOCATION
1998
1999
REPLACEMENT RATE-REPLACEMENT787,000
ESTIMATED
600,000
131,268
VEH # YR DESCRIPTION
735
DATE DATE
2994 COST LIFE
COST
SALVAGE
1974 LN FORD
1995 2010
371,000 15
37,100
712 1985 PIERCE ENGAID
713 1985 PIERCE ENGAID
1995 2010
371,000 15
37,100
48,591
48,591
48,591
98,591
727 1989 PIERCE ENGAID
1999 2014
2004
371,000 15
37,100
48,591
28,410
48,591
48,591
48.591
728 1989 PIERCE ENGAID
2019
2004 2019
371,000 15
37,100
36,259
28,410
36,259
28,410
28,410
751 1981 LS FORD
371,000 15
371,000 15
37,100
37,100
36,259
36,259
36,259
36,259
36,259
36,259
750 1981 VANPELT AERIAL 1996 2014
571,000 15
57,100
28,910
28,910
28,910
36 259
734 1990 PIERCE AERIAL
2007 2022
571,000 15
57,100
37.772
78,525
78,525
28,410
736 1989 FORD AID CAR
737 1989
2001 2008
115,000 7
11,500
64,602
64,602
64,602
78,525
64,602
FORD -AID CAR
705 1985 FORD PI CXUP
2001 2008
115,000 7
11,500
9.709
9,709
91709
9.709
740 1977 FORD AIRSPORT
1995 2002
50,000 7
5,000
9,709
9,709
,709
760 1990 IZUZU HACKNEy
1997 2012
2008
104,000 15
10,400
4.932
7.229
9.932
4,932
4,432
4,432
2028
723 1986 SUBURBAN CM VEH 1998 2008
158,000 20
55,000 10
15,800
18,770
7.224
18,770
15,017
18,770
15,017
744 1990 MOBILE COM RV
2010 2030
114,000 20
5,500
4,011
4,011
1 770
8,770
733 1979 MOBILE GENERATOR 2009 2024
17,000 15
11,400
1,700
14,931
12,931
9,011
14,931.
6,534
711 1987 PUB .ED TRAILER
2002 2017
1,000 15
1,700
2121
2121
2,121
14,931
741 1989 MNT TRACTOR
749
1999 2009
111,500 101
1,507
1,507
1,507
2,121
1,507
1990 MNT TRACTOR
756 1990 TRAILERS
2000 2010
11,500 10
,150
1,150
881
881
881
881
757 1990 TRAILERS
2005 2020
3,500 15
350
925
925
925
925
738 1989 TRAILERS
2005 2020
2004
3 ,500, 15
350
359
355
359
359
359
2019
3,500. 15
350
359
359
359
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RATE
342
342
342
342
9,146,500
INTEREST REDUCTION TO RATE
404,174 �
444,927
452,720
455,243
TOTAL CIP
SALVAGE PROCEEDS
787,000 600,000
535,442
444,927
452,720
INTEREST
42,100
57,100
10,400
955,247
TOTAL REVENUES
39,350
29,736
28,625
49,138
5,500
71,408
EXPENDITURES
787,000 639,350
607,280
530,652
512,258
532,151
735 1974 LN FORD
712 1985 PIERCE ENGAID
1995 2010
371,000 15
37,100
389,550
713 1985 PIERCE ENGAID
1995 2010
1999 2014
371,000 IS
37,100
389,550
727 1989 PIERCE ENGAID
2004 2019
371,000 15
371,000
37,100
728 1989 PIERCE ENGAID
2004 2019
15
371,000
37,100
473,501
751 1981 LS FORD
750
1999 2014
15
371,000 1S
37,100
37,100
1981 VANPELT AERIAL
734 1990 PIERCE AERIAL
1996 2011
571,000 15
57,100
473,501
736 1989 FORD AID CAR
2007 2022
571,000 15
57 ,10 0
629,528
737 1989 FORD AID
2001 2008
2001 2008
115,000 7
11,500
705 1985 FORD PICKUP
1995 2002
115,000 7
11,500
740 1977 FORD AIRSPORT
1997 2012
50,000 7
5,000
52,500
760 1990 IUBUU HACKNEY
2008
104,000 15
10,400
723 1966 SUBURBAN CM VER
2028
1998
158,000 20
15,800
120,393
744 1990 MOBILE COM RV
2008
55,000 10
5,500
733 1979 MOBILE GENERATOR
2009 2024
114,000 20
11,400
66,853
711 1987 PUB ED TRAILER
2002 2017
17,000 15
1,700
,
741 1989 MNT TRACTOR17,000
1999 2009
15
1,700
749 1990 h84T TRACTOR
2000 2010
11,500 10
1,150
756 1990 TRAILERS
2005 2020
11,500 10
11150
14,678
757 1990 TRAILERS
2005 2020
3,500 15
350
736 1989 TRAILERS
2004 2019
3,500 15
350
3,500 15
350
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
9,146,500
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
831,600
629,526 120,393
66,853 961,680
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE
787,000
(192,250)
(22,249) 910,"259
995,405 (929,528)
ENDING FUND BALANCE
787,000
594,750 572,502
982,761
1,428,165
'Based on replacement
787,000
594,750
572,502 982,761 1,428,165
998,637
cost less 10i salvage
value.
-iw> vD"' -IT^A .^W.. : n 3K T 33v33N NT T T T T y N T u mmr D 0 D
= m-Xm " m- V 3 >>Q
b-Dm bmw N;U;a m;0 OO 00 m Z TAADST 'T0 'TO
T �oSZ�>�I m,�Ia> - - -z ���� mmmm �Cy'-09 DD mm ommmmo $ m O
D33A{,r�ND DZj
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS
Fire Engine: Refers to a fire apparatus with a triple combination of capability of carrying
water, carrying hose, a pump and related tools/equipment for fire and life safety functions.
Staffed with a minimum of three (3) personnel.
Fire and Life Safety Functions: These functions include emergency medical services, fire
suppression, rescue, non -emergency services, special operations and conducting risk reduction
services.
Engine/Aid Vehicle: This vehicle is a type of fire engine configured in such a way to allow for
the treatment within the apparatus and transportation of patients if necessary. It provides the
standard capabilities of a fire engine along with capabilities of an aid car. It provides the ability
for day to day functions as well as disaster response. Staffed with a minimum of three (3)
personnel.
Aid Car: The aid car is usually staffed with a minimum of two (2) personnel. The primary
focus of this vehicle is on emergency responsibilities for medical service calls and
transportation. However, the crews may be utilized to support other functions such as rescue or
suppression services.
Shift Commander's Vehicle: This vehicle is usually a suburban type utilized by the Shift
Commander to manage a given 24 hour shift of personnel, over seven (7) stations and 53 square
miles. It serves as a response vehicle and initial command post. It also carries support
equipment such as spare breathing apparatus bottles as well as a variety of command systems.
Water Tender: A tanker is a fire engine with enhanced water carrying capability or a large
apparatus with specialty use to carry and transfer large amounts of water.
Aerial Truel:: The crew utilizing this vehicle is sometimes referred to as a truck company.
This unit carries a variety of ladders, heavy equipment, a supplement of Emergency Medical
Service equipment and has an aerial ladder with a length of 100' or greater. It is usually staffed
with three (3) or four (4) personnel.
Mobile Air Unit: This vehicle is a support unit staffed up on a situational basis.with the
capability of filling a large number of breathing air bottles at an emergency.
Hazardous Materials Vehicle: This unit carries specialized equipment and resource
information related to hazardous materials emergency operations. Usually staffed on a
situational basis.
Mobile Command Post: The mobile command post is a large converted RV used by Fire and
Police Departments to command and coordinate large scale, extended or unique incidents usually
staffed on a situational basis. It is equipped with specialized equipment for emergency response.
Apparatus Maintenance Vehicle: A vehicle staffed by fire apparatus maintenance staff to
provide for field repairs, deliver limited fuel and conduct maintenance operational functions.
Available for use in other emergency operations.
Front Line Apparatus: Fire apparatus utilized daily as a primary unit out of a fire station for
the emergency/support function to which it is assigned.
Second Line Apparatus: This apparatus is essential to the delivery of 24 hour emergency
service. It is utilized as Front Line Apparatus when the unit it replaces is in for maintenance or
repairs. It also becomes a Front Line unit during extended events or large scale emergencies
such as winter storms/floods, etc. staffed by recalled off duty personnel.
On Line Apparatus: Is an apparatus that has contributed replacement value for its normal
service life but due to the value of the apparatus and the needs of the service, still contributes to
the role of a Second Line Apparatus. However, this must be done with the concurrence of City
Administration. Since the unit is not making further replacement contribution, it is not replaced
if it becomes non-functional and shall not be used for permanent expansion of the fleet unless
approved as a new addition through the CIP plan.
Surplus Apparatus: This is an apparatus which has served its service life and is no longer
contributing to replacement fund. It is in the process of being sold along with whatever
equipment that is not transferrable or useful to ongoing operations. The funds from the sale of
such apparatus shall be put into the Equipment Replacement Fund to mitigate funding of
replacement apparatus, overhauls or refurbishment.
2.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: REFINANCING GOLF COURSE DEBT AND GOLF COURSE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS W
2. SUMMARY STATEME * As recommendediya
the Operations
Committee at their November 9th meetind the Parks Committee
at their November 1st meeting authortion ' to
proceed with the refinancing of the Golf Course Revenue Bonds
with General Obligation Bonds Authori ations alsogacd-
to proceed wi Disk Kin o Lehman Brothers in preparing for
the bond sale.,4s recommends a new revenue piece and debt
savings will prove e a tota of $1,000,000 for capital
improvements in 1995
s recommended b the P Co itt� authorizaon is also
o proceed with the Golf Course improvements as
outlined in their 5 year planJ�
3. EXHIBITS: Memo and exhibits
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee (3-0) and Operations Committee
(3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Golf Course Funds
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
'DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
c ject: GOLF COURSE DEBT REFINANCING
Creator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/03/94 at 0955.
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS COMMITTEE AT THEIR NOVEMBER 1, 1994 MEETING,
AND THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AT THEIR NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING, AUTHORIZATION IS
REQUESTED TO PROCEED WITH DICK ICING OF LEHMAN BROTHERS IN REFINANCING THE 1985
GOLF COURSE REVENUE BONDS WITH GOLF COURSE COUNCILMANIC BONDS. THIS REFINANCING
PROVIDE SEVERAL BENEFITS INCLUDING:
1. REDUCING THE INTEREST RATE FROM AN AVERAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 8.33 % TO
5.670 -., .WHICH WILL RESULT IN A SAVINGS OF APPROXIMATELY $925,000 IN TODAY'S
DOLLARS OR $267,999 IN PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS. THIS REFUNDING IS POSSIBLE_.
BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE IN 1994 WHICH DOUBLED THE
CITY'S COUNCILMANIC DEBT CAPICITY TO $43.9 MILLION. THE BOND ISSUE WILL
ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE LOWER INTEREST RATES OF THE CITY'S COUNCILMANIC BONDS.
2. FREE -UP THE $560,000 CURRENTLY IN GOLF DEBT SERVICE RESERVE THAT IS A
REQUIREMENT OF REVENUE BONDS BUT NOT A REQUIREMENT OF COUNCILMANIC BONDS.
3. ADD A NEW MONEY PIECE OF APPROXIMATELY $440,000 TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL
FUNDS NEEDED FOR THE GOLF COURSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRIVING
RANGE AND MINI -PUTT. THIS NEEDED UPGRADE TO THE FACILITY WILL PROVIDE A
CONSISTENT REVENUE SOURCE. A SUCCESSFUL MINI -PUTT COULD EVEN PROVIDE
REVENUE ABOVE THE CONSERVATIVE BUDGET ESTIMATE. A SEVEN YEAR FINANCIAL
FORECAST IS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT A. THIS INCLUDES A CONSERVATIVE REVENUE
FORECAST, DEBT SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING 85 G. O. BONDS, DEBT SERVICE FOR
OPTION 2, AND THE CASH FLOW OF THE BOND PROCEEDS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS.
BASED ON THIS PROJECTION, SUFFICIENT FUNDS REMAIN TO ALLOW ESTABLISHMENT
OF A RESERVE FOR FUTURE GOLF COURSE CAPITAL NEEDS.
4. RESTRUCTURE DEBT PAYMENTS TO A LOWER AMOUNT DURING THE FIRST THREE YEARS
WHICH WILL PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY AN ADDITIONAL $700,000. FUNDS WILL BE USED
TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE OF THE GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS AS LISTED IN
ATTACHMENT C. OPTION TWO DEBT REPAYMENT PROVIDE THE MOST SAVING TO THE GOLF
COURSE BUT IT DOES ALL TWO YEARS TO THE ORIGINAL BONDS. THIS WOULD PROVIDE
FOR FINAL -PAYMENT IN 16 YEARS, 2010.
GOLF COURSE USER RATES WERE INCREASED DURING 1994 TO PROVIDE CAPITAL IMPROVE-
MENTS AT THE GOLF COURSE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN MANY YEARS TO ACQUIRE
THE AMOUNT OF CASH NEEDED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. THE REFUNDING OPPORTUNITY
WILL PROVIDE THE NEEDED CASH TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECTS IMMEDIATELY. THE
RATE INCREASE NOW INSURES THAT THE REVENUE IS AVAILABLE TO MAKE DEBT PAYMENTS.
EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE COUNCILMANIC BONDS, THE INTENT IS THAT THE GOLF COURSE
USER FEES WILL MAKE ALL DEBT PAYMENTS AND THAT THE MONEY FROM THE SAVINGS AND
INCREASED ISSUE WILL BE USED FOR GOLF COURSE CAPITAL PROJECTS. THE ISSUANCE
OF COUNCILMANIC BONDS TO REFUND GOLF COURSE REVENUE BONDS IS A POLICY CHANGE
FROM THE PAST AS IS DOES REQUIRE THE FULL FAITH OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER THE 1985 REVENUE BOND ORDINANCE INCLUDED NOTE OF A GENERAL FUND PLEDGE
FOR THE GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE IF THEIR REVENUE WOULD NOT COVER DEBT AND
MAINTENANCE. THIS MORAL PLEDGE AND OUR CURRENT PROJECTIONS BOTH INTEND THAT
GOTS' USER FEES COVER GOLF DEBT AND OPERATING COSTS.
SINCE BOND RATES FLUCTUATE DAILY, THE ABOVE RATES, SAVINGS AND NEW MONEY PIECE
WILL VARY. WE RECOMMEND PROCEEDING WITH DICK KING OF LEHMAN BROTHERS IN
PREPARING FOR BOND SALE. TIMING WILL BE CRITICAL IN SECURING THE MOST FAVORABLE
MARKET. WE WILL KEEP COUNCIL INFORMED AS WE PROCEED.
City of Kent
Golf Complex
CURRENT PROJECTIONS
REVENUE:
Green Fees -9
Green Fees -18
Range Fees
Mini -putt Fees
Lesson Fees
Merchandise
Food & Beverage
Cart & Club Rent
Miscellaneous
TOTAL REVENUE:
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Operating Income
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast -
278,725
282,906
287,150
291,457
295,829
300,266
304,770
1,257,324
1,276,184
1,295,327
1,314,757
1,334,478
1,354,495
1,374,812
482,814
490,056
497,407.
504,868
512,441
520,128
527,930
78,380
104.556
106,124
107,716
109,332
110,972
112,637
103,328
104,878
106,451
108,048
109,669
111,314
112,984
399,843
405,841
411,929
418,108
424,380
430,746
437,207
339,237
344,326
349,491
354,733
360,054
365,455
370,937
147,375
149,586
151,830
154,107
156,419
158,765
161,146
4,398
4,398
4,398
4,398
4,398
4,398
4,398
3,091,424 3,162,731 3,210,107 3,258,192 3,307,000 3,356,539 3,406,821
2,122,704 2,169,912 2,217,181 2,273,134 2,330,722 2,389,994 2,451,007
968,720 992,819 992,926 985,058 976,278 966,545 955,814
NONOPERATING REVENUE 46,627 43,545 43,089 42,609 42,105 42,105 42,105
Amount Available for
Debt & Improvements 1,015,347 1,036,364 1,036,015 1,027,667 1,018,383 1,008,650 997,919
OTHER FINANCIAL SOURCES (USES)
Transfer for 85 GO Debt (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000)
Debt Principal & Interest (314,450) (314,450) (339,450) (623,275) (618,085) (616,765) (614,178)
Bond Sale
1,000,000
211,914
Less Reserve_
(560,120)
220,298
Operating Capital Outlay
(40,000)
(40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000)
Capital Plan Improvements
340107
552021
Driving Range
(822,800)
1205276
Mini -Putt
(247,500)
340,107
18 Hole
(126,500)
(88,000)
Par 3 - Irrigation
(110,000)
(220,000)
General Complex
(16,500)
Maintenance Facility
(22,000) (308,000)
Financial Sources (Uses) (1,377,870) (824,450) (827,450) (803,275) (798,085) . (796,765) (794,178)
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN
(362,523)
211,914
208,565
224,392
220,298
211,885
203,741
Beginning Working Capital
702630
340107
552021
760586
984978
1205276
1417161
Ending Working Capital
340,107
552,021
760,586
984,978
1,205,276
1,417,161
1,620,902
3
L X P- V� \ fi 3
City of Kent, Washington
Limited .Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1994
Option I Option 2
Principal
Interest
Total
$5,4857000
2,960,960
58,445,960
$5,465,000
3,429 538
$8,894.538
Net Savinpas
Total
5902,180 $9251000
Present Value
Amount 248,661 267,999
As Percentage
5.51% 5.94%
New Money
-Component
Amortization
1995-2009
2009-2010
Interest
5526,065
$9971463
Combined D/S
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
$357,270 $314,450
355,270 3141450
398,020 339,450
663,555 623,275
655 67n ISz nQ�
{m
z
C0
v r
rr
Q
n
2E
0
U
W
(spupsnoyl) 5
O
T
0
co
0
^
CD
0
LO
D
D
0
D
n
m
0
z
W
U
L . 1. 1 1-, 1 L-1 .
z
O
C/)
)
rr
L�
O
U
m
LU
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
U) 'cY C`) N T
(spuesnoyl) 6
O
T
0
co
C
Z)
D
D
n
D
T
D
r)
D
I -
m
W
0
W
JPVO
04 -Oct -94 8:54 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers ] (Finance 2.106 KENT:19941) Page 1
Z
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Kent, Washington
I
I
Option 1/15 -Year New Money Level Debt Service
i
Par
Plus:
Less:
Sources of Funds
Amount
Accrued
Discount
Total
Bond Proceeds:
Serial Maturities
5,485,000-00
5,485,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Estimated Reserve Balance
560,120.00
560,120.00
6,045,120.00
6,045,120.00
Par
Plus:
Less:
Uses of Funds
Amount
Accrued
Discount
Total
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
cash Deposit
58.81
58.81
SLG Purchases
4,933,000.00
4,933,000.00
4,933,058.81
4,933,058.81
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance
82,275.00
82,275.00
Bond Insurance Premium
29,560.86
29.560.86
111,835.86
111,835.66
other Uses of Funds:
Contingency
225.33
225.33
Capital Projects
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,225.33
1,000,225.33
6,045,120.00
6,045,120.00
04 -Oct -94 8:54 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers ] (Finance 2.106 KENT:19941) Page 1
. POND DEBT SERVICE
city of Kent, Washington
Option 1/15 -Year New Money Level Debt Service
Period
Ending
Principal
coupon
Interest
Debt Service
Dec
1,
1995
50,000.00
4.000%
307,270.00
357,270.00
Dec
1,
1996
50,000.00
4.500%
305,270.00
355,270.00 '
Dec
1,
1997
95,000.00
4.700%.
303,020.00
398,020.00
Dec
1,
1998
365,000.00
4.900%
298,555.00
663,555,00
Dec
1,
1999
375,000.00
5.100%
280,670.00
655,670.00
Dec
1,
2000
395,000.00
5.250%
261,545.00
656,545.00
Dec
1,
2001
415,000.00
5.350%.
240,807.50
655,807.50
Dec
1,
2002
435,000.00
5.450%
218,605.00
653,605.00
Dec
1,
2003
465,000.00
5.550%
194,897.50
659,897.50
Dec
1,
2004
490,000.00
5.6507
169,090.00
659,090.00 '
Dec
1,
2005
515,000.00
5.850%
141,405.00
656,405.00 .
Dec
1,
2006
545,000.00
5.950%
111,277.50
656,277.50
Dec
1,
2007
580,000.00
6.050Y.
78,850.00
658,850.00
Dec
1,
2008
615,000.00
6.150%
43,760.00
658,760.00
Dec
1,
2009
95,000.00
6.250%
5,937.50
100,937.50
5,485,000.00 2,960,960.00 - 8,445,960.00
c)
04 -Oct -94 8:54 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers 8 (Finance 2.106 KENT:19941) Page 2
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
City of Kent, Washington.
Option 2/Wrapped 20 -Year New Money<Debt service
Par Plus: Less:
sources of Funds Amount Accrued Discount
Bond Proceeds:
Serial Maturities 5,465,000.00
Other Sources of Funds:
Estimated Reserve Balance 5601120.00
Uses of Funds
Refunding Escrow Deposits:
Cash Deposit
SLG Purchases
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance
Bond Insurance Premiun
other Uses of Funds:
Contingency
Capital Projects
04 -Oct -94 9:15 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers
Total
5,465,000.00
560,120.00
6,025,120.00 6,025,120.00
Par Plus: Less:
Amount Accrued Discount
89.82
4,911,300.00
4,911,389.82
81,975.00
31,130.88
113,105.88
624.30
1,000,000.00
1,000,624.30 -
Total
89.82
4,911,300.00
4,911,389.82
81,975.00
31,130.88_
113,105.86
624.30
1,000.000.00
1,000,624.30
6,025,120.00 6,025,120.00
g (Finance 2.106 KENT:19942) Page 1
04 -Oct -94 9:15 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers 10 (Finance 2.106 KENT:19942) Page 2
CORD
DEBT 6ERV[CE
City of
Kent, Washington
Option
2/Wrapped 20 -Year
New Money Debt Service
Period
Ending
Principal
coupon
Interest
Debt Service
Dec
1,
1995
314,450.00
314,450.00
Dec
1,
1996
-
-
314,450.00
314,450.00
Dec
1,
1997
25,000.00
4.700%
314,450.00
339,450.00
Dec
1,
1998
310,000.00
4.900%
313,275.00
623,275.00
Dec
1,
1999
320,000.00
5.100%
298,085.00
618,085.00
Dec
1,
2000
335,000.00
5.250%
281,765.00
616,765.00
Dec
.1,
2001
350,000.00
5.350%
264,177.50
614,177.50
Dec
1,
2002
370,000.00
5.450%
245,452.50
615,452.50
Dec
1,
2003
395,000.00
5.550%
225,287.50
620,287.50
Dec
1,
2004
415,000.00
5.650%
203,365.00
618,365.00
Dec
1,
2005
440,000.00
5.850',.'
179,917.50
619,917.50
Dec
1,
2006
465,000.00
5.950%
154,177.50
619,177.50
Dec
1,
2007
495,060.00
6.050%
. 126,510.00
621,510.00
Dec
1,
2008
525,000.00
6.150%
96,562.50
621,562.50
Dec
1,
2009
495,000.00
6.250%
64,275.00
559,275.00
Dec
1,
2010
525,000.00
6.350%
33,337.50
558,337.50
5,465,000.00
3,429,537.50
8,694,537.50
04 -Oct -94 9:15 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers 10 (Finance 2.106 KENT:19942) Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1994/95 PAGE 2
- DRIVING IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1994/95 PAGE -3
- MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS
- TOTAL COST OF 1994/95 IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1995 PAGE 4
- 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
- PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
- GENERAL COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS
- TOTAL COST OF 1995 IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1996 PAGE 5
- 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
- PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
- TOTAL COST OF 1996 IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1997 PAGE 6
- GENERAL COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS
- TOTAL COST OF 1997 IMPROVEMENTS
- SUMMARY OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENT COSTS
- TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
11
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1994/95
DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS:
RANGE FIELD REPAIRS
(TWO OPTIONS - SYNTHETIC SURFACE OR NATURAL TURF)
OPTION 1 - SYNTHETIC SURFACE (ARTIFICIAL)
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
- STRIPPING AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING SURFACE
- SHAPING AND CONTOURING OF FIELD
- INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE
- FINISH GRADE PREPARATION
- INSTALLATION OF SYNTHETIC SURFACE
- CONSTRUCTION DOWN TIME: 6 WEEKS
(S15,000.00 / WEEK)
OPTION 2 - NATURAL TURF (GRASS)
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
- STRIPPING AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING SURFACE
- SHAPING AND CONTOURING OF FIELD
- INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE
- FINISH GRADE PREPARATION
- INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION
- HOLDING POND AND PUMP STATION
- SEED AND FERTILIZER
- CONSTRUCTION DOWN TIME: 15 WEEK MIN.
(S15,000.00 / WEEK)
2 PROTECTIVE NETTING (WEST AND SOUTH SIDES)
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
- REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF EXISTING NET AND POLES
- INSTALLATION OF NEW POLES AND 80' NETTING
3 EXTENSION OF SHELTER TO COVER REMAINING STALLS
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
- CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTER EXTENSION
4 INSTALLATION OF NEW STALL NETTING
- IN-HOUSE INSTALLATION
5 TEACHING AREA (4 - 6 STALL AREA FOR LESSONS)
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
- CONSTRUCTION OF TEACHING AREA
TOTAL COST OF DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS:
OPTION 1 - SYNTHETIC SURFACE (ARTIFICIAL)
OPTION 2 - NATURAL TURF (GRASS)
12
Zf x lA "} C
$450,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$50,000.00
$80,000.00
$175,000.00
$90,000.00
$545,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$50,000.00
$90,000.00
$30,000.00
$85,000.00
$10,000.00
$225,000.00
5105,000.00
$2,500.00
$15,000.00
$87,500.00
$75,000.00
$5,000.00
$70,000.00
$3,000.00
$20,000.00
$2,000.00
$18,060.00
$653,000.00
$748,000.00
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1994/95
(CONTINUED) `
MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS:
1 RENOVATION OF EXISTING MINI -PUTT COURSE $225,000.00
(CONTRACT OUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION)
- REVISED COURSE LAY OUT $160,000.00
-ADDITIONAL PARKING (15 STALLS) $5,000.00
- OVERHEAD LIGHTING $25,000.00
-LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION $20,000.00
- PERIMETER FENCE $7,500.00
- PICNIC AND FAMILY AREA $7,500.00
* IF THE CITY ACTS AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MINI -PUTT
FACILITY AND COMPLETES THE PROJECT WITH
IN-HOUSE LABOR AND SUB -CONTRACTORS THE
OVERALL COST OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE
REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY $75,000.00.
TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1994/95:
OPTION 1 (SYNTHETIC)
DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS $653,000.00
MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS $225,000.00
TOTAL S878.000.00
OPTION 2 (NATURAL TURF)
DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS * $748,000.00
MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS $225,000.00
TOTAL - S973.000.00
*NOTE:
OPTION 2 INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF
IRRIGATION FOR THE RANGE FIELD, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN IRRIGATION HOLDING
POND AT THE PAR 3, AND THE INSTALLATION
OF A PUMP STATION. THE HOLDING POND
AND PUMP STATION ARE LIST AS FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PAR 3 FOR 1996.
(PAGE 5).
13
L � �,,�6,�
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1995
18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS:
1 HOLE No. 14 - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GREEN
$60,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
$7,500.00
- RENOVATION OF APPROACH AND CART PATH
$12,500.00
- IRRIGATION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
$5,000.00
- RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GREEN
$35,000.00
TO CORRECT EXISTING CONDITIONS
S20,000.00
2 HOLE No. 13 - DRAINAGE AND GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
$55,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
$7,500.00
- CONSTRUCTION OF A DETENTION POND
$12,500.00
- INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE IN THE FAIRWAY
$10,000.00
- RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING TEEING AREA
$20,000.00
- MODIFICATIONS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
$5,000.00
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS:
IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION - PHASE 1
$100,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
S10,000.00
- INSTALLATION OF PIPE, WIRE, AND FITTINGS
S45,000.00
- INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VALVE -IN -HEAD
S25,000.00
SPRINKLER AROUND GREENS
- INSTALLATION OF QUICK COUPLERS ON TEES
S20,000.00
AND IN FAIRWAYS
GENERAL COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS:
DEMOLITION OF RENTAL HOUSE S15,000.00
(LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE DRIVING RANGE)
'AS AN ALTERNATIVE THIS HOUSE COULD POSSIBLY
BE SOLD OR MOVED
TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1995•
18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
$115,000.00
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
$100,000.00
GENERAL COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS
S15,000.00
TOTAL S230.000.00
14
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1996
18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS:
1 HOLE No. 5 - RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF TEE
$30,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
$2,000.00
- MODIFICATION TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
$5,000.00
- RELOCATION OF THE CART PATH
$1,000.00
- RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF TEE
$22,000.00
2 HOLE No. 7 - RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF TEE
$251000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
$2,000.00
- MODIFICATION TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
$3,000.00
- RELOCATION OF THE CART PATH
$1,500.00
- RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF TEE
$18,500.00
3 HOLE No. 16 - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TEEING AREA
$25,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
$2,500.00
- INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION
53,500.00
- CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TEEING AREA
$19,000.00
TOTAL 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS:
$80,000.00
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS•
IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION - PHASE 2 "
S200,000.00
- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND PERMITS
510,000.00
- EXCAVATION OF AN IRRIGATION HOLDING POND
$25,000.00
- INSTALLATION OF A PUMP STATION
$40,000.00
- CONSTRUCTION OF TEES AND MOUNDS
S20,000.00
- INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VALVE -IN -HEAD
$55,000.00
SPRINKLERS ON TEES AND IN FAIRWAYS
- INSTALLATION OF FIELD SATELLITE CONTROLLERS
$18,000.00
- COMPUTERIZED CENTRAL MASTER CONTROLLER
$32,000.00
FOR ENTIRE COMPLEX
" IF OPTION 2 - NATURAL TURF IS SELECTED FOR THE
DRIVING RANGE IN 1994/95 IMPROVEMENTS (PAGE 2)
THIS COST WILL BE REDUCED BY $85,000.00
TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1996•
18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS S80,000.00
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS S200,000.00 -
TOTAL S280.000.00
15
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1997
GENERAL COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS•
MAINTENANCE FACILITY $300,000.00
- GOLF MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS
THE ACQUISITION OF CITY SHOP SPACE
TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1997• 5300.000.00
SUMMARY OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENT COSTS"
r
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1994/95
$1,698,000.00
OPTION 1 (SYNTHETIC TURF)
$878,000.00
- DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
$653,000.00
- MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS
$225,000.00
OPTION 2 (NATURAL TURF)
$973,000.00
- DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
$748,000.00
- MINI -PUTT IMPROVEMENTS
$225,000.00
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1995
$230,000.00
- 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
$115,000.00
- PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
$100,000.00
-GENERAL COMPLEX (RENTAL HOUSE)
$15,000.00
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1996
$280,000.00
- 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
S80,000.00
- PAR 3 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
$200,000.00
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - 1997
$300,000.00
- GENERAL COMPLEX (MAINTENANCE FACILITY)
TOTAL COST OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS"
OPTION 1 (SYNTHETIC) $1,688,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1994/95 $678,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1995 $230,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1996 $280,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1997 $300,000.00
OPTION 2 (NATURAL TURF)
$1,698,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1994/95
$973,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1995
$230,000.00
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1996
"LESS
$280,000.00
HOLDING POND AND PUMP STATION
<$85,000.00>
- FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1997
$300,000.00
16
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EXCISE TAX REFUND
��Q
(Y' � W
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: A5 recommended by the O erati n
Committee at their ovember 9th meeting, uthorizati is
raged to execute a contract with Benson and McLaughlin
for an amount not to exceed $10,000 to secure a potential
excise tax refund for our Utility Funds This will include
a our -year re roac ive review of our excise tax returns
and may result in a refund of $50,000-$75,000 for our
Utility Funds. Cost will be split 50/50 between the Water
and Sewer Fund..
3
4
5
M
VA
EXHIBITS: Memos
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO,
YES X
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: $5,000 Water Fund; $5,000 Sewerage Fund
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
s, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Si-,,ect: UTILITY FUND EXCISE REFUND - CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION
Creator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/03/94 at 1753.
TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MAYENE MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR
AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH BENSON & MCLAUGHLIN, A CPA
FIRM, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. THIS FIRM SPECIALIZES IN UTILITY
TAX ISSUES AND HAVE SECURED REFUNDS FOR MANY MUNICIPALITIES AND UTILITY
DISTRICTS.• -,'THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO ASSIST THE CITY OF KENT WITH A REVIEW OF
THE PAST FOUR YEARS OF OUR EXCISE TAX RETURNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A
REFUND AND/OR REDUCING OUR TAX LIABILITY FOR THE FUTURE. AN EARLY ESTIMATE IS T
WE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND OF $50,000 TO $70,000. THE COST WOULD BE SPLIT
50/50 BETWEEN THE WATER AND SEWER FUNDS, SINCE THEY ARE THE FUNDS THAT WOULD
RECEIVE THE REFUND. WE HAVE CHECKED THEIR REFERENCES AND HAVE ATTACHED THEIR -
PROPOSAL, LIST OF CLIENTS AND THE RESULTS OF OUR REFERENCE CHECKS.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE MAY FILE BEFORE
DECEMBER 31. THIS WILL ENSURE MAXIMUM RESULTS BY MAKING SURE WE CAN UTILIZE THE
FULL FOUR-YEAR RETRO CAPABILITY.
November 2, 1994
TO : MAY MILLER
FROM : Cliff Craig
SUBJECT : POTENTIAL EXCISE TAX REFUND
As you recall, at the WFOA conference, I talked with Keith Oratz,
of -Benson, McLaughlin CPA firm regarding the state excise tax
return. We agreed at that time that I would send him a copy of our
excise tax return with all backup for him to look at, to see if he
were aware of any deductions or strategies that we could implement
to further reduce our tax.
Based on the information that I sent him, and a brief telephone
conversation, Keith estimates that we could realize a refund of
$50,000 to $75,000 over a four year period with a fair amount of
certainty. These would be based on areas he is pretty confident of
getting the deductions based on past experience. Other areas that
are somewhat more iffy, could raise the refund up to the
neighborhood of $150,000 or possibly more. Ongoing savings should
be at least $10,000 to $15,000 annually. He estimates the cost of
their review to be $6,000 to $10,000. The firm is willing to work
on a contingency basis, but he says that it usually does not turn
out to be cost effective for the city. For example, 20% of a
$150,000 refund would be $30,000.
Mr. Oratz is a specialist with the firm and has extensive
experience in reviewing cities and utility districts specifically
for utility related excise tax issues, and is familiar with
deductions, strategies and case laws/histories. Many of the
deductions are buried in the rule book (not readily apparent on the
forms) and would take extensive research to duplicate his work.
Even if we knew which deductions to take, it could still take a
significant effort to arrange things in a form that the department
of revenue has already approved, to be sure of our refunds.
Based on this information, I recommend that we seek approval to
pursue a contract with Benson, McLaughlin to review our excise tax
returns with the purpose of obtaining refunds and/or reducing our
taxes paid to the state. I suggest seeking approval for an
expenditure of up to $10,000 to be paid out of the water/sewer
unencumbered fund balances for the review, since the utilities will
receive the benefit, if any. Since the earliest year we.can go back
to will be expiring at the end of December, to maximize our
potential return, we should act on this right away - 1/4 of
$150,000 , or nearly $40,000, is the estimated potential cost of
being too late for one more year.
w
To: Municipal Utilities in Washington State
From: Benson & McLaughlin, P.S.
Date: September 1, 1994
There are certain Washington excise tax return deductions and
N?II reclassification strategies for Business & Occupation Tax and Public Utility
Tax that may have been overlooked by some cities. Benson & McLaughlin would
like to inform you of what may constitute significant unexpected resources in this
era of reduced revenue.
Based upon interaction with the Department of Revenue anCC4Tu
I
our interpretation of the statutes, rules and other
authority, we have developed tools that aid in
NC
identifying which deductions and strategies might C
On habe available. We are, incidentally, at the forefrontharges
icipalre Mayof some recent decisions that could be of benefit to manycelontty Forutilities. nd ,
We have noted that the Department of Revenue is taking
an increasingly more restrictive stance regarding items that qualify for deduction.
Thus we are urging utility purveyors to consider reviewing their situation and
talting action before additional rules are promulgated that may reduce the amount
of potential refunds.
Our staff can quickly ascertain opportunities and potential difficulties, and
then estimate possible refunds. Our firm offers a wide range of accounting
and consulting services, including assistance in auditing, accounting, tax matters,
computer consulting, and management advisory services. We specialize in
providing services to the public sector, with special emphasis on municipalities,
municipal utilities, and water/sewer districts. This gives us a thorough
understanding of the special needs and complexities of this dynamic industry.
6RIWe have helped a number of cities and districts determine the amount of
O " refund potentially available to them, and then have prepared amended
excise tax returns on their behalf. The resulting refund requests have ranged from
$15,000 to $900,000. We would be happy to discuss how much of a refund might be
available and how to complete the amended returns in the most expeditious
manner. If you would like to schedule a meeting or desire more information please
contact Keith Oratz or Robert K. Lynch through either of our offices.
Benson & McLaughlin, P.S.
22016th Avenue, Suite 1400 - Seattle, Washington 98121- (206) 441-3500
1750 112th Avenue N.E., Suite E-265 - Bellevue, Washington 98004 - (206) 455-9480
EXPERIENCE MATRIX
Benson & McLaughlin is proud to list some of our clients and the services provided to them. The
wide range of tasks we have performed provides us with a br"oad perspective and understanding
of the complexities faced by municipalities and other public sector entities. If you have any
questions about our services please contact Keith Oratz at (206) 455-9480.
City of Edmonds
City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Westport
City of Gig Harbor
City of Oroville
City of Okanogan
City of Medical Lake
City of Mukilteo
Town of Steilacoom
City of Bainbridge Island
City, of Bellingham
City of Spokane
City of Seattle
Midway Sewer District
Olympus Terrace Sewer District
Mukilteo Water District
Zainier Vista Sewer District
Shoreline Wastewater Mgmt. District
Woodinville Water District
Hansville Water District
Silver Lake Water District
King County Water District #127
King County Water District #20
Eastgate Sewer District
Cedar River Water and Sewer District
Bryn Mawr-Lakenage W & S District
The Highlands Sewer District
City of Aberdeen
City of Ocean Shores
Jefferson County PUD #1
Intercity Transit
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Municipal:Research Services Center
Olympia Schools
Department ofDefense
Benson -l' `.,
&McLaughlin; P.S.
Accountants and Consultants
Reviewed
Financial
StatemenlL
Compiled
Financial
Statement
Amended
Excise
tuxn
Computer
Consultin
Special
Renorts
Rate/
Fee Studles'
206 441-3500
206 455-9480
e
A
•
O
•
e
e
A
•
e
e
®
�
O
O
O
e
•
e
•
•
•
A
•
•
O
O
•
A
•
A
•
•
e
s
e
1400 Blanchard Plaza
Suite E-265
2201 6th -Avenue.
1750 112th Avenue N.E.
Seattle, WA 98121
Bellevue, WA 98004
206 441-3500
206 455-9480
REFERENCE CHECK ON BENSON and MCLAUGHLIN, PS :
City of Edmonds
Contact : Minh Truong, Accountant
Refund : $600,000
Fees : $ 25,000
Comments:
For 5 years of returns. Recommended pursuing a similar project.
Town of Steilacoom
Contact : Paul Menter, Finance Director
Refund : $285,000
Fees : $ 18,000
Comments .
Original request was for $300,000. The state countered with a
detailed audit claiming unpaid sales & use taxes of $220,000. These
were mostly successfully defended by the city. A critical element
of the firm's services was the defense in the appeal process.
Menter said that without Benson and McLaughlin's assistance, they
probably would have realized around $30,000 or $40,000. He noted
that the primary person doing the defense work for them has since
left the firm.
CITY of Gig Harbor
Contact : Tom Enlow, Finance Director
Refund : $54,000
Fees : $ 5,400
Comments .
Very positive experience - good recommendation. The state
recovered some in use tax from the original claim. Elected to
handle the audit himself, rather than use Benson and McLaughlin for
defense.
City of Bellingham
Contact : Carol Dawson, Public Works
Refund : $1,000,000
Fees : $18,000 original + $11,000 for audit defense
Comments .
A few issues remain outstanding. Some further suggestions could
yield substantially more still, if implemented.
Benson and McLaughlin has not used all of the fees budgeted for as
yet. Actuals will be around $25,000 total. The firm is very
professional and easy to work with.
Olympus Terrace Sewer District
Contact : Sue Park, Office Manager
Refund : $130,000
Fees : $ 12,000
Comments:
Approximately $28,000 is still unresolved. Issue is the split of
revenue for transmission of sewerage to treatment facilities.
Staff is very confident in what they do. Original estimate was
considerably lower than the actual results.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 43RD PLACE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
recommended by the Public
Director#-aurtragization za accept the nlll of sate ana warrant
agreement for 43rd Place Sanitary Sewer Extension submitted by
Powell Home Builders, Inc. for continuous maintenance and
operation of 554 feet of sanitary sewer and release of bonds
after expiration of the maintenance period, This project is
located at 43rd P1. South and S. 237th. \ /
3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4
5.
RN
7
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO V/ YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember,
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
Kent— Highla, ds Landfill
RICH
MIS
W
T
I T
sT
2219TH
PL
INTERCHANGE
PROJECT LOCATION
m,-�
Fire
Station
516
PL
N"
7470
r
--1
in
3 2313
3
Gravel Pit
7 �
Kent— Highla, ds Landfill
234T:
sT
MIDWAY
INTERCHANGE
PROJECT LOCATION
Fire
Station
516
N"
I rx I
Ex
3 236TH ST
"LIN
mum,
.-GREEN RIV
MIDWAY
..... .....
......
0
16115
14
2440TH
ST
21122
sr23
4 242141D�
ST
N
Drive in
IL Theater
w
w
w x
x
8 A
243R() <43
2ND ST
ST
�TH
2
4T"
ST )-WA8HlNGT0t4
245TH CT,
AL
NATIONAL
AT
246
UAR
A lt.%40Ry
Cr
ST
51
AjM
A ANDA
SUNNYCREST
24" in
J5ELEMENTARY3
*CHOOLrE
241
9t
47 'H ST
cl
248TH
ST
Sanitary Landfill
ap
4 -10 AN!,
5 249TH
<
ST
ir
ab
x S 250TH
ST
9
2 -c
w251
50
Z5
251ST 7
2 IST
ST
ST
I'm
'52ND
PL
S 252H 1 8 252ND
3
252ND
S py
ST
T
S 252ND
0
3
52NDO 02
Z PL
-1,
8 253RDST-
-1 5
3 11 qc
7L it
♦lot
di
w
53RD PL
JT 1li
2 53RD "ST
x %
3
2 ST
00,
I S25 ST
Q a.
4
42
S
255TH
ST S255TH PL
256TH ST
8
56
ST a
$256
22
141)
CT
57 S237T
27 26
PL
to
0
OIPL
r.,L!
LJV
S
259
s
260
a 260TH i
'F-4
ST
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK SWD FUTURE SERVICE AREA INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an
interlocal agreement which defines the ultimate service
boundaries for water and sewer service between the Soos Creek
Water and Sewer Districts and the City of Kent. After review
by the Public Works Department, the boundaries have been set as
the most logical boundaries considering the existing infra-
structure in place to serve both the City's and the District's
systems.
jj&MR4- This item.-b�e addressed by the Public Works
Committee on *andvP" November 14,
1994.
3. EXHIBITS: Agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff,
5.
rim
7.
Examiner, Commiss
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
, etc.)
NO ,z YES
Councilmember moves, Councilmember.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
ITEM
SOOS CREEK SWD FUTURE SERVICE AREA"01
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
MOVE TO:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Interlocal
Agreement for Establishment of Sanitary Sewer Service Area Boundaries, with
conditions imposed by the Public Works Committee, after final review and
approval of the Agreement and conditions by the City Attorney.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOOS C1EEK SWD FUTURE SERVICE AREA INTERLOCAL
AGREEME T
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an
interlocal agreement w ich defines the ultimate service
boundaries for water an sewer service between the Soos Creek
Water and Sewer Distric and the City of Kent. After review
by the Public Works Depa tment, the boundaries have been set as
the most logical boundari considering the existing infra-
structure in place to sery both the City's and the District's
systems.
NOTE: This item will be adiiFessed by the Public Works
Committee at its meeting on Monday, November 14,
1994. X,
3. EXHIBITS: Agreement
4.
RECOMMENDED BY: `
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
CITY OF KENT and SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
19 , by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City", and SOOS CREEK WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"the District", both being duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of Washington,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, both the City and the District are public agencies authorized by law and
qualified to engage in furnishing sanitary sewer service within their prescribed areas; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the parties herein to enter into an agreement
to provide for the efficient planning and development of sewer services in areas which may be
served by either, or both, of the parties herein, and
WHEREAS, determining future service area boundaries between the City and the
District will provide for maximum efficient use of existing and future facilities, and orderly and
efficient sanitary sewer system planning.
NOW, THEREFORE:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Sewer Service Areas. The parties have agreed on their ultimate sewer service areas,
which are depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The City shall provide sewer
service in those areas shown on Exhibit "A" as "City of Kent Sewer Service Area", and the
District shall provide sewer service in those areas shown on Exhibit "A" as "Soos Creek Water
and Sewer District Sewer Service Area".
2. Planning Areas. The planning area for the City of Kent as shown on Exhibit "A" is
hereby acknowledged by the District. Both parties acknowledge that the City may exercise
planning jurisdiction over territory to which it will not provide sanitary sewer service. The City
Kent/Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement
Establishment of Sewer Service Area Boundaries - 1
hereby agrees that its planning shall be for sanitary sewer service to be provided by the District
in those areas shown on Exhibit "A" as the District's service area.
3. Future Annexations. Each of the parties hereto shall provide sanitary sewer service
to the areas shown in Exhibit "A" without regard to the present corporate limits of the parties,
and without regard to future corporate limits as they may be amended by annexations to either
party. Each party hereto hereby gives the consent to the other party for such service within its
corporate boundaries as they presently exist, or as they may be modified in the future by
annexation.
4. District Comprehensive Sewer Planning. The terms of this Agreement will be
included as an element of the District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. The District will submit
to the City all Comprehensive Sewerage Plans and amendments thereto involving area and/or
system improvements within the City's planning area. The Comprehensive Sewerage Plans and
amendments shall be in compliance with the City's requirements for service within the City's
corporate boundaries, except where pre-existing facilities may differ from the City's
requirements. As facilities are replaced by the District, or as new facilities are planned and
constructed within the City's corporate boundaries, they shall conform to the City's technical
standards then in effect.
5. City Comprehensive Plan. The terms of this Agreement will be included as an
element of the sewerage portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
6. Reliance. Each party hereto acknowledges that the terms hereof will be relied upon
by the other in its comprehensive planning, commitments to provide sewer service; bonding or
other financing; and timing, location and construction of capital facilities to meet the needs of
the service areas designated herein. More particularly, the District's Kent Relief Sewer
Interceptor Project is in pursuit of the terms hereof.
7. Governmental Approvals. The parties will give notice of the adoption of this
Agreement to Metropolitan/King County, to the Department of Ecology, to the Department
of Health, and to any other agency with jurisdiction or mission relevant to the terms hereof, and
shall cooperate and assist in all reasonable manner in procuring any necessary approvals hereof
by those agencies.
8. Boundary Review Board. In the event that implementation of the terms hereof results
in permanent sewer service to areas that will be outside the boundaries of the City or the
District, the parties will at the time of such service jointly seek approval of the King County
Boundary Review Board in accordance with R.C.W. 36.93.090.
Kent/Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement
Establishment of Sewer Service Area Boundaries - 2
9. . Service Amendments. Changes to the service areas described herein shall be by
mutual agreement only; provided, however, that each party may give staff level permission to
the other on a case-by-case basis to provide service by one party into the other party's adjacent
or nearby service area based upon considerations of efficiency and economy in providing the
service.
10. Sanctity of Agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
regarding the subject matter hereof, and there are no other representations or oral agreements
other than those listed herein, which vary the terms of this agreement. Future agreements may
occur between the parties to transfer additional, or future service areas by mutual agreement.
11. Obligations Intact. Nothing herein shall be construed to alter the rights,
responsibilities, liabilities, or obligations of either the City or the District regarding provision
of sewer service, except as specifically set forth herein.
Approved by Ordinance No.
KENT, Washington, at its regular
of the City Council of the CITY OF
meeting held on the day of
19
CITY OF KENT
By:
Title:
Attest:
City Clerk
Kent/Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement
Establishment of Sewer Service Area Boundaries - 3
Approved by Resolution No. 1232-S of the Board of Commissioners of SOOS
CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT of King County, Washington, adopted at its
regular meeting held on the 2nd day of November, 1994.
SOOS CREE ATER AND DISTRICT
By:
Clement Quanrud, President of Board
By:
*Kare, Secretary of Board
Kent/Soon Creek Interlocal Agreement
Establishment of Sewer Service Area Boundaries - 4
t r / - •) �. a� n ,i r - r / 3 - /iii // '/%/iii / , ri • /i. ,ilii/ilii/i �, i
'gip 1';t,; ell
/
_ L^I ;,: , , '•c / NEW SEWER BOUNDARY
,.••. <+' �LJ1::L / -\ : n,
u.o r•
�—
_ I • ALJ:: _.I—� —_ � r.. , // j'/
'iZo
! // � > \%/// I u r.,•_ „ • i . )»�.. r t � N [A r� Ari%
lol
' ♦ %/ � .%' //�/i/ , nna ... ! /� tri /, /
Kent City Council Meeting
C, Date November 15, 1994
�- Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LANDING WAY STREET VACATION - ORDINANCE
CcU
�p,jo � Sao f g
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: of Ordinance No. amending
the legal description -
T • attached to the
Landing Way Street Vacation Ordinance No. 3199, passed at the
Council meeting on November 1, 1994.
p� rode
d 3,0
InJ'Q.d.i
-ice \ This item Aby the Public Works
Committee onr'November 14,
1994.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X
W
7
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
YES
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending Ordinance No.3199, which
vacated a portion of Landing Way, a dedicated and
open street, lying between Blocks 3 and 4 in the plat
of Van Doren's Landing in the City of Kent.
WHEREAS, on November 1. 1994, the Kent City Council passed its Ordinance No.
3199, which vacated a portion of Landing Way , a dedicated and open street, lying between Blocks
3 and 4 in the plat of Van Doren's Landing in the City of Kent, after giving proper notice and
following all required state and local procedures; and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the area to be vacated, which was attached to the
Ordinance in its Exhibit A, has been determined to be in error; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are by this reference
incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
Section 2. Amendment. City of Kent Ordinance No.3199, passed November 1, 1994,
is hereby amended by REMOVING the legal description of the area to be vacated, as described in
Exhibit A attached to the Ordinance, and REPLACING the legal description with the following:
That portion of Landing Way lying between Blocks 3 and 4 in the
Plat of Van Doren's Landing recorded in Volume 158 of Plats pages
71 through 74 West of 64th Avenue South and Southerly of South
1
228th Street EXCEPT the East 100.00 feet thereof, which exception
is measured from the Southerly and Northerly prolongation of the
West right of way line of 64th Avenue South.
Section 3. 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 circumstances shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other
persons or circumstances.
Section 4. 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.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 19_.
APPROVED the _ day of 19_.
PUBLISHED the _ day of 19--
2
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct 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
hereon indicated.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
STVAC#6A.pwk
3
�4-9111 Kent City Council Meeting
U Q, Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MAURITSEN ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
�� 65
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to grant an access and
utility easement to the Mauritsen property located at So. 218th
Street east of SR167 (Tract 19 of Shinn's Cloverdale Addition).
The initial survey of the property was incorrect' aks such, an
easement is required. Administration is hereby authorized to
execute any and all documents necessary to grant the easement
approved herein.
V W a✓ c -�a pec-� 3- o
_t%W43-r This item baa by the Public Works
Committee meet4m - on *e;d"-f*-November 14,
1994.
3. EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4.
5.
M
7.
RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
1
' ya I i
1 t rc
m
i
_ t + g I s 210TH � y
N
212TH ST /� 4A J OSSE
S, > 2127
9J
I I � 95 PL
�t O'BRIEN I �1�r sr 3TH
S ST
%
y s zl3TH y 213TH
J Pl. 21
>
fr 7t F
sr ti % 8
W >
` so. • 16TH aT % PROJECT LOCATION g 2167" >
SE
H
S 218TH , a w
S7 / s `2 N ST
I �'eS iF f I
% I
'I INHJSTF IAL "F�•' F r. �
No
PFA
Q W
Q %
%
ST
3 22 D S7
g 222NUv
12^7 % 7 8
0 13 18 „ 18 17
NORTKEN
W
INTC 6 J :j
x • x w
1- ~
ST
:._...,.� J s i 228 ST 228TH
ST
z LU
W %
1 a ' '1 S 231ST SE 2331r T
NOVAK E �)
S 232N0 ST
167 ST ,`.:1 S 232N r-
1� ST
2 P I, % S 94TH Q S
1 W Rp 11Z
4 f C�
COLEI ST} )- x * W
lil `''-•'� t
:il ai f S 236TH
> N tir.nl.<
z < w. �I�nu �I �GpCb� (PW ST
W �
H K J WAY
w L04J Y
ST
y21�1 <
VVV
L OE ROE • 5256THa .- W x (PVI)
acow z x Z
ST z
, z l S 240 ST
r IUNcI �I ♦ J
" 1
KENT
JR. MI 24 W �! N 1 01 -• ^
1. SUBJECT:
RED ROBIN REZONE RZ-94-1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15,_ 1994
Category Other Business
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended
approval of an application by Nicholas S. Fisher, George E.
Hanson, and George E. Hanson Architects to rezone 1.43 acres
from O, Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commerical.
The property is located at 25051/59 104th Avenue S.E.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff report, Findings and Recommendation
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO11-�_ YES
11
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember Lnmoves, Councilmember seconds
to acce reject/modify the Findings of the Hearing Examiner,
and to ado /reject/modify the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of approval of the Red Robin Rezone No. RZ-94-1,
and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OF J_Q�JL� zS
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: RED ROBIN #RZ-94-1
APPLICANT: Nicholas S. Fisher/George E. Hanson
George E. Hanson Architects
REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 1.43 acres of property from 0,
Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commercial.
LOCATION: The property is located at 25051/59 104th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: June 17, 1994
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED:
MEETING DATE:
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
July 28, 1994
October 5, 1994
October 19, 1994
APPROVAL
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
George Hanson, Architect
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
EXHIBITS: 1) Hearing Examiner file
2) Letter from George Hansen to James P. Harris
with page 10 of the checklist #ENV -94-42 attached
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date
indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject
property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public
hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Red Robin
#RZ-94-1
FINDINGS
1. The property proposed for a rezone is located at 25051/59 104th Avenue SE.
2. The property is approximately 1.43 acres. The applicant proposes a rezone
from "0", Professional & Office, to "CC", Community Commercial.
3. Property to the south and east of the site is zoned CC, Community Commercial.
Property to the north, northeast and west of the site are zoned "0",
Professional and Office. Residential districts of 131-7.2, MR -G and MRM are
both east and west of the "0" zoning district on both sides if
104th Avenue SE, north to SE 244th Street. The zoning then once again is
"CC" at SE 244th Street.
4. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan map designates the site as Office,
Commercial (on one-fourth of the property) and Multifamily Residential. The
East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as Multifamily with 12-24
units per acre and Community Retail (on one-fourth of the property)•
5. Businesses allowed as permitted uses within the CC, Community Commercial,
zoning district are located across the street from the site. In addition, the
majority of the property is already developed with the Red Robin Burger &
Spirits Emporium with its associated parking lot.
6. No specific development project is associated with this rezone application.
Exhibit 2. A final Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for this proposal
on July 28, 1994. No conditions were attached to the DNS. The DNS was not
appealed.
7. A public hearing was held on this application on October 5, 1994. Notice of
the public hearing was posted on the site, published in the newspaper and
mailed to persons living near the site. The public hearing was attended by
representative of the City and the applicant. The City presented a
recommendation to approve the rezone request. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Fred
Satterstrom. The applicant's representative presented testimony in support of
the rezone request. Testimony of George Hanson. No one testified or
submitted any evidence against the rezone request nor did anyone raise any
concerns or questions about the rezone request at the public hearing. All
testimony and evidence presented prior to and during the public hearing
supported approval of the rezone request.
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Red Robin
#RZ-94-1
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction and Authority
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this quasi-judicial
rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council,
pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code.
Section 15.09.050 (A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and
criteria the Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a
rezone shall only be granted if:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with development in the vicinity;
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the
vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated;
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the
current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone;
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner makes the following
conclusions:
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
CONCLUSION 1: The proposed rezone is consistent with the both the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan.
1.1 Both plans recognize the developing commercial character of the area. Both
have designated some portion of the site as suitable for commercial activity.
1.2 The Examiner must also consider the policies of the comprehensive plans as
well as the map designations. The City of Kent Council decided to develop a
comprehensive plan as authorized by state law many years ago. See, Chapters
35.63 and 35A.63 RCW. According to state law, a comprehensive plan means
"the policies and proposals approved by the legislative body" in the manner set
forth in state law. RCW 35A.63.010. This may include a map or maps,
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Red Robin
#RZ-94-1
charts, diagrams, reports and explanatory text as well as "other devices and
materials" to "express, explain or depict" the elements of the plan. RCW
35A.63.061. The policies of the East Hill Plan include an overall housing goal
to assure present and future East Hill resident housing that is safe, offers a
desirable living environment, and is supported by adequate community facilities
and services." The City-wide Comprehensive Plan contains a specific goal to
"Assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations." Exhibit
1, Planning Department Report, page 4.
Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity
CONCLUSION 2: The potential development associated with the rezone proposal
would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed
rezone.
The proposed rezone is in an area of commercial activity. The proposed rezone would
be consistent with both the adjacent parcel where Red Robin is located and the
property across the street.
Burden on Transportation System
CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation
system
3.1 The traffic impacts associated with the potential development of the proposed
rezone were reviewed by the City as part of the review of the rezone proposal.
The Planning Department evidence shows that traffic impacts associated with
developments in the Office and Professional zone are greater than those for the
Community Commercial zone in the PM peak hour periods. Mitigation of
impacts associated with a specific development proposal can occur at the time
of the application for a specific development.
Change of Circumstances
CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment
of the Office and Professional zone to warrant the proposed rezone.
The subject property was annexed to the City in 1984 and was given the "0" zoning
designation at that time. There has been rapid commercial development of the East
Hill commercial area since 1984. The proposed zoning designation reflects the
commercial growth that has occurred in the area.
H
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Red Robin
#RZ-94-1
Health Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent
CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the general welfare
of the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone.
No one presented any evidence of any nature against this rezone proposal. The
Hearing Examiner must conclude that the proposed rezone would not have any
adverse affect on anyone in the area surrounding the rezone.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City
Council APPROVE this request for a rezone. It is the Examiner's opinion that the
rezone request, as proposed, meets the criteria for approval established by the
Council.
Dated this 19th day of October, 1994.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Reauest of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing
Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b)
new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered in writing
by the Hearing Examiner.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council
is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the
City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City
Council.
c:rz941.fin
5
CITY OF J V \�tyV IT
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
B"�F7=V- FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1994
FILE NO: RED ROBIN #RZ-94-1
APPLICANT: Nicholas S. Fisher/George E. Hanson
George Hanson Architects
REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 1.43
acres of property from "O", Professional
and Office, to CC, Community Commercial
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Charlene Anderson, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 1.43 acres
from the current zoning of "O", Professional and Office,
to CC, Community Commercial.
B. Location
The subject property is located at 25051/59 104th
Avenue SE.
C. Size of Property
The subject property contains approximately 1.43 acres.
D. Zoning
Property south of the subject parcel and one parcel
directly east, across 104th Avenue SE, are zoned CC,
Community Commercial. Properties to the north, west, and
northeast are zoned "O", Professional and Office.
Residential zoning districts of R1-7.2, Single Family
Residential; MR -G, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential; and MR -M, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential, lie both east and west of the Professional
and Office zoning district which is located on both sides
1
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
of 104th Avenue SE, north to SE 244th Street. At
SE 244th Street, the zoning once again is Community
Commercial.
E. Land Use
Part of the property proposed to be rezoned is the
parking area for The Red Robin Burger & Spirits Emporium.
The other part of the rezone request is a separate parcel
whose lot configuration was created via a lot line
adjustment in 1992 (#LL -92-23); it is approximately
12,456 square feet in size. The Kent School District bus
parking lot abuts the subject property on its western
border. To the southwest is a vacant parcel which is the
subject of an application for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct the East Hill Self Service Storage facility;
the application was approved on July 1, 1994. To the
east, across 104th Avenue SE, is a professional office
building. To the northeast is the Lake Plaza Condominium
development. An underdeveloped parcel is located
directly north of the subject property; it contains a
single family residence and is about two acres in size.
F. History
The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent as
part of a 22 -acre annexation (Rowley Annexation #3,
#AZ -84-1) in April 1984 via Ordinance No. 2466, as
amended by Ordinance No. 2549. The property was given
the initial zoning designation of "0", Professional and
Office. The property within this zoning district has
been developing with office uses and still has remnants
of single family houses which existed at the time of
annexation.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS
#ENV -94-42) for the rezone was issued on July 28, 1994,
without conditions. The DNS is part of the record.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Tolography and Vegetation
The site is generally
vegetation that has grown
2
flat, with emerging
since the site was graded
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
and filled in conjunction with the Red Robin
project in 1993.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The property has access to 104th Avenue SE, which
is classified a Minor Arterial. The street has a
public right-of-way width of 95 feet, while the
actual width of paving is 60 feet. The street is
improved with asphalt paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and street lighting. The current
average daily traffic count on this street is less
than 22,900 vehicle trips per day. Mitigation of
any traffic impacts may be required with an
application for development of the property.
2. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems
An existing 12 -inch water line and a 10 -inch
sanitary sewer are available to serve the subject
property.
3. Stormwater System
An on-site detention system and stormwater
treatment system may be required upon receipt of an
application for development of this property.
4. LID'S
There are no existing or proposed Local Improvement
Districts for this property.
5. Parks
This proposal does not affect the parks system.
III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
Department of Operations
City Attorney
Fire Chief
City Clerk
Chief of Police
3
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
Development Services/Fire Prevention
Director of Public Works
Parks and Recreation Director
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the
application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated into the staff report
where applicable.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals, objectives, and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
concerning the future of Kent and the area within the
Sphere of Interest.
The City of Kent also has adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the city. Like the city-wide plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for future land use within the
City of Kent. The property which is the subject of the
Red Robin Rezone is located within the area of the East
Hill subarea plan.
The City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the
project site Office, Multifamily Residential, and
Commercial (on approximately one-fourth of the property).
The East Hill Plan designates the site Office,
Multifamily Residential (12-24 units/acre), and Community
Retail (on approximately one-fourth of the property).
A rezone from Office to Community Commercial supports the
following goals, objectives, and policies of the City-
wide Comprehensive Plan:
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
Goal 2: Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial development.
4
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
Policv 1: Encourage planned retail -commercial
business development.
Policy 3: Restrict strip commercial
development to areas already so developed.
Objective 2: Promote the location of neighborhood
shopping centers in close proximity to the
residential areas they are to serve.
Policy 1: Assure the development of compact,
attractive, and safe shopping centers.
Planning Department Comment:
Community Commercial zoning is located directly east of the
subject property, across 104th Avenue South. Furthermore, the
majority of the property already is developed with a parking
lot for the Red Robin Burger & Spirits Emporium. Only a small
portion of the property (12,456 square feet) is undeveloped.
It is conceivable that the development of the property would
include a shared parking arrangement. The Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and East Hill Plan both have applied three different
designations to this property. Allowing the Community
Commercial zoning to extend to the northern border of the
property would align the zoning district with the parcel
across the street.
B. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A REQUEST FOR REZONE
According to Kent City Code Section 15.09.050.C, "The
following standards and criteria shall be used by the
hearing examiner and city council to evaluate a request
for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if
the city council determines that the request is
consistent with these standards and criteria."
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Planninq Department Comment:
Community Commercial zoning is consistent with the City-
wide Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Plan designations.
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of
the site would be compatible with development in
the vicinity.
61
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
Planning Department Comment:
Commercial zoning would be compatible with the
developments to the south of the property and directly
across the street, which property is zoned Community
Commercial. Allowing Community Commercial zoning to
extend to the northern border of this property would
provide a more clearly defined delineation between
commercial and office zoning.
3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which
cannot be mitigated.
Planning Department Comment:
The traffic impacts during the PM peak hour are greater
for Professional and office zoning than for Community
Commercial zoning because only generic trip generation
data can be employed. The traffic impacts of actual
development within each of the zones may differ
dramatically. Mitigation of impacts to the traffic
system will be required as necessary upon receipt of an
application for development.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment:
There has been a tremendous growth in multifamily and
commercial development on East Hill. The proposed rezone
will more clearly define the boundary of commercial
zoning in this area.
S. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the city.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city.
Because most of the parcel already is developed with a
parking lot for the Red Robin Burger & Spirits Emporium,
this proposed rezone merely will provide the opportunity
to complete the commercial development of this parcel.
I
Staff Report
Red Robin Rezone
#RZ-94-1
V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the code
criteria for granting approval of a rezone, the staff
recommends APPROVAL of Red Robin Rezone #RZ-94-1.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 25, 1994
c:rz941.rpt
7
City of Kent - Planning Department
APPLICATION NAME: Red Robin
NUMBER: #RZ-94-1
REQUEST: Rezone
Vicinity Map
DATE: October 5, 1994
LEGEND
Application site
a--T--!—f Railroad tracks
-i-6� Kent City Limits
5 2iff90 `9'T
SE 244TH ST
2 (i
P. -
co m
m (1 SE 24L8TH ST
x
►-
m
C)
h
C9 w
W)
y
t0
w
ti >
ccO
9 _
S 252ND ST
W
Cr
W ��
x
N
~ W
O > W
O
2 >
Q
r
., m
SE 256TH ST
Qv
ST ,fl
>'A
s
a
A
000`9
s
9
Ste
m
y0
h
0
SE 260TH ST
r
a
APPLICATION NAME: Red Robin
NUMBER: #RZ-94-1
REQUEST: Rezone
Vicinity Map
DATE: October 5, 1994
LEGEND
Application site
a--T--!—f Railroad tracks
-i-6� Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
APPLICATION NAME:
NUMBER: #RZ-94-1
REQUEST: Rezone
Zoning / Topography
Red Robin
DATE: October 5, 1994
LEGEND
-��— Application site
Zoning boundary
Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
6SN
-77777
icr.� bbl
p
APPLICATION NAME: Red Robin
NUMBER: #RZ-94-1
REQUEST: Rezone
Site Plan
I
DATE: October 5, 1994
LEGEND
Application site
T-
o
L
—
I
M
=coc
-
iii2��7Z
6
Z
ZD
APPLICATION NAME: Red Robin
NUMBER: #RZ-94-1
REQUEST: Rezone
Site Plan
I
DATE: October 5, 1994
LEGEND
Application site
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994_
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1995 BUDGET - *RPT#A#G49=
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: An ordinance has been prepared for the
1995 Budget which includes the Mayor's proposed balance budget
with some attached technical changes. The 1995 Budget with
these changes was discussed and approval was recommended by
the Operations Committee at their November 9th meeting.>
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and technical changes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) 11/9/94
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5.
0
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember / fv/ moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinal e No. ILO -approving the 1995 Comprehensive
Budget.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to budgets
and finance; adopting the 1995 Budget.
WHEREAS, the tax estimates and budget for the City of
Kent, Washington, for the year 1995 have been prepared and filed
as provided by the laws of the State of Washington, and that said
budget has been printed for distribution and notice published in
the official paper of the City of Kent setting the time and place
for hearing on the same and that said notice stating that all
taxpayers calling at the Office of the City Clerk would be
furnished a copy of said budget; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Budget Adoption. Pursuant to RCW
35A.33.075, the budget for the year 1995, as set forth in the
1995 preliminary comprehensive budget, as amended by attachments
thereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted
in the amounts and for the following purposes, to wit:
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 259,000 184,100 74,900
Economic Development Corp 22,257 36,424 (14,167)
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 96,689,861 99,616,883 (2,927,022)
Less:
Internal Services 9,808,144 9,808,144
Other Transfers 8,294,551 8,294,551
TOTAL NET BUDGET 78.587,166 81.514.188 (2,927,022)
2
2,255,613 2,330,513
44,999 30,832
22,393,444 19,466,422
22.393.444 19.466.422
Change
Beginning
Ending
in Fund
Fund
Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Balance
Balance
Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND
36,421,683
37,114,130
(692,447)
2,467,064
1,774,617
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
2,781,732
3,083,328
(301,596)
595,715
294,119
Street
Youth/Teen Programs
390,648
3,853,771
390,648
3,575,262
278,509
207,802
486,311
Capital Improvement
Criminal Justice
903,223
1,168,300
(265,077)
447,476
182,399
Environmental Mitigation
306,276
342,871
(36,595)
288,534
251,939
Community Block Grant
462,282
462,282
Other Operating Projects
30,000
30,000
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted
1,841,093
1,841,093
182,978
182,978
Councilmanic
Special Assessment
2,057,113
2,028,745
2,057,113
2,544,963
(516,218)
3,093,286
2,577,068
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Street Capital
2,809,463
514,235
2,809,463
514,235
102,455
102,455
Parks Projects
Other Projects
568,588
1,355,588
(787,000)
787,000
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water
6,885,019
7,547,415
(662,396)
3,496,123
2,833,727
Sewerage
14,879,841
15,164,377
(284,536)
2,338,857
2,054,321
Golf Course
8,574,295
8,935,404
(361,109)
654,763
293,654
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental
1,544,720
1,576,673
(31,953)
2,392,361
2,360,408
Central Services
3,451,170
3,451,170
(1,011)
(1,011)
Fire Equipment
1,387,000
792,000
595,000
595,000
Insurance
4,717,707
4,640,044
77,663
3,039,429
3,117,092
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 259,000 184,100 74,900
Economic Development Corp 22,257 36,424 (14,167)
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 96,689,861 99,616,883 (2,927,022)
Less:
Internal Services 9,808,144 9,808,144
Other Transfers 8,294,551 8,294,551
TOTAL NET BUDGET 78.587,166 81.514.188 (2,927,022)
2
2,255,613 2,330,513
44,999 30,832
22,393,444 19,466,422
22.393.444 19.466.422
Section 2. City Administration shall administer the
Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant
to RCW 35A.33.120.
Section 3. Severability_ If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force commencing January 1, 1995, which date is
more than five (5) days from and after the date of passage of
this ordinance.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED
APPROVED
PUBLISHED
day of
day of
day of
1994.
1994.
1994.
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.
budget.ord
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4
(SEAL)
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET
ADJUSTED 1995 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT
Community Block Grant
Other Operating Projects
Move Youth / Teen Programs
Budget Savings Incentive
Plan reclassified.
462,282
390,648
(390,648)
30,000
462,282
390,648
(390,648)
30,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Other Operating Projects 30,000 30,000
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted
Councilmanic
Special Assessment
CCC 95FINAL.WQ2 10-NOV-94
1,841,093 1,841,093
2,057,113 2,057,113
2,028,745 2,544,963
182,978
(516,218) 3,093,286
182,978
2,577,068
Inc (Dec)
Beginning
Ending
in Fund
Fund
Fund
Revenues Expenditures
Balance
Balance
Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
36,417,990
37,110,437
(692,447)
2,467,064
1,774,617
GENERAL FUND
3,693
3,693
3,693
Adjust Property Tax
59,405
(59,405)
(59,405)
Labor Contracts settled
6,000
(6,000)
(6,000)
Correct Lightbar for Fire
2,000
(2,000)
(2,000)
Correction to Police fuel
(59,405)
59,405
59,405
Funding from Contingency
(4,307)
4,307
4,307
Cost Allocation
------
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
36,421,683
37,114,130
(692,447)
2,467,064
1,774,617
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
2,781,732
2,368,328
413,404
595,715
1,009,119
Street
Update Street Projects
715,000
(715,000)
(715,000)
--------
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Street
2,781,732
3,083,328
(301,596)
595,715
294,119
Youth/Teen Programs Fund
390,648
3,853,771
390,648
3,575,262
278,509
207,802
486,311
Capital Improvement
Criminal Justice
903,523
1,155,008
(251,485)
447,476
195,991
Labor Contracts settled
(300)
(1,708)
1,408
1,408
(15,000)
Rule 9 Legal Intern
15,000
(15,000)
TOTAL Criminal Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------
903,223
1,168,300
(265,077)
447,476
182,399
Environmental Mitigation
233,000
374,363
(141,363)
288,534
147,171
Revise projections
73,276
(17,457)
90,733
90,733
Allocate to Water Conservation
(14,035)
14,035
14,035
TOTAL Environmental Mitigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
306,276
342,871
(36,595)
288,534
251,939
Community Block Grant
Other Operating Projects
Move Youth / Teen Programs
Budget Savings Incentive
Plan reclassified.
462,282
390,648
(390,648)
30,000
462,282
390,648
(390,648)
30,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Other Operating Projects 30,000 30,000
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted
Councilmanic
Special Assessment
CCC 95FINAL.WQ2 10-NOV-94
1,841,093 1,841,093
2,057,113 2,057,113
2,028,745 2,544,963
182,978
(516,218) 3,093,286
182,978
2,577,068
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET
ADJUSTED 1995 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT
Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
6,885,019
7,502,587
Street Projects
2,094,463
2,094,463
Update Street Projects
715,000
715,000
TOTAL Street Projects
-----------------------------------------------------------
2,809,463
2,809,463
Parks Projects
514,235
514,235 102,455 102,455
Other Projects
568,588
1,355,588 (787,000) 787,000
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water
6,885,019
7,502,587
(617,568)
3,496,123
2,878,555
Labor Contracts settled
(8,211)
37,818
(37,818)
(1,900)
(37,818)
Water Conservation from 171
-----------------------------------------------------------
1,544,720 1,576,673
14,036
(14,036)
Fire Equipment
(14,036)
Cost Allocation
595,000
(7,026)
7,026
7,026
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Water
6,885,019
7,547,415
(662,396)
3,496,123
2,833,727
Sewerage
15,009,135
15,166,496
(157,361)
2,338,857
2,181,496
Labor Contracts settled
20,977
(20,977)
(20,977)
Adjust Revenues & taxes
(129,294)
(99,455)
(29,839)
(29,839)
Cost Allocation to Drainage
74,466
(74,466)
(74,466)
Cost Allocations
1,893
(1,893)
(1,893)*
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Sewerage
14,879,841
15,164,377
(284,536)
2,338,857
2,054,321
Golf Complex
3,109,295
2,778,794
330,501
654,763
985,264
Labor Contracts settled
9,207
(9,207)
(9,207)
Golf Debt Refund/Capital Plan
:
Net Proceeds from Refunding
5,465,000
5,024,496
440,504
440,504
Capital Improvements
1,323,300
(1,323,300)
(1,323,300)*
Restrooms
30,000
(30,000)
(30,000)*
Other Misc Operating Capital
Outlay
10,000
(10,000)
(10,000)*
Reduced Debt Service Payments
(240,393)
240,393
240,393
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Golf Complex
8,574,295
8,935,404
(361,109)
654,763
293,654
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental
1,544,720 1,566,562
(21,842) 2,392,361
2,370,519
Labor Contracts settled
8,211
(8,211)
(8,211)
Tool Allowance & Air Tools
1,900
(1,900)
(1,900)
TOTAL Equipment Rental
-----------------------------------------------------------
1,544,720 1,576,673
(31,953) 2,392,361
2,360,408
Fire Equipment
1,387,000 792,000
595,000
595,000
CCC 95FINAL.WQ2 10 -Nov -94
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET
ADJUSTED 1995 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT
CCC 95FINAL.WQ2 10 -Nov -94
Inc (Dec)
Beginning
Ending
in Fund
Fund
Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Balance
Balance
Balance
Central Services
3,451,170
3,451,170
(1,011)
(1,011)*
TOTAL Central Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
3,451,170
3,451,170
(1,011)
(11011)
Insurance
4,717,707
4,640,044
77,663
3,039,429
3,117,092
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension
259,000
184,100
74,900
2,255,613
2,330,513
Economic Development Corp
22,257
36,424
(14,167)
44,999
30,832
Utility Clearing
Labor Contracts settled
9,643
(9,643)
(9,643)
Adjust Cost Allocations
(9,643)
9,643
9,643
TOTAL Utility Clearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET
96,689,861
99,616,883
(2,927,022)
22,393,444
19,466,422
LESS:
Internal Service Funds
9,808,144
9,808,144
Other Transfers
8,294,551
8,294,551
TOTAL BUDGET
78,587,166
81,514,188
(2,927,022)
22,393,444
19,466,422
CCC 95FINAL.WQ2 10 -Nov -94
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1995 TAX LEVY - QRBIt
2. (!7UMMARY S ATEMENT: At their November 9th meeting, *fhe
ns Committee recommended approva o e tax
inance for the General Fund and for the Voted Debt
Per RCDP 84.52.010, taxes shall be levied in specific
dollar amounts. Official assessed valuation information
is still pending from King County.
3
4.
go
EXHIBITS: Ordinance, memo and worksheets
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) 11/9/94
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
NO X YES
Councilmember 1.44; n, moves, Councilmember /1 "� seconds
/
to adopt Ordina#�ce No.4&JO fixing the tax levy for 1995.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
.'. ,ject: 1995 TAX LEVY ORDINANCE
Creator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/04/94 at 1103.
TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MAYENE MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR
AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED TO FIX THE TAX LEVY AMOUNT FOR THE 1995 BUDGET.
THE ASSESSED VALUATION IS NOT PROJECTED TO CHANGE FORM 1994 WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTIONS: $50,038,140 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BASED ON BUILDING PER BUILDING
PERMIT ACTIVITY AND $43,000,000 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CHESTNUT RIDGE AND
EVERSON.
KING COUNTY GAVE US THE ANNEXATION AMOUNT LAST WEEK BUT QUALIFIED THIER EARLY
VALUATION ESTIMATES OF $3,918,340,978 INCLUDING $37,285,946 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
AS "QUITE PRELIMINARY" AND NOT COMPLETE. LAST YEAR WE DID NOT RECIEVE THEIR
FINAL ASSESSED VALUATION UNTIL THE DAY OF ADODPTION, DECEMBER 8TH.
SINCE ONLY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED IN THE TAX LEVY ORDINANCE
WE FEEL CONFIDENT IN PROCEEDING. IF THE VALUATION WERE TO COME IN LOWER, THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT WOULD STILL REMAIN THE SAME, SINCE IT IS WITHIN THE 6% ALLOWABLE
LID. THE FIGURE THAT WOULD CHANGE ARE THE MILLS PER THOUSAND. THE GENERAL LEVY
MILLS ARE EXPECTED TO DROP BY .20 TO 2.60 AND THE VOTED LEVY FOR FIRE APARATUS,
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SENIOR HOUSING BONDS IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE BY .03 MILLS FOR
A NET DECREASE OF .17 FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED MILLS OF 3.06. THIS IS A DECREASE OF
FROM LAST YEARS 3.23. A SIGNIFICANT VALUATION DECREASE WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR
TU HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE MILLS. THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT WOULD REMAIN THE
SAME.
PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON
CHANGE
1992 1993 1994 1995 FROM
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 1994
ASSESSED VALUATION BASE
3,399,740,979
3,891,977,069
3,849,032,079 3,693,431,079
44,399,000
ANNEXATIONS
653,175
698,885 208,550
43,000,000
142,100 20.3°1
NEW CONSTRUCTION
108,386,499
46,705,110
44,399,000 50,038,140
5,639,140
TOTAL ASSESSED 'VALUATION
3,508,127,478
3,938,662,179
'3,893,431,079 3,986,469,219
93,038,140
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES
GENERAL FUND 9,425,258 10,124,967 10,884,340 10,385,879 (498,461) -4.9°1
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
FIRE APPAFZ'-1TUS 36,226 44,9661
PUBLIC SAFETY
1,092,318
1,198,208 606,810
605,910
(900) -0.1%
SENIOR HOUSING
653,175
698,885 208,550
350,650
142,100 20.3°1
93 GO REFUNDING
872,670
873,133
463 100.0'1
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
1,763,719
1,942,075 1,686,030
1,829,693
151,663
TO' TAX LEVY
LEVY RATES:
GENERAL FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
FIRE APPARATUS
PUBLIC SAFETY
SENIOR HOUSING
GO REFUNDING
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
11,208,977 12,067,042 12,572,370 12,215,572 (356,798) -3.0'1
2.6-6
2.Se
2.80
*
2.60
(0.20)
-7.8%
C.01
O.C1
0.31
0.30
0.16
0.15
(0.01)
-3.3%
0.19
0.18
0.05
&
0.09
0.04
22.2%
0.22
C.22
100.0'1
0.51
0.49
0.43
0.46
0.03
6.1°1
TOTAL 3.19 3.05 3.23 3.06 (0.17) -5.6°1
* The estimated 1995 general fund tar, levy rate is 2.60528. The formula for calculating the levy rate is
limited to 10616 of the last three years' highest regular levy plus annexations at the current year's rate
and new construction at the previous year's rate. The formula excludes omitted assessments (they are taxed at
the rate in effect for•the year that they should have been included), and administrative adjustments.
& The 1994 levy for Senior Housing debt service included a one time reduction of $150,000 from return of
unneeded funds. The project was completed under budget.
CCC 95PRPTX3.WQ1 04 -Nov -94
REG�ZAR PROPERTY LEVY CALCDT \TION
1061 LIMITATION CALCULATION (RCd 84.55.010)
Estimated Assessed Valuation :
3,893,431,079 Last Year's Assessed Valuation
50,038,140 New Construction added '
43,000,000 Annexations
------------------------
3,986,469,219 Total Estimated Assessed Valuation "
10,884,340 Highest of three most recent years levies
1.06 x 1.06
------------------------
11,537,400 106% Levy
50,038,140 Local new construction
+State Public Service New Construction
50,038,140 =Total New Construction
2.78804 x Prior year levy rate ( if projecting 89, then 88's rate)
139,508 =New Construction Levy
11,537,400 1.06 Levy
139,508 +New Construction Leery
-Omitted Assessment Levy
11,676,909 =Levy Ceiling ( Less annexations and omitted assessments)
3,986,469,219 Divided by assessed value
2.92914 =New Year Levy rare
43,000,000 Annexation assessed value
2.929 x New Year leery rate
125,953 =Annexation Levy
+Cmitted assessment le,.y
11,676,909 +Levy Ceiling ( Less annexations and cmitteds)
11,802,862=Maxim--m New Year Le,.y based on 1061 limit
+ Refund F,—.d
11,802,862 = Maxim= New Year Levy based on 106; limit + fu..d.
S:A,,rCRY l.j✓Y CALCULATION
3,986,469,219 Assessed value (excluding omits)
3.100 X maximum statutory rate
12,358,055 = Maximum 1994 levy ( Excluding Omitted Assessmt:- Ley)
+Omitted Asses=sment Levy
12,358,055 =Maximum 1994 Levy based on Starutony Levy
11,802,862 Maximum Regular 1994 levy ( the lesser of the t,,o limits)
10,684,340 Last year's Levy
(1,416,983)LESS LIBRARY CONTRACT
-----------------------
10,385,879 ADJUSTED LEVY
2.605283 ADJUSTED LEVY RATE
• New Construction per Finance Department Estimate
Ring County's current estimate is "Quite Preliminary" and probably incomplete.
Their estimate for total assessed valuation as of 10/31/94 was $3,918,340,978
including $37,285,946 in new construction. Ar. estimate of com_oleteness or
or accuracy was not available.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, fixing the tax levy
therein for the year 1995.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.52.070, cities such as the
City of Kent shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November in
each year, certify to the county assessor the amount of taxes
levied upon property within the City for City purposes, provided
that the county assessor has certified assessed values at least
twelve working days before November 30; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.52.010 and WAC 458-12-365,
taxes herein shall be levied in specific dollar amounts; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Lev . There shall be and there is hereby
levied against the property in the City of Kent, Washington, on
an assessed value of a municipal tax for the year 1995 for the
purposes and in the sums following, to wit:
A. For the General Fund, for the purpose of paying the general
expenses of municipal government:
Levy per $1,000 of
assessed valuation
Fund (estimated) Amount
General Fund 2.60529 10,385,879
B. For Voted Bond Interest and Redemption Fund, for the purpose
of paying debt service on the following projects:
Levy per $1,000 of
assessed valuation
Fund (estimated) Amount
Public Safety .15199 605,910
Senior Housing .08796 350,650
General Obligation Refunding .21902 873,133
PROVIDED: that the application of the general fund levy shall be
consistent with and not result in a tax revenue in excess of the
limitation imposed by RCW 84.55.010.
2
Section 2. City Administration shall administer the
Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant
to RCW 35A.33.120.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force commencing January 1, 1995, which date is
more than five (5) days from and after the date of passage of
this ordinance.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED
APPROVED
PUBLISHED
day of
day of
day of
. 1994.
. 1994.
mos;ME
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 --ity of Kent as
hereon indicated.
levy.crd
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4
(SEAL)
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MCI METRO FRANCHISE ORDINANCE - FIRST READING
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance establishes a City-wide
street franchise for telephone business purposes to be granted
to MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., a subsidiary
of MCI Communications. Under State law, a franchise cannot be
passed at the same meeting in which it is introduced; this
franchise is introduced tonight for its first reading before
the Council.
3.
4
5.
R
7
NOTE: This item will be addressed by the Public Works
Committee at its meeting on Monday, November 14,
1994.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, C
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
ssion, etc.)
NO X YES
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
(no action required).
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, granting
unto MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., ("METRO"),
a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, the right,
privilege, authority and franchise for ten years, to
construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair an
underground fiber optic cable telecommunications system, in,
across, under, through and below certain designated public
rights-of-way and public properties of the City of Kent,
Washington.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Franchise Granted. The existing right-of-way
permit granted by the City of. Kent, Washington (hereinafter the
"City"), and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (hereinafter "METRO"), for utilization of
streets, avenues, rights-of-way, roads, alleys, lanes or other
public places within the City of Kent is hereby cancelled as of
1-2-92.
Pursuant to RCW 35A.47.040, the City hereby grants to METRO,
its heirs, successors, administrators, legal representatives and
assigns, subject to the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter,
a franchise for a period of ten years, commencing on the effective
date of this ordinance.
This franchise shall grant METRO the right, privilege and
authority to construct, operate, maintain, replace, and use all
necessary equipment and facilities thereto for an underground fiber
optic cable telecommunications system, in, under, on, across, or
below the public right-of-ways and public places located in the
City of Kent.
The rights and privileges granted under this franchise
shall not convey any right to METRO for the use of City -owned,
leased or operated properties outside of the franchise area
described above.
Nothing herein shall created any property richt or
interest in METRO The City reserves the right to change,_regrade,
relocate or vacate the public right-of-way, at no expense or
liability to the City. In such event METRO may be required to
relocate remove or reroute its facilities at its sole expense and
liabilitv.
Franchise privileges may be extended to newly annexe(_x
areas by the Director of Public Works upon METRO's written
application therefor; PROVIDED THAT METRO accepts all franchise
requirements and any additional conditions of such approval.
Section 2. Non -Exclusive Franchise Grant. This franchise
_s granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any
manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises
in, along, over, through, under, below or across any of said
right-of-ways, streets, avenues or all other public lands and
properties of every type and description. Such franchise shall in
no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of said roads,
streets or other public properties or affect its jurisdiction over
them or any part of them, and the City shall retain power to make
all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance,
establishment, improvement, dedication of same as the City may deem
fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and
E
improvement of all new rights -of -ways, thoroughfares and other
public properties of every type and description.
Section 3. Relocation of Fiber Optic Cable and
Telecommunications System Facilities. METRO agrees and covenants
at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily
disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its
installations when so required by the City by reason of traffic
conditions or public safety, dedications of new right-of-ways and
the establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction,
change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any
public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting
in a governmental capacity, provided that METRO shall in all such
cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized
portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section
of cable required to be temporarily disconnected or removed.
If the City determines that the project necessitates the
relocation of METRO's then existing facilities, the City shall:
a) At least sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of
such improvement project, provide METRO with written notice
requiring such relocation; and
b) Provide METRO with copies of pertinent portions of
the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a
proposed location for METRO's facilities so that METRO may relocate
its facilities in other City right-of-way in order to accommodate
such improvement project.
c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and
specifications, METRO shall complete relocation of its facilities
at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the
3
improvement project at least ten (10) days prior to commencement of
the project.
METRO may, after receipt of written notice requesting
a relocation of its facilities, submit to the City written
alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such
alternatives and advise METRO in writing if one or more of the
alternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would
otherwise necessitate relocation of the facilities. If so
requested by the City, METRO shall submit additional information to
assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give
each alternative proposed by METRO full and fair consideration. In
the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other
reasonable alternative, METRO shall relocate its facilities as
otherwise provided in this Section.
The provisions of this Section shall in no manner preclude
or restrict METRO from making any arrangements it may deem
appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its
facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the
facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or
will not become City -owned, operated or maintained facilities,
provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City
construction project.
The City reserves the right to limit or exclude METRO's
access to a specific route public right-of-way or location when,
in the reasonable judgment of the Director of Public Works there
is inadequate space a pavement cutting moratorium unnecessary
damage to public property, public expense, inconvenience,
interference with City utilities or in the event of other
reasonable cause.
N
Section 4. METRO's Maps and Records. As a condition of
this franchise, METRO shall provide to the City at no cost, a copy
of its current as built plans, maps and records of its fiber optic
cable system and facilities as they exist on the date of this
franchise agreement in the City. All such as built plans, maps and
records will be available to the City upon request.
Section 5. No Obstruction. METRO will not obstruct,
hinder, damage or otherwise interfere with any City facility or
installation including City utility fixtures, or other authorized
uses of the public right-of-way. Except where otherwise authorized
in writing METRO shall maintain a minimum underground horizontal
separation of five (5) feet from City water facilities and ten (10)
feet from above -ground City water facilities; PROVIDED, THAT, for
development in new areas, the City, together with METRO and other
utility purveyors will develop and follow the City's determination
of a consensus for guidelines and procedures for determining
specific utility locations, subject to this franchise.
The Director of Public Works may determine, in the
exercise of reasonable discretion when and where reasonable
accommodation shall be made by METRO to the City for public needs
or, where requested, other third party needs, how such
accommodation should be made, and a reasonable apportionment of any
expenses of the same; PROVIDED, however, that this franchise
creates no third party beneficial interests or rights to require
such accommodation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it remains the
responsibility of METRO to anticipate and avoid conflicts with
other right-of-way occupants or users, other utilities,
franchisees, or permittees. The Citv assumes no responsibility for
such conflicts or errors.
5
Section 6. Excavations. During any period of relocation
or maintenance, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected
and used in such places and positions within said public right-of-
ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as
possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of
adjoining property, and METRO shall at all times post and maintain
proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety regulations
during such period of construction as required by the ordinances of
the City or the laws of the State of Washington, including RCW
39.04.180 for the construction of trench safety systems.
Whenever METRO shall excavate in any public right-of-way
or other public property for the purpose of installation, con-
struction, repair, maintenance or relocation of its cable or
equipment, it shall apply to the City for a permit to do so and
shall give the City at least three (3) working days notice thereof.
In no case shall any work commence within any public right-of-way
or other public property without a permit, except as otherwise
provided in this franchise ordinance. During the progress of the
work, METRO shall not unnecessarily obstruct the passage or proper
use of the right-of-way, and shall file as built plans or maps with
the City showing the proposed and final location of the cable.
If either the City or METRO shall at any time plan to make
excavations in any area covered by this franchise and as described
in this section, the party planning such excavation shall afford
the other, upon receipt of a written request to do so, an
opportunity to share such excavation, PROVIDED THAT: (1) such
joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party
causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be
arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to
I
both parties; and (3) either party may deny such request for safety
reasons.
Section 7. Undergroundina. It is especially found and
determined by the City that the general public necessity,
convenience, health, safety and welfare require that electrical or
communication facilities be constructed underground in an orderly
manner in accordance with the requirements specified in Kent City
Code Chapter 7.10.
Section 8. Restoration after Construction. METRO shall,
after abandonment approved under Section 11 herein, or
installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair of
cable/facilities within the franchise area, restore the surface of
the right-of-way or public property to at least the condition same
was in immediately prior to any such installation, construction,
relocation, maintenance or repair. All concrete encased monuments
which have been disturbed or displaced by such work shall be
restored pursuant to all federal, state and local standards and
specifications. METRO agrees to promptly complete all restoration
work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work to the
franchise area or other affected area at its sole cost and expense.
Section 9. Emergency Work -- Permit Waiver. In the event
of any emergency in which any facilities located in or under any
street, breaks, are damaged, or if METRO's construction area is
otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the
property, life, health or safety of any individual, METRO shall
immediately take the proper emergency measures to repair its
facilities, to cure or remedy the dangerous conditions for the
protection of property, life, health or safety of individuals
without first applying for and obtaining a permit as required by
7
this franchise. However, this shall not relieve METRO from the
requirement of obtaining any permits necessary for this purpose,
and METRO shall apply for all such permits not later than the next
succeeding day during which the Kent City Hall is open for
business.
Section 10. Dangerous Conditions Authority for City to
Abate. Whenever construction, installation or excavation of
facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed
to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral
support of the adjoining street or public place, or endangers the
public, an adjoining public place, street utilities or City
property, the Public Works Director may direct METRO, at METRO's
own expense, to take actions to protect the public, adjacent public
places, City property or street utilities; and such action may
include compliance within a prescribed time.
In the event that METRO fails or refuses to promptly take
the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with
such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require
immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take
such actions as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent
streets, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support
thereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and
METRO shall be liable to the City for the costs thereof.
Section 11. Recovery of Costs. METRO shall pay a filing
fee for the City's administrative costs in drafting and processing
this franchise agreement and all work related thereto. METRO shall
further be subject to all permit fees associated with activities
undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise
ordinance or under the laws of the City. Where the City incurs
9
costs and expenses for review, inspection or supervision of
activities undertaken through the authority granted in this
franchise or any ordinances relating to the subject for which a
permit fee is not established, METRO shall pay such costs and
expenses directly to the City. In addition to the above, METRO
shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all costs it
reasonably incurs in response to any emergency involving METRO's
cable and facilities.
Section 12. City's Reservation of Rights. Pursuant to
Section 35.21.860 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City
is precluded from imposing a franchise fee on a telephone business
as defined in RCW 82.04.065, except for administrative expenses or
any tax authorized by RCW 35.21.865. METRO hereby warrants that
its operations as authorized under this franchise are those of a
telephone business as defined in RCW 82.04.065. As a result, the
City will not impose a franchise fee under the terms of this
ordinance, other than as described herein.
However, the City hereby reserves its right to impose a
franchise fee on METRO for purposes other than to recover its
administrative expenses or taxing, if METRO's operations as
authorized by this franchise change so that not all uses of the
franchise are those of a "telephone business" as defined in RCW
82.04.065; or, if statutory prohibitions on the imposition of such
fees are removed. In the former instance, the City reserves its
right to require that METRO obtain a separate franchise for its
change in use, which franchise may include provisions intended to
regulate METRO's operations, as allowed under applicable law.
Section 13. Indemnification. METRO hereby releases,
covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and
G
hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and
representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards
or liability to any person, including claims by METRO's own
employees to which METRO might otherwise be immune under Title 51
RCW, arising from injury or death of any person or damage to
property of which the negligent acts or omissions of METRO, its
agents, servants, officers or employees in performing this
franchise are the proximate cause. METRO further releases,
covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and all
claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person
(including claims by METRO's own employees, including those claims
to which METRO might otherwise have immunity under Title 51 RCW)
arising against the City solely by virtue of the City's ownership
or control of the rights-of-way or other public properties, by
virtue of METRO's exercise of the rights granted herein, or b,M
virtue of the City's permitting METRO's use of the City's
rights-of-way or other public property based upon the inspection or
lack of inspection of work performed by METRO, its agents and
servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized
on the City's property or property over which the City has control,
pursuant to this franchise or pursuant to any other permit or
approval issued in connection with this franchise. This covenant
of indemnification shall include, but not be limited by this
reference, claims against the City arising as a result of the
negligent acts or omissions of METRO, its agents, servants,
officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety
systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation,
construction, or work in any public right-of-way or other public
place in performance of work or services permitted under this
franchise.
10
......... ....................... .
Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed
by METRO at the time of completion of construction shall not be
grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification.
Said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are
not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior
to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any
litigation.
In the event that METRO refuses the tender of defense in
any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the
indemnification clauses contained herein, and said refusal is
subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such
other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),
to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of METRO, then METRO
shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action,
including all reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable
attorneys' fees and the reasonable costs of the City, including
reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this indemnification
clause.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that
this franchise agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the
event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to
persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the
concurrent negligence of METRO and the City, its officers,
employees and agents, METRO's liability hereunder shall be only to
the extent of METRO's negligence. It is further specifically and
expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein
constitutes METRO's waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW, solely
for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been
mutually negotiated by the parties.
11
The provisions of this Section shall survive the
expiration or termination of this franchise agreement.
Section 14. Insurance. METRO shall procure and maintain
for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or
in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and
authority granted hereunder to METRO, its agents, representatives
or employees. METRO shall provide a copy of such insurance policy
to the City for its inspection prior to the adoption of this
franchise ordinance, and such insurance shall evidence:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less
than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage; and
2. Commercial General Liability insurance policy
written on an occurrence basis with limits no less
than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence
and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily
injury and property damage. Coverage shall include
but not be limited to: blanket contractual;
products/completed operations; broad form property;
explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and
Employer's Liability.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. Payment of deductible or
self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of METRO.
The insurance obtained by METRO shall name the City, its
officers, employees and volunteers as insureds with regard to
12
activities performed by or on behalf of METRO. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. In
addition, the insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that
coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim
is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of
the insurer's liability. METRO's insurance shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of
METRO's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The insurance
policy or polices required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the
policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
Section 15. Abandonment of METRO's Cable or
Telecommunication System Facilities. No cable, section of cable or
facility laid in the street by METRO may be abandoned by METRO
without the express written consent of the City. Any plan for
abandonment or removal of METRO's cable and facilities must be
first approved by the Public Works Director, and all necessary
permits must be obtained prior to such work.
Section 16. Bond. Before undertaking any of the work,
installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or
maintenance authorized by this franchise, METRO shall, upon the
13
request of the City, furnish a bond executed by METRO and a
corporate surety authorized to do a surety business in the State of
Washington, in a sum to be set and approved by the Director of
Public Works as sufficient to ensure performance of METRO's
obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so
that METRO shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions
and faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise,
and to erect or replace any defective work or materials discovered
in the replacement of the City's streets or property within a
period of two years from the date of the replacement and acceptance
of such repaired streets by the City.
Section 17. Modification. The City and METRO hereby
reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and
conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties
to such alteration, amendment or modification.
Section 18. Forfeiture and Revocation. If METRO
willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of
this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails
to heed or comply with any notice given METRO by the City under the
provisions of this franchise and after providing notice and an
opportunity to cure as provided below, then the Kent City Council
may terminate this franchise after a hearing held upon reasonable
notice to METRO. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and
without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and
remedies, to obtain an order from the superior court having
jurisdiction compelling METRO to comply with the provisions of this
Ordinance and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by
reason of METRO's failure to comply. If METRO shall fail to comply
with the provisions of this Franchise, the City may serve upon
METRO a written order to so comply within sixty (60) days from the
14
date such order is received by METRO. If METRO is not in
compliance with this Franchise after expiration of said sixty (60)
day period, the City may, by ordinance, declare an immediate
termination of this Franchise, provided however, if any failure to
comply with this Franchise by METRO cannot be corrected with due
diligence within said sixty (60) day period (METRO's obligation to
comply and to proceed with due diligence being subject to
unavoidable delays and events beyond its control), then the time
within which METRO may so comply shall be extended for such time as
may be reasonably necessary and so long as METRO commences promptly
and diligently to effect such compliance.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance,
this franchise creates, and the City acknowledges, no obligation to
make anV paVment to METRO or award in condemnation, except to the
extent the State of Washington and United States Constitutions or
state or federal laws may independently require. This franchise
does not create vested rights or confer property of any value so as
to create the basis for a claim of encroachment, infringement, or
any other claim for compensation by METRO against the City,
including claims for any municipal revision, action, inaction,
curtailment, suspension, revocation, or change in municipal policy
or regulation.
Section 19. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition
to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to
pursue any remedy to compel or force METRO and/or its successors
and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any
right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from
thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the
conditions herein.
15
Section 20. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to
adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances
regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise,
including any reasonable ordinance made in the exercise of its
police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare
of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to
control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and
manner of construction and maintenance of any fiber optic cable or
cable facilities by METRO, and METRO shall promptly conform with
all such regulations, unless compliance would cause METRO to
violate other requirements of law.
Section 21. Cost of Publication. The cost of the
publication of this Ordinance shall be borne by METRO.
Section 22. Acceptance. After the passage and approval
of this Ordinance and within sixty days after such approval, this
franchise shall be accepted by METRO by its filing with the City
Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of
METRO to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall
be deemed a rejection thereof by METRO, and the rights and
privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the sixty
day period, absolutely cease and determine, unless the time period
is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose.
Section 23. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions
and requirements of Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this franchise
shall be in addition to any and all other 'obligations and
liabilities METRO may have to the City at common law, by statute,
or by contract, and shall survive the City's franchise to METRO for
the use of the areas mentioned in Section 1 herein, and any
16
renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions, conditions,
regulations and requirements contained in this franchise Ordinance
shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, legal representatives and assigns of METRO and all
privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of METRO
shall inure to its heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they
were specifically mentioned wherever METRO is named herein.
Section 24. Severability• If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this franchise Ordinance.
- Section 25. Assignment. This agreement may not be
assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City,
except METRO may freely assign this Agreement in whole or in part
to a parent, subsidiary, or affiliated corporation or as part of
any corporate reorganization or refinancing. METRO shall provide
written notice to the City of any such assignment.
Section 26. Notice. Any notice or information required
or permitted to be given to the parties under this franchise
agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise
specified:
City of Kent
Director of Public Works
300 West Gowe
Kent, WA 98032
17
Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc.
2250 Lakeside Boulevard
Richardson, Texas 75082
MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc.
Office of General Counsel
2400 N. Glenville Drive
Richardson, Texas 75082
Section 27. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days after its
passage eerien, ha�vjng after first been being submitted to the
Kent City Attorney, hav===�be-e-n and after being granted by the
approving vote of at least a majority of the City Council at a
regular meeting and after introduction on November 15. 1994, and
after haueen being published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Kent, and remain in force and
effect for ten ears thereafter• PROVIDED THAT it shall not b;_
effective unless and until the written acceptance of this ordinance
by METRO signed by its appropriate officers shall be filed with
the City Clerk prior to January 13 1995_
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
1V
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1994.
APPROVED the day of
PUBLISHED the day of
. 1994.
. 1994.
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
i
indicated.
metro.ord
19
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 15, 1994
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AN -94-7 - 10% PETITION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: A petition has been received from the
initiators of the Meridian Annexation, an area of approximately
3,200 acres located adjacent to existing City boundaries on the
west, SE 240th on the north, Soos Creek on the east and SE
288th on the south. Staff recommends that the Council accept
the 10% annexation petition and authorize circulation of the
60% petition, subject to the City's existing indebtedness.
3.
4
5
0
7.
EXHIBITS: Staff report, vicinity maps, Notice of Intention to
Commence
RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
to accept the 10% Meri
circulation of the 60%
indebtedness.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
YES
Councilmember seconds
tion petition and authorize
subject to the City's existing
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
. KENT
MEMO TO
FROM:
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 9, 1994
MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO
COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FROM OWNERS AND NO
PROTEST ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS OF NOT LESS THAN 10%
IN VALUE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT -TO KENT (AN -94-7)
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1994 AT 7:00 PM IN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS WEST AT KENT CITY HALL
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council accept the loo annexation
petition and recommends that the Council authorize
circulation of the 601; petition subject to the City's existing
indebtedness.
I. Names of Applicant
Lake Meridian Options Committee
II. Location
The proposed annexation is located adjacent to Kent's eastern
boundary and generally extends to Soos Creek in the Lake
Meridian area.
III. Size of Proposed Annexation
✓ The proposed annexation is 5.9 square miles (3,776 acres) in
size.
IV. Background Information
V/ It
estimated population in the Meridian Annexation is 18,000.
It is estimated through the Growth Management Act that
approximately 3,500 dwelling units will be built in the
annexation area in the next 20 years (out of an estimated
MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
November 9, 1994
5,000 to 7,000 dwelling units that will be built in the Soos
Creek Plateau portion of Kent's potential annexation area in
the next 20 years).
V. Countv Comprehensive Plan and Zonin
The County's recently adopted Soos Creek Plan designates most
of the Meridian annexation area as S -R Suburban Residential 4-
7 dwelling units per acre. There is a GR -2.5 (Growth Reserve
1 unit per 2.5 acres) area lying between 116th Avenue SE and
132nd Avenue SE and between SE 240th Street and SE 256th
Street and another such area adjacent to Highway 18 and north
of SE 288th Street. There is a GR -5-P area (Growth Reserve,
1 unit per 5 acres, which reverts to SC Suburban Cluster, 1
unit per acre on December 31, 1994) east of 132 Avenue SE and
south of Kent Kingly Road.
Commercial and multifamily residential are indicated land uses
at 132nd Avenue SE and Kent Kingly Road and at 152nd Avenue SE
and Kent Kingly Road. These commercial and multifamily areas
are mostly developed at this time.
VI. Kent's East Hill Plan and Zoning
Kent's East Hill Plan covers this area and anticipates mostly
4 to six dwelling units per acre. Commercial is indicated at
J 132nd Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road and at 152nd Avenue SE
and Kent Kingly Road. Small multifamily areas are planned for
around the commercial nodes. This plan is very similar to the
existing Soos Creek plan.
Kent' proposed plan now being heard by the Kent Planning
Commission, is very similar to the existing East Hill Plan and
the Soos Creek Plan.
The major land use component of all of these plans is medium
density single family residential.
Kent's zoning for the area westerly of the proposed annexation
is primarily R-1-7.2 and R-1-9.6, single family residential
7,200 and 9,600 square foot minimum lots. The Meridian
annexation will have an interim zoning of R1-20 upon
annexation; final zoning will be applied within 6 months of
annexation.
2
MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
November 9, 1994
VII. Impacts to City Operations
The Meridian annexation will have an obvious impact on City
services since the annexation area's population is almost half
again as large as the existing City population (43,741) and
the geographical area is almost 1/3 the size of the current
City (19.5 square miles).
City Departments have been ask to estimate the on going
impacts of the annexation on their operations; these estimates
have been reviewed by Administration and are listed below:
EXPENDITURES
General Government
Court
Finance
Utility Billing
Planning
Health & Human Svs
Debt Service
Police
Public Works
Streets
Engineering
Drainage Utility
Street Improvements
Leisure Services
Parks Maintenance
$2.00 for the Arts 36,000 189,21536,000
Youth Programs
Park Improvements 50,000 12,684 18,684
50,000
----------------------------------------------------------
39 2,169,095 100,000 677,148 275,327 208,956 17,589 255,779 3,744,894
------------------------------------------------------------
2,178,931 112,135 681,890 275,327 102,025 17,589 295,779 3,664,676 i
-------------------------------------------------------------------
9,636 12,135 4,742 0 (106,931) 0 0 (80,218)
Criminal
General CIP Street Justice Storm Dr. Water Cther
FTE Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
2 149,142
1 51,250
1 5,642
4 265,073
300,218
21 1,178,197 25,000 275.327
2
1
2
5 189,215
25,000 155,506
116,000
400,000
9,956 17,589
199,000
149,142
51,250
33,187
265,073
300,218
278,095 278,095
1,478,524
180,506
116,000
199,000
400,000
Total Expenditures ✓
Total Revenues V
Net impact
3
MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
November 9, 1994
VIII.Financial Information
/ The assessed valuation in the Meridian annexation area is
$573,384,458.
The total estimated revenue from the annexation area is
estimated to be $3,664,676.
The total estimated expenditure for City services in the
annexation area is $3,744,894 (this figure does not include
street capital projects).
IX. Estimated Property Tax
Home Value Kent Property Tax King County Property Tax
$200,000 $2,959.26 $3,028.50
X. City Annexation Policies
In 1987 the City Council adopted policies that deal with
annexations (Resolution 1150). A review of those policies
indicates that the Meridian annexation satisfies their intent.
JPH/mp:a:meridian.l
0
m
C)
r
n
r
A
0
0
0
It
t1i
Lt
a
In
Z
MAIL TO:
City of Kent
Property Management
220 4th Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032
Reference: Meridian Annexation Attn: Carol Storm.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COM-14ENCE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
NAME OF PETITIONER: 7 �041 6 t A 13 VUt� PY-LO�
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
We, the undersigned, constituting the owners of not less than
10% in value, according to the assessed valuation for general
taxation of the property contiguous to the City of Kent for which
annexation is to be petitioned do hereby notify you of our
intention to commence annexation proceedings seeking the annexation
of the following described property to the City of Kent, by
circulating a petition therefore among the property owners of said
area.
The territory proposed to be annexed is within. King County,
Washington, and described as follows:
Refer to Exhibit "A" attached and made a part hereto.
nmmp
O C T 3 1 19911
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
ABOVE OR ATTACHED DESCRIPTION
NOT TO BE USED FOR LEGAL OR ORDINANCE PURPOSES
WHEREFORE, these initiating parties respectfully request the
Honorable Council to set a date for a meeting with these initiating
parties within 60 days from the date of filing this notice to
determine whether the City of Kent will accept the proposed
annexation, and whether it shall require the assumption of existing
City indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
1,1592
PRINT NAME & ADDRESS IN INK
SIGN WITH PROPER SIGNATURE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT, BLOCK & PLAT OR TAX LOT
I �ONnks A. pr��%�r�o� S `1G72�- 0005 --off
2Csos-/v��� SF ��eyL 4�� sgaY2
CLERK
PRINT NAME & ADDRESS IN INK
SIGN WITH PROPER SIGNATURE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT, BLOCK & PLAT OR TAX LOT
/-Z/c�
s 2 f3 —
C� z z z cu�- 9it y6 – d 8
Os'- 9017 – oz
3 1 i }
NT-
CIN CLERK
Exhibit ."A"
Those portions of Sections, 21, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35 all
in Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington; including any recorded plats and unrecorded plats and
any rights-of-way lying therein; described as follows:
The northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5
East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof
lying within Southeast 240th Street; AND ALSO the northeast quarter
of said Section 21, EXCEPT the east half thereof, AND EXCEPT any
portion thereof lying within Southeast 240th Street and 132nd
Avenue Southeast; AND ALSO all of the southwest quarter of said
Section 21, AND ALSO all of the southeast quarter of said Section
21, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in 132nd Avenue Southeast; AND
ALSO the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range
5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT those portions
lying within Kent City Limits established under Ordinances 1.874 and
3171; AND ALSO all of the northeast quarter of said Section 28; AND
ALSO the southwest quarter of said Section 28, EXCEPT that portion
lying within Kent City Limits established under Ordinance 3171; AND
ALSO the southeast quarter of said Section 28.; .AND ALSO the
southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township
22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT
that portion lying within Kent City Linits established under
Ordinance 3171; AND ALSO the south half of the northeast quarter of
said Section 32; AND ALSO the northwest quarter AND the northeast
quarter of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in
King County, Washington together with any rights-of-way lying
adjacent thereto; AND ALSO the north 164.44 feet of the northwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 33; AND ALSO the
north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of
said Section 33, together with any rights-of-way lying adjacent
thereto; AND ALSO the north half of the north half of the southeast
quarter of said Section 33, together with any rights-of-way lying
adjacent thereto; AND ALSO all of Section 27, Township 22 North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion
thereof lying in Southeast 256th Street; AND ALSO all of Section
34, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington, together with that portion of 132nd Avenue Southeast
lying adjacent thereto; EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in
Southeast 288th Street; AND ALSO that portion of the northwest
quarter of Section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in
King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of Big Soos Creek,,
EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in Southeast 256th Street; AND
ALSO that portion of the southwest quarter of said' Section 261
lying southwesterly of Big Soos Creek; AND ALSO that portion of the
southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 26,
lying southwesterly of Big Soos Creek; AND ALSO all of the
northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 5 East,
SCA nDH P2 mm Legal Description continued...
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
W.M., in King County, Washington;
northeast quarter of said Section
Creek; AND ALSO that portion of
southeast quarter of said Section
Creek; AND ALSO the west half of
Section 35, AND ALSO that portion
southwest quarter of said Section
State Highway No. 2.
n E g N � N E M
OCT "I 1 ;991f
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
SCA
AND ALSO that portion of the
351 lying westerly of Big Soos
the northwest quarter of the
35 lying westerly of Big Soos
the southwest quarter of said
of the northeast quarter of the
35, lying northerly of Primary
HEg��r,,
�NU
OCT 3 1 199't
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
C./
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ November 15, 1994
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN WHEELCHAIR RAMP IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this project was held on
November 9th with 3 bids received. The low bid was submitted
by Gary Merlino Construction in the amount of $51,100 including
tax. The Engineer's estimate was $67,844.00. 51,100
The project consists of retrofitting existing sidewalks at
intersections with new cement concrete wheelchair ramps,
relocating catch basins, street signs, removing existing trees
and other miscellaneous construction. There are 21 intersec-
tions and a total of 52 wheelchair ramps./
3. EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Dire for
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, C(*mission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: R33 S
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember�IMUAV moved, QQurfc!-3 er � s—
that the Downtown Wheelchair Ramps Improvements Phase II
contract be aw rded to Gary Merlino Construction for the bid
amount of $
DISCUSSION:
ACTION • or�d A k- (,rm
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
w
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMM
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
CITY OF J_Q� tl' 1T
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
October 18, 1994 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
Planning Staff
Margaret Porter
Kevin O'Neill
Fred Satterstrom
City Attorney's Office
Roger Lubovich
Other City Staff
Other Guests
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (Fred Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom updated the Committee on the
progress of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not expected to be
brought before the City Council for at least a couple of months.
The Planning Commission has held three public hearings. They have
inventoried all the public testimony, comments, and letters and
have been deliberating on these issues meeting regularly two times
per month. After the Capital Facilities and the Transportation
elements are brought before the Planning Commission, which are not
finished yet, it is anticipated the final public hearing may be
November 28, 1994.
Manager Satterstrom reported the Public Works Department will be
presenting the Transportation Plan at the October 18th meeting
under Public Communications. Since there is no backup material in
the Council agenda packet, Mr. Satterstrom said the Planning
Department is hoping for a copy of the written report. If the
information is not provided, the deliberation meetings will cease
until this material is provided to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Satterstrom reported a letter was sent to the State over 60
days ago about the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner
Kevin O'Neill stated the requirement says a City must notify GMA at
least 60 days prior to notification and they are suppose to respond
back to us within this 60 -day period. As of October •18,1994, no
response letter has been received. Mr. O'Neill stated his
impression from the State is that the City's Comprehensive Plan is
pretty good.
RATIFICATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE_ PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom
Mr. Satterstrom reported the Countywide Planning Policies were
recommended to the King County Growth Management Planning (GMA)
Council on May 25, 1995. The Metro King County Council adopted
them on August 15, 1994 with some revisions. Mr. Satterstrom
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 2
stated the City has ninety days to act on ratification. Again, he
said if the City does not act to approve or disapprove the
Countywide Planning Policies, the City will be assumed to have
ratified them.
He passed out the same three-page document that was distributed at
the last meeting regarding the impacts to the Planning Department's
work program. Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. O'Neill presented
information on the four(4) main issues on the work program:
1. Population and employment target issues (K. O'Neill)
Mr. O'Neill reminded the Committee that about a year ago the
Committee discussed this issue and the City Council adopted
population and employment targets to comply with Phase I of
the Countywide Planning Policies. This was needed in order to
prepare a land use plan. These adopted targets are what is
reflected in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Since then, as
referenced in the table in Appendix II, the GMPC have changed
the target numbers to ranges with a high and a low for both
households and jobs. The State has raised some concerns about
this idea. It is possible allowing for too much growth is
just as not in compliance as allowing not enough. The concern
is that if a City goes with a range and cities shoot for the
high end of the range, a City would be targeting greater
population according to the County but according to the Office
of Financial. Management the figure would be lower. It is
possible the State may raise an issue with the County. Also,
each city was asked to do a target for its existing city
limits. The city limits of Kent are pretty dynamic right now,
and it is something Kevin asked the Council to think about.
Perhaps the next amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be
addressing this issue.
2. Urban growth area (K. O'Neill)
Mr. O'Neill stated the central issue the GMPC was dealing with
in May 1994 was how big this boundary should be. A couple of
things occurred that the City possibly should be concerned
about and should be addressing if a letter of ratification is
done. One concern is the idea that someone can urbanize rural
land if an exchange is made for every acre that is developed,
four(4) acres need to be dedicated for public open space. Mr.
O'Neill said he thinks if there is a hearings board challenge
to the urban growth area boundary, this idea could be thrown
out because it allows for potentially unknown amounts of rural
land being urbanized in the next 20 years.
Secondly, the other concern is what the Metropolitan King
County Council can do with this idea once they get this
information from the GMPC.
One item that the amended Phase II policies say is that the
Metropolitan King County Council may make minor technical
changes not to exceed 300 acres to the urban growth area
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 3
recommended by the GMPC. It is unclear if this is a one-time
change of 300 acres or if this is a series of changes. This
language would allow the Metropolitan King County Council to
make unilateral changes to the already GMPC policies that have
been setup during the GMPC process.
Also, another language change occurred by the King County
Council after the policies came back from the GMPC. This is
stated in Ordinance No. 11446 on page 19 (underlined): "Urban
Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be
designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted.
This includes Countywide establishment of a policy planning
boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall
establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide
Planning Policies which are to used as a framework for the
adoption of the 1994 Metropolitan King County Comprehensive
Plan." Mr. O'Neill stated he interprets this to mean that the
GMPC will take Kent's recommendation as a framework but the
Metropolitan King County Council has the final authority on
what the UGA map will really look like.
3. Center Designations (F.Satterstrom
Mr. Satterstrom again mentioned Kent was selected as one of
the 14 urban centers (all 14 submitted were selected). The
ultimate policies of the County are two tier. Fred said it is
an advantage in keeping the urban center designation rather
than withdrawing it, even though Kent's Comprehensive Plan is
going the route of a mixed used approach. Fred quoted
language in policies on page 34: "Two approaches are used to
set guidelines and track the growth of Urban Centers. First,
the Countywide Planning Policies establish levels of
households and jobs needed to achieve the benefits of an Urban
Center. Some Urban Centers will reach these levels over the
next twenty years, while for others the criteria set a path
for growth over a longer term and provide capacity to
accommodate growth beyond the 20 year horizon." Basically,
some will attain it in the next twenty years, some are already
there, and some will attain the growth beyond 20 years and
will set a path for growth. This language covers the existing
centers and the emerging centers, which Kent falls in the
emerging category. However, with the above policy statement,
Mr. Satterstrom thinks Kent can have both because the urban
center designation will be emerging over the next 20 years.
Also, Kent will be able to participate in the regional pot for
infrastructure, capital facilities, or public improvements
that might benefit urban centers.
4. Manufacturina/Industrial Center designation (F. Satterstrom)
Mr. Satterstrom reported the GMPC confirmed the following
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and
Ballard/Interbay in Seattle, and the Kent Industrial Area.
Fred remarked it is hard to tell what the benefits of being a
manufacturing center will be. The policies give the
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 4
impression that these areas will be favored in regards to
transit, regional infrastructure, grants or monies, economic
development, and fiscal incentives, but it is undefined as of
yet. Kent's nomination was a "can't lose" approach because
the City already has an area that meets the criteria (i.e.
10,000 employees and an area zoned) for an industrial center.
One of the main objectives of an industrial center designation
is to limit non -industrial uses, under the theory that it's
hard to find industrial sites in King County. It would be
even harder if cities opened up manufacturing zones to
commercial or non -industrial uses that could pay more for the
land. Then, industrial uses would have to keep moving out of
King County. Kent already has zoning for M1, M2, and M3,
about 4,500 acres of it that already excludes most of the non-
industrial uses. Mr. Satterstrom added that the Comprehensive
Plan proposal only includes the M2 and M3 zones.
Mr. Satterstrom stated he is recommending the Planning Committee's
endorsement of the Countywide Planning Policies and to forward this
item to the full Council. Additional concerns were brought up
again about the adopted 1987 Federal Manual for Wetlands versus the
1989 manual, which the Countywide Planning Policies have adopted.
City Attorney Lubovich expressed concern too. He was asked by
Chair Orr to contact King County to get some answers. After these
questions to this issue are answered, Chair Orr recommended the
Committee hold a special meeting on November 1, 1994 and to forward
this item to the full Council on November 15, 1994.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
mp:c:pco1018.min
ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Comittee Minutes of 11/x/94
IMPACTS OF COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
ON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM
Development regulations
"All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement
the countywide planning policies and their respective comprehensive
plans through development regulations. (December 1994 target date)
Comprehensive Plan amendment
"All jurisdictions shall amend comprehensive plans as needed by
July 1995 to be consistent with adopted and ratified Phase I1
amendments." p. 7
Household and Employment targets
"Each jurisdiction shall report to the GMPC or its successor the
household and employment targets adopted in its comprehensive plan,
and the estimated capacity..." p. 7
"Jurisdictions containing Urban and/or Manufacturing Centers shall
report household and employment target ranges both for Centers and
areas outside Centers... and... shall evaluate the availability of
infrastructure ... to ensure that capacity is available to
accommodate a six-year estimate of ... arowth." p. 7
"The GMPC or its successor shall establish a growth management
monitoring advisory committee which shall recommend information to
be reported annually to serve as indicators and benchmarks for
growth management policies." p. 8
"The GMPC or its successor shall establish a Land Capacity Task
Force to accomplish the work program prepared in April 1994." P. 8
Minimum density ordinance
"All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt minimum density
ordinances and review and, where appropriate, remove regulatory
barriers to accessory dwelling units and manufactured homes c-_
individual lots ... (within one month of ratification) p. 12
Environmental nrotection
"King County shall establish a technical committee by January 199 -:-
to ... evaluate
995to...evaluate and comment upon new development regulations proposes
by jurisdictions..." p. 16
Designation of potential annexation areas
"In collaboration with adjacent cities and King County, ...eac=
city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potentia_
annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential
annexation areas shall not overlap." p. 29
Coordination with other jurisdictions
"All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive
plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions anc
ATTACHMENT A - to Planing Committee Minutes of 1.0/._6/94
with the countywide planning policies." p. 30
Urban and Manufacturing Centers
Within designated manufacturing and Industrial Centers, fast -trach
permitting shall be implemented. p. 33
Urban Centers
Should the City of Kent maintain its Urban Center designation, a
number of tasks will need to be accomplished, including:
1. Establish targets for population and employment growth
within the Center and monitor achievement of these
targets
2. Infrastructure and services shall be planned and financed
consistent with the expected rate of growth
3. The City shall identify transit station right-of-way in
their plans and reserve right-of-way and potential
station sites
4. Strategies for land assembly shall be established
5. Establish a streamlined permit process and simplified
administrative appeal process
6. Establish a zoning bonus program pp. 34-37
Manufacturina/Industrial Centers
Should the City of Kent maintain its designation_ as a Manufacturing
Center a number of tasks will need to be completed, including:
1. Develop a plan to preserve and encourage accregation of
vacant parcels for manufacturing use
2. Identify transit station areas and right-of-way and
preserve these sites
3. Conduct detailed SEPA review to minimize site specific
environmental review for projects pp. 38-40
Activity areas
"To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish minimum
and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the
single -occupant vehicle (in activity centers). p. 42
Infill develoument
"All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design
processes to encourage infill development and enhance community
character and mix of uses." p. 45
Transportation
There are a number of tasks related to transportation planning,
including coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, setting of LOS
standards between and among jurisdictions, and integrating
pedestrian and bicycle systems with transit and motorized vehicle
systems. While these tasks are not the principal work of the
Planning Department, they will involve considerable coordination
and work with several city departments, including Planning.
Historic resources
"All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to
identify, :evaluate, and protect historic resources includinc
ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Committee Minutes of 10/1.8/94
continued and consistent protection for historic resources and
public art works." p.53
Offen space
"All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect
open space corridors of regional significance." p. 54
Affordable housing
"Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing county -wide
housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low
and moderate income households who currently do not have
affordable, appropriate housing." p. 57
Jurisdictions shall revise "land use regulations as needed to
remove any unreasonable requirements that may create barriers to
siting and operating housing for special needs groups." p. 58
"All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within
their jurisdiction and determine the total number of new and
redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing
types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential
growth." p. 60
Economic development
"Jurisdictions shall... monitor the land supply for commercial,
industrial, institutional, resource and resdiential uses. Local
jurisdictions shall, in five year increments, for the next 20 years
identify the amount, character, and uses of land needed to achieve
the jurisdiction's job growth goals." p. 69
J_ \.L11R X5\1 JS
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
November 1, 1994 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
Planning Staff
Chris Holden
Kevin O'Neill
Fred Satterstrom
City Attorney's Office
Laurie Evezich
Other City Staff
Other Guests
RATIFICATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager reminded the Committee the reason for this special
meeting was to obtain answers on concerns regarding the conflict
between the 1989 or 1987 Federal Manual on Wetlands. The
Countywide Planning Policies adopted by King County has chosen to
go by the 1989 manual and the City of Kent adopted the 1987 manual
in the City's wetlands ordinance.
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, responded to this concern
brought out by Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, at the last meeting
of October 18, 1994. Mr. Lubovich's concern was that if a City was
required to plan under the Growth Management Act (which is a
mandatory requirement to cities under the State statute) and the
County concomitantly has to adopt Countywide Planning Policies with
which the City is required to be consistent, then there may be
conflict. Roger's concern was that there may still be a problem
even if there is a difference between a policy and an ordinance and
a city's ordinance has more weight and authority than a policy.
This is because the City's ability to enforce our ordinance may
somehow be preempted by State law.
Laurie researched this issue and she believes this is an untenable
argument and explained she doesn't think it is anything the City
needs to worry about and she explained why. She discussed this
issue with Mr. Lubovich prior to the meeting. According to RCW
36.70A.210, under the heading called Countywide Planning Policies,
the requirements for adopting Countywide Planning Policies does not
even include a requirement that Countywide Planning Policies have
a critical areas component in them, it says, "cities shall adopt".
She said as far as the County taking the initiative to do this, in
a lot of different areas, the County has gone well beyond what they
were required to do.
Laurie quoted another sentence at the end of that first paragraph
which says, "nothing in this section shall be construed to alter
the land use powers of cities". She said if you take this language
and read it with the basic premise that all code cities have what
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 1994
PAGE 2
is called "section 11 powers under the Washington State
Constitution, that would be the power and authority to regulate for
the public health, safety, and welfare. She explained the City has
actually adopted policies and ordinances that are consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Growth Management Act, but in this
particular section when the City previously adopted the 1987
Manual, the City has just exercised its legislative discretion to
provide for more, or arguably a different type of protection, for
citizens than the Countywide Planning Policies. She said just
because it is different does not mean it is not consistent. This
is the key the City needs to focus on.
Nothing in the Growth Management Act requires that we adopt a
critical areas ordinance or wetlands policy that is a mirror image
of what the Countywide Planning Policies are. It simply requires
that they be consistent. Even if the City was challenged by a
citizens' group to one of the Growth Hearings Boards saying that
because we don't have the same manual, the City is not consistent
with the Countywide Planning Policies. They would have a very
difficult time proving that the 1987 Manual was scientifically not
consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. Ms. Evezich said
she does not think this should be a reason why the City should
hesitates to enforce the City's adoption of the 1987 Manual within
the City's wetlands ordinance or continue to enforce it on the
basis that it is part of the City's ordinance. Evezich concluded
with the advice that having the 1987 manual as part of our wetlands
ordinance or even adopting it as ultimately a part of our
Development regulations down the road is not inconsistent with the
Countywide Planning Policies.
Fred passed out a draft letter addressed to King County requesting
the Committee's approval that this letter accompany the Resolution.
The letter addressed two specific areas of concern in the
Countywide Planning Policies regarding Wetlands Protection and
Urban Growth Area Boundaries.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a
motion to recommend ratification of the Countywide Planning
Policies by a Resolution and to approve the letter mentioned above.
Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS•
IMPACT FEES
Chair Orr has been asked about the issue of impact fees and asked
if this item should come to this Committee. Committee members
agreed to discuss this item at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
mp:c:pcollol.min