Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/17/2008 IS 0 Rik� �,(k� key�.� '��t ;',i;,��A��i �'� ��4�';➢Rh � iq,��,F,�'r Gay . I.,,, i„a'<, Cit%wv t'_, " P111 F`A�Ili VW' q 'I f �� uun C 11 n in g 0 � f� il junel 7, 2008 g�7��ni�rtL� i�n 1 Mayor Suzette Cooke Debbie Raplee, Council President Councilmembers Elizabeth Albertson Deborah R'ahniger Tires Clark Les ThomA5 Ron Harmon KENT W A 5 H I N G T O N i City Clerk's Office i ` KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS KENT' June 17, 2008 WASH INGTON , Council Chambers MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Debbie Raplee, President Elizabeth Albertson Tim Clark Ron Harmon Deborah Ranniger Les Thomas COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Waste Management Recycling Staff 30 minutes 2. Highway 167 Hot Lane Update Tim LaPorte 30 minutes COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Kent Downtown Partnership Proclamation D. American Public Works Association Project of the Year Award E. Employee of the Month F. Public Safety Report 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2008 Performance Audit on Public Records 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve B. Payment of Bills - Approve C. 2007 Asphalt Overlay/ICON Materials Final Payment - Accept as Complete D. Non-Represented Classification and Compensation Study 2008 - Approve (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED E. Valle Communications Center Interlocal Agreement, First Y Amendment - Authorize F. Amendment to Countywide Planning Policies, Buildable Lands Report Ordinance - Adopt G. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Laser Speed Measurement Unit - Accept H. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Street Racing Emphasis Patrols - Accept 1. Washington State Law Enforcement Boating Equipment Grant - Accept J. Transportation Master Plan Ordinance - Adopt K. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Transportation Master Plan Ordinance - Adopt 7. OTHER BUSINESS None 8. BIDS None 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Acquisition B. Pending Litigation 12. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's ' Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office L in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. _ c > ° C bD 7 ° v ti c o E o 7 c O v C N WO v N U L 7 C C C a U N d C rN-. C pp L a) NU L C Q U Q E a) V. c v o ao `as u c o p c v 2 a v Y a` co ^ o o u v 'J 7 7 " 6J Q T 7 L L vGi E L O-� N C O T 3 10 • U L C T-C > T> O v O b0�. U O a�n p p-O7 O L t 7 7 ry v aJ -6 C - T L 0 "' O m vGi , '- rp U 7 _° -rU-L—L vl v o 7 y s r a v m 3 v r a N a E c = p t6 s ro— 7 S ra m v v S c v c O N U U C•� C'7. j 7 4J v E C >T U Q.� 7G v — L' Y 7 v�'i Ql C E „G_, `D • a v s v� ° 7 7T v ° E o E E v�� o a E a 7 Q bq 7 b.0 G L O O G G-° 7 C i to O c O L E `^ C— 4J O u Q ca Q C] ti Q..� T V <C d 0 rc C T_ U U =Ti '^ 7 S V E o V1 v v' LLI W o G2 E o > ° c c v n v U n 70 E v.— z ra_ Y >' v rJ C ° Y O C O> CD C O. •c O U—L N cc:� 7 v U C `^ 7 v >`yJ ro U_ O O O O L by O c U> � E 7 QvuL� Evu�s �_ �_ EEv E V E c v7� - O Yvv �UsE E o °vQv - � vw � E: ° ° : tiad a � CLC ° G u c � � E o , u 12 c o o 7 L � � v =op � o G � �Uov u � vLV � vp uv � owe YaU > o y V E u � co o CE �T Y Y v Ti o 7 ° O v E u � E v E o� > o p ry•VL c n v ��v c � C a)L)p— _ _ aci �� '.. EL v c� E !yam �� vUa EU v = c o _v c G U�°N W C 3 7 L O U v�i QJ L .' L C E O 2 7 0 6J C < U N h- C C >'C c m C L >`0- O ucv� = v � o L v3 Ka) cc- 7 �y � o � Oo G~ CC v QJ C Y T .T. U .. C 7 v S C v T3 R Z7 E 3Y > C QJ v c=L c �� v O OL �� CV C H vM E E w ti C J� QM • E� N 3 vVJ E E L > �� cam .� v v 'n-u C v > /` ° N L L Y N y ra F rn c •9 CC Q fC Q .` v T O rt3 Q.ro O O N N Q U N � E v= 3 a E '0 O O v M C i R N N m N p.UL M c-Q v o 0o c c v �. c v E E vv E E �� ' o� �'c-0 " .�0 .�. •�_ '`"" v V W v 7 v ;n Q-C O 7 7 7 'r 0 0 0 V� E 0J L N Y L (O v C cC v N v L ra L L O E�O L N v 0 0 ° O L U y >s L O O G v N v N v rt3 N E N 7 O 3 O U vU o �V « nF .0 V OQ� a Qw�awF=� c.cn aco� v 1 0 E 7 0zz v O • EEE ccaa`J s � � 0 3 L Q fl ^L O VV M U N N Q H Y C u1 N v M i cc U z o w U U 2�U- C �n U M >. Y_ ro M � �Q z N E T 7 N vl N' La =ICJ D a) U? V v v E U�LL cN yY m 00 V V d w w v C > L L p J v ' p C L L O Q' O C p N 0- O O 4J u b0 N U _ T 73 U_ Q.) °- N T v v ro in v, N v C Q.+. u E O O O C @ O ? O O ra C p_ ` C 6J 7 R C Um zu eCCro��-° v 7 �� o f E a� �� c: � :LD • O C U 0 7 L �, C. CJ T C E -° U r UD— O C N M V v v E o v u o o p � u c v E ° i v G M OJ L'p C T ra ? bUD..L., v w i 11 Y C U ~ of.0 T Y bCA T, O7 . '6 Q C•1 v v v1 G O� ° o L L > 9 v- y v G ° i ai v �0� °m LLJv N TQ> > o � �F- 3 cc N vN 7c E o 000s LU C C J uG Y bb CoG.-J ? Q LA. G U £ O ? NOOO ULIJ vav0 a cle, n u QV > Cl- E . E Q TO Q roV�� n KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS KENT June 17, 2008 WASHINGTON Council Chambers MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Debbie Raplee, President Elizabeth Albertson Tim Clark Ron Harmon Deborah Ranniger Les Thomas ********************************************************************** COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Waste Management Recycling Staff 30 minutes 2. Highway 167 Hot Lane Update sTtm�� 30 minutes ********************************************************************** COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS f A. Public Recognition tOAJ- v �7 - u/�►�QP B. Community Events c�-� a� "e { C. Kent Downtown Partnership Proclamation c } ' D. American Public Works Association Project of the Year Award I'MIdA kalla_ E. Employee of the Month PO F. Public Safety Report Pe-ei Ce-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2008 Performance Audit on Public Records -SA-`--- 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve B. Payment of Bills - Approve C. 2007 Asphalt Overlay/ICON Materials Final Payment - Accept as Complete D. Non-Represented Classification and Compensation Study 2008 - Approve (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED E. Valley Communications Center Interlocal Agreement, First Amendment - Authorize F. Amendment to Countywide Planning Policies, Buildable Lands Report Ordinance - Adopt G. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Laser Speed Measurement Unit - Accept H. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Street Racing Emphasis Patrols - Accept I. Washington State Law Enforcement Boating Equipment Grant - Accept J. ,Transportation Master Plan Ordinance - Adopt K. J b'' Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Transportation Master Plan Ordinance - Adopt 7. OTHER BUSINESS None 8. BIDS None 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Acquisition B. 7Pnding Litigation 12. ADJOURNMENT _-;i«---Y °, N NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF S — \/Ac cw� B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) PUBLIC RECOGNITION r" iB) COMMUNITY EVENTS C) KENT DOWNTOWN f3RTNERSHIP PROCLAMATION /wV - 0- J, D) AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION PROJECT OF THE YEAR AWARD E) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH F) PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT j 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Public Hearings - 5A 1. SUBIECT: 2008 PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON PUBLIC RECORDS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Initiative 900, passed in November 2005, gave the State Auditor's Office the authority to conduct performance audits of state and local government entities. In 2007, the Auditor's Office submitted ten unannounced public records requests to ten cities, ten counties and ten agencies, including the City of Kent. They then prepared a performance audit report called "Open Public Records Practices at 30 Government Entities". The report verifies that the City of Kent responded in a timely fashion to all requests and provided all of the information requested, with the exception of one request where names were initially withheld based in part on privacy concerns. Law requires that a public hearing be held on this matter. City Records Administrator Sue Hanson will give a brief presentation. 3. EXHIBITS: A copy of"Open Public Records Practices at 30 Government Entities" has been provided to each Councilmember 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Item No. 6A - 6B CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through K. Discussion tAction ` 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 20, 2008 and Special Council meeting of May 27, 2008. 6B. Auoroval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through May 31 and paid on May 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on June 3, 2008. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/31/08 Wire Transfers 3284-3300 $1,758,026.96 5/31/08 Regular 620868-621312 3,824,660.73 Void Checks 620384 0 Use Tax Payable 4,995.28 $5,587,682.97 KEN T Kent City Council Meeting WASHINGTON May 20, 2008 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Clark, Harmon, Ranniger, Raplee and Thomas. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke noted that Public Communications Items 4C and 4D have been taken off the agenda. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) There were no comments from the audience. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke announced that Public Works Operations were recognized for the 2007 Washington State Quality Award. Public I Works Director Blanchard then presented the award to Don Millett, Public Works Operations Manager. The Mayor presented the American Water Works Association's award for 2008 "Communication and Conservation Program" to Brad Lake, Water Superintendent, Public Works Operations. Public Works Director Blanchard explained the Computer Trip Reduction Diamond Awards and the Pacesetters Awards. He then introduced the three winners for the Diamond awards: REI, BECU Credit Union, and Hytek Finishes. Blanchard introduced the Pacesetters award winners: Flow International, Alaska Airlines and Boeing Company. Jeff Watling, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, explained the award given to Arbor Heights 360, for the best special use facility, by the Washington Recreation and Parks Association (WRPA). B. Community Events. (CFN-118/1315) Ranniger announced National Trails Day in Kent on Saturday, June 7, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, rain or shine at Lake Fenwick Park. Albertson invited Kent citizens to "Envision Midway" project for the first open house on Wednesday, May 28th at the Des Moines Activity Center from 6:00-8:00 p.m. jE. Introduction of Auuointees. (CFN-122) Harmon introduced Diana Peters, Joyce Kroeger, and Casey Cook, as appointees to the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. CONSENT CALENDAR Raplee moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through T. Clark seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) The minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 6, 2008, were approved. 1 Kent City Council Minutes May 20, 2008 B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through April 15 and paid on April 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 6, 2008, were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/15/08 Wire transfers 3228-3246 $1,919,743.73 4/15/08 Regular 619049-619676 2,882,514.66 Void (23,855.63) Use Tax Payable 3,054.92 $4,781,457.68 Payment of the bills received through April 30 and paid on April 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 6, 2008, were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount t 4/30/08 Wire transfers 3247-3265 $ 6,593,832.56 4/30/08 Regular 619677-620122 3,649,550.70 Void (13,858.63) Use Tax Payable 990.09 $10,230,514.72 Checks issued for payroll for April 1 through April 15 and paid on April 18, 2008, were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/18/08 Checks 304191-304504 $ 215,155.60 4/18/08 Advices 229074-229814 1,430,581.38 Total Regular Payroll $1,645,736.98 Checks issued for interim payroll were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/24/08 Voids ($189.24) 4/24/08 Interim Checks 304505 140.86 4/28/08 Interim Checks 304506 48.38 Total Interim Payroll $ 0.00 Checks issued for payroll for April 16 through April 30 and paid on May 5, 2008, were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/5/08 Checks 304507-304828 $ 215,155.60 5/5/08 Advices 229815-230558 1,430,581.38 Total Regular Payroll $1,645,736.98 2 Kent City Council Minutes May 20, 2008 C. King County Office of Emergency Management, Homeland Security Sub- Grant Agreement, Disaster Mental Health. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement with the King County Office of Emergency Management Division Homeland Security Sub-grant in an amount not to exceed $14,030. D. King County Office of Emergency Management, Homeland Security Sub- Grant Agreement, Zone 3 Unified Command. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement from the King County Office of Emergency Management Division Homeland Security Sub-grant in an amount not to exceed $11,000. E. King County Office of Emergency Management, Homeland Security Sub- Grant Agreement, Unified Command Operational Full Scale Exercise. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the King County Office of Emergency Management Division Homeland Security Sub-grant agreement in an amount not to exceed $13,000. F. Transportation Master Plan, Phase 2 Consultant Services Agreement with Mirai Associates, Inc. (CFN-164) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Consultant Services Agreement between the City and Mirai Associates, Inc. for the Transportation Master Plan - Phase 2 in an amount not to exceed $204,653, upon terms and condi- tions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Phase II of the Transportation Master Plan is the Implementation Phase where the City puts into practice the plans, programs and projects which were identified in Phase I of the Transportation Master Plan. J G. Landfill Gas Probe Restoration Consultant Services Agreement with ■ Parametrix, Inc. (CFN-311) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Consultant Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. for the purpose of restoring three (3) gas monitoring probes associated with the Midway and Kent Highlands Landfills in an amount not to exceed $57,636.41, upon terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. H. Traffic Signal Easement for West James Street Improvement. (CFN-1067) The traffic signal easement from King County for the West James Street Improvements was accepted, upon terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. I. Emergency Resolution to Kent Comprehensive Plan, Drainage Master Plan and Comprehensive Water System Plan. (CFN-377) Resolution No. 1789 regard- ing amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan related to adoption of the Comprehensive Water System Plan and Drainage Master Plan, and declaring an emergency to adopt the amendment was adopted. The Comprehensive Water System Plan will be adopted to guide the City in providing reliable, safe drinking water throughout the City's water service area, and to meet the fire, life safety, and commercial/industrial demands of the City's water customers. Similarly, the Drainage Master Plan provides the foundation for protection of the City's stormwater system infrastructure, flood protection for homes and businesses, water quality protection, and habitat improvements. 3 ■ Kent City Council Minutes May 20, 2008 J. McSorley Creek Wetland Property Acquisition Application Resolution. (CFN-118) Resolution No. 1790 which authorizes application to the Recreation and Conservation Office for funds to aid in financing the acquisition costs of the McSorlev Creek Wetland area properties was adopted. Part of the grant application requires submittal of a Council resolution authorizing the application, commitment of funds to cover the City's portion, if funds are awarded, and acknowledgement that any property acquired by grant funds will be retained by the City in perpetuity. K. Bills of Sale, Canterbury West Short Plat. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for the Canterbury West Short Plat for 611 linear feet of sanitary sewer, 5 sanitary sewer manholes, 113 linear feet of streets, 143 linear feet of storm sewer line, 1 manhole, 2 catch basins was accepted. The project is located at 12437 SE 2641h Street. L. Bills of Sale, Freestone Plaza. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for Freestone Plaza for 519 linear feet of watermain, 6 gate valves, and 3 hydrants was accepted. The project is located at 18015 - 71st Avenue South. M. Bills of Sale, Highland Estates South. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for Highland , Estates South for 793 linear feet of sanitary sewer, 7 sanitary sewer manholes, 607 centerline linear feet of streets, 1364 linear feet of storm sewer line, 3 manholes, 15 catch basins, and 42,000 cubic feet of detention pond storage was accepted. This project is located at the intersection of 124t" Avenue SE and SE 263rd Streets. N. Bills of Sale. River's Edge. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for River's Edge for 1 gate valve, 1 hydrant was accepted. The project is located at 19400-58th Place South. O. East Hill Data Center Design Consulting Service Agreement. (CFN-818) The Mayor was authorized to sign a contract with ISMS, Inc. for design services rendered in support of the East Hill Data Center, for an amount not to exceed $49,000 (plus expenses). P. Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement. (CFN-1155) The Mayor was authorized to sign a purchase order for a Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement for three (3) years, in an amount not to exceed $650,000. Q. Federal Legislative Consultant Contract. (CFN-825) The Mayor was authorized to sign the VanNess Feldman Agreement in the amount not to exceed $70,000, and ratifying all acts consistent with the terms of the agreement for the year 2008. VanNess Feldman, Attorneys at law, will be providing the City of Kent federal repre- sentation with a particular emphasis on the Washington State Congressional delegation. R. Kent Events Center Traffic and Parking Management Plan. (CFN-1305) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Heffron Transportation Inc. agreement in the amount not to exceed $26,000, and ratifying all acts consistent with the terms of the agree- ment for the year 2008. Heffron Transportation will assist the City with the preparation of the traffic and parking management plans for the Kent Events Center project. S. Puget Sound Energy Easements for Kent Events Center. (CFN-1305) The Mayor was authorized to sign two Puget Sound Energy easements to provide electrical 4 Kent City Council Minutes May 20, 2008 t and natural gas facilities at the Kent Events Center property, upon terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Puget Sound Energy requires easements for their facilities on the Kent Events Center property between the street and meters to serve the Kent Events Center with electrical power and natural gas. The City will provide Puget Sound Energy with ten-foot-wide easements along the centerline of these facilities. _ T. Appointments to Drinking Driver Task Force. (CFN-122) The Mayor's appoint- ments of Joyce Kroeger, Casey Cook and Diana Peters to the Kent Drinking Driving Task Force were confirmed and their appointments will expire January 1, 2012. OTHER BUSINESS A. Pr000sed Annexation. (CFN-1309) At the City Council workshop of May 6, 2008, City staff reviewed the latest analysis of financial and regulatory impacts of the potential annexation of the Panther Lake area. After consideration of this information, the City Council directed staff to move ahead with preliminary planning for a potential future annexation. The resolution outlines the next exploratory steps in the annexation process - including an interlocal agreement with King County, additional studies, and public outreach - and directs staff to complete these tasks. The resolution does not officially declare the City's notice of intent to annex the area nor fix a date for an ' election; that issue will come at the conclusion of the process contemplated in this resolution. Fred Satterstrom, Director of Community Development, stated that this is a very preliminary step and the City of Kent is interested in looking at the potential for annexation in the Panther Lake area. He gave a brief description of the area and described the steps involved for a formal notice of intent. Clark moved to adopt Resolution No. 1791 authorizing City staff to move ahead with preliminary planning, the completion of certain studies, and public outreach in preparation for a potential annexation of the Panther Lake area. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. �i BIDS A. Police Building Re-roofing. (CFN-120) The bid opening was held on May 7, 2008, with four bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Wayne's Roofing for the amount of $84,570, excluding Washington State Sales Tax. The Engineer's estimate was between $97,500 and $110,500. Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Watling briefly explained that the low slope roof portion of the police building would be replaced. Ranniger moved to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Wayne's Roofing for the amount of $84,570, excluding Washington State Sales Tax, to complete the Police Building Low Slope Re-roofing Project. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. REPORTS A. Council President. (CFN-198) Raplee announced that Council will be accepting applications for the Council vacancy until Friday, May 30th. She mentioned that applications turned in after Friday may run the risk of not being considered. Raplee noted that the Council meeting of June 3rd may not have a quorum and may be 5 Kent City Council Minutes May 20, 2008 cancelled. Mayor Cooke noted that a candidate for the Council vacancy must have lived — within the City of Kent for one year and must be a registered voter. B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke noted that the Neighborhood Councils are meeting and coming up with projects to improve their neighborhoods. She mentioned that the Kent Downtown Partnership Cleanup was very successful. C. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Clark noted that Sound Transit would like to do a workshop with Council. D. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. E. Planning and Economic Develoument Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. F. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. G. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger congratulated Public Works on the tremendous job they're doing. She noted that the Public Works Committee meeting for June 2nd will be cancelled and the next meeting would be held on June 16th at 5:00 p.m. Albertson passed on congratulations she received from State House ' Representative Mark Miloscia for the wonderful job Public Works is doing. H. Administration. (CFN-198) No report was given. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. (CFN-198) Mary Simmons Deputy City Clerk 6 ' KENT Special Kent City Council Meeting WASH IN O T O N May 27, 2008 A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Clark, Harmon, Ranniger (who arrived at 1 5:04 p.m.), Raplee and Thomas. (CFN-198) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Community Events. (CFN-198) Albertson noted that Kent's annual Relay for Life will be held at French Field on May 30 and 31, 2008. CONSENT CALENDAR Raplee moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through G. Clark seconded and the motion carried. ' A. Payment of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through May 15 and paid on May 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 20, 2008, were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/15/08 Wire Transfers 3266-3283 $1,988,657.23 5/15/08 Regular 620123-620867 2,590,380.53 Void Checks 620384 (75.00) Use Tax Payable $ 6,742.32 ' $4,585,705.08 Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 1 through May 15 and paid on May 20, 2008: Date Check Numbers Amount ' 5/20/08 Checks 304829-305172 $ 231,316.33 5/20/08 Advices 230559-231301 1,435,064.59 Total Regular Payroll $1,666,380.92 Interim Payroll (void & reissue) 5/20/08 Void Check 305103 ($932.64) 5/21/08 Check 305173 932.64 0 B. Union Pacific Railroad, Willis Street Railroad Crossing Improvements. (CFN-885) The Public Works Department was authorized to pay the outstanding balance of $257,560 on the Union Pacific Railroad invoice for railroad circuitry upgrades related to traffic signal installation at 74th Avenue South at Willis Street. ' C. King County Grant Agreement for Safe Havens Services. (CFN-118) The ' Mayor was authorized to sign the grant agreement for $75,000 with King County Domestic Violence to fund Safe Havens services and approve the expenditure of funds in the Safe Havens budget. 1 Special Kent City Council Minutes May 27, 2008 — D. Skyhawks Sports Academy Agreement for Snorts Camas. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement with Skyhawks Sports Academy to provide summer sports camps. E. Yamaha Motor Corporation Lease Agreement for Golf Carts. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the equipment schedule with Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. in the amount of $155,917.44 to lease fifty golf carts, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. F. FlexPass Program Agreement 2008-09. (CFN-171) The Mayor was authorized to sign the FlexPass Program Agreement for 2008-2009 to provide a comprehensive transportation pass available to 327 regular benefited employees. The total cost of the ' agreement is $34,662.00. G. King County Special Property Tax Levy Agreement. (CFN-118) The Mayor ' was authorized to sign the King County special property tax levy agreement for trail and open space projects, and approve the expenditure of annual funds in the trails budget. The voters of King County approved the special property tax levy on August 21, 2007. The amount for 2008 is $162,761.37. OTHER BUSINESS ' A. Town Square Plaza, Puget Sound Energy Covenant. (CFN-1298) City Attorney Brubaker explained that the City entered into a Mechanical Rooms and Related Easement Agreement with Springboard Holdings, LLC, wherein Springboard agreed to dedicate an easement on Puget Sound Energy's standard form to bring utilities to the mechanical chase/restroom required for the Town Square Plaza project. The easement is required to run underground power lines across a portion of the ' Springboard property between 2nd Avenue and Town Square Plaza. He noted that Springboard's principal has refused to sign the easement and that the City has agreed to indemnify Puget Sound Energy from and against any damages it may incur because of extending this very short 20' easement. (Councilmember Ranniger arrived at this point.) Upon Harmon's question, Brubaker confirmed that Springboard has been notified, and said he is certain that the City is in a secure position. , Clark moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a covenant with Puget Sound Energy, indemnifying it against any damages it may incur caused by extending underground ' power lines to the City's mechanical chase/restroom building for its Town Square Plaza project, subject to approval of final terms and conditions by the City Attorney. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober, CMC ' City Clerk 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 ' Category Consent Calendar - 6C 1. SUBJECT: 2007 ASPHALT OVERLAY/ICON MATERIALS FINAL PAY - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project as complete. The original contract amount was $1,720,601.01. The final contract amount was $1,157,738.88. ' 3. EXHIBITS: None ' 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) S. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No ' 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ' Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6D 1. SUBJECT: NON-REPRESENTED CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY 2008 - APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve expenditure of budgeted funds to implement the 2008 Classification and Compensation Study beginning July 1, 2008. The Employee Services Department conducted the 2008 Non-Represented Classification and Compensation Study for the professional, technical, and administrative support positions throughout the City. The total cost of implementation for the remainder of 2008 (six months) is $191,910. The total cost for a twelve month period would be $383,820. In the 2008 budget, $350,000 was set aside to implement the classification and compensation study for the period beginning July 1, 2008, the remaining six months of the year. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the recommended increases are for the City's Public Works, Engineering and Information Technology Departments. We are pleased to say that the project came in on time and under budget for 2008. 3. EXHIBITS: May 2008 Council Workshop presentation; Expected Study Cost calculations; Reclassifications/Reorganizations Summary; and Market Survey Data Summary 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 6/3/08 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? X Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: aw i, `--K Ilk -=obi`,( .., 1+4 tl _ _ 4 -, _,6�� ;tom ! ._ !" ;! MAPWL jim WIT A3F GUT F r €ram, 'WIN ' '> _^;�,,,€€,,,��,=�'E`,r - �_• �€�d��AEI`€`�`=r y 0 , _ =,, Eta[ 'ties� aka d . _ oil 1 MIT k= `-'N- 0s '��,' '<-:�✓nE€ate' `� Lam. oo__„€. _�'-^.Y to 3-�```_ owl loom a only I € Et Qca Nq __ ;' E..€E'I M ` �€�,,.la TERN WAN ,[ ``= ,. Uri l/ WY d E3 I3j AP:tti�,«g;,ffim'z,u a�tll3, " �s=� e4y€'_i� 04 tN a . g Nu Aw t';MI IF - - " £ € �ma `�.E�,�l �. 1-`' =sue'MOAN,' - A R �>z, 40 IN F its" _-- So _ r 446 VA n:Won xE y F F A ,E`,€ <_ 1t - RVO 3,j3 R r`�Wi,t;�=�t s} iTy Mo Amu 12. oil Rol L 00 O O U O Q 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N .0 LO O O O O N O O M O N O C) (D O O O O N �t (D ..+ 00 N O Ln � O N d' O 't 00 N O N d N N O C O O O O Lb M O I- O N O M 0 0 0 't r- O O 00 m � 0 0 O ^ 't � OM O LO O i CV V9, Ef3 64 GO Ln Qf 00 C\i _ 64C\T Ef3 Ef> EA � m 64 64 (D d � 60 64 00 00 _ r- 00 O 00 U � 60 Ef3 64 EA Ef3 61) EA EA 64 64 dT fA 64 E!} EA Ef3 ca 64 C (O W C T L N m.L 00 N Ln (O coC I N L V' n d' N ,I- U') �t 00 �t w N �' r� N O la O O O O 00 0 't co O O O O O O N d' O O 00 N O O M M m O r N M Ln 7 i� EA 69 Ef} Ga Cl) EA r CO N (f? CO 64 Cfl 64 64 fA r r ff} (f? N 't O V 0 c U Ef> e=3 64 64 (fT E!} EA Ef} Efl (A EA (f? 0-1 (A 64 (A 61? fH C A� W d N C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '00, 0 0 0 \° o 0 '00, 0 0 4W N U N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 U Q 3 y C C y 0 0 0 0 d O O 'ct O O O O O O O d d 0 0 I- V O O Ln � O (o N Ln It d• It c m U O O O O N Lo O N to Ln O LO C; C) O N N CDO N N N O O N N Ln N M N N N N x It m N r N Nr- �t N 0 co r- r r M (0 O n LT M N r O r O M W W d�- Ln It CA �t co LO O (D �t 0) co r- CZ) w 0 0 0 O Ln M O a) O co N O 0 0 co N O N CDVn C\ N r Q) co C N 1� (V CD Ln O CD C'J CV !� C 'tcoJ N !- M N D> (C O -t Ln -t 00 M w f-- 't d co ',t (o Ln Lo (D 'd' (D 'CO M CD Ln 't M LC) Ln co LO f- Vt X) co (D N U-1 Eh Efr Ef3 Ef3 d3 64 Ef3 EA 03 61) ER Ef3 EL? Ef3 e4 09, f!? 03 EA Ef3 61 61) EA EPr U-1 HT QFl Efr ER E13 64 K) W ' Ln Ln Ln VC N LO r- N M N D� M 1p r lD I� V' N 0) Il Ol 00 � N V' (D U) Ln m M 00 m Ltl -1 r � N N N M N N M N M r' N M M M M N M N N M M +-� M M M [, IT N M M � lll�TT?JJJI O a Z Z Z T V' O N 't LO r (D (D m d1 N f- (D Cl) N M O 00N M C) m M V' Lf) �t O -t Ln In N Cl) a) �tf- C) (D r- Ln O CD �t r) r- m O m (D C) O LO LT (D (D O *- N N r r, O r r O � 00 Uf O Ln N O r M N Ln O N O h Ll � 00 (� -ItLn d' � co co (D d' �t Il It (D LO Ln (O Nt (D It Cl) LO �t Cl) Ln Ln (D Ln coV LO (D Ln H U) H3 Ef} (f? fA EA ea ER EA 6464 Ef} 6G EA 64 Ef3 Eft 04 EA 04 VD- 64 (A 64 (f> 6) 64 61) Uf- ER 64 64 6`3 64 W rn � Vim• dcc am' w � N O U C N m I, [V N �: N x r i (o F- (D I- V' --IM n m I, 00 (D n CDM 00 IT CD (D *� O N fV N N M N ¢ N M N M Q N M M M M N M N N M M M M M [t V• N (M V- M U °C a `6 z z z a 00 O p o U N � CL a~ ¢ Urn L" o > ¢ N Cl) c - O F-- O O > y Ln U J--' i Ln � 'D U U U U Ln LO N M Ln > u CL L � Qa � acna` ¢ c a C o O o u u o n n n o - ¢ E O n a a� o c c a`°i E t c M u 7 0 0 0 O J C > N N Q) ¢ w U Q U ,,Cy - > Q u u (tea 4] > C) �-- ra Ln Cn �- > > > O C < (a O U C C C C i N O c Ul v i. (6 (6 U L7 J Q C _� O O j QI C C .-, N M (- C C N O Z ■ C C �+ ice+ +� +-+ +-+ u 00 (6 t6 u u U Q U C C ` C NJ. Ln vl Ln !a (a 2 U a i i > > (n (n > U U O U N O O N O 7 Y c 73 E c_ c_ m - - (D a Q J u� vO v v v n n U c c c c c c c U m ` ou ou E E E n Ln in m - - c c c c > > E o o > °6 - - - aL - - > a Q u u Ln Ln Ln Ln o w >_ >_ 0 0 0 0 0 o c > c c c c c c c T Q ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q ¢ V V u U U U U u U u V U U w w w w w w w w c a o c o O_ U C �a 4,' a ' C O o V) y Ln n .O Ln (n C fQ '�' C C O o1 Q C C U C C O O C E O �+ C c N LA O O -0 Oi O O O ra O to O C C E E `L o E E u u V Q c u c E E 0 I, d E > a. Ln � C C i L , , O >_ C O C C C R c c C m z ({I E O 0 0 w ry c ° n n ro ra °� 0 0, U �, o L� Q 0 U U c - _ > > c c u c c (> > n c n > E � c La _ c c 0 0 u 0 o ° 0 c a� a� ° v 0 c Ln o L Q c c - = J E wwVU c c o UI- a ow � ol- 0 � w Q) a) +� c 0 > 0 , > > > > a X1 0 V UC7 (z U U c' c 6) 73c c � � n 0 c� c � c c cLc' c c c 0 Y Y E L w ra � w w w w �, � O w w x � w w w w w w w - u L`a (`o -0 CIL o La 0 (o a� La o 0 Q) 's � � aci aci 0 (`a v � � 'S � 3 E o a a Q U a J a a J a a J J a a a a `1 ]L J a a a a J a a a a a a a w a J U u 6�O ad/sse�oa� X x m a a liew4oua8 X X X x X X X X X x x x 7C Ix x x x N OU O N00 O O O O O O O O O O O ON CO O O O O O O (D O O O O OO O O (D O CD O CD O (D O O N O Q O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 'It (D (D O O O 06 0 (V \ M O Cl) (fl LO N OD m N O O N �} O O O O C y N O O (D O O O O O O O � "t m VG O O LB 0 O fR O( E3 NEE E M" L00 n O CO M 00 CD 00 O O O 63 (0 (DUD Eft 6-1E A H3 r E! �} L L ' T c LO CD LO LO O L fC y CD (DM 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 U) Vim' N CO O O "t 0 0 0 0 CO t CD N M � 0 0 0 VG m U 61 y3 — 6q H3 - HJ Ef3 EF3 ffl 6q N N M � U) Ul ,-- (f3 T-- N ff3 N r 69 �1l U) G Ef3 K3 Ef3 Vf U) Ef3 Ef3 Ef3 ({) EA % ffl U-) EA 64 EA W G! N C QS 'd d -0 o o 0 o A o A V A a a o 0 0 0 o cr e a v oo o -0,0 o , o 0 0 0 0 0 0 G U) O d Ln 0 0 0 r 0 au 0 0 d' O 't O d N 0 0 U? ^C^ 0-0 a: 0 0 N 1� O d N 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Lfj r--� O O N O N LA O Lf7 N O O N CV (V O d O N ,-- r I,- N n !� (D M O M m co d' O N t\ M m r (D O CO I-W Cl) O (D (D M m �t d' (D "t M O M Ln (D (D LO -t O O m d• N O Ln LD Ln m co N M (D Ln d• N r r m V' O � O N m O w V' N Ln co O n O n (o O W N Ln Ln (D N Ln Ln In Ln L17 (D M M M (D co V V (D V' In d' m M Lo Z N Ef3 Ef3(f3 H3 Ef3 (f3 Ef3 ER (f3 fR (f3 64 [f3 ER ER E1) 619, Qr (» (» (» (» Gr (U-3 » E» (� (» 61 61) 9- �G w V/ (D N n M rV Ln V- O rV V- n CD Ln W N I� W rl M M V' n n Ln Ln Ln O Ln rV N M M M W N M 1-4rn Cl)M M M rV M N Cl)M co � Cl) r N M M CV M rV M fl) rV M rl) CO V' N M O A n O O Cl) h CO r- (D O I� O O O m h N O op m m m (D (D m O m (D m w m w (D M Ln O CD LL) M m L(') O O co m w �t Ln In m a0 N N du O Lf) N N r Ln (C .- n "z Ln N m Du m M O Ln V m 1-1 O r" In Ln in m Ln N Lo Ln LL) U-) "t Ln 4 O Ln M Co Ln M V• V• Ln � In 4 �' LLB � (D ('M Ln C Z N ER K? COD. % ER (f3 EA Ef3 Ql) Ef3 EA GS Ef3 % EA Ef3 ER ER ff3 Ef3 U3 (f3 % H3 Ef} ER Ef3 Efl EA K3 Ef3 Q'3 ({) W cc O Lm V (O N (D (D N V' V- V' CDN I� M V' CD V- (D CD (D n fV .-1 V• Ln l0 V" Ln V' m u) rV rN N O m M M M rl) M M M M N M rN M M V' M N M M N rr) rV rl) rl) N rl) M N V N M c a O 0 0 O O +� O c ' _� _ o` - Clo U c _ o Ln ° O U o � O Q u G T c U Ln c +.+ .�, L Lm *+ cl Z) U c C E n o Q Q ra En p c y +� (n �, a+ O Q OO v io O —Ln n v WE N c N O c n c c Ln a ro u O +� a a) (n lE/n� o W W F- -0 ' IL a) a) Ln N rn O LL a) H 2 E Q Q U Ccl n � ' O u E Ln ,a? L a) a a- a) o LDS a) c ro a) O ro v a) (A n O n o v a c u c c 0 0 + c u = Q v o a o @ U O n o CL v N M u o` = Ego rEo rEa a m L, Ln c v ._ v > W w v a) oc E u o � w (n v u c c c LT m v`� +� c Q a U O > (6 a) O O ce Ln Z, Cn E c - Y Y a) a) w ro O O O V C C C7 c C c 0 cn C7 rca Lca ro ro U r=+ Q o F aui a a a a LL a) � c o o y _ 2 a) a) c \ E a) a) CL X H O a) 7 7 ate-+ c W 01 �+ C) w tE VI Y Y i i Y j (o r0 r6 O O Q w LL LL O C� = 2 2 a) W v a N- 0 n ra ro ra ro ro ra � T r, Y J J z z z 0 0 0 a a a n. a a a a a a a a a a 'y G a) O N a a) Ln rn Ln Ln o O o E E E E Lo Ln (n v)CL a O 9 W Ln a) a) Ln O O p C c c O u > i W n _u U c Z, J In (n LU j 2 j c c C C r6 (O c3 Y' .On O O co O Oc E ra a) c c '-' a) ra a) c C c c G ozf U EUZ (ntn E Ev0 v 0aaaaa` D` u O aJ of E c c _L c o 0 o n c C u c h E E Q) LT a') a>) a>) a>) z O o `n c 0 u o a) a) o Z E S o o � � � 0000 E m o v UO u_ u F Ln Q o c co c c o L c1 o o Q o o °) c c c E m a) c c Q c - L) C L/) C7 a C7 C7 > 2 n c Y 'o u u a) a) o ac) ac) a`)) ro c c c c c c -6 Q a) a) aa �[ Yaa cla c > c Ln L j Lip cis 2 L) S z i� S {- I- T O ncl EYY YY Y E cY }' rp dO UYY LY YOB E E E Ea--. +-+ u -01 ro r`o � m r`o E m o a) r`o ac) ac'i -u c c -O E o r`o r`o ro r`o r`o � M o O O o ac) ac) o Qaaao awo_ Q �Ca1JQ � QwD o aaaaaaauuuuYY J u 6�o=a�Esse�oa� X x x x x x u m a a 31aew4ouaEl x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x t in o' o _- N i0 O . O O O O O O (D O O O O O O G) CC) O cm) N O 0 00 O O O OO (D (A p O O O M CD C) M 0 0 0 'It N d dO O O O CO CM 00 00MOO N CD y O CD r O O r L\ O C) C) 0 'Y "t O O L Lo � C O O O O CNo cA cq Ln 60- �-EA M M 61) ER 61) cq L` rl r- b H3 69 fA � cf}cf3 61) _ p EA EA EA 64 cf3 r� N C T d O i m N LO to d' mO N O co La y O O M CDN CD CD (D CD CD CD N M Ln 0 Ln d' 0 0 0 0 0 U in U ff} (A cA �} EA EA c{y 6) cf} ;; (7} EA ffl fA EA QN) EPr HJ H9 6f} cA C V W N d C O V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \° o 0 0 0 0 O O -t d U a Gl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 ❑ 2 d C C ` CD (DLO � O N O O C) d' cD d' O O m O O O CD Al o F� o O O N O u1 CD N N O In O O O N N N N Ln Ln LO O CD O (D In a /� •-- O N CO O N r r r (- CO CO I- L` r r N LT (- CD (D M CO r- N W I W (D O O 'mot Ln (.0 Cl) O CD r O O (D M Q) r O co co O Ln M Ln It r- Nt � � (D O I� Ln V' co 00 co N O � N N Ln 1- 'tO N LT d' M O Ln N ❑ (� Ln Cl) Ln (D Ln Ln (D Ln � Ln (D (D Ln Ln It Ln Ln � Ln CD Cl) It Ln It It N EA EF? c1? EA K) lb} U9-EPr efl va cf3 (fT cfT 6q cfT 61 cf3 cA 61) fA KJ 61) 6q 6q fA 09 V W 3 2 (D VC /T I, O V' Ln O (D Ln N f\ O N N �t Ln .--i I- N M Lc') CO n W M M M M M M M M [f M M d' M M M (n [r N Cl) [T +--i N ryI M N _ cc O z m L tP r co N I- r M CDM M M M m M t'- M r M M M I-- M O (P N (D M Ln (D r--Ln m O w I-- u LD I� V O Co Ln -4 n M rl- r- Ln CD 'It Ln N r CO M N O � r r L.L) r Co O co It M O LO O Ln 4 m Ln CD Ln Ln (D Ln (D Ln (D (D Ln Ln "zi Ln Ln M Ln w M " Ln "z -, H N Q�lc» (» GPI Q=� 6) EAR (aul U- cl61, caf» c» f» or). W, va Vy (� 60, VD, (a (s� � w a � � M a) o U at ,r (D (D r rt M D M N n O i M O) In O D) u-) of d- IT Ln r'l O M M M M Q M M M M M M M M M M M N M M N M M N N V 00 a fO O N o � (n OL L dC C Tv ¢ d> V) n O O O m O n C C M n a T ro � O u 1 u o oo M o (aa2 - Ln f° i +� Ll c u U" O O N u O U d c - ro U I � x C "' 'p Q +� M (a W C Ln t' � avi ro C C a W U N QC1 OV N O O) c c E C � u C O - La t Qc (.!) (n (n v Z ' C Q Q U � > O v ro n � a s Ln ro ra a > c O - - v m U T Ln (n F- E 73 ms \ u v u c o Q d5 C6 Y QU1 N Q o O O O C T I- N L L L ryy6 is Y 'a o 0 0 0 0 c c c c o o n v u u c ,, �„ a� c Q - - ra 41 (U N N +� J--� C C N N N co O a a a a a (n (n N (n (n (P) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln (n (n > > > E Ln Ln m c c c (Ii N E _ U U o O > ra Ln C O o v o Ln o � u u (n E a5 •� ❑ O v0 u O LA Bu ra O N (U N +L-' (U v O (U U C r�Ya a CO L W O O O Ln Ln � (n Ln C v M U K a) �' C +� 0 (n a n Ln , n +� C L C U Ln d V z E _ E_ w u ra C (n Ln ra C�a O : (n '0 o o O to E a 0) E U H r » J c c Q c y 2 o u ai > 7 Q rY d 7 , c c T c c c T c c cai (n U ❑ Y w w w w o w Y w O O w w o 0 0 0 Q c c ra ro rn o rn Yaaawaawa � aaaaaaa �. � aaaaaa � J U J 6ip-98/sselaay x m a )Iaewyouag x x x x x x x x x x x r CD !Z 4�6a� 4a_pia^ N 10 V O N N 1D V: N --1 V 00 lD V Ill O In Ol N O Vl -i OO al Ol U Ol In rV O lf1 N N C O 2 V 1D V N V V O 'D V lD N N N V N V V N V 00 M OO 1D V 1D 00 OJ V 07 N 00 N N N V O .-i iD M CO O O O 111 N Q\ D\ l0 N O M O N V N .-i O M O O O O M O m m 10 O 1fl 1l1 I� V CO V Vl tb lil I� N N lfl ID O N OO f� n lfl CO O V lIl W to m 111 DD M D\ W lD O M n I . M O 1D I, 0, 1D 1D m Vl V V 1D tD � N O O l0 N w m 10 m O m O M 1D 1D 10 tD o) V 10 W LD to t\ V Lfl Vl 'D N In O to V V V iD �D f� V 1l1 t0 111 I� Ill V f� V 10 a6 V I��p M f� V N Ol O Ol V N O.ti fh V N o0 V Ol .-i to O1 .ti Ol pJa� N V' VNl Op N 0^D N .�^i . - co O ll)"4 tn0 OD V f`Nl lO�Ap lb .N-I 1M N O^ n V n h W `7 co 100 N M vco lmD VMl 0�1 if v V' n Imn f`�'1 vID 1 Vpl 1D a m Ln M l-O W Ill er Ill n 1t0}D ON OO 1 Oo co N N- InnN Ol 00 M 10 N I, N Ol V 10 �D I, IN M OVl OO n h O O M .m-1 I^l1 OD ~ co �V h 111 W V 10 OMo ID f� r V N 10 111 Ol Vl k0 V Vl Ul m fl N M I, Ja",OJ`p7 rn rn Q\ .�-� N QVl O W m V o 1D `IUD Ill V w V rnmm <n ui Iry V 1n a4%VO Irvi rl mIT r co � v o n 10 m v 108 ` v M 10 1D o7 M V OO O O N o7 V M N V V W t+ml' 0M0 N � CO O m n n 0 N n OOl - OO m N Ol 00 N Ql iD O N ID V N � f� Ill V tD 1D �D I� V 1l1 1D lD l!1 to t0 In V 1� y C O A(l0 V V O V V O7 V N ID V 10 ID N CD CD In In ry M N a,�iOa� O V W CD1!1 111 00 n co ry Ol 10 V t0 yI O I� V N O ID N Ol 0 0 Ol O 00 iD C 10 �D Ol �D O Ill f� V In n t\ 10 m I� d O. W O .0 M M N 1D O CD1D M c0 lD lIl Ol 00 om mID mC, v cv N NCDm v in 10 m 'D 10 t\ V m Ill In W lD Ill Ill ID 111 V N N J.1 N 'OOO ClN '0 V m N coN N N � Y �'ayp C, CDo � o o Eg � v � Clm W u LO D_ 10 p W10 N O �D tb O N N m V iD tD V iD O Gp/�Ji10 O OD Ol N Ol co V N M M N tD f� n M O� V Ill N M X 1D 10 V V 1� N C O O Tp O. 4'// W O O lD V N a0 N �'Ja N 1D l0 N iD T O O` CV co ,Oa o V V �D V- 1D m CDo r, E o y N M 1 f\ CD 10 O 1D N 10 O O iO Ill O t\ 1rI ul Ol iD V ID ID U N � is >>l� V N O co 1D V .N+ N lD V N iD V U *la CD mN co CDmm O ma, V Ja7 N f, ID Ol Ill f� O Y N O --i N I0 O N to f� 1D 1l1 1� V f� O 10 1D V 1� l0 O T 10 O M N m O n N ON Ol M i0 M V Ol Ol ,-1 CDm O 10 V7 0 111 Vl fV M M '-I N M m m 10- d f� Vl M 10 I� V 111 Ol V 1D In m E O i tin O V c0 V N N N l0 V CO V �D V f� 00 V Ill 111 1D t0 O. ,O o Oml 'D `n v ID V-� o 'o O011 a, rn -M-+ N m W Vl N N O 00 N N N N � Ol N N M O O N M N Ill 111 U 06 I� b O 111 ID Ol t\ t\ Ol iD m O 1D V m Ill f� 00 1D N I, u V CDtD Ol n V O q Ol 00V V Z m V i0 f� n V Vl 1D O lD 10 V I� cl U C o-6 o v U N N D O `y a oo $ C � L�JJ_U U O U o cD a0 UQ ¢ LVC '2FOl dNS Z n LO p ` O N Q° U >O B d Ua o a C 00 nE C > F N i U tn w u li um � u4 c vUca L > O Oo O 'o 2 2 > >U 11(n QH Z Z U JUO. O_ U d ¢ d0_ JJS 6.> > a a I!1 a i co 0 o , 0 �d6� o 0 0 0 0 0 P cn o o I� r ORd�bNln v N nN 01 d9 ., C O co O M M M O O m O �Gd Inm mooaoa xmlr J/ I� 'S C. N N M �D lD C, m In T n ID ID N m d 6pJd�b 00 w� v o Ln o co� to 10 Vf� M 000 N ��Npp a, ' YV co al n n ID01 Jd^noJGP o 114 CD m O In 1. ID 10 co m dG%dJ0 co rn ys n N In 00 00 D v m O D V dl, y N AGD(G m � o `IUD Ip Ad 1� n N .Ni oo UI p O� m QO M C In i0 IO I� a, N a `p p/�,� ,oT C, o m � Ln r, N q O Y �Md can rn o Eg ID � n. a v a AGp/�J� a, N a, x y c yptl/p v c `o ao J A °n v E d d� ono V N Io 0 ,2JdJd o N C, C:) 7� lD N !� v' Y n I, ID O T i py6G%/de m � ID ) d co � o N ov E o N ti o In 1� Ib rl n O U m n9�b v c v Of I r, co o Z Q E u V 7 w a to F ti C O L C o uu u) [n U > 'A CY C IO fr O r J V j 0 R U C N N N ` a C N J LD Ip/ O Cper a wwtZ w UW c'nGlnw a i 00 O (D Cl- O Ol C C 1 O OOOOOOOOOCD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� O V N V V N O Lb 00 00 m Il 14 M Ln Ln eA 14 m W 00 m 06 01 t CT) M Lf) Ln Ln oo Ln Lll Ln Ln _ C mi - I L) N a1 L v 01 N Q1 a) Q1 L ll N N 11 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C �., , _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i , � �. lw t0 M Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z Z z z z y w W W W W W W W W W W M W W W W Q w w 0 i w W W w W\\\\\ \ \\\ \ a 00 1-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N In +--1 0M M M � M M M M C M N N " N N N N N N N N M M N V M M M M M N N N N m a+ tY Q� a' C' a' a' Q� �. a' tY OC tY a' of a' 01 0' 0' of LY a' a' d' 0: {A Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U) Ln Ln cn f0 (p > — > w w w -&-, N LnT Ul u! V_1 Ln to ut UI U Q 7 .E L L V p cn ul ro ro is is io is ra io •, ,n Lv U) V V V Ln u u U U u U U U U u Ln E R v v v w w Lv Q) a > E a 3 d L u u Ln In L ut Ut Ln Ln C +, v � � cncncninincncnulcnQ o n oaaa QaQQ f' c rc m c Cl. Ln a c c c c Q u u u u u u u u u c Y L > > > cn a o � c Lo auiLu > > > r13 � � � � O Z Q) Q) 7 < LaF- Uln (n (nUIQQQQ F W w W W W W W W W W W m W W W W Q W W O W W W W W ' a M N L� N N N N N N N N N N N N ollm V m m m M N N N N C � M N N N N N N N N N N N M M N M M M M M M N N N N O of of 0' � a' GY � � a' of LY a' a' 1 tY a' 0' a' LY � a' cr � LY a' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 41 ra > d UI ut L Y Y ~ C a-+ O U) ~ ~ o Ln a1 Q1 Ln u LD U U U L ` L L L L L L L L L M V) Q U) Ul Ul Ul d 0 7 0 V N Lll N tv N Lll O Lll — O O L L C Ln Ln Ln u1 ++ p o pUUUU V UUUUQ oa U o a o — QQQQ p U U y� L L c u E a a a Q r U _0 -0 L L L L t L L L L C Y �--� J-+ 1� Y Awl o c_n a o c c > > > > E O L n Ln Ln Ln E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C LD Ln Ln Ln "O -0 T3 O C) J J U U U V U U U U U Q W a (n O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q j _ 0 C i , Ln C C C O rU L i 7 7 7 7 7 7 p C E L- 7 E C L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O L L L � 0 0 E aJ v U U V U U U U U U U U �—` Vt +� v E i'' C ut N O U ,p O 7 Q) LL E E o ro io 6 a E a � ro o ra CD a a, c c c — U U V) c m w U U V U U U U U U U U CL U C u C 0 CL L C C C C C C C C C C C p L O V W W W � L ` L ,� a► > > > c c > c c c c c L a o o f c o ro a ro C a Ll a a a a a a a J a a a a w C o u f6 y � E i C u o m ,aj L L Ln — C CV) z Lll C p (O C C L L L C > C U) E E m � �o ° om ) n Ly ,� c a3: o c n c co a+ o p v Cl) u a� „-° a v o p o o o U U O m L L L V L to LB L W U ;-+ '� = U C U � , a c Ln E w c U o � L c c E L v L w 0 0_ ` Lyn C E LO y (D C E L j U C 0 E Q) ro 7 L C E LII Ln ,0 !n O C N ,0 U (p m N Z Y W Y Q Q - J a J � Y J � lb J > ~ 0 ~ f- U 0 O V Ln u 1 O U VI U) U1 UI m m m V) m V) M M V) V1 0 VI u cr oi cr ,p 6 La L6 LD H U1 V) V) ut U) Ln () V) Ln V) Ln V) U) (A Ln V) L L L L C C C C C > u O C o ro a ra a o o o a ra ra O O O O L L L L L m +� rauuu u u u u u u u u u u u u u U v v v v N ON = I- U aaaaa' a' a' a' a' a' a' a' a' oCa' a' a' a' Q' Q' 1 City of Kent , Information Technology& Engineering Compensation Plan 2008 Market Adjustment 00: Survey Recommendation New Salary Range Range Max Mkt Adj Max Senior Systems Analyst NR45 $ 87,732 Engineer IV NR48 $ 94,392 !S- En ineer III NR43 83,400 r SUMMARY DATA Senior Systems Analyst Market 50% Public $ 86,874 50% Private $ 115,152 0% Internal $ - Market High $ 101,013 Recom'd NR52E $ 87,732 Market Adj $ 13,281 /yr Engineer IV Market 50% Public $ 94,053 50% Private $ 101,964 0% Internal $ - Market High $ 98,009 Recom'd NR48E $ 94,392 Market Adj $ 3,617 /yr Engineer III Market 50% Public $ 89,029 50% Private $ 93,600 0% Internal $ - Suzette Cooke, Mayor Market High $ 91,315 Recom'd NR43E $ 83,400 Market Adj $ 7,915 /yr Date 1 P-\PUBLIC\LCC(Labor,Class&Comp)\Class&Comp\Compensation\2007 Comp Study\Phase 2-Prof-Admin\MarketAdjustments2008 xis Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6E \ 1. SUBJECT: VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT - AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Valley Communications Center Interlocal Agreement. This amendment to the Valley Communications Center interlocal agreement will: (1) allow the City of Auburn to enter into its own interlocal agreement with the Valley Regional Fire Authority for purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services dispatch by way of Auburn's membership in Valley Communications Center; and (2) recognize King County Fire and Rescue as successor in interest to the City of Federal Way Fire Department. 3. EXHIBITS: First Amendment to Valley Communications Center Interlocal Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? -N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: 1 I ' FIRST AMENDMENT TO VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT .. 1 RECITALS 1 A. The undersigned municipal corporations, Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Renton and Tukwila, the "Member Cities" which compose the Valley Communications Center ("VCC") entered into an Interlocal Agreement ("VCC Interlocal Agreement") on or about April 17, 2000, that sets forth certain provisions, rights and obligations among the Member Cities. B. The Valley Regional Fire Authority ("VRFA") is a new Regional Fire Protection Service Authority formed to provide fire and emergency medical services within its jurisdictional boundaries which boundaries include the City of Auburn. C. The VCC Interlocal Agreement permitted the City of Federal Way to enter into a further interlocal agreement with the Federal Way Fire Department for purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services dispatch via the City of Federal Way's membership in VCC. D. The City of Auburn now seeks to enter into an interlocal agreement with the VRFA for the same purpose and in the same manner. E. The City of Federal Way Fire Department has merged to form King County Fire and Rescue and the City of Federal Way seeks to have VCC recognize King County Fire and Rescue as the Fire Department's successor in interest for all purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual rights and obligations established in the Amendment, the Member Cities agree hereby agree as follows: �.• AGREEMENT 1. The following provision is hereby added to Section 1 of the VCC Interlocal Agreement: The City of Auburn may enter into an Interlocal agreement with VRFA for the purposes of providing fire and emergency medical services dispatch via the City of Auburn's membership in VCC. Upon execution of the interlocal agreement, the City of Auburn may, at its option and under such terms an 1 conditions as Auburn deems proper, appoint VFRA to function as do the other Member City Fire Departments, for purposes of its representation on the Operations Board and for purposes of calculating and remitting payment for dispatch services. First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement (May 30, 2008) Page 1 of 5 It is noted that King County Fire and Rescue is the successor , in interest to all rights and obligations of the Federal Way Fire Department and will be recognized as such for all purposes under this Agreement. 2. The other terms of the VCC Interlocal Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but those counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument. 4. This Amendment shall be effective upon the last date of execution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby affix their hands and seals. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Its: Its: Date: Date: CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Its: Its: Date: Date: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON By: Print Name: Its: Date: (Notary Acknowledgments Appear on Next Page) First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement (May 30, 2008) Page 2of5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that on the day of 200_, I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF KENT as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. I -Notary Seal Must Appear Wlthln This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that on the day of 200_, I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person _ who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF TUWKILA as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Wlthln This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires ■ First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement (May 30, 2008) Page 3of5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that on the day of 200_, I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF AUBURN as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that on the day of 200_, I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF RENTON as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement (May 30, 2008) Page 4 of 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that on the day of 200_, I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the CITY OF FEDERAL WAY as its , and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires i P\Civil\Files\OpenFiles\0247\FirstAmendmenllnlerloc,IAg,ement-FINAL d,c First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement (May 30, 2008) Page 5 of 5 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 -` Category Consent Calendar - 6F l 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES, BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. ratifying the pro- posed amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies approved under Growth Management Planning Council Motion No. 07-3 recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as final and complete in responding to the countywide and city evaluation requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and recognizing its findings as the basis for any future measures that the City of Kent may need to adopt in order to comply with this section. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Staff memo to Planning & Economic Development Committee from Charlene Anderson dated 6/2/2008, with enclosures 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: 444 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone: Z53-856-5454 IFax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 2, 2008 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Planning & Economic Development Committee Members From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Subject: Countywide Planning Policies - Amendment King County Council Ordinance No. 16056 MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend to the full Council ratification of amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies approved under GMPC Motion No. 07-3 recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable _ Lands Report as final and complete in responding to the countywide and city evaluation requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and recognizing its findings as the basis for any future measures that the City of Kent may need to adopt in order to comply with this section. SUMMARY: The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. On April 14, 2008, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified an amendment that had been approved by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report and its findings (available online at www.metrokc.gov/budget/buildland/bldlnd07.htm). Now the amendment is presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on September 15, 1992, with Resolution No. 1326 and ratified Phase II amendments to the CPPs on November 16, 1994. Over the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. Through the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), jurisdictions within King County work together to plan for economic and population growth in King County, including consideration of CPPs. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution of at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in this case is July 11, 2008. i 445� The following GMPC motion to amend the CPPs was approved and ratified by the full County Council on April 14, 2008. GMPC Motion No. 07-3: Recognizes the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as final and complete in responding to the evaluation requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and its findings are recognized as the basis for any future measures that the county or cities may need to adopt in order to comply with this section. The Planning and Economic Development Committee was given a briefing on the 2007 Buildable Lands evaluation at the July 9, 2007 meeting. Michael Hubner of Suburban Cities Association will be available at the June 9th meeting to provide a summary of the report. CA\pm :S:\Permt\Plan\COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS\2008\CountywldePlannmgPolicies\cpppedc06O9O8.doc Eric: Kent Draft Ordinance, 5/2/2008 letter from Metropolitan King County Council including Ordinance 16056, GMPC Motion No 07-3; Excerpts from King County Buildable Lands Report 2007 cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, C D Director Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager Michael Hubner, Suburban Cities Association Project File"Misc." r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding King County Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council, recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report (the "Report") as final and complete, and providing that the Report's finding may be the basis for future measures. RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210, the Growth Management Act _ requires the adoption of Countywide Planning Policies to provide a ' countywide framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be developed. 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. This agreement established the Growth Management Planning Council (the "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. A 1 Ratification of King County Buildable Lands Report-2007 B. The GMPC voted to pass Motion No. 07-3 recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report (the "Report") as final and complete in responding to the evaluation requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and providing that the Report's findings are recognized as the basis for any future measures that King County or the cities may need to adopt in order to comply with this section. The King County Council approved and ratified GMPC Motion No. 07-3 on behalf of King County on April 14, 2008, pursuant to King County Ordinance No. 16056. C. The City Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee was given a briefing on the Report at its July 9, 2007, meeting and reviewed King County's Ordinance No. 16056 at its meeting on June 9, 2008. D. On June 17, 2008, the Kent City Council found that the City of Kent has completed a review and evaluation consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215. The findings of the review and evaluation for the City of Kent have been published in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report. The findings of the 2007 Buildable Lands Report indicate that the City of Kent has sufficient capacity, based on actual densities achieved during the most recent 5-year review period, to accommodate household and job growth targeted for the remainder of the current 20-year planning period extending through 2022. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein. 2 Ratification of King County Buildable Lands Report-2007 ■ SECTION 2. - Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies Motion 07-3 of the Growth Management Planning Council of King County. With this ratification, the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report is recognized as complete in meeting the county and city reporting requirements of RCW 36.70A.215, and its findings are recognized as the basis for any future measures that the City of Kent may need to adopt in order to comply with this section. SECTION 2. - Public Inspection. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed in the Planning Services Office so they are available for inspection by the public. SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Ratification of King County Buildable Lands Report-2007 APPROVED AS TO FORM: i TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of June, 2008. APPROVED: day of June, 2008. PUBLISHED: day of June, 2008. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civil\Ordinance\BuildableLandsReport-2007 doc 4 Ratification of King County Buildable Lands Report-2007 451 _ King County May 2, 2008 The Honorable Suzette Cooke ■ City of Kent 220-4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Cooke:,,�5 IAZ� We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). On April 14, 2008, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of the King County Council staff report, ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment. Ordinance No. 16056, GMPC Motion No. 07-3 by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report and its findings. (available on line at 'G www.metrokc.gov/budget/buildland/bldind07.htm) In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1, Step 9, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for this amendment is July 11, 2008. 451 If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, July 11, 2008, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, W1039 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of , Development and Environmental Services, at 206-296-6705, or Rick Bautista, King County Council Staff, at 206-296-0329. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Julia Patterson, Chair Ron Sims Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive Enclosures ccv ing County City Planning Directors Suburban Cities Association Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES Rick Bautista, Council Staff, Growth Management & Natural Resources Committee (GM&NR) KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 453 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 King County Signature Report April 14, 2008 Ordinance 16056 0 Proposed No. 2008-0074.2 Sponsors Gossett 1 AN ORDINANCE ratifying for unincorporated King 2 County an action by the Growth Management Planning 3 Council to adopt the 2007 Buildable Lands Report; and 4 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and 5 K.C_C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as 6 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL, OF KING COUNTY: ' 9 SECTION 1. Findings: The council makes the following findings: 10 A. The Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires King County and its cities to 11 implement a review and evaluation program, commonly referred to as "Buildable Lands" 12 and requires completion of an evaluation report every five years. The first King County q P 13 Buildable Lands Report ("BLR") was submitted to the state in 2002. 14 B. RCW 36.70A.215 establishes the required elements of that program to 15 include: 16 1. Annual data on land development; and 1 Ordinance 16056 454� 17 2. Periodic analyses to identify"land suitable for development" for anticipated 18 residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 19 C. Based on the findings of the five-year evaluation, a county or city may be 20 required to take remedial actions (i.e. reasonable measures) to ensure sufficient capacity 21 for growth needs and to address inconsistencies between actual development and adopted 22 policies and regulations. 23 D. The 2007 BLR contained data on: 24 1. Building permits and subdivision plats for the years 2001-2005; 25 2. Land supply and capacity as of 2006; and 26 3. Comparisons with growth targets established by the Growth Management 27 Planning Council (GMPC) in 2002 for the planning period 2001-2022. 28 E. The major findings of the 2007 BLR include the following: 29 1. Housing growth has been on track with twenty-two-year growth targets; 30 2. Densities achieved in new housing have increased compared to the previous 31 five years; 1 32 3. Commercial-industrial construction has continued despite the recession of 33 2001-2004; and 34 4. King County's Urban Growth Area, and each of four subareas of the county, Y 35 has sufficient land capacity to accommodate the residential and employment growth 36 forecasted by 2022. 37 F. While the GMA requires Kin Count and its cities to implement a review and q g Y P 38 evaluation program, as noted above, neither the GMA nor the Countywide Planning l 2 i Ordinance 16056 455 39 Policies ("CPPs") establishes a requirement or a process for adoption of the BLR as an 40 amendment to the CPPs. 41 G. In August 2002 the Kin Count BLR was submitted to the state prior to the g � g Y 42 statutory deadline of September 1 for"completion" of the five-year evaluation. However, 43 in December, 2004, the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors filed a petition with 44 the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ("the board") to appeal the 45 2002 BLR. 46 H. King County argued that the appeal of the BLR was untimely, falling outside 47 the sixty-day appeal period for GMA actions. The board ruled that the appeal was in fact 48 timely, since no legislative action had been taken to "adopt" the BLR that would have 49 defined a start and ending point for a sixty-day appeal period. 50 I. The board went on to state . . . to establish a timeframe for appeals to the 51 Board, the completion of the BLR should be acknowledged through legislative action and 52 the adoption of a resolution or ordinance finding that the review and evaluation has 53 occurred and noting its major findings." 54 J. As a response to the board decision, GMPC staff recommended the GMPC 55 consider legislative action to: 56 1. Establish a clear appeal period for the BLR; and 57 2. Emphasize the recognition and authority of the 2007 BLR as the technical 58 basis for subsequent countywide policy decisions as well as local decisions that are 59 consistent with the countywide policy direction. 60 K. As a coordinated countywide GMA document, the BLR falls within the 61 purview of GMPC. FW 1 Step 5(b) establishes the review and evaluation program 3 Ordinance 16056 45t- 62 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.215,but does not specify a procedure for formal adoption. The 63 CPPs do set forth a process whereby GMPC takes formal action on CPPs through: 64 1. A motion to recommend a CPP amendment for adoption by the King County 65 Council; and 66 2. Ratification by at least thirty percent of the cities containing at least seventy 67 percent of the population. 68 L. While the BLR is not a policy action, following an equivalent track for 69 countywide action on the BLR appears to be the best vehicle for formalizing the 70 "adoption" of the report through legislative action that represents the endorsement of both 71 the county and cities. 72 M. The GMPC met on December 12, 2007 and voted to recommend to the King 73 County Council, a motion (GMPC Motion 07-3) to adopt the 2007 Buildable Lands 74 Report. 75 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 76 each hereby amended to read as follows: 77 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 78 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 79 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 80 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 81 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 82 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. — 83 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 84 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260 4 Ordinance 16056 457 85 E. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 86 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 87 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning g 88 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 89 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 — Countywide Planning 90 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390_ 91 H. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 92 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. 93 1. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 — Countywide Planning 94 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. 1 95 J. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 96 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. ' 97 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 98 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. 99 L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 100 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654. 101 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 102 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. 103 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning : 104 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. i< 105 O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 —Countywide Planning 106 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. 107 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning s 5 ,Ordinance 16056 458 108 Policies are amended as shown by Attachments A, B and C to Ordinance 15121. 109 Q. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 110 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15122. III R. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 112 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15123. 113 S. Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 114 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments A and B to Ordinance 15426. 115 T. Phase I1 Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 116 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments A, B and C to Ordinance 15709. 117 U. Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 118 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments A to this ordinance. 119 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 120 each hereby amended to read as follows: 121 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes 122 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated Kin County. P Y P P �P g Y 123 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 124 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 125 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted b Ordinance Yam' g P Y 126 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 127 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 128 Policies adopted b Ordinance 1 1446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of P Y Y P P 129 unincorporated King County. 6 Ordinance 16056 459 130 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 131 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 132 population of unincorporated King County. 133 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 134 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 135 population of unincorporated King County. 136 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 137 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 138 population of unincorporated King County. 139 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 140 shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 141 the population of unincorporated King County. 142 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 143 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 144 the population of unincorporated King County_ 145 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 146 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 147 population of unincorporated King County. 148 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 149 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 150 population of unincorporated King County. 7 46.0 Ordinance 16056 - 151 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 152 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 153 population of unincorporated King County. 154 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 155 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 156 population of unincorporated King County. 157 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 158 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of 159 the population of unincorporated King County. 160 O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 161 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 162 population of unincorporated King County. 163 P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 164 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 165 population of unincorporated King County. 166 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 167 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 168 population of unincorporated King County. 169 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies, as 170 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 171 population of unincorporated King County. 1 g Ordinance 16056 461 172 S. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 173 shown by Attachments A, B and C to Ordinance 15121, are hereby ratified on behalf of 174 the population of unincorporated King County. 175 T. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 176 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15122, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 177 population of unincorporated King County. 178 U. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 179 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15123, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 180 population of unincorporated King County. 181 V. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as i 182 shown by Attachments A and B to Ordinance 15426, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 183 population of unincorporated King County. 184 W. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, 185 as shown by Attachments A, B and C to Ordinance 15709, are hereby ratified on behalf 186 of the P unincorporated population of uninco orated King County. 187 X. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 9 Ordinance 16056 462� 188 shown by Attachment A_to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 189 of unincorporated King County. 190 ' Ordinance 16056 was introduced on 3/10/2008 and passed by the Metropolitan King ' County Council on 4/14/2008, by the following vote: Yes: 5 -Ms_ Patterson, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Gossett and Mr. Phillips No: 4 -Mr. Dunn, Ms. Lambert, Mr. von Reichbauer and Ms. Hague Excused: 0 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON qultterson,Chair ATTEST: SYL�Nolk 4fy Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this 20day of q (Lr- ,2008. Ron Sims,County Executive m Attachments A. Motion No.07-3 =_ zz ZZ l j w 10 463 16056 ATTACHMENT A Dated 3-18-08 October 3,2007 Sponsored By: Executive Committee 1 MOTION NO. 07-3 2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King 3 County recognizing the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report — 4 and its findings _ 5 6 WHEREAS,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.215,King County and its cities are required n 7 to implement a review and evaluation program,commonly referred to as the Buildable ■ 8 Lands program,and 9 10 WHEREAS FW-I Step 5(b)of the Countywide Planning Policies requires a review and ■ 11 evaluation progr'srn consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A-215,and 12 13 WHEREAS,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.215,the review and evaluation program 14 shall encompass annual collection of data on urban and rural land use and development, is critical areas,and capital facilities to the extent necessary to determine the quantity and 16 type of land suitable for development,both for residential and employment-based 17 activities,and �' t8 19 WHEREAS,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.215,the review and evaluation must 1) 20 determine whether there is sufficient land suitable for development to accommodate 21 population projections for the county by the state Office of Financial Management and 22 subsequent allocations to cities pursuant to RCW 36.70A 110,2)determine the actual 23 density of housing and the actual density of land consumed for commercial and industrial 24 uses,3)based on the actual density of development,determine the amount of land needed 25 for residential,commercial,and industrial uses for the remainder of the 20-year planning 26 period,and 27 28 WHEREAS,in accordance with RCW 36.70A.215,King County and its cities are required 29 to complete an updated evaluation report every five years with the next report due by 30 September 2007,and i ' 31 32 WHEREAS,King County and its cities have completed this review and evaluation and 33 have published its findings in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report, 34 35 WHEREAS,the findings of the review and evaluation include the following: 36 - Housing growth has been on track with 22-year household growth targets; 37 - Densities achieved in new housing have increased,compared to the previous five 38 yam; 39 - Commercial and industrial construction has continued,despite the recession of 40 2001 —2004; nwu:r 9n"7 1 46,4 16056 I - King County's Urban Growth Area,and each of its four urban subareas,has 2 sufficient capacity to accommodate the residential and employment growth 3 forecasted by 2022, a s THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCII.OF KING COUNTY ' 6 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 7 8 1. 'The attached 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report is r000gnized as 9 final and complete in responding to the evaluation re"irements of RCW 10 36.70A.215,and its findings are recognized as the basis for any future l I measures that the county or cities may need to adopt in order to comply l2 with this section 13 j 14 2. This motion shall be attached to the Countywide Planning Policies as an j 15 appendix for future reference_ 16 17 3. The attached 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report is recommended to 19 the Metropolitan King County Council and the Cities of King County for 19 adoption of a motion recognizing the completion of the Report and noting 20 Its major conclusions. 1 2I 22 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on October 3, 23 2007 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPC. 24 25 26 27 ? 28 29 i 30 i 31 Ron 'r, wth Management Planning Council i 32 Attachment: ' 33 1. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 34 i 35 36 37 1 I i DRAFT9/14/07 - 2 - i . 465 King County Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Natural Resources Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: Name: Rick Bautista Proposed Ord: 2008-0074 (ratifying GMPC Motion 07-3) Date: March 18, 2008 PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE 2008-0074 RECEIVED A "DO PASS"RECOMMENDATION ON MARCH 18, 2008. SUBJECT: Substitute Ordinance ratifying the adoption of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report by the Growth Management Planning Council_ BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt CPPs. Under the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan This is to ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process- recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County, NOTE. A city is deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless it has taken legislative action to disapprove within 90 days of adoption by King County. SUMMARY: Proposed Substitute Ordinance 2008-0074 would ratify GMPC Motion 07-3, which adopts and affirms the findings contained in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as final and complete as the basis for any further measures that the county or cities may need to adopt in order to comply with in responding to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 GMA Requirements The GMA requires King County and its cities to implement a review and evaluation program, _ commonly referred to as "Buildable Lands" and requires completion of an evaluation report every 5 years. The first King County Buildable Lands Report (BLR)was submitted to the state in 2002. 46f RCW 36.70A.215 establishes the required elements of that program to include: o Annual data on land development, and o Periodic analyses to identify"land suitable for development" for anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Based on the findings of the 5-year evaluation, a county or city may be required to take remedial actions (i.e. reasonable measures)to ensure sufficient capacity for growth needs and to address inconsistencies between actual development and adopted policies and regulations. The GMPC was briefed on the findings of the 2007 BLR in June and September 2007 and adopted the 2007 BLR in December 2007. The 2007 BLR contained data on: o Building permits and subdivision plats for the years 2001-2005, o Land supply and capacity as of 2006, and o Comparisons with growth targets established by the GMPC in 2002 for the planning period 2001-2022. The major findings of the 2007 BLR include the following: o Housing growth has been on track with 22-year growth targets. o Densities achieved in new housing have increased compared to the previous five years. o Commercial-industrial construction has continued despite the recession of 2001-2004. o King County's Urban Growth Area, and each of four subareas of the county, has sufficient land capacity to accommodate the residential and employment growth forecasted by 2022. Effect of GMPC Action While the GMA requires King County and its cities to implement a review and evaluation program, as noted above, neither the GMA nor the CPPs establishes a requirement or a process for adoption of the BLR as an amendment to the CPPs. In August 2002, the King County BLR was submitted to the State prior to the statutory deadline of September 1 for"completion' of the 5-year evaluation. However, in December, 2004, the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors filed a petition with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to appeal the 2002 BLR King County argued that the appeal of the BLR was untimely, falling outside the 60-day appeal period for GMA actions. The Hearings Board ruled that the appeal was in fact timely, since no legislative action had been taken to "adopt" the BLR that would have defined a start and ending point for a 60-day appeal period. The Board went on to state "...to establish a timeframe for appeals to the Board, the completion of the BLR should be acknowledged through legislative action and the adoption of a resolution or ordinance finding that the review and evaluation has occurred and noting its major findings.' As a response to the Hearings Board decision, GMPC staff recommended the GMPC consider legislative action to. o Establish a clear appeal period for the BLR, and o Emphasize the recognition and authority of the 2007 BLR as the technical basis for subsequent countywide policy decisions as well as local decisions that are consistent with the countywide policy direction As a coordinated countywide GMA document, the BLR falls within the purview of GMPC. FW 1 Step 5(b) establishes the review and evaluation program pursuant to RCW 36.70A.215, but does not specify a procedure for formal adoption The CPPs do set forth a process whereby GMPC takes formal action on CPPs through- 467 o A motion to recommend a CPP amendment for adoption by the King County Council, and o Ratification by at least 30% of the cities containing at least 70% of the population. While the BLR is not a policy action, following an equivalent track for countywide action on the BLR appears to be the best vehicle for formalizing the "adoption" of the report through legislative action that represents the endorsement of both the county and cities. ATTACHMENTS: None 1 L 469 King County Ron Sims King County Executive 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210 RECEIVED Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-4040 Fax 206-296-0194 TTY Relay: 711 SEP 2 8 2007 www.metrokc,gov CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES September 19, 2007 Leonard Bauer,Manager, Growth Management Unit Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development P O Box 48350 Olympia, WA 98504 - 9350 Dear Mr. Bauer: I am pleased to provide you a copy of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report. This report was prepared by the King CountyOffice of Management and Budget, in collaboration with the City of Bellevue, the City of Seattle, and the Suburban Cities Association of King County. The report fulfills King County's obligation under RCW 36.70A.215, the Buildable Lands amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act. The 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report is also a deliverable under Grant #B08-63200. Thank you for providing and overseeing the grant, which has helped King County and its cities to complete the production of this report. The Buildable Lands Report is a five-year evaluation of development densities, land supply and capacity in the Urban Growth Area(UGA)of King County. It includes a profile of each of King County's 39 cities and towns. The report concludes the following: • King County's Urban Growth Area, and its four sub-areas, have sufficient capacity to accommodate the residential development forecasted by 2022. This remains true despite robust population and housing growth in recent years. Together, King County jurisdictions can absorb 289,000 new housing units, which translates to 277,000 added households—more than twice the remaining growth target of 106,000 households to be accommodated by 2022. • Population and housing growth are on track with targets. Since 2000, King County population has grown slightly faster than predicted by the state Office of Financial Management in 2002. Residential construction has proceeded at a pace somewhat ahead of targets during the 2001-2005 review period—31 percent of the 22-year household target during five years or 23 percent of the target period. King County jurisdictions added over 49,000 net new housing units, half single family, half multifamily during the five years ending in 2005. • Achieved residential densities have increased compared to the previous five years. UGA-wide, single family development averaged 6.2 units per net acre in new subdivisions, an increase of 34 percent over densities in the 1996-2000 review period. Multifamily development achieved 38 units per net acre,up 72 percent. Net densities ' were calculated based on actual measurement of critical areas, rights-of-way and public uses in residential developments. King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer .®ixozu and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act Leonard Bauer 470 September 19, 2007 Page 2 • Commercial-industrial construction has continued despite the recession of 2001- 2004. King County lost more than 70,000 jobs during the worst recession in 30 years, and as of 2006 had not yet gained all those jobs back. Yet permitting of new commercial and industrial construction continued at a healthy pace, with 18 million square feet of new commercial buildings and 10 million square feet of new buildings in industrial zones UGA-wide. ' • The King County UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate our commercial- industrial growth needs. There is capacity for up to 527,000 jobs, almost twice that needed to reach our job targets in all subareas and the UGA as a whole. The 2007 Buildable Lands Report also contains land use information about Rural Areas and Resource Lands in King County, and includes detailed descriptions of the careful methodology undertaken to ensure that the Buildable Lands information is accurate and forms a credible basis for King County's Growth Management policy. Thank you again for your support of this document's preparation. If you have questions about the Buildable Lands Report,please contact Chandler Felt, Demographer, at 206-205-0712. ncerely, King County Executive cc: Bob Cowan,Director, King County Office of Management and Budget ' 471 King County Office of Management and Budget Office of the King County Executive 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 26, 2007 Dear Planning Director: ' Michael Hubner of the Suburban Cities Association and I are pleased to provide you a copy of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report. As you know, this report was a collaborative effort of each of the cities together with King County. The report fulfills King County's obligation under RCW 36.70A.215, the Buildable Lands amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act. Michael and I want to offer our profuse thanks for all the hard work you and your staff put in over the last five years, and especially during 2007, to compile the raw data and analysis in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. This is an effort of which we can all be proud. The report is as accurate as our joint efforts could make it,and its findings demonstrate the value of the Buildable Lands program in monitoring development and capacity for growth. The attached transmittal provides a quick summary of key findings in the report. A printed copy / was also sent to the Mayor of your city this week. Thank you again for your contributions to this document's preparation. If you have questions about the Buildable Lands Report,please contact me at (206) 205-0712, or Michael Hubner at (253) 856 - 5443. Sincerely, Chandler Felt King County Demographer •�1M7M -- 473 �U ' �� _I�,_% `b � v�,x oi" br�' r r��'n r �', ;'ti i�4•� ,� , 1 A collaborative product of: King County Suburban Cities Association of King County City of Seattle ' City of Bellevue .. �=eE< T Kin9mn Y �• �'SNiK °? September, 2007 `-� 475 The King -� BuildableLandsReport 2007 io A collaborative product of: King County Suburban Cities Association of King County City of Seattle City of Bellevue K'�g County �S►+lNat° September, 2007 476 King County Buildable Lands Report, September 2007 Acknowledgements: This 2007 Buildable Lands Report was prepared by King County and its cities under RCW 36.70A.215 ' amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act. Every jurisdiction in King County has participated in collecting and evaluating development information to prepare this Report. Thanks to the following cities and towns for participation: City of Algona City of Maple Valley City of Auburn City of Medina Town of Beaux Arts Village City of Mercer Island , City of Bellevue City of Milton City of Black Diamond City of Newcastle City of Bothell City of Normandy Park City of Burien City of North Bend , City of Carnation City of Pacific City of Clyde Hill City of Redmond City of Covington City of Renton City of Des Moines City of Sammamish City of Duvall City of Sea Tac City of Enumclaw City of Seattle ' City of Federal Way City of Shoreline Town of Hunts Point Town of Skykomish City of Issaquah City of Snoqualmie City of Kenmore City of Tukwila City of Kent City of Woodinville City of Kirkland Town of Yarrow Point City of Lake Forest Park This Report was compiled by the King County Office of Management and Budget in collaboration with the City of Bellevue, the City of Seattle, and the Suburban Cities Association of King County. Thanks to the following individuals and groups who contributed greatly to this effort. City of Bellevue: Nicholas Matz City of Seattle: Tom Hauger Suburban Cities Association: Michael Hubner, Ben Vang-Johnson King County: Chandler Felt, Nanette Lowe, Jeremy Valenta Puget Sound Regional Council Funded in part by Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, through grant agreements# B08-63200-331 and # B07-63304-002 with King County, and grant agreements # B08-63200-326, # B07-63304-001, and #C06-63200-252 with the Suburban Cities Association. 477 - 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary II, Introduction III. Technical Framework and Methodology IV. Development Activity • King County Urban Growth Area and Four Subareas • Amount,Type, and Density of Residential and Commercial Development V. Land Supply and Development Capacity • Residential Land Supply and Capacity • Commercial-Industrial Land Supply and Capacity VI. Rural Areas and Resource Lands • Development Activity • Developable Lots VII. Profiles of King County Jurisdictions • Residential Development • Residential Land Supply, Capacity and Growth Target • Non-Residential Development • Non-Residential Land Supply, Capacity and Growth Target Technical Appendices A. Definitions of Vacant and Redevelopable Land B. Deductions for Critial Areas, ROWS, Public Uses, and Market Factors C. Assumed Future Floor Area per Employee Inside front cover: Map of King County Urban Growth Area and Subareas 479 I. Executive Summary i Overview of the Buildable Lands Requirement In 1997, the Washington State legislature adopted the Buildable Lands amendment to the Growth ' Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A.215. The amendment requires six Washington counties including King County, together with their cities, to prepare a review and evaluation report every five years. The 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report contains data on 5 years of development activity (2001-2005) along with an updated analysis of land supply and capacity (2006)to accommodate Household and Job Growth Targets. Findings are reported for the Urban Growth Area (UGA) as a whole, each of 4 urban subareas, and each city. Based on the results of the Buildable Lands evaluation, "reasonable measures" may be required at the countywide or city level to ensure ' sufficient capacity for planned growth. The GMA requires designation of Urban Growth Areas to "include areas and densities sufficient to permit urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20-year period" (see RCW 36.70A.110). The Buildable Lands evaluation represents a mid-course check that this important GMA requirement is being met in King County. The focus of the evaluation therefore is on the designated Urban areas of King County and growth targets for those areas as established in the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). This 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report (BLR) is the second five-year evaluation prepared by the county and its cities in response to the Buildable Lands amendment. The first evaluation report was submitted to the State in September 2002. While the 2007 BLR complements and extends the information in the earlier report, it stands alone as its own evaluation. For more detail on the Buildable Lands requirement, see Chapter II. Countywide Collaboration Buildable Lands implementation within King County is a collaborative effort of all 40 jurisdictions. It ' consists primarily of coordination among relatively independent local efforts, achieved through: Technical assistance and project coordination provided by Suburban Cities Association (SCA) staff in partnership with King County • Technical guidelines for local data collection and analysis • Use of standardized worksheets and templates to collect and analyze data • Technical staff forums to coordinate Buildable Lands data collection among jurisdictions • Collaboration of staff from King County, SCA, and the cities of Seattle and Bellevue on ' countywide methodologies, overall review and evaluation framework, and contents of the report • Oversight and guidance from the Growth Management Planning Council, a formal body of elected officials representing King County and its cities ' Such coordination ensured that the 2007 Buildable Lands analysis was carried out in a broadly consistent and comparable manner throughout King County, while allowing for limited local variations to account for differing land use and market characteristics, data resources, and local land use policies. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 1 - 1 480, Methodology The 2007 Buildable Lands Report incorporates the results of several technical elements, including ' the following: • Analysis of subdivision plat and building permit data for the years 2001-2005 • Analysis of parcel and critical areas data using geographic information systems (GIS)to estimate the acres of vacant and redevelopable land within zoning designations as of early 2006 ' • Conversion of the land supply data to units of capacity (housing units,jobs), based on analysis assumptions for land dedications, market availability, densities, and other factors • Evaluation of the sufficiency of the capacity for housing and jobs to accommodate growth needs , for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022). Figure 1.1, below, illustrates the relationship among these technical elements within the entire data ' collection, analysis, and evaluation process. For more detailed documentation of the methodology used in preparing this report, see Chapter III and technical appendices. Figure 1,1: Elements of Buildable Lands Analysis and Evaluation Land Supply Inventory Annual Development Activity , January 2006 2001-2005 Vacant and redevelopable parcels Net densities achieved— Critical areas DUs per acre , ROWs and public facilities Floor Area Ratios Market factor Net acres/sq. ft. of land Growth Targets Remaining 2006-2022 Development Capacity Analysis CPP targets for households and jobs ' January 2006 (2001-2022) Housing units Net residential and lob growth Jobs (2000-2005/6) , Evaluation ' Is capacity sufficient to accommodate targets for households and jobs for the remainder of the planning period? , Overall, the technical framework for the 2007 Buildable Lands Report is consistent with that used in the 2002 report. Limited revisions and updates were made to analysis assumptions, including , densities, public land needs, critical areas, market factors, and other factors. Changes to the methodology were informed by a review of the 2002 BLR methodology, analysis of emerging data trends, discussions with local staff, and meetings with stakeholder groups to seek input on ' methodology and the scope of the evaluation. 1-2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report a '1 481 Major Findings of the 2007 Buildable Lands Report Analysis of data on growth and development activity for the 5-year review period (2001-2005) produced the following major findings • Housing growth on track with targets. King County jurisdictions added over 49,000 net new housing units within the UGA Approximately half of the new housing was single family, half multifamily. Overall housing growth—within each subarea and within the UGA as a whole—is slightly ahead of pace to reach 2001-2022 Household Growth Targets within the planning period • Trend toward higher residential densities. Single-family and multifamily residential densities permitted from 2001-2005 were higher than densities observed in development during the previous 5-year review period. UGA-wide, single-family development achieved 6.2 units per net acre in plats. Multifamily permits achieved 38 units per net acre. Net densities were calculated based on actual measurement of critical areas, rights-of-way and public uses in residential developments. • Mixed indicators of non-residential growth. Data for the county as a whole show a net loss of approximately 25,000 jobs between 2000 and 2006, due to the recession of 2001-2004. Permitting of new commercial and industrial development, however, continued to occur throughout Urban King County, with permits issued for about 18 million sq. ft. of space in commercial zones and 10 million sq ft. of space in industrial zones UGA-wide Analysis of data on land supply and development capacity, estimated as of early 2006, produced the following major findings: • Residential land capacity. The UGA contains approximately 22,000 net acres of land suitable for residential development to accommodate growth during the planning period. Based on current plans and regulations, achieved densities, and other factors, the UGA has capacity for about 84,000 single-family homes and about 205,000 multifamily units. Half of the UGA's residential capacity is in mixed-use zones. ' Sufficient capacity for household targets. Overall, the UGA capacity of 289,000 additional housing units can accommodate an estimated 277,000 households, more than twice the number needed for the 106,000 households of remaining growth target over the remainder of the planning period. Capacity sufficient to accommodate household targets exists within each planning subarea and within each jurisdiction as well. • Commercial and industrial land capacity. The UGA contains more than 6,000 net acres of 1 land suitable for non-residential development to accommodate job growth during the planning period Based on current plans and regulations, actual densities, and other factors, the UGA has capacity for about 400,000 additional jobs in commercial and mixed-use zones and 123,000 jobs in industrial zones. • Sufficient capacity for job targets. Overall, the UGA capacity for approximately 527,000 additional jobs is double what is needed to accommodate the growth target of approximately ' 267,000 jobs for the remainder of the planning period. Capacity sufficient to accommodate job targets exists within each planning subarea and within nearly all individual jurisdictions. Chapters IV, V and VI of this report contain detailed countywide and subarea findings in all of these areas. Chapter VII, the heart of the report, provides detailed information about each jurisdiction in Urban King County. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report I-3 ' 483 II. Introduction Policy Framework for the Buildable Lands Report In 1997, the Washington State legislature adopted the Buildable Lands amendment to the Growth ' Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A.215. The amendment required a review and evaluation program to be implemented in six counties (King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap, and Clark). Components of the review and evaluation program include annual data collection, periodic evaluation reports, and adoption of measures, where needed, to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) FW-1 Step 5(b) establishes the review and evaluation program in King County. This report responds to that policy as well as the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70 215. King County and the other five counties must submit a comprehensive Buildable Lands evaluation report to the State every five years. The first report was completed in September, 2002. This second five-year Buildable Lands Report (BLR) is due to the State in September, 2007. It contains data on residential and commercial land development in King County's 39 cities and unincorporated Urban areas during the years 2001 through 2005. It also contains an updated inventory of land supply (in acres) and land capacity (in housing units, building square feet, and jobs) as of early 2006 to accommodate growth needs through 2022, As such, the 2007 BLR supplements and extends the data in the 2002 BLR. The focus of this report is on the designated Urban Growth Area (UGA) of King County. The CPPs and the King County Comprehensive Plan establish the UGA boundary to encompass all incorporated cities and towns in the county along with unincorporated areas planned for urban growth. State law requires that UGAs "include areas and densities sufficient to permit urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20-year period" (see RCW.36.70A.110(2)). The Buildable Lands evaluation represents a mid-course check that this important GMA requirement is being met in King County. Growth anticipated for the 20-year planning period is set forth in the CPPs in terms of local growth targets for households and jobs Updated targets for each city and urban unincorporated subarea were adopted into the CPPs in fall 2002 for a planning period extending from 2001 through 2022. Household Growth Targets are based on projections of population growth in King County released by the State Office of Financial Management in early 2002. The vast majority (96%) of the county's population growth is targeted to Urban areas Job Growth Targets are based on employment forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2002 Both Household and Job Growth Targets must be accommodated through provision of sufficient land suitable for development under county and city plans and regulations. The Buildable Lands analysis determines the capacity of that land based on actual densities achieved in recent development. In this way, the BLR looks both backward at observed patterns and trends, and forward in assessing - the continued ability to provide for anticipated growth. Altogether, the planning period, growth targets, and review and evaluation program established in the Countywide Planning Policies provide a common framework for assessing collective and individual success in accommodating growth consistent with local plans, CPPs, and the Growth Management Act Consistent with RCW 36.70A.215, the King County Buildable Lands Report is not intended to represent 1)a forecast of the amount or rate of future population or economic growth in the county, 2) an analysis of the market feasibility, attractiveness, or availability of any particular parcel for 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report II - 1 484� residential or non-residential development, 3) an assessment of the current or future affordability of ' land or housing, or 4) an evaluation of the sufficiency of current infrastructure capacity to accommodate growth. Rather, the report is intended to provide technical data and analysis, of a scope that is defined and limited by the GMA and state agency guidelines', as a basis for subsequent policy review and potential action by the county and cities. Countywide Coordination Buildable Lands implementation in King County is a collaborative effort of all 40 jurisdictions carried out under the aegis of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a formal policy-making body of elected officials from the county and cities. It consists primarily of coordination among relatively independent local efforts, with guidance from countywide staff and oversight from the GMPC. Coordination for the 2007 BLR was accomplished through the following mechanisms: • Technical assistance and project coordination was provided to local governments countywide by Suburban Cities Association (SCA) staff in partnership with the Growth Information Team in the King County Budget Office. This assistance included collecting and disseminating required data, analyzing geographic information systems (GIS) and other data, reviewing technical work produced by local jurisdiction staff, maintaining a countywide Buildable Lands database, and preparing and producing the 2007 evaluation report. • Technical guidelines for data collection and analysis were prepared by SCA and distributed for use by local staff. The guidelines are consistent with State Buildable Lands Program Guidelines (CTED 2000) and the recommendations of the King County Land Capacity Task Force (GMPC 1995, 1997). • Standardized worksheets and data templates were developed by SCA and distributed for use , by local staff. The worksheets provided a common format for data reporting and analysis, and provide the basis for the data as presented in this report. • Between September and December 2006, King County and SCA held a series of technical staff forums. The forums provided an additional platform to disseminate program information and to respond to questions from local planning and technical staff. • Buildable Lands work was also guided by the King County planning directors group, who were briefed in 2006 and 2007 on program details and progress toward completion of the 2007 BLR. • Finally, a staff steering committee representing King County, City of Seattle, City of Bellevue, and Suburban Cities Association collaborated in reviewing and approving a countywide methodology, the overall review and evaluation framework, and contents of the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. Such coordination ensured that the Buildable Lands evaluation was carried out in a broadly , consistent and comparable manner throughout King County, while allowing for limited local variations to account for differing land use and market characteristics, data resources, and local land use policies. ' Buildable Lands Program Guidelines,Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, 2000 II -2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report MM i 485 Progress from 212 BLR to 293LR The first King County Buildable Lands Report was completed in September 2002. Subsequent to that report, King County and its cities took on policy changes and technical work that set the stage for the completion of the 2007 BLR. First, in late 2002, the GMPC adopted new Household and Job Growth Targets for the 2001-2022 planning period These targets, based on the State Office of Financial Management 2002 population projections, supplanted the 1993-2012 CPP targets that were the basis for the evaluation in the 2002 ' BLR. The new targets, along with the data in the 2002 BLR, provided the basis for an Urban Growth Area review in early 2003 They also led to adoption of local measures to ensure sufficient capacity in each jurisdiction to accommodate targeted growth (see Reasonable Measures discussion below). ' Second, the county and cities continued to collect land use and land development data on an annual basis, for both residential and commercial/industrial development. Highlights of that work have been reported periodicially in the land use bulletin of the King County Benchmark Report. A summary of those data for the full 5-year review period (2001-2005) is presented in Chapter IV of this report. Third, staff conducted a review of the methodology used in the 2002 BLR, and made changes where appropriate for use in the 2007 BLR. Overall, the technical framework for the 2007 Buildable Lands Report is consistent with that used in the 2002 report. New and updated elements of the methodology include the following. • Assumed future densities were updated based on actual densities achieved 2001-2005, which were generally higher than the densities used in the 2002 Buildable Lands analysis • Assumed land needs for rights-of-way and public purposes were updated based on observed development patterns 2001-2005, which generally resulted in higher discounts than used in the 2002 Buildable Lands analysis • The analysis incorporated information on critical areas ordinance updates and other changes to local regulations adopted since 2002 • Market factor discounts were reviewed and revised for some locations in the county ' • Assumed residential vacancy rates were used to convert housing units to households. The King County Buildable Lands methodology is subject to ongoing refinements in response to best 1 available data and input from local staff, stakeholders, and policy makers. King County and its cities have endeavored to improve the accuracy and completeness of the data reported in the 2007 BLR and will continue to monitor actual development in comparison with assumptions and definitions in advance of the next report due 5 years from now in 2012 Fourth, more intensive data collection and analysis began in fall 2006 and continued through summer 2007. This involved major investments of staff time at both the countywide and local jurisdiction level, especially within larger municipalities. The product of these efforts is a database that is the source of the findings reported in the 2007 BLR. Fifth, staff met with major stakeholders in order to exchange information and perspectives on the methodology and data. In June 2006, staff met with representatives of development industry and environmental groups to brief them on preparations for the 2007 Buildable Lands Report and to solicit input from them on technical methodology and scope of the evaluation. Attendees included the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors, the King-Snohomish Master Builders Association, the Housing Partnership, Futurewise, and the Cascade Land Conservancy. In June 2007, staff met with representatives of the same stakeholder groups to brief them on the preliminary findings of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report II-3 4861 Buildable Lands evaluation and the anticipated contents of the 2007 BLR, as well as to discuss t interpretation of these findings. Finally, staff reported to the Growth Management Planning Council in 2005, 2006, and 2007 on , activities related to Buildable Lands and preparations for the 2007 BLR. Each GMPC meeting included an opportunity for public comment. Milestones achieved at GMPC included the following: • At its September 21, 2005 meeting, the GMPC directed staff to proceed with a general scope of work for the 2007 BLR. • At its September 20, 2006 meeting, staff briefed the GMPC on the Buildable Lands methodology updates, then in progress. The GMPC approved of the work to date and directed staff to proceed with data analysis for the 2007 BLR. • Finally, staff presented a preliminary draft Buildable Lands evaluation to the GMPC at its June 20, 2007 meeting. At that time, the GMPC directed staff to proceed with finalizing the report as well as to prepare a motion for GMPC action at its October 2007 meeting that would recognize the final BLR and its findings. Similar to the process of amending Countywide Planning Policies, GMPC recognition of the BLR is subject to adoption by the King County Council followed by ratification by cities.2 Reasonable Measures Responses to Buildable Lands "Reasonable measures" is a term that refers to the policy responses to the Buildable Lands evaluation that are required to address any identified "inconsistencies" between actual development and adopted policies, plans, and regulations (see RCW 36.70A.215(4)). The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development(CTED) has provided guidance on reasonable measures. In a March 16, 2007 advisory letter to cities and counties, CTED stated: "Counties and cities must examine the BLR and make a determination of whether their plans and regulations remain consistent with countywide planning policies in providing land suitable for development sufficient to accommodate anticipated population and employment growth. Counties and cities also should identify inconsistencies between actual and planned development patterns and densities, where such inconsistencies may prevent local governments from accommodating growth." Reasonable measures may include amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, public investments in infrastructure and amenities, or other public actions that may reasonably be expected to address inconsistencies between planned and actual growth and to , increase housing and/or job capacity. RCW 36.70A.215 further requires annual monitoring of the effectiveness of any measures adopted. The 2002 BLR found that capacity for housing and employment UGA-wide, as well as in the majority , of individual jurisdictions, was sufficient, based on actual densities achieved under GMA plans, to accommodate CPP growth targets then in effect for the 1993-2012 planning period. However, the report also found that a handful of cities fell short of needed capacity to accommodate their individual targets. As noted above, the GMPC adopted new growth targets in late 2002, shortly after completion of the 2002 BLR. Growth targets for the new 2001-2022 planning period supplanted the 1993-2012 targets in the CPPs. As part of the UGA review in early 2003, the need for reasonable measures was re- 2 This course of action is consistent with recommendation of the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development that"the completed BLR be acknowledged by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance by the appropriate legislative body."See letter from CTED to counties and cities covered by the Buildable Lands requirement, dated March 16, 2007 II-4 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 487 evaluated based on comparing the new policy targets with capacity estimates in the 2002 BLR. Again, several jurisdictions were found to have insufficient capacity (under plans and regulations in place as of early 2001)to meet their targets. Largely within the context of major updates to comprehensive plans required by GMA by December 2004, cities with capacity shortfalls adopted measures intended to ensure sufficient capacity for ' 2001-2022 Household and Job Growth Targets. Those measures are documented in a September 2005 staff report to GMPC Selected data indicators of the effectiveness of the measures were also identified for follow-up annual monitoring. Table 2.1, below, lists the cities and measures to be ' adopted. Table 2.1: Reasonable Measures Reported to GMPC, September 20 Affected Cities Measures to Accommodate Growth Targets (20-202) Carnation 0 Rezones in several areas of city Federal Way • Allow 5-story wood frame construction • Neighborhood Business rezone • Multifamily tax exemption • Planned Action SEPA for Urban Center • Increased height limit in Urban Center Kirkland 0 Designation, subarea plan, and zoning for new Totem Lake Urban Center Residential Rose Hill rezones • Densitv bonuses for affordable housing Lake Forest Park • Lake Forest Park Town Center redevelopment • Residential clustering • Cottage housing SeaTac • Allow 5-story wood frame construction • Revise ADU regulations Tukwila 0 Infrastructure investments and regulatory changes to allow and encourage more housing development in the Urban Center Kirkland • Designation, subarea plan, and zoning for new Totem Lake Urban Center • Rose Hill rezones Lake Forest Park • Lake Forest Park Town Center redevelopment Employment Sammamish • Sammamish Town Center redevelopment • Implement comprehensive plan policy to boost employment in existing commercial areas Shoreline 0 Economic development through implementation of the cit 's Strategic Plan With barely more than a year's worth of data collected and analyzed so far, it is premature to draw any conclusions in the 2007 BLR about the effectiveness of the measures adopted However, the capacity analyses for each city completed for the 2007 BLR are perhaps the most comprehensive measure of the effectiveness of local plan amendments and implementing regulations to accommodate targeted growth. With one exception, this report (see Chapters V and VII) finds that all cities on this list have now demonstrated sufficient capacity, based on actual densities observed under current plans and zoning, to accommodate their 2001-2022 growth targets. The data and findings presented in this report, particularly the evaluation of the sufficiency of land and capacity to accommodate targeted growth, are the basis for determining whether any additional reasonable measures are required of the county or any city. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report II -5 488 Report Components and Organization , p p 9 The remainder of this report is in five main chapters. • Chapter III describes the countywide methodology and assumptions used in the analysis. (Technical Appendices A-C, at the end of the report, document definitions, factors, and assumptions used by each jurisdiction in their local implementation of the countywide Buildable Lands methodology.) • Chapter IV summarizes measures of development activity for the 5-year period, 2001 through , 2005. The chapter presents data on the amount, type, and density of residential, commercial, and industrial development. Progress toward attaining growth targets set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies is also reported, including both permitted development and employment data. Findings are reported for the Urban Growth Area (UGA) as a whole, four planning subareas of the UGA, and individual cities and urban unincorporated subareas. Finally, the chapter analyzes development trends from the 1996-2000 period to the 2001-2005 period. • Chapter V presents the findings of the land supply and capacity analysis. Data include land supply (measured in acres) and capacity to accommodate growth (in housing units, square feet of floor area, and jobs) as of approximately January 2006. Sufficiency of housing and job capacity to meet anticipated growth needs is evaluated by comparison with CPP Household and Job Growth Targets for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022). Finally, the chapter compares the findings of this analysis with the findings contained in the 2002 BLR. • Chapter VI summarizes residential development trends in Rural and Resource areas and ' provides summary information on potentially developable lots in these areas. • Chapter VII provides detail on each jurisdiction in Urban King County. For each city and , unincorporated subarea, a four-page data profile covers residential development activity, residential land supply and capacity, commercial-industrial development activity, non-residential land supply and capacity, comparisons with remaining growth targets, and comparisons with data for the 1996-2000 review period. For the purposes of target setting and growth monitoring and analysis, the UGA has been divided into four planning subareas. These subareas provide a framework for presenting and analyzing the data in the 2007 BLR. The subareas, which are shown on the map in the inside cover of this report, are defined as follows: SeaShore Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park and unincorporated North Highline East County 15 cities east of Lake Washington as well as Eastside unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary South County 15 cities (from Burien, Tukwila, and Renton south) as well as South County , urban unincorporated areas Rural Cities Cities not connected to the contiguous UGA, including Skykomish, Duvall, Carnation, North Bend, Snoqualmie, and Enumclaw as well as the Urban Growth Areas (Rural City UGAs)that surround these cities. II -6 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 489 III. Whicfrlad ffidob 1 The Buildable Lands statute (RCW 36 70A.215) requires six counties—King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, and Clark—and cities within them to establish a review and evaluation program. The statute requires data collection annually, as well as analysis and evaluation every five years. The second 5-year evaluation report is due to the State by September 1, 2007. Buildable Lands implementation in King County involves several interrelated elements of data collection and analysis. The elements include 1) collection and analysis of data on development activity, 2) a land supply inventory, 3) a development capacity analysis, 4) an update of growth 1 targets, and 5) an evaluation of the sufficiency of the capacity to accommodate growth targets. Figure 3.1, below, shows the elements as distinct technical exercises, lists the major outputs of each exercise, and illustrates the analytical connections between them. Subsections of this chapter will describe the elements in greater detail. Figure 3.1 Elements of Buildable Lands Analysis and Evaluation Land Supply Inventory Annual Development Activity January 2006 2001-2005 ' Vacant and redevelopable parcels Net densities achieved— Critical areas DUs per acre ROWs and public facilities Floor Area Ratios Market factor Net acres/sq ft of land Growth Targets Remaining 2006-2022 Development Capacity Analysis CPP targets for households and lobs January 2006 (2001-2022) Housing units Net residential and job growth Jobs (2000-2005/6) Evaluation Is capacity sufficient to accommodate targets for households and lobs for the remainder of the planning period? Technical work for Buildable Lands was carried out by the county and its cities separately and in coordination with each other. Technical staff from throughout the county met several times for orientation to the program tasks and discussion of methods and data. A steering committee, consisting of staff from the Suburban Cities Association (SCA), the Cities of Seattle and Bellevue, and King County, met regularly to review and approve methods and reporting documents. SCA staff developed and disseminated technical guidelines and templates for data reporting and analysis and provided extensive technical assistance to local staff in completing the necessary tasks. State Buildable Lands Program Guidelines (CTED 2000) provided overarching guidance on the technical requirements of the statute. The King County countywide methodology is consistent with the state guidelines and ensures that Buildable Lands results would be reliable and comparable 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report Ill - 1 4901 across the entire county. It also allows enough flexibility to respond to local variation in data , resources, land use regulations, land base, and market conditions. Overall, the technical framework for the 2007 Buildable Lands Report diverges only slightly from that used in the 2002 report. New and updated elements of the methodology include the following- Assumed future densities were updated based on actual densities achieved 2001-2005, which were generally higher than the densities used in the 2002 Buildable Lands analysis • Assumed land needs for rights-of-way and public purposes were updated based on observed development patterns 2001-2005, which generally resulted in higher discounts than used in the 2002 Buildable Lands analysis • Critical areas deductions reflect updated critical areas ordinances as well as new more accurate data where available • Market factor discounts were reviewed and revised for some locations in the county • Assumed residential vacancy rates were used to convert housing units to households The sections below describe, in brief, the data, calculations, and assumptions that comprise the countywide methodology. Classification of Data b Land Use and Density Range Y Y 9 For the purposes of analysis and reporting, data on permits, plats, land supply, and development , capacity have been aggregated within generalized categories of use and density. Table 3.2 describes the classifications that are used in this report. III-2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 491 ' Table 3.2; Use and Density Classifications 1 CATEGORY DEFINITIONS Single Permits for single-family detached homes. Family Zoning is classified as single-family where allowed densities are up to 9 DUs/acre While many zones that allow higher densities do allow single-family detached housing, often occurring at densities higher than 9 DUs/acre, this cutoff represents a break-point where the majority of development below it is single-family detached housing, and the majority of the development above it is attached housing types Multifamily Permits for attached housing, including duplexes, townhomes, condos, and apartments Zoning is classified as multifamily where allowed densities exceed 9 DUs/acre. While some zones that allow less than 9DUs/acre do permit housing development that is not exclusively single-family detached, this cutoff represents a break-point where the majority of development below it is single-family detached housing, and the majority of the development above it is attached housing types Commercial Primary permitted uses are commercial (e g., retail, office), not industrial Industrial Primary permitted uses are industrial (e.g , manufacturing, warehouses), not commercial Mixed Use Permits for new development consisting of both residential and commercial uses Zoning is classified as mixed-use where both commercial and residential uses are allowed within the same zone Actual development in mixed-use zones will include both mixed-use projects and single-use projects Grouping In the data profiles for each jurisdiction in Chapter VI I, data associated with single-family, Residential multifamily, and mixed-use zoning designations are further grouped by zoned densities. Data by Range classifications include the following; Maximum • Less than 3 DUs per acre Zoned Density 3—5 DUs per acre • 5—7 DUs per acre • 7—9 DUs per acre ' • 9— 13 DUs per acre • 13— 19 DUs per acre • 19—31 DUs per acre • 31 —48 DUs per acre • More than 48 DUs per acre • Other(mixed densities in Urban Planned Developments, typically) Zones were assigned to a density ranges based on the maximum DUs/ac allowed, as indicated by minimum lot size, maximum DUs/ac, height and setback limits, and other factors, depending on zone and with guidance and input from local planning staff King County's 40 jurisdictions have many differing zoning and subdivision codes, with the effect that housing development may attain different densities Grouping zones by generalized density range does not imply that all zones in that range are the same, but rather it provides common categories to simplify reporting and allow for cross jurisdiction comparisons Any further analysis at the jurisdiction level that compares actual densities with comprehensive plans and development regulations should incorporate more specific information on how density is addressed in those plans and regulations 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report III -3 492� Activity Developmenty Jurisdictions collected, analyzed, and reported data on actual development activity that occurred under existing plans and regulations over a 5-year review period (2001-2005). These data describe, in detail, growth trends observed locally, particularly the amount, type, and location of new development, and, most importantly, the densities of residential, commercial, and industrial projects Research on development densities is central to the Buildable Lands analysis, as it provides the basis for assumptions about future development potential on vacant and redevelopable land A standardized set of data tables used by all jurisdictions facilitated a systematic and consistent , treatment of the data. The density research encompassed thousands of development records, including all single-family plats recorded each year and all building permits issued each year.' The research relied on both automated permit tracking systems, which are available in many jurisdictions, as well as paper records, such as plat maps and site plans. Densities of residential projects were measured in dwelling units (DUs) per net acre. The intensity of non-residential development was measured in terms of floor-area-ratio (FAR), calculated as the sq. ft. of building divided by the net sq. ft of the site. In all cases, densities were calculated against the net site area—excluding critical areas, right- of-way dedications (or equivalent, such as access tracts), and on-site public uses (primarily drainage and open space tracts). Table 3.1 below summarizes, by type of development permit, 1)formulas for calculating densities, and 2) land within the gross site area that was not included in the net site area. Data collection also included the zoning designation (or, in several cities, the comprehensive plan designation)for each development site. More complex development types, such as mixed-use projects, posed special challenges to measuring achieved densities. Mixed-use protects, as defined for this analysis, were those that included both residential and commercial space. For each mixed-use project, both DUs/acre and an FAR were measured, based on apportioning the site area to residential and commercial uses, respectively. Based on this methodology, the densities calculated for mixed-use projects are higher than calculating the DUs/acre and FAR against a project site in its entirety. Permits for phased projects or projects with multiple buildings also presented challenges. In such cases, to ensure consistent results across multiple permits, each permit was analyzed as a proportion of the entire project at full buildout. Additional data were collected annually on permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), permits to , place manufactured housing, permits for demolitions of dwelling units, and residential building permits that constituted one-for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units. In most cases, these permit types did not contribute to the density measures for Buildable Lands. ' City of Seattle presents two exceptions First,the city did not report plat data, since the land in Seattle is effectively platted already Second,the city reported permits finaled, not permits issued Due to lag time between permit issuance and completion, as well as permit expirations and withdrawals, Seattle considers the finaled permits to be a much more accurate measure of development activity in any one year These factors are considered to uniquely affect the City of Seattle's permit data. III-4 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 493 Aft Table 3.1: Density Measures by Development and Permit Type Type of Calculation of Land Excluded from Net Site Area Development Density Activity Single-Family # Lots / Net Plat -ROWs (including public and private roads and access Subdivision Plats Area tracts) -Public Purposes (e g , drainage tracts, parks, open space) -Critical Areas and buffers (primarily sensitive areas tracts Single-Family #Units!Lot Area NA Building Permits (Land area within building lots is assumed to be equivalent to net land area calculated in plats as per above) Multifamily Building # Units/ Net Site -ROWS (public dedications) Permits Area -Public Purposes (e g , drainage facilities, parks, open space) -Critical Areas and buffers Commercial/ Floor Area/Net -ROWs (public dedications) Industrial Building Site Area -Public Purposes (e g , drainage facilities, parks, open Permits space) -Critical Areas and buffers Mixed-Use Bldg. # Units/Net -ROWs (public dedications) Pmts Residential -Public Purposes (e g , drainage facilities, parks, open (Residential Portion of Site space) Portion) -Critical Areas and buffers Mixed-Use Bldg. Commercial Floor -ROWs (public dedications) Pmts (Commercial Area/Net -Public Purposes (e.g., drainage facilities, parks, open Portion) Commercial space) Portion of Site -Critical Areas and buffers Vacant and Redevelopable Land Supply As a second major technical element, Buildable Lands requires that local governments "determine the quantity and type of land suitable for development, both for residential and employment-based activities." Buildable Lands Program Guidelines define such land as: "All vacant, partially-used, and under-utilized parcels that are: (a) designated for commercial, industrial, or residential use; (b) not intended for public use- and (c) not constrained by critical areas in a way that limits development potential and makes new construction on a parcel unfeasible.' The King County methodology is consistent with this definition.The land supply inventory in King County—a composite of inventories conducted by each jurisdiction—represents a snapshot of approximately January 2006, the end of the 5-year review period. The land supply inventories throughout the county were based on parcel data, using geographic information systems (GIS)that were used to map and analyze the data The following definitions and factors were used in developing the land supply inventory for each jurisdiction: • Exclusion of land deemed not available for development due to ownership or use. Categorical exclusions from the supply of developable land included public facilities and land, utility and railroad ROWs, golf courses, cemeteries, schools, landfills and quarries, and many churches and other institutional uses • Land committed to significant projects in development pipeline. The methodology contains an option to identify major sites committed to development in the pipeline for individualized 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report III-5 4941 analysis of future development potential. Many such sites within the county were treated as "in the pipeline," including larger master planned developments with unique use mixes and densities at buildout. The acreage of these lands was not included in the land supply inventory. Importantly, the statistics on "pipeline" development potential do not include all projects under review, but just a subset of development sites where individualized analysis was warranted • Vacant land. The state Buildable Lands Program Guidelines define vacant land as "parcels of land that have no structures or have buildings with very little value." In King County, vacant land was identified primarily based on having an Assessor present use classification of"vacant" along with minimal or zero improvement value. Appendix A documents the specific definitions for vacant land used in each jurisdiction. • Redevelopable land zoned for single-family residential uses. The State Buildable Lands Program Guidelines refer to such lands as"partially utilized,"defined as parcels that are "occupied by a use, but which contain enough land to be further subdivided without need for rezoning." In the King County methodology, parcels with subdivision potential were identified primarily based on comparisons of current and potential densities or lot sizes. This would include, for example, a single house on a 1-acre parcel where the zoning allows 4 DUs/acre. Generally, parcels were considered redevelopable in single-family zones if they allowed at least 2.5 to 3 dwelling units where one now exists. Appendix A documents the technical definitions and density thresholds used in each jurisdiction. • Redevelopable land zoned for multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed uses. The state Buildable Lands Program Guidelines refer to such lands as "under-utilized," and define them as follows: "All parcels of land zoned for more intensive use than that which currently occupies the property. For instance, a single-family home on multifamily-zoned land will generally be considered under-utilized. This classification also includes redevelopable land, i.e., land on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive uses during the planning period." In King County, underutilized land was identified using several indicators Existing single-family uses were generally considered redevelopable where the zoning allowed multifamily, commercial, or industrial uses. In multifamily zones, parcels currently at much lower densities than allowed by zoning were also sometimes considered redevelopable In commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones, redevelopment potential was identified primarily using the ratio of improvement to land value as determined by the County Assessor The most common threshold for redevelopability was a ratio of< 0.5, where the land was assessed at least twice the value of the improvements. Appendix A documents the technical approaches and definitions used to identify redevelopable land in each jurisdiction. • Editing the vacant and redevelopable land selections. In most jurisdictions, the initial selected inventory of buildable parcels were further refined based on additional considerations, including: o Position of existing buildings on the parcel o Review of aerial photography o Value of existing homes o Critical areas not identified in the GIS analysis o Apparent market interest in development/ redevelopment o Parking and outdoor storage associated with adjacent uses o Multiple parcels underlying a single existing use o Small parcel size and/or parcel shape making development infeasible III-6 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 495 o Other factors based on local knowledge Generally, this process resulted in a more conservative estimate of the amount of vacant and redevelopable land than produced through database queries alone. • Deductions for land encumbered by critical areas. Environmentally sensitive areas deducted from the supply of buildable lands included wetlands, steep slopes and slide prone areas, flood hazard areas, and stream corridors. In many cases, accurate mapped data were available to estimate critical areas through geographic information systems analysis. Such analysis entailed superimposing relevant environmental features, along with associated buffers within which local regulations limit development, over selected vacant and redevelopable parcels as a means of calculating the area of land deemed not buildable. For several jurisdictions, the absence of adequate GIS resources necessitated the use of hard copy maps as the basis for discounting a percentage of land assumed encumbered by critical areas within each zoning district In all cases, provisions of local updated critical areas ordinances guided the critical areas analysis for Buildable Lands. Appendix B documents the types of critical areas, data sources, and technical methodology employed in each jurisdiction. Chapter VII contains information on the amount of land deducted for critical areas in each jurisdiction. • Deductions for land needed for future rights-of-way (ROWs). For most future land uses, a small to moderate percentage of land was assumed to be necessary for future new or expanded rights-of-way, including new roads, widening existing roads, and access tracts. Discounts for future ROWs were based upon the measured percentages of land dedicated to ROWs in recent plats and permits. The percentages were calculated as a share of land not constrained by critical areas. Other factors were also considered, such as the size of the remaining developable parcels and the degree to which they were served by existing roads. Appendix B documents the range of ROW discounts used in each jurisdiction. More specific information on ROW discounts used in each jurisdiction is contained in Chapter VII. • Deductions of land needed for future public purposes. For most future land uses, a small to moderate percentage of land was assumed to be necessary for future new on-site public purposes, primarily stormwater ponds and other drainage infrastructure, but also recreation and open space uses, and other uses. Discounts for public purposes were based upon the percentage of land dedicated to public purposes in recent plats and permits. The percentages were calculated as a share of the land not constrained by critical areas. Other factors were also considered, including the size of remaining developable parcels, anticipated stormwater standards, and other factors. Appendix B documents the range of public purpose discounts used in each jurisdiction. More specific information on those discounts is contained in Chapter VII. • Deductions for a market availability factor. It was assumed that, throughout the county, a portion of the net land supply may not be available for development or redevelopment during the ' 20-year planning period due to several factors. These factors include personal use, investment or speculative holding, land banking for future business expansion, and other considerations that serve to hold land off the market. Application of the market factor does not mean that the land is not developable, but rather that its capacity to accommodate growth may be realized over a longer term than the 2001-2022 planning period. Market factors ranged generally from 5% to 20%, with redevelopable land discounted more heavily than vacant land. Central locations with high market demand generally used discounts in the 5%-10% range; established suburban communities generally uses discounts in the 10%-15% range; and outlying jurisdictions generally used discounts in the 15%-20% range. Variations outside of the recommended ranges reflect the judgment of local planning staff that one or more factors supported a different assumption Staff considered factors such as information on land ownership, proposed projects, market interest, and known preferences of current owners. Generally, this resulted in higher market factors than recommended. Appendix B documents the 1 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 111-7 4961 range of market factor discounts used in each jurisdiction. More specific information on market factors is contained in Chapter VII. The land supply analysis generated acreage figures for vacant and redevelopable land— unconstrained by critical areas, not needed for future ROWs or public purposes, and potentially available for development—for each zoning designation (or, in several cases, comprehensive plan designation) within each jurisdiction in the county. Housing and Job Capacity Additional calculations were used to convert acres of vacant and redevelopable land into units of development capacity—net new housing units and net new jobs. The analysis incorporated assumptions based on current plans and zoning, including factors for future density, existing uses, mixed uses, and other considerations. Basic formulas were as follows: Residential Capacity= Net Acres of Land x Assumed Future DUs per Acre— Existing DUs on Redevelopable Parcels Job Capacity= (Net Sq. Ft of Land x Assumed Future FAR—Existing Non-Residential Floor Area on Redevelopable Parcels) -Assumed Floor Area per Employee Assumed future densities. Jurisdictions based assumptions about future densities primarily on dwelling units per net acre and net floor area ratios achieved during the 5-year review period (2001- 2005), but also took into consideration factors that would support an alternative assumption. In most zoning districts, recent observed densities were assumed to continue for the remainder of the planning period. However, within individual zones, development activity was sometimes too limited, with few or no permits or plats during the 5-year review period, to serve as a valid basis for future assumptions. In addition, achieved density figures were, in some cases, skewed by large projects at densities that were uncharacteristic or unsustainable under current zoning. For these and other reasons, density assumptions for selected zones reflect factors in addition to recent development data, including the following. • Densities and uses allowed under current plans and zoning • Densities achieved in other zones within a jurisdiction • Densities achieved in similar zones in comparable jurisdictions • Information about proposed projects or projects under review • Density trends observed over time • Local knowledge of market demand and land owner/developer interest • Recent changes in zoning and other development regulations Achieved and assumed future densities, by zoned use and density ranges, are reported in the jurisdiction profiles contained in Chapter VII. Existing development on redevelopable parcels. Any housing units or non-residential building square footage existing on redevelopable parcels was subtracted from the gross capacity. This calculation resulted in an estimate of redevelopment capacity that represents the additional net new units and jobs that can be accommodated on the land above and beyond existing development levels. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 497 Floor-area-per-employee assumptions. The conversion of the supply of land for commercial, industrial, and office uses into estimates of job capacity involved two sets of assumptions Assumed future FARs, described above, were used to convert land area into capacity in terms of potential commercial or industrial building square footages. As a second step, floor area capacity was then converted to job capacity based on assumed floor-area-per-employee multipliers. The multipliers were derived from a number of factors, including uses allowed by current zoning, local market demand, research on employment density within the region, and industry standards. Chapter VII and Appendix C documents the range of floor-area-per-employee multipliers used by each jurisdiction to estimate commercial and industrial employment levels. iMixed-use and multiple use zones. Zones or plan designations that allow both residential and non- residential uses were treated as "mixed-use" land. "Mixed-use," then, includes both areas where new development occurs with commercial and residential uses in the same project as well as areas where commercial and residential uses may occur as separate uses within the same district. Net developable acres in mixed-use and multiple use zones were allocated to residential and commercial capacity models respectively, based on an assumed split between future residential and commercial development. For example, if 50% of the future development in a zone was assumed to be residential and 50% commercial, then 50% of the net buildable land was treated as "residential" and 50% as "commercial " The residential-commercial splits in mixed-use zones reflect recently observed and planned development patterns as well as the professional judgment of local planners about future markets for residential and commercial space I Accessory dwelling units. Many cities allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in existing and new single-family residences. The number of permitted ADUs within each jurisdiction is tracked for Buildable Lands. Future capacity for additional ADUs was estimated by extending annual rates of ADU permitting observed 2001-2005 over the remainder of the planning period. Capacity "in the pipeline." Anticipated numbers of housing units and jobs on "land committed to development in the pipeline" were calculated from project plans and permits and added to capacity totals as a final step. The 2006 capacity of each "pipeline" project was calculated as the total project size (i.e , DUs and commercial floor area) minus project space permitted prior to 2006. As noted, "pipeline" capacity than did not include all projects under review, but rather a select subset of large or unique projects that warranted individualized analysis Capacity for urban growth in Rural Cities' Urban Growth Areas. Six cities—Enumclaw, North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation, Duvall, and Skykomish—are situated within the county as "islands" of Urban designated land, and are termed Rural Cities in the Countywide Planning Policies. These Urban islands consist of incorporated city land along with unincorporated UGAs. (Town of Skykomish does not have a UGA.) No growth targets have been assigned to the Rural Cities' UGAs ' Growth targeted to each of the Rural Cities is to be accommodated within each Urban island in its entirety. King County has maintained rural density zoning in the Rural Cities' UGAs, with an expectation that, upon annexation to the cities, the land would be upzoned to urban densities and provided with urban levels of service The capacity estimates for the five cities with associated Rural City UGAs include 1) capacity within city limits, based on current zoning, and 2) projected capacity within the UGA, based on assumed future zoning after annexation Household and Job Growth Targets The Buildable Lands statute requires an evaluation of the sufficiency of the land supply and capacity to accommodate future growth needs for the "remaining portion of the twenty-year planning period used in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan." The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a common timeline and framework for quantifying future growth needs for all jurisdictions in 1 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report III -9 491 King County. The Household and Job Growth Targets, which are contained in Table LU-1 of the CPPs, represent the assumed growth needs of each jurisdiction for the entire 2001-2022 planning period. Household Growth Targets. Five years have elapsed since the CPP target baseline of year 2000. Household targets for the remaining years of the planning period (2006-2022)were determined, first, by calculating the net new units added to the housing stock in each jurisdiction from 2001 through 2005. Second, to estimate the number of households gained, net new units were converted to households using an assumed long-term occupancy rate of 98% for single-family housing and 95% for multifamily housing. Finally, the resulting figure for net new households was subtracted from the original Household Growth Target for 2001-2022. This calculation is shown below. Household Growth Target (2006-2022) = Household Growth Target (2001-2022) — (Net New Units Permuted x Assumed Occupancy Rate) Job Growth Targets. Employment change since the job target baseline year of 2000 can be tracked using data available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC produces annual estimates of covered employment for each city and county based on data provided by the State Employment Security Department. "Covered" employment refers to positions covered by the Washington Unemployment Insurance Act. This data set excludes certain job categories, such as self-employed, proprietors, military personnel, and others, and accounts for approximately 85 to 90 percent of all jobs. The PSRC maps the ESD records to reported job locations and supplements the accuracy of this exercise with additional information on employment at Boeing, public schools, and government offices Government jobs, as a component of the year 2000 covered employment estimates, represent a provisional revised dataset that differs from data currently published by the PSRC. The PSRC covered employment estimates for the years 2000 and 2006 are reported in the King County Buildable Lands evaluation. (This represents a span of 6 years, one year longer than other longitudinal data reported. End year 2006 rather than 2005 was used in order to capture as much of the job recovery as possible. Also, because the data represent March of each year, March 2006 most closely approximates the end of the 5-year review period 2001-2005 ) Job change from 2000 to 2006 is one measure of progress toward attaining the Job Growth Targets for the planning period 2001-2022 contained in the CPPs. It is the measure used in this report to update those targets. Preliminary analysis of employment data for the years 2000 and 2006 indicate a mixed picture of job decline and growth throughout the county. King County lost more than 70,000 jobs during the recession of 2001-2004. As of early 2006, the countywide employment was still about 25,000 below that at the start of the decade. In addition, many individual jurisdictions within the county had not fully regained pre-recession employment levels. Where the data show that a jurisdiction had a negative employment change 2000-2006, this is assumed to indicate that many buildings remain underutilized, and that capacity to recover year 2000 job levels exists within those buildings. For that reason, Job Growth Targets for cities showing a job loss were held steady at their original 2001-2022 level. Job growth beyond year 2000 levels would have to be accommodated through new development. The formula for updating job targets is shown below. III - 10 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 499 Where Covered Employment Change (2000-2006) > 0: Job Growth Target(2006-2022) =Job Growth Target(2001-2022) — Covered Employment Change (2000-2006) Where Covered Employment Change (2000-2006) < 0: iJob Growth Target (2006-2022) = Job Growth Target(2001-2022) Another measure of local progress toward achieving Job Growth Targets is the amount of new i commercial and industrial square footage of floor area, derived from data on building permits. Five years of such data show a somewhat different picture of the degree to which local jurisdictions have been making progress toward reaching their targets Despite the negative or flat job numbers, many cities continued to issue permits for significant additional floor area of industrial and, especially commercial uses during the 2001-2005 period. Because of the lag between permit issuance date and occupancy of new buildings, much of the employment growth resulting from this activity will not show up in the covered employment data until 2007 or beyond. Chapters IV and VI present data on both employment change and commercial and industrial permitting at the UGA, subarea, and jurisdiction levels Evaluation of Capacity vs. Targets — As a final step, the results of the elements outlined above were carried forward to answer the main evaluation question posed by Buildable Lands. Are development capacities sufficient to accommodate growth targets for households and lobs for the remainder of the planning penod? This question is answered for several levels of geography. The first level is the entirety of Urban designated King County, the Urban Growth Area The second subarea level includes four jurisdictional groupings Sea-Shore, East County, South County, and Rural Cities. Finally, the adequacy of capacity in each city and subarea of urban unincorporated King County is evaluated. Where capacity is found to be insufficient to accommodate planned growth within the UGA or within individual jurisdictions, then the county or cities must adopt measures that are reasonably likely to address any inconsistencies between actual development and their comprehensive plans and to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate targeted growth for the remainder of the planning period. 1 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report III - 11 5 IV. Development Activity The Buildable Lands Amendment to GMA, RCW 36.70A 215, requires King County and its cities to collect data annually on land use change. Each Buildable Lands Report (BLR) presents summary data on growth and development for the most recent 5-year review period. The following is a summary of the primary findings of the 2007 King County BLR in the arenas of residential and non- residential development from 2001 through 2005 Data are organized to highlight findings across four broad planning subareas—SeaShore, East County, South County, and Rural Cities—as well as the Urban Growth Area (UGA) as a whole. The back of the front cover of this report presents a map of the King County UGA and planning subareas. Tables also show selected data for individual jurisdictions. Detailed data at the jurisdiction level is covered in Chapter VII. Residential Growth The first set of tables below summarizes findings from analysis of data on residential development activity that occurred during the 5-year review period (2001-2005). Data were collected based on the records of building permits issued and subdivision plats recorded within the county's 40 jurisdictions for that period. Comparisons with data for the 1996-2000 review period, that were reported in the 2002 BLR, are also highlighted. Table 4.10 on page IV-1 2 contains detailed data comparing plats, residential permits and densities for the two review periods. Table 4.1, below, shows housing growth for each subarea and the UGA as a whole The table is based on research of residential building permits issued 2001-2005, with the exception of City of Seattle, which reports data on building permits finaled. Data include new units by type (SF/MF), units lost to demolition, net new units, and estimated net new households as an indicator of progress toward reaching the Household Growth Targets established in the Countywide Planning Policies. Cumulative remaining targets for each subarea and UGA are calculated as the sum of the target remaining in each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must meet its minimum target. While some cities have already exceeded their 22-year target, and that growth is reflected in the aggregate numbers, the excess is not credited to either the subarea or UGA. Major findings include the following- 1 • King County gained more than 49,000 net new housing units in the UGA during the second five- year Buildable Lands review period (2001-2005). Accounting for assumed vacancy rates, this translates into about 47,300 net new households in Urban-designated King County, which is about 31% of the 22-year Household Growth Target added in 23% of the planning period This growth occurred despite an economic recession and significant job loss during four of the five years of the analysis period. • During the six years from the April 2000 US Census to April 2006, Washington State's Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that King County's population grew by 98,300 persons, from 1,737,000 to 1,835,300 This increase is nearly 32% of the 2002 OFM population projection for the planning period (2001-2022), which is the basis for the Household Growth Targets, during six years or 27% of the planning period • Overall residential permitting in each subarea is also ahead of pace to reach their cumulative t Household Growth Targets by 2022. South County, having issued permits for 38% of its targeted residential growth, has grown fastest with respect to level of growth envisioned in the CPPs. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 1 501 • Approximately half of all new units UGA-wide were multifamily units, half were single-family detached units. • Net residential growth in the UGA has increased from 48,000 units in the 1996-2000 period to 49,300 units in the 2001-2005 period While suburban growth outpaced growth in Seattle during the late 1990s, housing data for the more recent period shows an even distribution of new units among the three big subareas-SeaShore, East County, and South County. • Total single-family permits, not including demolitions, increased from 19,500 units in the 1996- 2000 period to over 26,000 units in the 2001-2005 period. Most of that increase happened in the East and South County subareas, which made up 80% of the single-family units permitted 2001- 2005. • UGA-wide, the over 25,000 permitted multifamily units represents a modest drop of about 1,600 units (6%)from the 27,000 multifamily units permitted in 1996-2000. However, new multifamily units have become more concentrated in SeaShore during the 2001-2005 period, compared to a more even distribution of multifamily permitting among the 3 large subareas prior to 2001. Table 4.1: Net Housing Growth (2001-2005) vs. Household Growth Targets (2001-2022) New Housing Units 2001-2005 Households Subarea Single- Multi- Other' Net Net HHz Target % Target Target Family -family_ Units 2001-05 2001-22 Achieved 2006-22 Sea-Shore 2,605 13,485 - 836 15,254 14,528 56,369 26% 41,841 East 10,555 6,656 - 1,549 15,662 15,151 47,645 32% 32,494 Count South 12,035 4,971 - 599 16,407 15,926 42,355 38% 28,319 Count Rural 1,652 316 -21 1,947 1,898 5,563 34% 3,698 Cities Total 26,847 25,428 - 3,005 49,270 47,504 151,932 31% 106,352 UGA 2 Includes the addition of ADUs and conversions, less any units lost through demolition. 2 Housing units converted to households (HH) by assuming vacancy rates of 2%for SF and 5% for MF Table 4.2, on pages IV-4 and IV-5, contains detailed data on residential growth vs. household growth targets for each city and urban unincorporated area. Major findings including the following: • The data indicate that the majority of jurisdictions in the county are on or nearly on pace to attain their individual Household Growth Targets by 2022. Percent of target "achieved" over time is one instructive measure of a jurisdiction's progress toward the long-range vision embodied in the CPPs. However, the CPP growth targets were not intended to represent annual quotas for housing production within jurisdictions. Growth to date is used here primarily to update growth targets for the remainder of the planning period, and jurisdictions must demonstrate the ability to accommodate those remaining targets through capacity provided under current plans and regulations. • Residential growth is broadly distributed, both geographically and by structure type. Most jurisdictions permitted a mix of single family and multifamily new units. • The City of Seattle added the greatest net number of new units of any jurisdiction, over 14,000. Urban unincorporated King County, as a whole, had the second highest total, with nearly 9,500 net new units. • Among suburban cities, Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, Sammamish, Covington, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, and Snoqualmie each added more than 1,000 net new units. The cities of IV-2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 503 Maple Valley and Normandy Park along with unincorporated King County South have already attained their 22-year household growth target based on development in the first 5 years of the 1 planning period Single-Family Residential Densities Densities of single-family residential development are measured in two ways. in recorded plats of single-family subdivisions (both short and long subdivisions) and in building permits issued for single family houses. Table 4 3, on page IV-6, shows the amount of land, lots created, and achieved densities in single-family subdivision plats recorded 2001-2005. Not included in this data is the small number of short plats recorded in the City of Seattle The conversion from gross to net acres excludes actual set-asides for rights-of-way, public infrastructure (e.g., stormwater ponds), and critical areas and their buffers. Gross and net densities achieved in the previous Buildable Lands review period (1996-2000) are shown as well (see table 4 10 for detail). The net density in plats is a preferred measure of actual densities achieved under current plans and regulations, and, along with observed rates of land dedicated for rights-of-way and -- public uses, is used in the Buildable Lands analysis to estimate remaining capacity for single-family housing. Major findings of this analysis include the following. • Plats recorded from 2001-2005 totaled over 22,000 lots on over 7,000 gross acres and 3,600 net buildable acres of land. • UGA-wide, single-family plat densities have increased from 4 6 DUs/ac during the 1996-2000 review period to 6 2 DUs/ac in the more recent 5-year period. • Net plat densities were roughly consistent across the 4 subareas, at or near 6 DUs per acre Densities have increased within each subarea as well, with the largest jump in East County from about 4 DUs per net acre recorded 1996-2000 to 6 DUs per net acre from 2001-2005. Densities increased markedly in the Rural Cities as well As noted, plat data for Seattle are not included, so that data for the SeaShore subarea reflects single-family development in Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, and unincorporated areas only. _ • Land dedicated to critical areas protection, rights-of-way (ROWs), stormwater drainage, and other public uses such as open space reduced the gross acreage by roughly half. As a result, the overall gross density achieved was 3 DUs/ac, half the overall net density. • Critical areas and buffers alone rendered 19% of the gross land undevelopable in all newly recorded plats. ROWs and public use dedications consumed 16% and 24%, respectively, of the land not constrained by critical areas. • Open space dedications were particularly large in Urban Planned Developments (UPDs), and other large planned developments such as Aldarra Farms, in East County These are unique sites with contract set-asides for open-space tracts Since open space was set by agreement in these developments, they are not instructive for future percentages of land in critical areas, ROWs and public use lands. When these developments are excluded from the analysis, critical areas covered just 16% of the gross platted acreage UGA-wide, ROWs were reduced to 14%, and public use lands were only 12%. Gross plat density increased to 3.5 units per acre in the entire UGA when the UPDs were excluded. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV-3 501 N N c- co L() r co f-- O r oo M N - Lo L() m �T O cocr N (D N T I m N N I- LC) U-) M I-- N O Ln N N N M r- d N "t O N 00 00 'ITM (DT co M Il- I` ''' It r- � o N 1- r o0 T (O . M N E 0 too M M � ~ O N N 00 O T O Q) M f� m LO O Il_ m M N m o0 Ln O +' N M - u7 r- O Ln N 0) N 00 M co (D 00 It (D N O L 41 N LO LO (D (D M T ti 0) co 't 00 O 00 00 00 to d C4 -7 O r M N Ui cv M - (D ti (tS C lf7 Ln T O ~ N 2 to 3 U, (0 m co LO 00 O (DN CD0 L() m CO CDN CO m co N m r y o 1- CO CO N N N N - (D N (D co 00 00 � r- Ln _ I- LOI- LON co (D (D co U) U) N CD It CD r Z y T c) 1 (4 r N N (M L() tn C r r Z G N LO 00 N N N 'a' CD I` O O (D T "tO �-- M CD M N 0) ay+ C r— r-- I- LOf-- co CD co 0) L!) r- I- CD LO (O Z T C) � N L N M r- CD M LO LO M = "t to O Ln r Ln N O •- N N N M Z N [ T T Y O O co M O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- O M OIt 0 0 0 0 le C 0 O ti (D N o (N N to =) E d N LL � 0 N 'a ' 0) I- r- r- co ti N M M N N M N "t M T (D CO CO (D .- "t M _ C O N 0) ;: N M 0)co r- (D � CO (D N LO CO - N Ln CO LO O, LL � r T T NCO 0 O N y O O I- O (D O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 Ln 00 O > 0O � N (D N O Q U w 0 (n 00 T � 'IT O T M O (D (D • M CA CA L() 0 0 CO O y 0 N N (N M N It O C14 C Q O U LL p 0) M 00 (') U') O O O O LO "t T O M M r- 't T O 00 (D U) r M I- r- 00 LO CD N Ln M I- co 00 00 It ti LO = 00 M N �' o N N N o Lf) M N T �t O a +�+ C4 M - - (O Y Y 0 T r C a LL d d � co O N L1') N (D T r- N N CA O N CA LO M o M M o l(9 m (n r r m O (D 00 O M M r T ao I-- (D M CO O LLB M LO N M 0 � O N T (D � �t �h 00 LO O � M (D L() N Ec\T N - 1- 1- N O Q ~ T o U) d r N m O C Cn 0) °' (o co a N 0- o = o (a �� E U) C CB N (n a) o o cn cc t UQ a a- o � u_ N o p a) x > ) E E E(a -o pctf YO o o ° :15 oo o o o (D m o D n a) o E ai U m r) Jcn cnZ) n N CO coCOU2 LnYY :E2EzQ cU) N ) H fn fn W W IV-4 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report ■ 505 N r- CO � O c0 CD CD a) N «) L) O p) LO 0') 0) LO OD M O 00 N r N (MM (O c) M CV � M N — r-- c') r � fl- M r (I- LO d N r LL) CD CO r � � LO LO 00 r 0 M N (.O � (O M (Op M L() ,- r r LO N N 't M Op r M t0 O N O N 00 M LA N M O 00 d' O O O r 00 00 O «) N 0) 0 6) LO � r-- M 00 0 LO O N 0') ti O M O ~ ~ O O O ( N 4) N N O O LO M LO r N M r r- r 't N 0 lL9 C' M N M N 0)O tD M d _ _ M N O 0') (D (c) N a)3 0 (O r r r r_ CO CO M 4 N r r It9 �. O ~ O v- = N a y 3 O N LO LO N CT) 00 � CD V N (O M (D B (0 c- 00 00 lt M 00 d' d o C O O CO CO LD M O O r (DM M O (DN N 00 N M a) O r ' N N — r,- (D �' �' M M r (p O M r M 00 LO Z N r r r r M LL) L6 N y O Z G N O M co M r- (O r- M (D O CA O (d-) O) LO LO O O) 1� �- O V r N O ti O Z may. C O 00 CO CV (DLO Ln LO N r ('DO) O O O M le r• C ,t N N r r- r- «) M r 00 M r M (3) N N O `7 M «) (G - r to Z N eF tU O f-- O O O N r N 0 0 0 LO 0 0 CD le O O O CO O O O t0 M 'C 0 co LO M r N E O D y c: F O N a0 0 0 (fl 't r M O N r M LO r- CO M r M 0t'- O M (O O M C O M V N M (0 r r N LO ti (0 N o D r ti to U N 0 c') L!) O , O d y O � 0 0 0 N O O O r r O r M O r- to 0 0 to M O O (0 O M CV > C N M M r- (O r- M v- r C O CA O O y O U N Q O O N W r r LO CO r O N 0 0 CO tt M O O O LC) O O O O LO 00 (� M N 00 to � a LL o "T M (0 O N CD N N _ O coh (D(o 1- 0 LO U') r- 00 O O O (o M CD o r o (a 00 r _ r U-) 00 00 In O 00 (O N M r N ti N N 00 CA r M d Lt) I.O N Y a c U. a d r [� N Ln ti ti CO O O M LA It N c) N CO Lf) LO N 00 N r` y CD M r O N a) Lt) CC) LO) CO M Ln � ti M 0)m N � �'- 0) m M In � > cu _ L' c- N r O �- (O V r M r N 0) O M — t0 00 O = r r N M r r N U ~ � a� L — Z c o O Z3 to O o to F- a) � o U = c co c S: --0-- U c 3 cn E U F- Z N O c s= m co E o F- _3 (� o = @ E � Y s �t U o -0 > Ln c co V U > Z3 It a o U Z (D z 0) 9 5 o m o o o c� a� o c = m � c o � c c a 3 Q Q m m U 0 U_ Y 2m � Z 0- 0' Cn I- : 7 ` U 0 W Z U) Cn Z) m (� O 0 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV-5 50(' Table 4.3: Densities in Single-Family Subdivision Plats (2001-2005) Subarea Gross Net Lots Lots/ Lots/ Net Acre Lots/Net Acre Acres Acres Gross Ac 2001-2005 1996-2000 Sea- 42 36 227 547 6.22 6.00 Shore East 3,750 1,547 9,331 249 6.03 3.93 Count South 2,895 1,738 11,108 384 6.39 5.45 Count Rural 608 278 1,594 262 5.73 4.41 Cities Total 7,294 3,599 22,260 305 6,18 462 UGA City of Seattle does not report plat data for the Buildable Lands program Table 4.4 provides a summary of achieved densities in recorded plats by generalized zoning categories. Since King County's 40 jurisdictions have many differing zoning and subdivision codes with many different density allowances, densities have been collapsed for reporting into broad categories. Each category indicates a range of densities within which the maximum density allowed per zoning falls. The results of this analysis indicate that for zones that allow up to 9 DUs per acre, achieved densities were generally consistent with plans and regulations across all subareas and the UGA as a whole. In the highest category shown, zones allowing more than 9 DU/acre, achieved densities fell below the range at 8.6 DU/acre. However, plats provide only a partial indication of the densities achieved in zones allowing 9-13 DUs per acre. Adding in the nearly 1,800 multifamily units that were permitted in these zones, the overall achieved density exceeds 12 DUs per net acre. Table 4.4: Single-Family Plats by Zoned Density Category Zoned Density Gross Net Acres Lots Lots/ Lots/ Net Acre Acres Gross Ac 2001-2005 Under 3 DU/acre 738 321 895 1.21 2.79 3—5 DU/acre 1,880 1,006 5,397 287 5.37 5-7DU/acre 1,917 1,169 7,603 3.97 6.51 7—9 DU/acre 524 348 2,497 476 7.18 9— 13 DU/acre 414 170 1,458 352 8.60 Other density' 11821 588 4,410 242 7.50 Zones that could not be assigned to one density range, primarily designations allowing a variety of housing types within Urban Planned Developments Table 4.5 contains data on plats recorded in each city and urban unincorporated subarea, including gross acres, net acres, lots created, and densities achieved. Findings include the following: • Unincorporated Urban King County led jurisdictions in platted lots with over 6,700 recorded in all subareas combined. Cities with more than 1,000 newly platted lots included Issaquah, Redmond, Sammamish, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, and Snoqualmie. • The cities of Shoreline, Issaquah, Kenmore, Redmond, Algona, Des Moines, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, and Snoqualmie, along with unincorporated King County stand out with compact single- family development at greater than 6 DUs per net acre overall. IV-6 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 507 Table 4.5: Recorded Plats by Density in King County UGA (2001-2005) � Gross Net SeaShore Lots Acres Lots/Acre Acres Lots/Acre Lake Forest Park 18 587 31 516 3.5 Seattle 0 000 00 000 0.0 Shoreline 150 24.60 61 2136 7.0 Uninc King County SeaShore 59 11 04 53 997 5.9 SeaShore Total 227 41.51 5.5 36.48 6.2 East County _ Beaux Arts 2 046 44 046 4.4 Bellevue 386 13091 29 7999 4.8 Bothell 97 41 62 23 3572 2.7 1 Clyde Hill 4 214 1 9 214 1.9 Hunts Point 2 063 3.2 063 3.2 Issaquah 1,793 851 36 2 1 22820 7.9 Kenmore 439 12208 36 67 17 6.5 Kirkland 454 101 10 4 5 91 63 5.0 Medina 4 1 55 2 6 1 48 2.7 Mercer Island 26 938 28 751 3.5 Newcastle 491 26794 1 8 10548 4.7 Redmond 1,104 28753 3 8 14991 7.4 Sammamish 1,640 65770 2 5 317 17 5.2 Woodinville 272 99.02 2 7 6079 4.5 Yarrow Point 2 057 3 5 057 3.5 Uninc. King County East 2,615 1,17620 2 2 39835 6.6 East County Total 9,331 3,750.19 2.5 1,547.20 6.0 1 South County Algona 98 2348 4 2 13 18 7.4 Auburn 250 8092 3 1 4789 5.2 Black Diamond 0 000 0 0 000 0.0 Burien 79 1749 4 5 1592 5.0 Covington 762 17480 4 4 13496 5.6 Des Moines 168 4238 4 0 2681 6.3 ' Federal Way 536 22267 2 4 9947 5.4 Kent 1,117 311.03 3 6 17487 6.4 Maple Valley 1,476 33458 44 19694 7.5 Milton 21 565 3.7 454 4.6 Normand Park 12 1042 1.2 924 1.3 Pacific 140 3520 4 0 2937 4.8 - Renton 2,164 50730 4 3 33559 6.4 SeaTac 125 2902 4 3 2577 4.8 Tukwila 107 2383 4 5 1877 5.7 Uninc King County South 4,053 1,07592 3 8 60430 6.7 South County Total 11,108 2,894.70 3.8 1,737.63 6.4 Rural Cities Carnation 3 1 28 2 3 1 17 2.6 Duvall 277 9028 31 5836 4.7 Enumclaw 12 342 3 5 288 4.2 North Bend 6 2 91 2 1 1 95 3.1 Skykomish 0 000 00 000 0.0 Snoqualmie 1,294 50003 2 6 20386 6.3 Uninc King County Rural Cities 2 1000 0 2 998 0.2 Rural Cities Total 1,594 607.92 2.6 278.19 5.7 URBAN KING COUNTY TOTAL 22,260 1 7,294.33 3.1 3,599.50 6.2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV-7 50�-. An alternate measure of single-family density is based on data from building permits. In this analysis, each lot where a new unit was permitted was considered equivalent to the net land area in the plat analysis. Thus, there were no deductions for critical areas, rights-of-way or public purpose lands, and only net density is calculated. Single family permit densities are generally lower than densities measured in plats during the same time period This difference reflects several factors, such as permits issued on larger historical lots and permits issued within subdivisions recorded prior to the 5-year review period, which generally attained lower densities than more recent platting For these reasons, single-family permits are not generally used as a basis for assumed future densities or for evaluating plan implementation. 1 Table 4.6 shows the net acres, total units, and net densities of single-family permitting in each subarea and in the UGA as a whole. Major findings include the following: • UGA-wide, single-family permits achieved 5.35 DUs per acre • SeaShore attained the highest single-family permit density at over 7 DUs per acre overall. Unlike plat data, single-family development in the City of Seattle is included in these findings • Density trends in single-family permits match those observed in the plat data. UGA-wide, permit densities increased from 3.8 units per acre in the 1996-2000 period to 5.3 units per acre in the most recent period. Densities increased throughout the county, including within each subarea. (See table 4.10 for detail.) Table 4.6: Densities of Single-Family Permits Subarea Net Acres Units' Net Density 2001-2005 Sea-Shore 367 2,605 7.09 East County 1,927 9,684 5.02 South County 2,191 12,001 5.48 Rural Cities 364 1,651 4.53 Total UGA 4,850 25,941 5.35 Units shown in this table do not match the total numbers of net new single-family units shown in table 4 1 Excluded from the density analysis are a portion of new units that replaced teardowns on existing lots and a small number of permits that lacked complete data Table 4.7 contains data on single-family permits issued in each city and urban unincorporated subarea. (As noted, data for Seattle are based on single-family building permits finaled during the 5- year review period.) Major findings include the following: • Unincorporated Urban King County led jurisdictions in single-family units with nearly 7,000 permitted in all subareas combined. Cities with more than 1,000 permitted units included Seattle, Issaquah, Redmond, Sammamish, Covington, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, and Snoqualmie. • The cities of Seattle, Issaquah, Redmond, Algona, Covington, Maple Valley, Renton, and Snoqualmie stand out with compact single-family development at greater than 6 DUs per net acre overall. IV-8 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 509 Table 4.7: Single-Family Permit Density in King County UGA (2001-2005) SeaShore Net Acres Units Units/Acre Lake Forest Park 26.79 94 3.5 Seattle 259.21 2,063 80 Shoreline 49.76 266 53 Uninc King County SeaShore 31 40 182 58 SeaShore 367.16 2,605 7.1 East County Net Acres Units Units/Acre Beaux Arts 023 1 4.4 Bellevue 147.62 449 30 Bothell 3752 89 2.4 Clyde Hill 275 6 22 Hunts Point 1 77 5 28 Issaquah 182.49 1,482 81 Kenmore 10653 472 4.4 Kirkland 134.61 664 4 9 Medina 169 5 3.0 Mercer Island 3519 103 2 9 Newcastle 11776 505 4.3 Redmond 150.56 1,045 69 Sammamish 44440 1,804 4.1 Woodinville 77.04 356 4 6 Yarrow Point 0.75 2 2.7 Uninc King County East 48633 2,696, 55 East County Total 1,927.24 9,684 5.0 South County Net Acres Units Units/Acre Algona 15.60 104 67 Auburn 87.43 211 2.4 Black Diamond 817 29, 3 5 Bunen 2818 119 4.2 Covington 14984 1,095 73 Des Moines 47.52 157 33 Federal Way 17525 687 3.9 Kent 211 52 1,153 55 Maple Valley 20671 1,489 7.2 Milton 1 80 9 5 0 Normandy Park 1447 31 2.1 Pacific 4053 154 38 - Renton 35947 2,373 6.6 SeaTac 3835 165 4 3 Tukwila 3972 228 5.7 Uninc King County South 76656 3,997, 52 South County Total 2,191.12 12,001 5.5 Rural Cities Net Acres Units Units/Acre Carnation 1.46 1 0.7 Duvall 65.24 326 5.0 Enumclaw 18.72 75 4 0 North Bend 3.44 15 4.4 Skykomish 0 51 2 39 Snoqualmie 194.10 1,198 6.2 Uninc. King County Rural Cities 81 00 34 0 4 Rural Cities Total 364.47 1,651 4.5 URBAN KING COUNTY TOTAL 4,849.99 25,941 5.3 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV-9 511 11 Multifamily Residential Densities Table 4.8 shows data on multifamily housing permitted in each subarea and the UGA as a whole during the years 2001-2005. Data include gross and net land developed, units, and densities achieved. The conversion from gross to net acres excludes set-asides for rights-of-way, on-site public uses (e.g., stormwater detention, parks), and critical areas and their buffers. Multifamily is defined to include any attached housing units, including townhomes, duplexes, condominiums and apartment units. For comparison, densities achieved during the 1996-2000 period are also shown. Major findings of this analysis include the following: • UGA-wide, more than 25,400 units were permitted on 948 gross acres, 670 net buildable acres. • Multifamily development achieved an overall density of 38 DUs per net acre in the recent 5-year review period. This represents a significant increase from the density achieved during the1996- 2000 period of 22 DUs per net acre. • SeaShore has seen the greatest amount of multifamily development (over 13,000 units) at the highest overall densities in the county (73 DUs/ac). Data for the City of Seattle, the largest component of activity in this subarea, reflect multifamily permits finaled, not issued • Densities have also increased in suburban areas, most significantly in East County, which saw multifamily attain 33 DUs per net acre, a 65% increase from the previous 5 years. However, the number of multifamily units permitted outside of the SeaShore subarea was down one third from the 1996-2000 reporting period. (See table 4.10 for detail.) Table 4.8: Densities of Multifamily Permits (2001-2005) Subarea Gross Net Units Units per Units / Net Ac Units/NetAc Acres Acres Gross Ac 2001-2005 1996-2000 Sea-Shore 189 184 13,485 71.40 73.33 52 East 294 201 6,656 2268 33.17 20.5 Count South 434 260 4,971 1145 19.09 17.4 Count Rural 32 25 316 9.99 12.41 8.8 Cities Total UGA 948 670 25,428 26.82 37.93 22 Table 4.9 contains data on multifamily permits issued in each city and urban unincorporated subarea. Major findings include the following: • Among individual jurisdictions, Seattle, Bellevue, and Mercer Island led the county in multifamily densities, with averages greater than 70 DUs/acre. • Seattle, alone, issued permits for half of the multifamily units in the county. This greatly exceeded the city's 29% share of UGA-wide multifamily construction in the preceding five years reported in the 2002 BLR. In suburban areas, Bellevue, Renton, Issaquah, Redmond, and unincorporated King County each permitted more than 1000 multifamily units during the 2001- 2005 period. IV- 10 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 511 Table 4.9: Multifamily Permit Density in King County UGA(2001-2005) SeaShore Net Acres Units Units/Acre Lake Forest Park 0.28 3 107 Seattle 160.48 12,831 800 Shoreline 12.41 378 305 Uninc King County SeaShore 10.72 273 255 SeaShore Total 183.89 13,485 73.3 East County Net Acres Units Units/Acre Beaux Arts 000 0 00 Bellevue 11.77 1,059 900 Bothell 14.46 261 180 Clyde Hill 0.00 0 00 Hunts Point 0.00 0 00 Issaquah 47.08 1,225 260 Kenmore 10.00 254 254 Kirkland 20.09 931 463 Medina 0.00 0 0.0 Mercer Island 7 85 573 730 Newcastle 2.66 63 237 Redmond 3638 1,387 381 Sammamish 1709 284 166 Woodinville 562 141 251 1 Yarrow Point 000 0 0.0 Uninc King County East 2766 478 17.3 East County Total 200.66 6,656 33.2 South County Net Acres Units Units/Acre Algona 0 61 4 6.5 Auburn 21 79 309 142 MW Black Diamond 049 6 123 Burien 360 120 334 Covington 921 211 229 Des Moines 0 74 22 298 Federal Way 536 71 132 Kent 6071 706 11 6 Maple Valley 399 57 14 3 Milton 000 0 0.0 Normandy Park 345 85 246 Pacific 425 85 200 Renton 54 79 1,257 22.9 SeaTac 11 09 208 188 Tukwila 000 0 0.0 Uninc King County South 8037 1,830 228 South County Total 260.46 4,971 19.1 Rural Cities Net Acres Units Units/Acre Carnation 000 0 0 0 Duvall 430 86 20.0 Enumclaw 528 69 13.1 North Bend 000 0 0 0 Skykomish 000 0 0 0 Snoqualmie 1589 161 10.1 Uninc. King County Rural Cities 000 1 0 0 0 Rural Cities Total 25.47 316 12.4 URBAN KING COUNTY TOTAL 670.48 25,428 37.93 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 11 511 1 Table 4.10: Residential Densities in King County UGA(1996-2000 vs. 2001-2005) 1 RESIDENTIAL PLATS 1996 -2000 2001 -2005 Plats Net Acres Lots Lots/Acre Net Acres Lots Lots/Acre SeaShore 139 834 6.0 36 227 62 East County 1,391 5,461 39 1,547 9,331 6.0 South County 1,037 5,651 5.4 1,738 11,108 6.4 Rural Cities 419 1,849 44 278 1,594 57 Plat Total 2,986 13,795 4.6 3,599 22,260 6.2 PERMITS 1996-2000 2001 -2005 Single-Family Permits Net Acres Units Units/Acre Net Acres Units Units/Acre SeaShore 371 2,434 66 367 2,605 71 East County 2,221 7,592 34 1,927 9,684 50 South County 1,963 8,321 42 2,191 12,001 5.5 Rural Cities 621 1,119 1 8 364 1,651 45 Single-Family Total 5,176 19,466 3.8 4,850 25,941 5.3 Multifamily Permits Net Acres Units Units/Acre Net Acres Units Units/Acre SeaShore 156 8,115 52.0 184 13,485 733 East County 473 9,677 205 201 6,656 332 South County 455 7,938 174 260 4,971 191 Rural Cities 142 1,255 88 25 316 124 Multi Family Total 1,226 26,985 22.0 670 25,428 38.0 1996 -2000 2001 -2005 ALL RESIDENTIAL PERMITS Net Acres Units Units/Acre Net Acres Units Units/Acre SeaShore 527 10,549 200 551 16,090 29.2 East County 2,694 17,269 64 2,128 16,340 7.7 South County 2,418 16,259 67 2,451 16,972 6.9 Rural Cities 763 2,374 3.1 389 1,967 5.1 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TOTAL 6,402 46,451 7.3 5,520 51,369 9.3 Technical Notes ' • Permitted units shown in this table do not include demolitions and other permit activity and are therefore not consistent with data reported in Table 4 1 (net housing unit growth) • Plat data for the 1996-2000 period do not include plats recorded in Seattle or Sammamish Plat data for the 2001 -05 period include Sammamish but not Seattle. For this reason, total acreage and number of platted lots are not comparable between the two review periods IV- 12 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 513 Commercial and Industrial Development and Job Change Two measures of non-residential growth are tracked for the 2007 BLR. One is net change in employment. The other is floor area added in commercial and industrial building permits. Table 4.11 summarizes Urban King County's change in jobs during the first six years of the 2001- 2022 planning period. Data are shown for each subarea and for the UGA as a whole. Six, rather than five, years of job change are calculated in order to more fully capture job recovery following the recession of 2001-2004. The table contains the most reliable countywide statistic on employment. "covered" employment as reported by the state Employment Security Department and mapped to job locations by the Puget Sound Regional Council. "Covered" employment refers to positions covered by unemployment insurance This data set excludes certain job categories, such as self-employed, proprietors, military personnel, and others, and accounts for approximately 85 to 90 percent of all jobs.' From 2001 through 2004, King County suffered the deepest recession it had experienced since the early 1970s The dot-com bust of 2000 to 2001 was followed by aerospace losses and consequent loss of jobs in nearly every sector By 2004, King County had lost more than 70,000 jobs, more than six percent of the county's year-2000 economic base. Data reported in the BLR clearly reflect the impact of the recession Analysis of covered employment change reveals a mixed picture of net job growth and decline within the county over the full six-year period. East County and Rural Cities subareas experienced modest net job gains, while SeaShore and South County subareas had yet to regain their year 2000 job levels. By early 2006, the number of covered jobs in Urban King County stood at 1,106,000—still down more than 25,000 or 2.2% from the peak at the beginning of the analysis period Job Growth Targets for 2001-2022 in the Countywide Planning Policies are also shown in table 4.11, along with updated targets for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022) Within each subarea, some cities have progressed toward their targets and some have not. When the numbers for all jurisdictions are combined, the subarea remaining target is a blend that is less than the original subarea target even where the subarea as a whole has lost jobs. Table 4.11: Change in Covered Employment (2000-2006) Subarea Covered Covered Change 2001-22 Remaining Jobs 2000 Jobs 2006 Job Target Target Sea- 526,200 495,500 - 30,700 95,850 94,750 Shore' East 290,600 302,000 11,400 98,500 84,550 Count South 305,000 296,400 - 8,600 89,500 84,800 Count Rural Cities 9,700 12,000 2,300 5,250 3,200 Total 11131,600 11105,900 - 25,700 289,100 267,300 UGA Note Numbers in this table have been rounded Table 4 12 on page IV-15 provides detail on covered employment change from 2000 to 2006 for cities and urban unincorporated subareas In jurisdictions that experienced net job growth, the ' Employment data for 2000 reported in the 2007 BLR represent provisional estimates of total covered jobs, pending final revisions to the 2000 government employment estimates by PSRC 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 13 511 CPP targets are adjusted downward to reflect progress toward the targeted growth For jurisdictions , with job losses, the remaining target is set at the level of the original targets. In the latter case, it is assumed that unused capacity is available within existing buildings to accommodate growth needs to fully recover year 2000 employment lost. Growth above and beyond year 2000 jobs is expected to be accommodated through new development. The jurisdiction-level data reveal that the economic recession of 2001-2004 was widespread as well as deep. One third of King County's 39 cities still had fewer jobs in 2006 than in 2000; among them were major job centers in the county, such as Seattle, Kirkland, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila While not shown in this table, data also show that job loss was widespread by sector, with net losses during this period in transportation, retail and services as well as manufacturing. i I. IV- 14 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 515 Table 4.12: Change in Covered Employment by City for King County UGA(2001-2006) SeaShore Cov.Jobs, Cov. Jobs, Change in 2001-2022 Remaining 2000 2006 Jobs Job Target Target Lake Forest Park 1,364 1,599 235 455 220 Seattle 502,475 470,697 -31,778 92,083 92,083 Shoreline 15,706 16,360 654 2,618 1,964 Uninc KC-SeaShore 6,700 6,883 183 694 511 SeaShore Total 526,245 495,539 -30,706 95,850 94,778 East County Beaux Arts 16 53 37 Bellevue 118,261 118,633 372 40,000 39,628 Bothell 10,527 11,015 488 2,000 1,512 Clyde Hill 430 647 217 Hunts Point 36 36 0 Issaquah 15,109 18,667 3,558 14,000 10,442 Kenmore 4,548 4,216 -332 2,800 2,800 Kirkland 34,309 32,049 -2,260 8,800 8,800 Medina 366 283 -83 Mercer Island 6,618 6,810 192 800 608 Newcastle 997 1,572 575 500 - Redmond 73,426 81,814 8,388 21,760 13,372 Sammamish 4,936 4,809 -127 1,230 1,230 Woodinville 13,316 13,791 475 2,000 1,525 Yarrow Point 50 80 30 - - Uninc. KC- East 7,700 7,541 -159 4,637 4,637 East County Total 290,645 302,016 11,371 98,527 84,554 South County Algona 1,967 1,874 -93 108 108 Auburn 38,453 37,542 -911 6,079 6,079 Black Diamond 407 463 56 2,525 2,469 Burien 12,565 11,854 -711 1,712 1,712 Covington 2,609 3,314 705 900 195 Des Moines 5,936 5,607 -329 1,695 1,695 Federal Way 29,459 30,249 790 7,481 6,691 Kent 61,144 63,382 2,238 11,500 9,262 Maple Valley 2,805 3,317 512 804 292 Milton 3 24 21 1,054 1,033 Normandy Park 586 734 148 67 Pacific 921 1,598 677 103 - Renton 55,572 50,702 -4,870 27,597 27,597 SeaTac 31,614 28,696 -2,918 9,288 9,288 Tukwila 48,356 44,184 -4,172 16,000 16,000 Uninc KC-South 12,600 12,841 241 2,582 2,341 South County Total 304,997 296,381 -8,616 89,495 84,762 Rural Cities Carnation 600 873 2731 75 - Duvall 957 1,016 59 1,125 1,066 Enumclaw 4,183 4,431 248 1,125 877 North Bend 1,912 2,423 511 1,125 614 Skykomish 90 57� -33 - - Snoqualmie 1,153 2,297 1,144 1,800 656 Uninc KC Rur Cities 800 861 61 - - Rural Cities Total 9,695 11,958 2,263 5,250 3,213 URBAN KING COUNTY 1,131,582 1,105,894 -25,6881 289,122 1 267,307 Covered jobs are those covered by unemployment insurance Source Wa Employment Security Dept and PSRC 2007 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 15 511 Table 4.13 contains data on building permits issued (2001-2005) in commercial and industrial zones , (As with residential permits, data for the City of Seattle are based on permits finaled, not issued, during the review period.) Data are aggregated at the subarea and UGA levels, and include net land developed, floor area of new buildings, and achieved floor-area-ratios. FAR, calculated here as the square footage of the building divided by the net square footage of the site, is a common measure of density in commercial and industrial land uses Net acres are shown as in the multifamily permits analysis, but gross acres are not shown because the difference between net and gross land area is small. Major findings include the following: • Despite the recent recession, nearly 18 million square feet of commercial space was permitted in commercial and mixed-use zones UGA-wide in the years 2001-2005, only slightly less than the 20 million commercial square feet permitted in the previous five years. Nearly half of the commercial square footage was permitted in the SeaShore subarea, • Just over 10 million square feet of space was permitted in industrial zones during the years 2001-2005 This amount was barely more than half of the 20 million square feet of industrial floor area permitted 1996-2000, a decline that reflects the dampening impact of the recession on industrial development. Two-thirds of the new industrial square footage was permitted in South County. • Commercial development consumed over 600 net acres and achieved an overall FAR of 0.67. This figure represents an increase from the FAR of 0.47 achieved during the 1996-2000, a trend towards more intensive use of commercial land. The most intensive development of commercial and industrial land occurred in SeaShore, with an achieved FAR of 1.95 • Industrial development consumed 575 net acres and achieved an overall FAR of 0.42, a figure that is slightly lower than the 0.46 FAR achieved in industrial zones 1996-2000. Table 4.13: Commercial and Industrial Building Permits (2001-2005) Subarea Zoning' Net Acres Floor Area FAR (Sq. Ft. Sea-Shore Commercial 100 8,472,460 195 Industrial 70 2,786,871 092 East County Commercial 131 4,702,347 082 Industrial 54 749,724 032 South County Commercial 339 4,159,696 0.28 Industrial 445 6,905,127 0.36 Rural Cities Commercial 42 461,647 025 Industrial 6 70,610 029 Total UGA Commercial 612 17,796,150 067 Industrial 575 10,512,332 042 Commercial category includes zones allowing commercial uses only, as well as mixed- use zones,which allow both commercial and residential uses FAR calculations for the commercial portions of permitted mixed-use projects are based on a prorated fraction of total land and floor areas Table 4.14 contains data on commercial and industrial building permits in cities and urban unincorporated areas. The data include land consumed for commercial and industrial development, square feet of new buildings, and FARs achieved. Major findings include the following. • The City of Seattle led the county in new commercial square footage permitted at 8 million square feet, nearly half the countywide total. IV- 16 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 517 7 • Among suburban jurisdictions, Bellevue stands out as well with 2.8 million permitted square feet, and the cities of Kirkland, Redmond, Auburn, Federal Way, and Kent each issued permits for more than a half million square feet of new space in commercial zones. • City of Seattle achieved the highest overall commercial FAR at 2.57. Among other jurisdictions, the City of Bellevue also stood out with an overall commercial FAR of 1.68 (with higher FARs = achieved in downtown Bellevue). In industrial permitting, the cities of Seattle and Auburn led the county with 2 7 million permitted square feet of new space in industrial zones each. The cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila stood out as well with over one million newly permitted square feet in industrial zones each. Analysis of permit data adds some perspective on the findings of the job change analysis The fact of continued robust rates of permitting for new commercial, and to a lesser extent, industrial development throughout the county suggests that cities and the county as a whole have been making progress toward their CPP Job Growth Targets even though that progress is not yet- reflected in the employment data. The contrast between, on the one hand, job loss and, on the other, new commercial and industrial development is particularly stark in Auburn, Renton and Tukwila, each of which gained more than one million square feet of industrial buildings along with healthy commercial construction, while losing net employment Other cities such as Kirkland, SeaTac, and Burien had some new square footage but also lost jobs Bellevue gained only a few jobs while constructing 2 8 million square feet of commercial uses. One reason for the differing indications of growth in the two types of data is that they represent snapshots of change at different points in the economic cycle. Covered employment for early 2006 does not capture job recovery that continued strong after that date. On the other hand, many building permits issued in 2005, and even earlier years, may not be occupied with new employees until later in 2006 or beyond 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 17 511 Q� N N w O N O N N Q O O Q - - i . . . . . . . . w! (i O ci U. O O LL O O O T- O i r i i r i N i i i i i i i i M ' CO ' LO q I� I- O co co m N aC a0 M O M O "- d (0w y r o0 (0 m O L 00 coL 00 N Cn 1* a ti t- a r c r ti N N �- N O O 7 'a LL LL C O 00 O M r i 0) m i (O i i i i i i i i i 1- r (V q 0) (O w d N r r LO CD V V N a Q G Z Z N N O r- M 00 LO O M N d' O M O 'q N 00 N a LA 0 M cF O LO h- � � d14: O O 't M Nt O O m U- O N O C U- O CD O O 0 0 O O O c O U O LO r V O CO (O f-- M (0) CO I-- O (O O I- :a I1_ LO O CY) LO O m coIt O CO r N m mIt N _ m N N 00 r 'It m ti r r "Y' O O LO 00 r M N a) 0) O CO CO N y O co OA It m N co c`'i I-- LO N L- r LO (O CO f-- L- O (O "t r 00 0) r r .- O Q O co I Q co r O c- h y O N co LO N E O o w O U Qco rn LO I- O o o r CO (D r rn Ln o rn O r LO r CD co N 00 O ti N O c) O - O h N O w co r LO M L L L.1 V a z z ca c L (n 76 m � U) L co o w E D :3 p Q U Q U FO- (� in m in c (n a) M 7 a) C 3 i _ T io m Y a Q � = 2 a- M o ca (n 0 m c 3 Y a _ o c d r N L c t fn a) a) O 7 Y N N a) a) N m e fn U) � n N 10 CO co U T Y Y Z � � > D y Fes- fn N W W IV- 18 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 519 W N LO O (D to f-- M 00 to co � � r 0) N Q LA ci T N i M r . . O N I i M Q r M i i N 11� LL O O O O O O O O O O LL O O O p O t` ' co 0) LO O ' N Lf) O ti d (0 ' O N O (o O co U) O L` 00 O N O r M O C' (M N O) (fl O 19 - _ y (fl T N f-- LO I- OD 00 (D LO y �t (0 O N L O LO 00 co �t co I-- O Q N I-- LC) O O cn Q N O O LL LL C (0 O) ti O c- CO t L` 'q ti O LO T M a0 N f� N co O It co LO OIt LA � c O 00 c} L 1` et LO Q Q z z (D 00 r (7) N 00 O M O M M O M ti O 0) q m 0) r LO 1` Q M N d N N N CM N - r 1* N c! M r N Q U! N N r - M N tD LL O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O LL O O O O O O tj O I- ' co N M O) M O ' O LC) w O m M (D T r- M N ' ' ti O 00 L� e- Lc) M M (O ti O N LO m w O m O CV O 00 c) W) _ m ly M �- O Lf) oc '1 L1 N 00 O 00 - r tD m C' M (c r- ti (D T fC Lv M I` (D ti (D 0) M M 0) Ln 00 N 00 00 0) 00 NT (O Ltd O LO (O (O m dt 0 N O Lf) LO O (D L Q r N M CO r c- r Q N r L L E O O r E LL LL 0 0 � U O a0 00 O M O It (0 O f� LO O L1) O - CO N CO N T O f� m O H O Lo m N M I� m O (o 0) - O Ln L- L` N 04 Q 0 LC) r M I-- (.0 c- tM CDC 4 d r L L to CD E a) m L z z LO J c U O U) F°- r v C� 2:1 is >1 ac° z C 0 Y o Q Q O L o F' o 00 m o >, m U ca .0 U .Q U (u n > a) d 0) a) 3 a) 0) U' U Q m c c � c Q Ln � m a) ( c rn z j Y Y. (D c 4r. O U 3 _ m L o � U T cA o � o L > U) a c n ° E c m Y c N U E > � > 0 U z v_ E 3QammU � Y � 2zn. � cn ►- � 3 00wz0m L m ' Fes- cn° cl) 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report IV- 19 f 521 V. Land Supply and Development Capacity This chapter presents the major findings of the analysis of land supply (in acres) and development capacity (in terms of housing units, households, floor area, and jobs). Residential and non-residential land and capacity, as of early 2006, are shown, along with comparisons with growth targets for the remainder of the,planning period (2006-2022). The supply of vacant and redevelopable land was determined through an analysis of geographic information systems (GIS) data, including parcel boundary and county assessor files, critical areas mapping, and other mapped data Further calculations incorporated discounts for future rights-of- way, public uses, and long-term potential market availability, as well as assumptions about future residential and non-residential densities. (See Chapter III for a detailed description of the countywide land supply and capacity analysis methodology. See appendices A-C for definitions and assumptions used by each jurisdiction ) Resulting estimates of buildable land supply and development capacity represents a snapshot of approximately January 2006 Residential Land Supply Table 5.1 shows the gross buildable residential land in acres, deductions and discounts, and net buildable acres for each planning subarea and for the UGA as a whole. Major findings of this analysis include the following • The UGA contains approximately 41,500 gross acres of vacant or potentially redevelopable residential land. After deducting critical areas constraints, discounts for rights-of-way and public uses, and an assumed market availability discount, almost 22,000 net acres of land remain to accommodate urban residential growth through 2022. The residential land supply includes land zoned for single-family detached housing, multifamily housing, and that portion of the developable land in mixed-use zones that is assumed to have capacity for residential uses. • The 21,900 acres of net residential land are approximately 5,000 acres less than the 26,900 net residential acres reported in the 2002 BLR This compares favorably with the findings in Chapter IV that just over 5,500 net acres were consumed during the 5-year review period, 2001 — 2005. 4,850 acres of single-family development and 670 acres of multifamily • Overall, almost half of the gross acreage was deducted for critical areas, rights-of-way, public uses, and market availability factors Land in single-family zones was discounted more heavily than land zoned for multifamily housing or mixed-uses • In single-family zones, almost a quarter of the land supply was found to be encumbered by critical areas. In multifamily and mixed-use zones, just over 10% of the gross land supply was rendered unbuildable due to critical areas • More than half of the net land supply, especially land in single-family zones, is located in South County SeaShore contains almost half of the developable land in multifamily and mixed-use zones. Most of that land could be developed at densities well in excess of 50 dwelling units per acre under current plans and zoning. More detail regarding the gross and net land supply is available at the city level in Chapter VII, Profiles of King County Jurisdictions. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V- 1 52A Table 5.1: Residential Land Supply (2006) Gross Deductions Net Subarea Zoning Acres Critical Right-of- Public Market Acres Areas Way' Use' Factor Single- 3,810 250 2% 1 /° 12/°o 0 3,063 Sea- Family Shore Multifamily/ 3 Mixed-Use 21151 16 0.6% 0.5% 12% 1,879 Single- 10,823 3,112 13% 10/°o 17/°o 4,962 East Family County Multifamily/ 3 2/° 14/°1,015 137 5% ° ° Mixed-Use 704 Single- 20,396 5,138 14% South Family 12/° 18/° 9,370 County Multifamily/ 3 Mixed-Use 15/°2,074 402 5% 4% ° 1,298 Single- 1,139 266 13% 12/° 16/°° 549 Rural Family Cities Multifamily/ ° ° ° Mixed-Use3 147 32 5% 5% 17/° 86 Single- 36,168 8,765 12/° UGA Family 10% 17% 17,943 Total Multifamily/ ° ° ° Mixed-Use3 5,386 587 3/° 2/° 14/0 3,966 Discounts represent the%of the unencumbered gross acres(minus critical areas)assumed to be needed for future rights-of-way and future on-site public uses 2 Market factor discount represents the%of the developable land that is assumed to be unavailable for development during the 20-year planning period 3 This category includes both residential only multifamily and mixed-use zones Mixed-use zones include any designation that allowed both residential and commercial development Acres of"residential"buildable land is reported here as a subset of overall land supply in mixed-use zones "Commercial'buildable land in mixed-use zones is reported in table 5.4 Figure 5.1 at the end of this chapter shows the proportion of the net supply of developable land in single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use zones in the UGA that was identified as either vacant or redevelopable as of early 2006. Overall, 36% of the residential land supply is vacant and 64% redevelopable. Half of the supply is redevelopable single-family land, which includes both large parcels with ample room for further development, as well as small infill parcels Less than a third of the land supply in multifamily and mixed-use zones is vacant, with more than two-thirds comprised of underutilized sites with redevelopment potential. Residential Capacity vs. Household Growth Targets Table 5.2 shows housing and household capacity for each planning subarea and for the UGA as a whole. Capacity is compared with Household Growth Targets for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022). The conversion of net acres to housing units was based on assumed future residential densities, which were based on the densities observed within each zoning designation during the 2001-2005 review period. As such, the Buildable Lands capacity estimates represent the demonstrated potential of current plans and regulations to accommodate residential growth. Additional residential capacity included in these totals was derived from 1) housing capacity in selected major developments "in the pipeline", 2) estimated accessory dwelling unit potential, and 3) V-2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 523 estimated residential capacity within the UGAs surrounding cities in the Rural Cities subarea. Major findings of this analysis include the following: �I The King County UGA has capacity, based on current plans, for approximately 289,000 additional housing units accommodating an estimated 277,000 additional households-more than twice the capacity needed to accommodate the Household Growth Target of about 106,000 for the remainder of the 2000-2022 planning period. Table 5.2: Housing Capacity (2006) vs. Household Growth Targets (2006-2022) Development Ca acit 2006 Remaining Surplus/ Subarea Zoning Housing , Target Deficit Units Households 2006-2022 Capacity ' Single-Family 10,082 9,880 Sea-Shore Multifamily 32,450 30,827 Mixed-Use 96,595 91,765 Total 139,335 132,472 41,841 90,631 Single-Family 19,719 19,325 East County Multifamily 6,356 6,038 Mixed-Use 31,954 30,356 Total 58,029 55,719 32,494 23,225 Single-Family 45,023 44,123 South County Multifamily 16,720 15,884 Mixed-Use 18,469 17,546 Total 80,279 77,553 28,319 49,295 1 Single-Family 9,463 9,274 Rural Cities 2 Multifamily 1,490 1,416 Mixed-Use 859 816 Total 11,812 11,506 3,698 7,808 Single-Family 84,286 82,600 UGA Total Multifamily 57,016 54,165 Mixed-Use 147,877 140,483 Total 289,179 277,248 106,352 170,896 Housing units converted to households by assuming vacancy rates of 2%for SF and 5%for MF and MU 2 Capacity totals for Rural Cities includes both potential new residential uses within the city limits and housing capacity estimated for the UGAs associated with 5 of the cities based on zoning anticipated after annexation a • At projected household sizes, the 289,000 new housing units, together with the existing housing stock in 2006, could accommodate more than 400,000 additional persons within the UGA This is more than twice the population growth needed to meet the remaining part of the 2002 OFM projection of 2,048,000 total population for King County in 2022 • The residential capacity as of 2006 was slightly greater than the 263,000 housing unit capacity reported for 2001 in the 2002 Buildable Lands Report, despite the consumption of developable land in the intervening years. The increase in estimated capacity reflects higher residential densities achieved in the 2001 - 2005 review period and other updated analysis assumptions. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V-3 52f� r-- M0 r r McoM oCOwr-- O -tLoMOMM rn to 00 LC) ti N M N N "O CO � r = N r,- — LO r— N 7 a+ +�. (O "T CO CD CO N r "t CO B O O O N U V r O LO (Ii N M O. w w 00 a) N N Q lC U 2N CO U r M r-- M c CO (0N r LO LO M � r (D CO ' N CO N — " m N N � LO LO M ti N O LO N N N O) 0 0 CN to -,I CDN 00 0o I' M (Dc co M ti 06 N - W <- CO r- CO N N N M M 7 CD O ~ O 2 N N M G CO CO N CO LO N N r -T ,T O O O CO t � LO LO M 'a 'IT rl- 00 (.0 ti N Lf) N CO N CO ,t 00 LO rl- O r-- M O r _ O (0 CO LO LO -cr O f` LO co LO co 't Ln (D O 'lzt� ti m CV O N N co N (D It ' CO CO N CO LO O N N M LO 7 r O 2 Q U') r N CO W (D CO CDM t- M — N LO M CO CD co (O O C> (!� ti M o) O 04 ti O N O N (O � (O O CO lzl M CO CO N (.O 00 00 O r (O 00 O O rl- ti In O r- = In O Y r 00 (0N O M N CO LO 11 - `r 00 M N O C O E N CO) LO 7 m CDf� 0o LO r M ' ' 'IT = N ' N o) CO ' CD ' � C N LO co Ln m 0o O ti �t 00 m rl_ O (O LO Y m N co O LO N 'IT (D M M O rl_ r-_ N CD� N LO N N r O r V K C (A O M O N N C � LC N N q CO O ' M LO q ' O M M d' r ' N �T , �+ Lf) Iq M LO 0o m 00 't M coo m CO � Ln = M 1- (0 le r N N (T co CO 00 N' O m +�+ y CF c- N (O 3 N M O 3 N O M O r r— r (0 M (O () 00 CY) (O 00 N q 00 LO 00 (O O O L1 r� 00 CY) M 00 O LO — M M M M O N O O — M M r N LO O O N m r` LO 't ti M ti It 't ti Q. R LA r,17 - p c - - M Lf) 01 LL 4) r r 0O O U cN rn U � m cn w `) m O o N U ` m Y _ � a � Ec � O c Q (D � O rc ( m _ o s E O O0 O O O - O (D = ca a t E U a) a o a a) a) a) m O m E U R Jcn (n D U NMcaM 2 `� YY � � Z2cn � >m Dm cc N H U) fn w w V-4 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 525 i a I� M M "T 'It I` (D M - O LO O O - "T M N N NIt O O M w LO 00 O M (0 't N M N O (D N M M - M M M M M M - O O O (n I", CD (D (DI-- co co co N M 00 co "T N IC) m co D) CD 00 00 3 U •U M M - M N O N 0) M r- O G. y= LO N I ti M D) (D ' O O N lO M CO LO M O LO 00 M 0 N O M O M M N 00 't N - I-- CO N IzT ti M = Il- O LO O N LO O M c- T zJ- Ln LO CO - O M N (D Il- CD co to M CD LO - LC) N N '�t M 00 M tO a) Cf C;1 N O 3 O 2 N f` LO r- N LO "t r O 117 M N CO M M N Il- - M LO "t CO U') O <-- (D N O r-- I` N N O CD It �T O �t CO LO 00 Il- (D M Il- O I-T _ 0 M M O N = 'It tt M A N LO = O CO B LO ti LO = LO M Ltd N (C (D �t N M M LO CO N N Ln M N 11 N M cM V ti C a) N h r t- O O to N io D X O c 2 c (a LO O (M N U) 00 00 N O LO O LO M 6) N N O D) 00 LO Il- N a) D N N I� CD O (D CD 00 N I- (D = "T OD M r 0') D M LO I- � 1- r t- 7 FFO- =�) MLn N - M N (D (D M � CV LP) Il- N C) NI� (D N LO 'IT00 r �(D 4 N M M L() (D NN Ln M cM c N M - M r C) p) N00 r OD Co E 7 U) N O LC) O Il- O O O O = O I- O N M M c0 I` co CD O fl- Q CL y O (0 LO = N I-- c') M CA V (Z) N CD 'ITto 'IT N 1- LO m D (n LO 1� I' �- LO V O N M <- N O O 1 (D 00 00 :D I I- M N 00 1� _ 'd r D (0 X O r c6 N c a L) - - U C N O N M I- O LO I- O O N 00 N N Ln O O M IT O to O � �+ f-- O r N O = I- CD V M O O S O N CD LO O M 'IT O r � O (D (D LO N (D CO It N LO 1l- (M O I O uj E u) N I N M F- C N O r LO m += O c N � � � m c L N 3 :3 O >+ = M O) M O) O M N = O (O N I` O) = M M CO CO O LO M M t0 L 0') LO O (D O N N m M 'IT M LO O IzT LO M N co I` I` (D co co tD 00 c- O (D ti � N O 00 O LO O 00 T O LO O co LO It1.* N 00 LL (n M M N M It N M L - N - N O N d O a m N a) E cn O c) U � � Q � m 0 U O o F- m (v U) U > H of c Z D O m o 0 o O m c� _ E (� a) m �, a L a) O U (° M C ) Ya) Z O > a) m E m wY UD_) c (u U (0 . C a) _ Uo E � °U O U co E > - ZLn LL 6CQL U O D D O 0 N O — O m 0 0 D C Z (a D c ,[0 c U 3 Q Q co o0 0 0 LL Y2 z a. o� tn l— D Fa U 0 W Z U) U) m a Fes- fn 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V- 5 521 1 • Capacity for housing and households within each subarea is more than sufficient to accommodate the cumulative remaining Household Growth Targets for jurisdictions in those subareas. SeaShore has the largest surplus of capacity to accommodate its household growth target. • Just over half of the 2006 residential capacity—about 139,000 housing units—is located in the SeaShore subarea, dominated by multifamily and mixed-use capacity in the City of Seattle. • UGA-wide, there is capacity for about 84,000 units in single-family zones, 1/3 of the total, and about 205,000 units in multifamily and mixed-use zones, 2/3 of total residential potential. Fully half of overall residential capacity is located in mixed-use zones. Table 5 3 summarizes the findings of this analysis for each city and unincorporated urban subarea. , Data include 1) housing unit capacity in single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use zones, 2) estimated total household capacity, and 3) a comparison of household capacity with the Household Growth Targets for the remaining portion of the planning period (2006-2022). Findings of this evaluation include the following: • All cities and urban unincorporated areas have sufficient capacity to accommodate their Household Growth Targets for the remainder of the planning period. • City of Seattle has the largest surplus of capacity above and beyond targeted household growth, capacity for nearly 85,000 more households than necessary. • Among suburban areas, unincorporated South County and the cities of Renton, Kent, Covington, Black Diamond, Kenmore, Issaquah, Bellevue, and Shoreline stand out with capacity surpluses of more than 2,500 households beyond targeted growth Figure 5.2 at the end of this chapter shows the proportion of housing capacity in the UGA located on land in single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use zones that was identified as either vacant or redevelopable. This analysis includes capacity on selected sites committed to development "in the pipeline." Overall, one-third of the capacity is on vacant land, two-thirds on redevelopable land. Half of the single-family is on vacant land, half on redevelopable land. Fully three-quarters of the capacity in mixed-use zones was located on redevelopable parcels. Commercial and Industrial Land Supply Table 5.4 shows the gross buildable commercial and industrial zoned land in acres, deductions and discounts, and net buildable acres for each planning subarea and for the UGA as a whole. Major findings of this analysis include the following. • The UGA contains approximately 9,000 gross acres of vacant or potentially redevelopable commercial and industrial land. After deducting critical areas constraints, discounts for rights-of- way and public uses, and an assumed market availability discount, almost 6,200 net acres of land remain to accommodate employment growth through 2022. The non-residential land supply includes land zoned for industrial and commercial uses as well as that portion of the developable land in mixed-use zones that was assumed to have capacity for commercial uses. • Compared with the findings of the 2002 Buildable Lands evaluation, estimated net commercial and industrial land supply in 2006 is approximately 1,700 acres lower than the net land supply of 7,800 acres estimated in 2001. The decline in estimated buildable land supply for employment uses reflects both land consumed for commercial and industrial uses subsequent to the 2001 snapshot, as well as revised analysis assumptions in the analysis for the 2007 BLR. V-6 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 527 • Overall, almost a third of the gross acreage was deducted for critical areas, ROWs, public uses, and market availability factors. Land in industrial zones was discounted somewhat more than ' land zoned for commercial or mixed-uses • In commercial and mixed-use zones, 13% of the land supply was found to be encumbered by critical areas. In industrial zones, nearly 20% of the gross land supply was rendered unbuildable ' due to critical areas. Future land needs for rights-of-way and other on-site public uses were considered minimal in commercial and industrial development. • South County contains the biggest share of developable non-residential land—a little over half of the commercial and mixed-use land, two-thirds of industrial land in the UGA SeaShore—in particular the City of Seattle—contains the greatest amount of land zoned for high-density mixed uses, accommodating high concentrations of employment in proximity to residential uses. Table 5A Commercial and Industrial Land Supply (2006) Gross Deductions Net Subarea Zoning Acres Critical Right-of- Public Market Acres Areas Way' Use' Factor2 Commercial /Sea- Mixed-Use 3 861 0 14% 0 5% 12% 749 Shore Industrial 517 55 2% 1% 8% 466 Commercial / 9 2/° East Mixed-Use 24 145 4°/° 15% 629 County Industrial 590 142 4 5% 3% 15% 358 ' Commercial /South Mixed-Use 3 2,614 389 3% 2% 14% 1,835 County Industrial 2,885 617 3 5% 3% 14% 1,830 Commercial /Rural Mixed-Use 3 256 70 5 5°/° 4% 17% 140 Cities Industrial 332 97 7% 7% 16% 170 Commercial /UGA Mixed-Use 34,654 604 3% 2% 14% 3,352 Total Industrial 4,324 852 4% 3% 13% 2,824 Discounts represent the % of the unencumbered gross acres (minus critical areas)assumed to be needed for future rights-of-way and future on-site public uses 2 Market factor discount represents the % of the developable land that is assumed to be unavailable for development during the 20-year planning period 3 This category includes both commercial only and mixed-use zones Mixed-use zones include any designation —� that allowed both residential and commercial development Acres of"commercial' buildable land is reported here as a subset of overall land supply in mixed-use zones "Residential" buildable land in mixed-use zones is reported in table 5 1 Figure 5 3 at the end of this chapter shows the proportion of the net supply of developable land in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones in the UGA that was identified as either vacant or redevelopable as of early 2006 Overall, 47% of the non-residential land supply is vacant and 53% redevelopable. Two-thirds of the industrial land supply was classified as vacant A number of the "vacant" parcels are used currently for outdoor storage, parking, and other low-intensity uses City of Seattle did not identify any redevelopment potential in industrial zones, a factor that further skewed 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V-7 521 the data toward the vacant category. In commercial zones, roughly half of the land supply is vacant. , In mixed-use zones, redevelopable land predominates Employment Capacity vs. Job Growth Targets Table 5.5 shows total employment capacity for each planning subarea and for the UGA as a whole. Capacity is compared with Job Growth Targets for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022). Net buildable acres were converted to units of employment capacity (sq ft.,jobs) based on achieved and assumed FARs as well as assumed sq. ft. per employee multipliers, factors that were consistent ' with current zoning and recent and projected market activity. Additional employment capacity included in these totals was derived from 1)job capacity in selected major developments "in the pipeline" and 2) estimated job capacity within the UGAs surrounding cities in the Rural Cities subarea. Major findings of this analysis include the following: • The King County UGA has capacity, based on current plans, for over 500,000 new jobs added through new development—nearly twice the capacity needed to accommodate the overall Job Growth Target of about 267,000 for the remainder of the planning period (2006-2022). • Based on the observed net job loss in King County between 2000 and 2006, it is assumed that additional capacity for at least 25,000 jobs exists within underutilized existing buildings These jobs were not included in the Buildable Lands capacity analysis and are not included in the figures in table 5 5. However, assumed capacity in existing buildings did factor into bringing CPP Job Growth Targets up to date for the remainder of the planning period. • The total job capacity for 2006 is about 100,000 jobs less than the capacity of over 600,000 jobs estimated for 2001 in the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. The decrease in estimated capacity reflects both the updated land supply inventory (noted above) as well as revised assumptions , about the employment potential of developable parcels. • Capacity for employment within each subarea is more than sufficient to accommodate the cumulative remaining Job Growth Targets for jurisdictions in those subareas. SeaShore had the largest surplus of capacity to accommodate its job target. • Three-quarters of the total job capacity is on land zoned for commercial uses, including both commercial-only and mixed commercial-residential zoning. Industrial capacity represented about a quarter of the county's job potential. • More than half of the county's total employment capacity is in the SeaShore subarea, primarily within the City of Seattle. Seashore and East County contain the majority of commercial/mixed- use capacity, while SeaShore and South County lead the county in industrial capacity. Figure 5.4 at the end of this chapter shows the proportion of job capacity in the UGA located on land ' in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones that was identified as either vacant or redevelopable. This analysis includes capacity on selected sites committed to development "in the pipeline." Overall, 42% of the capacity is on vacant land, 58% on redevelopable land. Nearly half of all capacity for additional employment is located on redevelopable parcels in mixed-use zones, much of which is zoned for intensive commercial and residential development. V-8 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report ' 529 Table 5.5: Commercial and Industrial Capacity (2006)vs. Job Targets (2001-2022) Em to ment Capacity 2006 Job Growth Surplus/ ' Subarea Zoning Floor Area JobsTarget Deficit S . Ft. ' 2001-2022 Capacity Commercial 878,914 1,921 Seashore Mixed-Use 62,509,499 214,782 Industrial 20,579,016 44,666 ' Total 83,967,429 261,369 94,778 166,591 Commercial 3,196,230 15,833 East County Mixed-Use 20,532,636 82,445 Industrial 5,878,900 26,426 Total 29,607,765 124,704 84,554 40,154 Commercial 12,610,679 41,246 South County Mixed-Use 17,977,826 46,937 Industrial 28,391,702 40,059 Total 58,980,207 128,242 84,762 43,480 Commercial 803,666 3,033 ' Rural Cities2 Mixed-Use 1,564,478 3,189 Industrial 2,667,311 7,183 Total 5,035,455 13,405 3,113 10,205 Commercial 17,489,489 57,860 UGA Total Mixed-Use 102,584,439 351,527 Industrial 57,516,929 118,333 Total 177,590,857 527,720 267,307 260,422 Floor area capacity does not include future new buildings on a limited number of sites treated as "committed to development in the pipeline" 2 Capacity totals for Rural Cities includes both potential new commercial and industrial uses within the city limits and job capacity estimated for the UGAs associated with 5 of the cities based on zoning anticipated after annexation Table 5.6 contains detail on employment capacity to accommodate growth targets in each city and urban unincorporated subarea. Data include 1)job capacity in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones, 2) estimated total employment capacity, and 3) a comparison of employment capacity with the job growth targets for the remaining portion of the planning period (2006-2022). Findings of this evaluation include the following. • Nearly all cities and all urban unincorporated areas have sufficient capacity to accommodate their Job Growth Targets for the remainder of the planning period • The City of Sammamish is the only jurisdiction that this evaluation finds short of sufficient job capacity. Efforts by the city to expand capacity for employment, along with assumptions about future job growth, are discussed in the City of Sammamish profile in Chapter VII. • The City of Seattle has the largest surplus of capacity above and beyond targeted employment growth, capacity for nearly 163,000 more jobs than necessary. • Among suburban areas, the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Redmond, Auburn, and Renton stand out with capacity surpluses of more than 5,000 jobs beyond targeted growth. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V-9 531 a N I,- CO � r m c- ' co r-- Ln t � O -,-r ' Ln r co — N CO 0 co Ln n 'IT CD � II— CDM 'ITO Ln 00 Ln O Ln O CD N 00 N D0 1,- N N �- r 7 0 _ c\I � N (D 0') co 00 C � �N c C1 cn p U }, O CO d 00 00 N N O O 00 ' N O LO ' ti 'q p a) N O0 C0 1,- N r 'I O O O r- M N (M Ln t N N O O Ln 1- O Ln It 00 00 (0 M N Ln CD Ln tm L N N r 4 (3) �: O N 00Cq .r CD c d LO N N O N Ln W � CO Cfl co r (0 'IT CD ' 0) N Ln N 00 O 0) O to CD O d O N 1l- I- CD co O OM O 'IT U') cr) "T O O CD 00 0o O 1- 00 ti Q ' M N � Ln O M N M �t N Ur N N r O ' C O O O N N ' M Ln ' ' O N 0) ' 00 ti ti Ln ' (D U a) N r- 0) 00 O = M O Ln = 00 00 It le N co 0-) -t 1- 0) 00 co O N CD GD O I` Iq d O cl .; Ln cD C'') 1- M N Y R '0N N 00 U � I� m to t'- O r" ti M M 0 L O O LO N 'It O d' co O Ln N N co CO M 0) CD It C d t0 a N C d N N O W N O — a.. d L N CO ' C0 r ' fl- CO ' ' CO Ln O O ' co ' CO CO ' La C0 M N N co �t (0 IT O 'I Ln N I` M fl. 0 (0 N m 00 CD CO N r- N CO E L- Ln r r N N M Ln O 4) r E 0 N Q. U L _ O ca -J , i (0n� — O co o o 1� _0 U y — n tD d �° O .c Y I-O Q � — 2 - ca o ca � o ca c 3 Y L a) - " i 7 cT E ca E o o a \ O Y La O O O — C ca c `e L m M o t C L U a) a) O >' D (n a) L Q) a) a) N m O ca c U —Icncn � o . commU = TYY22zQcn � >- D ., F— N cn W W V- 10 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report - 531 ' N M N CD CO LO M r- M LO O N M O ' ' M N t ti U-) r ' M ti f- M It M LO CD CO 00 M r- :I- LO t m CO 00 fl- CO r- "I. N O r w- ,I- (D N U) = N � N "t "T r- M M "t c CD Ict Ln LO M r ' N O _ N M N N M M r 0p Ce CL Q V � � d � � ❑ U 00 M M N LO LO = N N M ' f,- CO O N ' CO f- d CO M O d O ti CO M M M CO M M m 00 O IT w CD r-- = U) r O >� N O zztr - cD CO N N O LO N C co I- O 0o CD CD N M L N CD N c- CD M M CO CV lqf M rl: _ O N 00 O N N `° 3 O E O N O X N C —- C O f- CO M O M M Mr,- M N M N M N M CO cu N M LO O 0 M LO LO � ti (D I- '�T M N M N 'q fl- O) O) (D 00 O 04 O LO f- ti N M M M LO ti M U) f-- = O N LO LO fl- f- co -q `- O f� d N (0 M CO N M N O) f` (.D V C6 ti M N N r N r LO E C � C m O ti N G) 'It 07 00 CO r 00 LO I ti N 00 M CD ' O <h ' U d M N O 00 �t N f- LO N N LO - LO LIB M O = N IT 00 LO Q Q N c- 00 �' ,tN c- N I� � f� �' M 0) LO 0) (Dc- r M (� r D N M c- N t N d Un LD r- cl G) V X O c fl.._ N co o U 0 r a C - 00 M d7 M Lfl f� ' N M N M M O f- CO CO m CD M OU Y N CO CO M � O N fl- CD N LO 00 07 Ln O) CD Iq CD CO M r- >4 fC I- N N N N CO M 00 ti O CO N r M O O L to N M CD I 00 N O Ld ti a0 7 (n W O °) = N a c� - c4 O LC) r "t 0 CD 00 CO CO f-- c- LO CD O N CO M fC = O CD 00 T CD M LO CD It 00 N LO M � I� fl- CD N CM M O _ It LO LD ti CD O f- CO - LO 0) M N N 07 CD CD � O O Q d f` � r � N 1 r Mcq a E N U U U M J U Q cn O o a ° m c° )cu w :3 co c o 032 , o > c cu Y � d)) ° C) m E ) ? U O U L > U p C fl �+ L U C (E 1 U L > > O U z U 7 7 0 0 0 0 O (B N Q) 7 C (D 7 C O 1 C Q (0 � QQfno30 LL � Zd � cnl- � 3 <LcU ❑ WZc!) cn m cv H � j U 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V- 11 531 Fig. 5.1: Net Residential Land - Vacant vs. Redevelopable VACANT Mixed-Use, ' 2% VACANT Multifamily, 3% VACANT Single- Family, 31% REDEV ELOPABLE Single-Family, 51% REDEV ELOPABLE ' Mixed-Use, 5% REDEV ELOPA BLE Multifamily, 8% Fig 5.2: Housing Capacity on Vacant vs. Redevelopable Land VACANT Mixed-Use, 13% - REDEVELOPABLE Single-Family, 15% VACANT Multifamily, 6% ' REDEV ELOPABLE � Multifamily, 13% , VACANT Single- Family, 14% _REDEV ELOPA BLE Mixed-Use, 38% V- 12 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 533 Fig 5.3: Net Non-Residential Land - Vacant vs. Redevelopable VACANT Mixed Use, REUEVELOPABLE 9% Commmercial, 10% RIEDEV ELOPABLE Industrial, 16% VACANT Industrial,_ 30% REDEV ELOPA B LE Mixed Use, 23% ' VACANT Comrnercial, 12% Fig. 5.4: Job Capacity on Vacant vs. Redevelopable Land REDEV ELOPA BL E Commmercial, 6% VACANT Mixed Use, -- REDEVELOPABLE ' 20% Industrial, 6% ' VACANT Industrial, 16% REDEV ELOPABLE Mixed Use, 46% VACANT j Commercial, 6% ' 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report V- 13 535 VI. Rural Areas and Resource Lands ' The purpose of the Buildable Lands Report is to analyze recent urban development and to determine whether King County and its cities have sufficient capacity within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to accommodate the county's forecasted population and job growth. In addition, RCW 36.70A 215 (2) requires some information about land uses and development outside the UGA. Such information can be useful in analysis of residential trends and to assist the county in directing its programs such as the Rural Economic Strategies to areas of greatest need. It is also helpful in analyzing linkages between urban and rural growth trends The 2002 BLR included data on 5 years of residential permits in Rural areas. This 2007 report expands on that work to include a limited measurement of developable lots in Rural areas and Resource lands. Rural Areas and Resource Lands in King County The landscape of King County's Rural and Resource areas is characterized by extensive forests, small-scale farms, free-flowing streams, and a wide variety of residential housing mostly at very low densities. There is no growth target for rural or resource areas Their role is as supplier of resources including timber and agricultural products, and there primary characteristics include. • Rural areas cover approximately 290 square miles of King County (13% of the land area) ' including all of Vashon Island and a band of territory east of the contiguous UGA. • Resource lands, including designated Forest and Agricultural Production Districts and Mineral Lands, cover about 1,380 square miles or nearly 65% of King County's total land area. • The entire King County UGA, by contrast, covers 460 square miles, less than 22% of the county's land area. • Together, the Rural- and Resource-designated areas cover more than three-fourths of the t county's land area but contain only 140,000 people, less than 8% of the county's total population. • The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) assume only a small fraction of King County's residential growth will occur in rural- and resource areas; staff projected about four percent of countywide growth for the 2001-2022 planning period. Growth Trends Outside the UGA A major goal of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies is to focus growth into the UGA. As Chapter V of this report demonstrates, King County's UGA does have sufficient capacity to accommodate its entire growth target based on OFM's 2002 population forecast. During the 1980s, prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Act, about 10% to 14% of each year's new residential units were built outside the UGA Following adoption of the county Comprehensive Plan in 1994, the percent of growth in rural areas generally declined each year; since 2000, only about four percent of new units have been developed outside the UGA, as shown in Table 7 1 below Together, these findings demonstrate that King County is succeeding in directing growth to, and accommodating growth within, the Urban Growth Areas. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report VI - 1 i 531 Major Findings ' The major findings regarding land uses and activities in the Rural areas and on Resource lands are , as follows: • The total number of existing housing units is approximately 51,800 (46,100 in Rural areas, 5,700 on Resource lands). • Permitting of new residential units in Rural and Resource areas has declined to a steady average of about 500 houses per year since 2000. • This small amount of growth is expected to continue, consistent with the assumption in the CPPs ' of a small fraction of residential growth occurring in rural areas and resource lands. • Of approximately 63,000 total parcels in Rural and Resource areas, about 52,000 are developed with residential, commercial, public or open space use. Another 11,000 parcels are vacant or could be subdivided under existing county zoning regulations • Many parcels in Rural areas are smaller than the minimum lot size, because they were created long ago, before current zoning was in place. • Approximately 14,300 additional housing units could be developed in Rural and Resource areas if all theoretically possible development occurred. ' • The maximum number of housing units that could be built on vacant parcels is about 12,400, and there is potential for a maximum of 1,900 housing units on parcels that could be subdivided , • At current rates of residential permitting, the rural area will still have undeveloped lots at the end of the planning period in 2022. With regard to commercial and industrial uses, the major finding was as follows: ' • Rural and Resource areas have approximately 215 vacant parcels zoned for commercial or ' industrial uses, covering 3,200 acres. More than half of those parcels are in the "M" (Mining) zone classification, covering about 2,500 acres. No data are available on commercial development potential or employment potential of the Rural and Resource areas at this time. Methodology and Sources The measurement of Rural and Resource land uses relies on the same data sources as the Urban , capacity analysis, but uses a different approach that reflects the unique development pattern and different policy expectations in Rural areas. Land records and critical areas data are maintained at a , finer level of detail in Urban areas, data on Rural and Resource lands are sometimes incomplete While every attempt was made to produce the most accurate information possible, the precision of the Rural lot estimate reflects the limitations of the data sources available This measurement began with geographic information system (GIS) files from the King County i Assessor's land records. Data included Assessor real property and building files, zoning and UGA files from the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES), and critical areas — files from the Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP). Government-owned parcels ■ (including US Forest Service), utilities and community open space parcels were removed. Critical areas were identified from DNRP slope and wetland files taken from the National Wetland Inventory, and appropriate buffers were applied. The analysis did not account for DDES's authority to reduce critical area buffers in certain circumstances. However, the analysis did recognize that vacant parcels below the minimum lot size could be allowed one housing unit; on parcels more than twice A -2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report 537 the minimum, the lot size factor was applied Parcels with a housing unit were identified as subdividable if they were more than twice the minimum lot size The maximum number of housing units was tallied for both vacant and subdividable parcels. Table 7.1: Residential Permits in Rural and Resource Areas, 1996—2005 Rural Resource Total Percent Year Areas Lands Outside of UGA Count 1996 878 37 915 8 0% . 1997 886 33 919 7 6% 1998 829 38 867 61% 1999 705 25 730 5 0% 2000 549 29 578 3 9% 2001 476 37 513 4 3% 2002 453 20 473 41% 2003 451 30 481 4 2% 2004 484 43 527 4 6% 2005 412 31 443 3 5% 1 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report VI -3 A 539 r A W VII. Profiles of King County Jurisdictions The following chapter profiles data and findings for each city and unincorporated urban area within King County. These profiles summarize data on recent development activity for each jurisdiction, as well as the analysis of the supply of buildable land and development capacity to accommodate targeted household and job growth. The Residential Development section on pages 1-3 of each profile contains the following tables: • Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Aggregates all plats recorded, single-family permits issued and multifamily permits issued into zoning categories, to calculate the amount and density of new development. • Development Activity: 1996-2000 vs 2001-2005 Compares the residential development activity of 2001-2005 to the previous five-year period reported in the 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report. • Housing Units (2001-2005) vs Household Growth Target(2001-2022) Converts housing units into households, and compares the 2001-2005 development activity against the Household Growth Target for the 2001-2022 planning period • Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2006) Reports the supply of vacant and redevelopable residential land and estimates the capacity for future housing unit development. • Capacity(2006) vs Household Growth Target(2006-2022) Calculates total capacity, converts housing units into households, and evaluates the jurisdiction's ability to accommodate the remaining Household Growth Target. The Non-Residential Development section on pages 3-4 of each profile contains the following tables: • Commercial and Industrial Development Activity: 2001-2005 Aggregates all non-residential development into commercial and industrial zoning categories to calculate the amount of development and its floor-area-ratio. • Development Activity: 1996-2000 vs 2001-2005 Compares the non-residential development activity of 2001-2005 to the previous five-year period reported in the 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report. • Employment Change vs Job Growth Target Reports covered employment in 2000 and 2006, calculates the net change in jobs for the jurisdiction, and updates the job growth target accordingly. • Non-Residential Land Supply (2006) Reports the supply of buildable non-residential land in the jurisdiction on both vacant and redevelopable parcels within commercial, mixed-use and industrial zones. • Employment Capacity(2006) Estimates the capacity of the buildable land supply to accommodate employment. • Employment Capacity(2006) vs Job Growth Target(2006-2022) Compares the total job capacity against the remaining Job Growth Target to calculate surplus or deficit capacity for anticipated growth. Additional documentation of the data and methodology used to generate the jurisdiction-by- jurisdiction statistics presented in the profiles is contained in Chapter III, which describes the countywide methodology, and in Appendices A-C, which summarize the definitions and factors used in each jurisdiction's Buildable Lands analysis. 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report VII- 1 541E f Notes on Selected Terms and Concepts in Jurisdiction Profiles .� The following technical notes define selected elements of the jurisdiction profiles. For a more complete description of the countywide methodology and technical framework for the Buildable pr Lands evaluation, see Chapter III. For additional specific documentation of the definitions and ■ assumptions made in each jurisdiction's analysis, see Appendices A-C. Unique factors in an individual jurisdiction's analysis are noted at the end of the profile, when appropriate. �► Zoned density ranges: Since King County's 40 jurisdictions have many differing zoning and ■ subdivision codes with many different density allowances, densities have been collapsed for reporting into broad categories. Each category indicates a range of densities within which the maximum density allowed per zoning falls. Any further analysis at the jurisdiction level that ■ compares actual densities with comprehensive plans and development regulations should incorporate more specific information on how density is addressed in those plans and regulations. Mixed-use zones: Both commercial and residential land uses are allowed, often, but not necessarily, in the same protect. r Residential permit counts: The table at the lower right of the first page of each profile tallies net housing development. Net new units accounts for both permits shown in the density tables on this page as well as additional permitting activity, e.g., ADUs, demolitions, permits that lacked complete data, conversions, and selected permits for houses that replaced teardowns on existing lots. r Housing unit to household conversion: Number of housing units was converted to number of households based on assumed long-term vacancy rates of 2% for single-family housing and 5% for i multifamily housing. r Land supply and capacity tables: Tables on the second and fourth pages of each profile show gross acres, critical areas acres, percent discounts for future ROWs and public uses, and net acres. f Discounts represent the percentage of land not constrained by critical areas, with a gross to net calculation of— , Net acres = (Gross acres— Critical areas acres) x(1 — (ROW% + PP % + MF %)) The land supply tables show the capacity on vacant and redevelopable land based on actual densities achieved during the 5-year review period and other assumptions. The tables do not show additional housing and job capacity identified 1) on selected sites committed to development in the pipeline, 2) in Rural Cities' UGAs, 3)for ADUs, and 4) miscellaneous additional capacity. This additional capacity is included in the totals shown in the "Capacity vs. Target" tables. Floor-area-ratio (FAR): Measures of intensity of commercial and industrial land uses. Calculated as follows— FAR = Sq. ft. of building/Net sq. ft. of land "Covered" employment: A table on the third page of each profile contains data on estimate employment for the years 2000 and 2006. "Covered" employment estimates are based on state Employment Security Department records that are mapped to job locations by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Covered jobs include positions covered by unemployment insurance. This data set excludes certain job categories, such as self-employed, proprietors, military personnel, and others, and accounts for approximately 85 to 90 percent of all jobs. The reported estimates for year ` 2000 are provisional, pending final revisions to the 2000 government jobs data by PSRC. I\ VII-2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report , C) r- 00 o rn u) `o m �' r- o r- to rn (D O `~ U) i U C co m a) N (D c- O CO O r _ �_ � O Y a) m ` c T. 3 �11) - N O r- 00 (.D N O ,Mo p U C -0 O) Y O m CB T T m a) " O > 00 L) U m C ao F N U U 4O N 7 T U a) Z - _ -0 E � � o 0 � CO � °�° � � o Z A li � a) o c� s E a m .� ca a o- c �' C C co � T O > t` C C 0 � -� a) M a) +� Y � � _ U Y a N , o co o 3 0 c a) a E 0) 0- o C%4 (� vi Q) N O m Q -0 N O Q c a C) O M 0) N Cp o N cB a) > O C: O O LL X cn N p U +. c co n >, m O m X CL s p O ` � > E >+ U) — Q m a) O C C +, _ m I— a) > p a) to Y O cm Q N _ @ E : C U a) >, ° o a) m a N ° o .. r U C � �- - �o � o � s � � � 0 VF v � N U > `� (D o o 0 3 Q � � � � o � oho � � °' 3 J E � m m � m °' a) N U � � >, � U � 0 CO o .� C) c �, M U c0 N O O Y (6 C ], O = Q) C O C N cO E L o 3 -0 E o LL E ` > w c� E 4 a CD 0 a) U — :° E Q' c°a .� �' o o ° o ° a o 3 B Ora o m W 00 r- U� (n (N ti >+ L N r` V) O r•+ fC = CD m U') 't 00 N d O N N (D CD U C) oo ti O) Z QU r O Q O CD � ' R U � ++ ►- L d CD CD U o O O lf> 11) 0 a) O `� Lo Lo 0 m C) C) f`C Q M . C C U- Q E N O C N 00 C W -- W W C) a) CD LO O O Cl) LL U w r tY CD Q O o o N m o NM Q w co (D N O 00 I �- � o N a N � C L Q i c- N Iq M CD CD d 7 V O O 0 (D N o0 LOV 0. (� r m 00 r- rn 0) N O CD I- N o o LO C L In �t c o mo CO M Q w m m fC Cn CV 11 O (N o C N o C X O N C C C CD m N N W O W LO N tD O r ti CO LO cu N N N � co O ct co 0 CD a) co Cl) � `� � O O m M O m y i U y Q U') C C N LL N N Cc N Q O O O O C CD Cl) a 00 a) -a 00 a) O 00 CC) -r_ It cY 00 00 C) 00 p O N N N f- (7 to ao C ^ � It 00 — C3) r C1 Cl O E L N o0 00 J a) �- O O C 0 0 r D L U �, L ui N Ln ti �t L 1 Q U CD 4) Q Cn 00 M 00 � QL 00 Z d L N N C O N J a m w J a) rn m m o m m e (D w o C a) J C O H C a) J C O 0 C m O C N O C a) m O C O O C a) m N N O N N O U N N O Q N N O C a N �a Q N cC nz m N is m c6 a) N cC y a) cQ O a) m O J N D as O N D m _O U E -o +_. m E -6 m t, E � r m E -a m a� c E m > E m > o C E m C > E ° > o U u m U d E U m U m Y ti Z > > W > > IWI I w o CV N M (D o r=o M m ccto E o CD - o Co Ln Ln (D o Do aO ti (D (D c c- N� O N � r � r, 0 � E U r ti (Dr ui O C CD ( U O tea O N CDr r N r (D :3 4) � � � CO O N _0 E Lo co Lq CD U Enj O N Ln ti Ln O O O p N N o o LO CO N 00 O cl N N (p M O N N >, N (o 00 M L(> N LO Q) °j (n O p N U ate+ �-- }' G Q) �- M e= e- `N.. Q) _a) O N Q) LO CD E (D O O O N o N N O O 7 O (O N +� �_ N l� N L nn� N 0 0 L L LL O � �, > N 3 N N O E E C N N L y In > O Q y y c N Q) a) u) Im cts U = C Q U Q U) U c c c CD Z a) -o 3 •> >,L r Q U Q cn Q cn O zm 2 D � D o U a) R O 0 0 d N c c c) a) c c E Q N N LL LL LL Y C O O m ai QE � az � Jn. z » a Z » � z � (q � � 0 � _ E n � (b Ocn N = 2 x zz = M 0 N L O)] 00 U " C Q) m 3 •� N Ln ti N ti 17 O m N to I-- N LO (D (D U CO V (D o (D (D N (D o ti Ln O (N O r I� La a cm cn O Z ' Z o C (a �j (� a) y O CD 00 C:) t- f� a7 M I- 1- Cl) f� CO r N <D `uj L_ f/� _ Lo M Lo - N r (D V) (h U) M LA r- ('7 CD O (D Q O O r mcn r ti (p � r r O L O J � 0 a) O O _ O > O - N C) � N _ Ln o — r` O O co "T Ln f-- r U') Lo N 00 M ti _ N U U 3 O f4 y (D 00 N M t 0 Lo r -t co co It O N y ` ` �~- M r - N It (D V E N V O Z Q CO .0 0 O Lo '.' a) m !n d o N Ln r` N Ln C) o co C) N a) V 0 N O r C) N M 0 0 0 M L -a a) 'U) Y 3 L C o � CL <a a)U) U o O o -0 U6 (6 L o •O -t co V rn � Co LO rt O N C) y L r' c CDLO a) IDO C, Ln , 0- O N (a C 0 u C N Q U a= �: �- CM 0O Cl) CL o CD N C) co E L N d V Ln r CO O M Q C ti O O L a L V tD O R C () C Q Z CL C Y cr- O O a- V � Ga m o ° ;= O �- O N 00 O � ti (D M O ' cn a) �, a) Q) V y LC y 00 o M � � r � 0 0 �fi N O Vi p Q y a) (D CO .- � r m D) N J V N M N = r J W > (a 70 LLI a Q) y y � C aU O m Q L a a) d E " E " a) £ (DU w M N N O C R d U U U U U U U U L d L o ca -M Lo y � � � � � n3 Z3 - a � O c 0 � Z3 � n z -3 � � O >,� a o U W C:) 'G O a -O 'D -O a R E -O 70 -a -O 7 F- 7 O 00 -O N H 0 N 0. a r 0 a) K d M Lo � o O L� M Lo o 0 E � r M + N +y+ (n a) O O i i i o H d i i O E La 0 co o 00 L E Y y - a) •c y N � oMLr) r- ^ �oMLr� r ^ MHO d , C) W o c La o m La m c U. LL NWl LL a .� o)- a a in (n ,M O O) d O r (O m D O O M O It In M N O d CO M L", _ w _ Lo - O O N r Lo O ti (O I' N O M (O CO (14 00 'ITr CO C) (D (0 ar U y CO Lo r 0) r r r Lo LA r- M N ;I- r r r T 0') M C m on ( (u R -E e- N M 7 C 3 ( Z p O O O U Y N Uj U C Q Lo CO O 't M O "t O r Oo N (O � CO O Ln r r r N r 0 O C -O� >C C N (O O r r � L L N C C Q) O Q N (B N Q) (u U Co a = m U (B i 0 CB � Lo Lf) N N M • r` O O R R 't Ln Ln N C, O m M m R U ` n (II U) U to i CDti C (o Lo Lo C C C) It r` CD C O C C O LO 0 Q 3 0 O co � LL 73 d' _N U O N L C R O Ln CD tll-08ro) M r M O ',I- O CO1- O CDM M M M CD (Dr` r � CDC (6 Cl) CD CO r` �t N O Ln 0 0 (70 Ln CO N Lo O O f-- M Co MO � U t. R d Nr` r M M O Cl) O CD Cfl N Ln d a) r N N It r- co 0).5 O 0 Z Q U O U C o — — L O '= N d O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q (ll U U o CD C:) O O CD CD O O O C Lo Ln Ln Lo Ln Ln Lo Lo LC) r 0 2 LL r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r L (n O 0- C z =3 + O U C) > a) }/ •C (� N cl- Q) .0 00 c O o O (B Ln \ -0 (B R O o o (0 � Ln (0 R Z Q. 'D L CU o \ o i o 0 0 \ o \ o i o 0 0 Op (B �U a 7 '�\. O O O O C Ln o O r O C C O O O O C U) o O r O C C Y U 3 0 a) 0- 3 O O O U O 4- s > O N o o U (ll (ll x 0 0 0 C (6 o Lo 0 0 o R R 0 0 0 0 M 0 In o 0 0 0 R U) U) N o C) CD 0 \ o 0 0 0 \ O O O \ o i o 0 0 \ ]� C O O N N N C o O r O C C N N N C to o O r O C C CDN O N C C U _ N N . L4 (CE C C Q O N Ln Ln r M M O O O O r r Ln (DO C) O to M Lo N N M V - M •-- O O O O O N O C) ',I- r- N O N <- r- ti 0 0 f-- 00 a C ECL > N r d ` � r- LO Co N r M D) co r• Ln N N r Cl) U O Co r N Ln LO °' a` M E U > > Q o Q O a) O - O -0 O Q) 7 R M t- � r- r M ti O � O (� r— � r- O) � CT M M ti7 r O U) > V N M CO m "t V Ln 't CO r (T Cl) Lo O r � � (b t- (O � r- Lo O Cl) O (D (B +.. R N Ln m Ln N M co N CO O O CO Ct t- M M r r co Ln a O LZ _� U C O i U `- N N r- 0o r Lo C) r- o0 C 0 a) (ll L a R R U) L C L9 > Y O C OL .= N S M E = — — -- O (n a) U cn O d a 703 (o 00 m O '0 O C 0 G� Z3 to L N CO L I C C m ca o N O c m U W �° Ln N C is v) U .c R Ui (ll co a) (Do D oI U U cn O N N c� (n � Y Cn > )C LL LL 'a (L mo o m e co R cn OoNC0 ym.i U U 0 0 0) OfB Nco 0 (0 m 7 O mmm L LLL U m m m LO L co U O U O U U U O m \ \ \ I d a 7 Uo O H m0- a CL O 07 a a _ sZO O _ OJ O - M I CO c U) M CO m CO Y C (4 } C) Ln � 0) r i i i + R co Lo ti O) r i + d a O (n L a C c , M 0) r O C C i > O > > Y O ++ O U d R O M In C6 (7) r r CO ct M R O O M to t� O O r r CO _0O O (n N ` C O C - y C V U U U _0 ' ti C vo (o No 3 N > > > > � o N �t -t 00 O t` O O O 00 It O co N 00 O N O CO CM IT N (D O Cl) O N OO M - M N M N O O O N O 00 N CD O 00 O Cfl M LO C ch N r CT > (Y N �t Ci N M N � to CD CD a)CV) N r CD M O O 00 00 O V CO O Ooo r Q ' C N r nt M LC) 00 O CO r N CU Q cyi LO 0000 M O O 00 LO IT = N N N 0) Cl) e- Cl) OOO O N w O i Cl) O C d. LL 3 O N of � O Cl) LCr) a) a) 00 OO 30 Q) r- LO N a N .o N O O N r !Q t: O O r = c _O O o cO C N N N o Z Q CS 0000 4 2 H OO to N a _ co N N "~ P C O LL LL O oc a c N L) E E N ti N v o et y Ncc Y>,•a� mO oD - O M OO � F N1 N t` N U Ca M O cDo to ? � � O L �NUNU ' E E " , Q Q wW W co _ " r v4 L C) E E D � - w � L o Q Qai o Q Q uO co co CD U _X X U M C y p «' o o 'c J o 0 j > ?i O c L) Q U c c V 7 7 U •M 3 E a) O O y 0 0 _O 0 0 Q) L '� O N QQinv� Q � � � � �° E L EzLLU � ZU- L� UU Z � E Q- u ccaL) �° �° � cn 0 U = W z ° w a ca a ti 0 0 0 , W � N o 0 0 �C m O LL, a) s o w f6 O _0 (n w o L c C O -0 C M O 7 M N N V c c - E CD 'd 7 O O O co a lf) C71 o a) a) O M = 0 N N U CA Cn a) a Y 0 — m �= E M c) rn = m L O N a) -C LO M c w _ � O M 3 -0 a) � N o Lo 0 Q ca o OL ~ M O O CCL) +L c a _ U U00 0 O O o Q .- a) X N O O) C) 0' D M 00 - a) E a) E U �► rn o Cn ti o oo 3 � E p -6 N C�4 0 U Cl) y N O d U r o Y ui o s ° � ca) 0 U) C) o ° C� `t m a O a :3 a) U O v U O \ � ^ G >,- F aM N M4 Q) ,0) V — O U oLt W Q M O 0) M �O Q V a) Q N NLO r U) E O c c Co y M + ° O � .� Co c � ca M M 'M j O c CO d C c >i NO Q O (� CD > c -p -p N a) O +• M •� L O CD a) 0) a) o N J Y 0 c !E vi Co O Q) N Q) p LO O-o c , N _ M L W ° 1°► No p a) - 0 CO W O, E E o ° uMi ° _Q 0 c O - a L CO N M pp a m M °Na)° p c O c M(14N M Q) > p o M M o -a "O aUn a � p a) o M E O C Co Oa) 0 LO M � a) o c ax) wrO U) E Wo o o a; � Uo = > M Q)O M 0 D ) N °) OQO c 0 _c( E0 O o Cn O > M c 0 M d :—■M c fn U 4- L y- a) L c a�i a ai a W N ° o a) U) .� d E U ' c V oa ZE 0 E F �a) � o i s Uy > " '> ° o 'JQ) I n No O -O a U c o Z o U - a 0 0 0) Z `.►. d' Ln 0 0D O CD O M N r Q) LO 0) N (.0 1 CD 00 M O O O OO N co LO N N U = U O M C O -Cu - O O M ca cn � N LO C a — +M 4- `. M N ,0 o _0 ` C U a) �? U O a) +� O (A M (B 0 0 0 0 a) L _C M L 0 C a) 0 E �= U E o t0 -o � o �, c� ca a ° 3 -0 a C c� _ a) E � L b Lf) O a (� U M . 00 C `O O NO N L E 0 ` N m 0 O 0 U O U Y U CV p N N CD C o 0 E - O m a C > 0 0 O N cD p p 0 O 0 C) 0 >, 0 > U N � 0 N C) ` p N N Y o c� > ca C o *= a) cn o a o Q co c aa -C -0co m � a) t � M C � 0 0 4 � o c � c rm La CL c� p 7 L L U Q L CO Co O Q V to N N o ,r tOC ~ ++ 1 UN '= = O , mc �; — = Ec� .. V) U o -0 L Q c � C N L o -O a) U > C m r Y O) .0 N Q U — � a) L c9 O X Qo o Qo > N 3 �, o = E a) U o C n o (D c o N O M o m o o x_ a -� S aai o m a) .� U) cD of > vi °) 0 4 Q U E Q C) C C C v 0 o U 0 -0 O O O E C L L 0 O La 0 a) 3 LO N LO O O cD I� Ln O N (D LO O Il 0 CU a) cD N 1- LO CD — � .0 V CD (DD C") ti M M N OO � c) Z d V N N M O m c- c'7 Ln N — N (D C U � r L O 4) 0L d CD CD 0 0 �► ^o 0 o O o O o LC O 0 v-: Lo LC) O cc Lo LO (a z CD O O O C .� C O L Q N 0 0 � C 0 0 00 C N W 1 LL LL Q E O O O O w Y Cl) M C7 M O W LU _ a) d >+ N N CD = — N (CY) CD ND N V to o o L- �' c- ti LO N CO Q) V -- O o \ \ \ \ Q L) �*- c9 M M N Imo- oo � 7 .�\.. c-- ' C �- o c- C Q v — = CO r Il- N O O a O M CO r N c0 It M N a O O LO V N c- NI�i 0 Ld c- r tD cn tm d N O M j o o C a In f- L() ti m o `- o J2 w co m ca m O Ln — LD O Rj T I-O .N.i C C C C I� c- CDC) C) x o N r L U. L -� LJ.I U r U L _ co �t N m N It � CDR N in CD N LO M O N M CN M M a) M O � I� N E a� M M r ++ a) L r r a+ Q Mr,- Mr-� C O L ►- o cn 7 lL c") M = 00 r M 0 0 UQ as yU- Q Q) 0 44 co Lf) (0 a) r- It ti co -a O r- N 00 (D M r E 00 O N O LO 00 -4 co N — N C a0 O M r N c0 O ` E 0 jn f+ O) N lf") M M N 0 n. N cn LC N C) M cD M M M m c0 ^ _ cn O N L� N M In J a) `~ O N 0) CND O LC r O p Q m LD C) Q N CO CA � e-^ (.D � r 0) C) Co Cl z N f� r O J O r r N N (/� N O L v. a C C r m _ (0 � V N N J c a) c N 0 c (1)) c O C m M N o m N o 4) (j N o r m N o m o m N O N O �.. N 0 — N O o �` c C U U) N r a N C 0 voi N-Fz +m+ Q U uoi N C. .. U) 0 y J 0 .� O a) D@ O J a) ~ O 0 D O p U a+ E � ; r a) E "a d a+ E ++ a) E -a 0 0 a m = E m 3 > E m > o E m c > E m > (n a a) _ o X a 0 O X -0 (D p, O X O X a a) Q c� Y o � U � S m aa)) U � m E cvaU � m 4) ate) o C) Z > > ce W > > DC z C) L d' Ln LO 0) rnti �� (fl � 0o O Cb r In N O O `n u� 0 0) (D ti rn v (n c) LO L O N CD ~ LO O 00 CV O M r r r N +- +� �C CD r ma P.: CD1- Lo '* O O � p r- N T. O U) i po cV _ >+ O O 07 C) N N --T Q- N C (0 y N N C O U y " O O a N Q) fll C (Q p 0 N a) CD 7 ° O O M t► N Q C p N M �1 M ^ to 0 0 p ,(n (6 (1) • N (p N (O � Cn 0) y N E > O r0 N O � (a pOj �" U N O CVO > O U Opj e- y Co -0 ' �O N O LO CD 0L O 0) O N O N a) U O - O e= 1► L L a) (n � co O N m (n O C O U U- V) p � H �y L r - -O V N 3 N a (n O ° - O N L y c ai N0 a) U y Q) U N C N pdO 3 p � co " m r.Q O CJ U = U Q U Q O � � '+ c cz a) -_ Im CL oo ° f° o ' ;) ma) (n a) � ° =° (a> ° z> z � z » z » C U) 2 0 E -a o- - aa) . - O o O iz m o m >, w Wo cn 2x E O o _ T � Lq 00 f� r LO to Ch M N N Cp r M W Cll f� +' �� V (0 r-- 00 CA P4 N (D ti r d) ti r Q_ CZ .- ++ , R d Cl) (A O Z D 7!E L a) C) p N v c (B N y 0D N CY) (O 00 co (M r 0) a) ti W !n O C ay+ = "t Cb CO et ti N LO LO .I O = a � C`Q O J D Q 7 c E M o O` (A p O L y CO I- N N 0) I- co ti N I- (D V O U C a) d a) 0) (o O co ~ 0) cof� O c~- d Op C) O � z L U r r r N Q f6 O C > Cl) ° (U U O a) V N •- 00 LO N N Up C a) d C) y c i CB O CON O N CD L a) S Q C`7 Lo C a) U (1 O O 0) (3) (O ITr- u) C C Cll y 0) N t` co r Sri co a) o) Q 0. N M U �-. O (0 N N O � 00 C1 O O Q CU O (n y 0p c- O O 0) Q O O �.. _a) () 70 Q- p V m a) m 0 W ° a O = ; L) Qv z U a o L) o trncoO (o oIt m NU) O T M a) O Q) V N m y N 0) (N O M u) O L J "= 0 O 0) V:E C Q O L r r Cl) N C 7 J W U c c 'U) c c� C (9 Q ca N a� y W +' Q_ L_ O a) r to 0 0QL 3 •� C ° o m a) m • w y C 'O O O C C3 d U U U U U U U U a) (a U c O �- 0 a) 'C (9 T (o cB ° >' O (0 (rs (B U .�� d U CS) C O Z C •0 N O 0 7 t_ 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 7 � O % (B a 'a ° O U r0 7 - (C) ° w a V -a -O -O -0 p +0 -6 "O -0 O Z F- 7 0) r CO -0 N F' ►. W r C) O C (� C -0 L C (xC M 1� O O O 4 M t1) ti O � r E � � r (h � + 4) +y+ Y N E ° c y N - Z o M (n ti ^ a)O U') � ^ n, t. v rn r r Ch est 0 a - oli �a E (�a L a a cLLn Ln U >, U _d a) (nco C _ N "D 'O U C 7 _ Q -O "p 'p a -O O_ ' ❑ (n -0 C cc C C v_ co M U C C Co C C C O_ 7 C Q) (� (o C -0 > C Uj vim- fD Co C (o U (B Q U a) a) a) (n c c a) o , (D _O a) a' () a) O ,C > 7 7 p (Q L p O C 7 E 7 7 (B C a) (B (o `— a O C O (o (o C (6 Co Lo o o c > > ° > LL > o > o > > V U a) L O Y -0 c O U O O C C LO cn N C a) O C p C ❑ C �. C C U E -O O Lo O Imo- N a) O a) LC) (n O LO c a) a) a) Lo () U) � -� > Eo Ec) c ELn m c Eo c EO - E � Eo Eo Q_ o > v > v L > C ° j V a' j V j V ° j v °>' v ' a) O o N 0 d) a) C O v (U Co O a) o a) o a) (o 0 a) 0 N Qcaao > > raZ EM0 � E > LuE > L° - > LL E > z ° � � a) > c E 0) a) O a) c o a) N c c ° _0 -° L 6 X x N m co N c a) c a a) a)M LO > C U) co co � � o � x -000 x o O O O N Cl) C -0 � N ` a) (o a) CC C -— E U CD c0 _0 c n p C — 7 O O > U U U p m O U LL M U (II J U >, s m coo coo — co � > coo > >, v (n CO " — a cn ti > m 0 0 Q Q CD N 3 U)) Q avi aa)) Ln a Lo ■ ❑ E Eo v Eo o ❑ n3 c c � -0 o wa o ° oi° � 2 -0 p CM 0) V CM > v Q a) O O c N N 0 v N : O O p ° a) w �0 L 00 n d-O p U in Q C in O Q 7 0 O E Q mQ ❑ Z " c� m — � x ° x � ° Q co E a (n70 w > w ❑ E > z o � � oa — — � � " M x _ E E ca Q� n a) O O w QJ C in c c in E c -0 — _Q x 0 _O X E E Q LL ` Q X C1 cn o a) C C Q E c a) `° V) iZ O a— ° x E E c >, Q O N m O -0 E cO ch x X E (D - -p M n n O (o C CV A LO Lf) C x CB s U d C6 @ N C (n (a N N N CC a) n n a) n n n n_ n 4--o (n �LL U) m x m p o m ._. LL -0 --0 0) co 0)Ch O) -° U (o -° m -O p cn m _0 (� U) In O Cl) a) C a) C _C A -C a) Co � a) N a) � (n T) 0 V o •C O "- 3 in in E in N �i .cn ` 3 3 (n o o co x °) oE o ❑ � o � O c � 0o E - c Q m Q ax) w w co 0 D QQ a. 6 d �o U) cod m (1) c c ° LL c c C L c ° � cooC) coda o coo coo 0C) coo C O _ O a c O Cp 0 0 0 C) 0 a) -C U cn LIB p LO 0 a) Co (n LO > (n LO v) LO Uj (n L) C i (n 63 bpi, O EH (U () to �{} cn b9 N Ef3 Ln H-> 0 0 0 0 C cn v V V > o O N V (Oo N V v U c4 V JQ cQ Q °' Q 0 Q � Q QpQ o c c 0 U U �a c o U as U U 6 n3 U a _ N � O o Y > > Y > > E X U Y > ap) Y > Y > a) Y > a� �" a) - U t-- C C L C a) m C C a) ° C, L Q� N U c U L ; O O O a) ° L 0 0 O p p Q) p Q) p cB co a) O n Q c`a (n o •r � E E Q E E - cn � E a) � aE aE QE c E _o (n -0 c 0 0 c o a) c m c ^c a) Q aa) o0 0 E oo E 0 U o oa) mm o 00 o0 0n0 - 0)@ Q U Q- U) o , o > E E > E � 3 o > E co > E > E � > E a Eo Cl >,o = m a) 3o -ao o (n c =_ cn x "a - Q a) _ 0 0 CL 4) cn -0 co i X a) O o — C U CL a) - -a Ca 0 L o -0 cca co a) c'�i E o) � a) c —0 .T 0 a) = a) � .� o c co ? x Q F- E m o -0 n Q m > m m ❑ m m U U r 0 o N L Ln N a1 U a � C d d a a -Q "O 'a Q7 U a R C C C C C C C C 1 Q O co (0 N _ - N a) a) a a) a O a) ) ) a) � (1 (1) 3 (1) N > 3 7 7 3 7 3 3 3 C 3 (0 > > (C) (0 76 > > (CE ^ j ca U C C C C C G C O C V" C (D O Lo a) lf) O Lo N Lo a) Lo a) U-) a) Lo LL O Lo a) Lo O Eo Eo Eo Eo Eo Eo EoE Eo o v vvv v v v > v � v>o0o0oao0 0 00 � D Q Q 00m Q 0 La Q Q > > > 0 E0 Z > — > oQ — > U > IL Z> > Eon NQ Z �cm U- N N C > _0 7 T 7 3 0) O A a) a) x m i) _0 x N -o c U -o 0)U x .� E co .0 x m U mL (1) a) M a) a) � 'E Y � 'S Y c� 6 U) O N Ch Y 0 � � cV -X Q X a r X v`ni 0) cc C a) 01 Q1 a) O a) y A LL A O O LL 3 A C 3 ^ 3 n a)CL (E <n > U U � U U _O c0 U j (13 N . (� cu > mx > 0E > 0E ' U)N N c Lc� a) c co c M E N N N D EC, N O a) Lo L — () Lo LL a) Lo LL D D 3 c- D ' p p p .L L 0 c E E o p o ca E o m L E o a) L p p ,c > p p �- a CM -o � � 0 > oEa) v � �'� a) v m00) 0oo � -0 0) (D a) cuo (n0c0 > v00 > co ON oco oc 3 3 oa) -0 Uom 3 � -o ° � � a� ° a) � a) a 3 m o N o E N m - a� o N sZ - N a _ N o L c L o N c Qax) w < <LLJ : > Z Qpm > oQ > o < < ax) ° a Q0) NZ 0) c m n c c E c > m L 3 X r X .0 X Lo a) a) c x a) x E E U -o a) Q.Lo Cl- X X Lo x Lo C N C "= a) x p N N c) co x N m N E o E m c0 cN A A A A Lo n n n x GO x co n > U U U U U U N U U U U U N p') c,,) U U U 0 M M M M CO ca c0 co @ c0 N W N W N N ^ cn (— n n n � N Dpppp p (a � � p � m -0 co pp p p p p p ❑ p p p p p p MLL p p p LL 0 C N C N 0 0 0 m _0 -0 0) -0 U -0 m _0 co _0 -0 0) -0 U — � o o .N o N 3o N L 3 3 3 3 v 3 v 3 'S w 0 3 \ 0 0 0 o ._ 0 0 o c 0 X — x — p — Z) @ — Q X X 0 — 0 — x0 — p Q 000 a- 76 Z Qa) Qp Qa) m diz Q (1) NQ0 _0 _0 _0 _ a -0 _0 _0 co co co 00 o co co co 0o co — co O O C o 0 0 � o o C C D m 0 0 0 m o m CDU) C o - p o - p " p p O p O C O 0 L J L L N LO (n L() N Lo N Lo N Lo L N LO N Lo m `0 U) O CO (n Lo C O LO N H? N U)- N Ef} N b4 U3} N EF? Z N cA N G') .--� N H3 — N 60- (U N Gl? _ w v w v (n v (Oj) v v w v rn v w V CO N U) v co N V J U) V ld N Q) N 0 N 0 N Q) a) N Q) � N O N O — > N O — ( O m N () �. o J Q 3 Q 3 Q 3 Q 3 3 Q c N o Q 3 Q 3 o Q 3 i Q 3 Q 3 Q = U — U — U — U — Um0CD Uc Um .E p Uu .E am ca a) > > > > > > o > > > > > � Y Y Y Y Y � Y Y czs J Y � Y — Y V L L L L L EA L L L L L Q L t4 0- °' 0_ 0 0- °' 0- °' °' Qa) v n. 0 � o �c a � o �c no 3 Q0 > _ E _ E ^ E _ E E _ E �- � __ E _ E U _ E U _ E a) - E cc m Y a) a) ^ a) a) ^ a) U 0 - a) a) N :. :J J C > C > C > C > > C > Y _0 C > C > L _� C C > -C !n C > C > a) V O V O V O V O O V O N O V O V O U U V O U V O L V o - (0 (0 (0 (E Q Q m a O (0 fl (d d (9 CB M Q O (0 C9 o- co _0 > E > E > E > E E > EZ > > E > E m m > > E m m > E � > E \ m _ N } C 0 4) c0 N N - 0 3 o � a� N E ` d 3 0 _� LL a) c \ C L > N > 3 _0 C (a C C 1 Y i O_ 'D L (Q r U 0 0 w LL = N Y Y Y co 0 C) CV �Ln Ln a) C O C LO LQ (n C -0 C -0 a) C C "0 -0 -o E C E -0 -o o E m -0 -0 a LC C c c f0 0 7 to c C v) N C C p_ O CL L9 U C (� (0 CO v0i 0 M a)i U U 0 > � 0 0 Q U to >, a) a) ` +, a) a) = to o c to L a) L a) x 0 to m 0 0 Q > 7 Op,- C 7 7 -0 m 0 o -O LB LL 7 LL Z7 O c 0 7 0 Z > E ca c>a c>o M a) M o to � cn is cq io � 3 .� � m s �a c to � a) rn 0 r i a i cn > O ` > O > 0 (B N C c O C C = M C m 0 C 0 C T (� O C c 0 a) Ln 0 (3) LO a) 3 Q to a) c O- to o LO to a) Lo ,Q a O a) Ln "� a) LC) N Eo U) c Eo E � > c O to > D Eo c Eo �U " Eo 2 Eo — > v (� o > v > v O 0-,N 0c a) v > v _� 0)-C > v a) a) v Lv UOotvc00000 � o � � � oo 0oE � a) � o OoEoocn 0- L > O_ Q L to > L L Q -� Q O L N = C1 E Q 0 Z3 > Q-0 > > a.n -a � ' IL w > w0 — > � 0a- Soz E > UE > � \ _ om is M c .S a) zi ZZ c N a) c a) cn cn -0 0 -o y O N 0 Lv M -�( C (n a) cn U -0 cn O to a) n C L > I N cn � YC N LL a) cn y cn LL m LL a) 0 LL LL N a) > = 0 "O tnn 0-O - — _� - — >' Q — i NN 0 m >O O ' m a) O O M C L V � 0 .� Ev uoi c � (13 E3 c°)nccaa) uoic omcaa) SZ cLL OLL o a) 0),4 a) m-c 3 — to c U o c . o U to cn U -0 p c X m LLa x to 0 x - � x M Q Q LO » o c c Q O p @ LLI c a. LLJ Q LU o 7 UJ o- Z Z LL p p U N 0) 0) 0) E c c c c E E E aa)) x axi C)) aa)) E E m " C C C U x LO X x c_ C O x E E E m M N N O �� E E a) Ln x x x LD n n n � n x x > N th Cl) M O f06 L) —' @ N N A n n n n ; cn Y) L) �, n n n (3) p LL m _0 m 0 0 m a M -0 U -0 0) -0 (� E -0 U m 0 _m 0 ■ Cl) a) omo � a) � a) ro oc _ � In3 � � a) om � o E o - o - 0 - 05 o Ln 0 =) ,nn o `D L 2 E 2 a m d �aa- m LimaQo Qax) < 0m < 0 � Foa- m CD vi a) o _ c0 co _ o co (n coo c o O CD p0 p - O C " O -0 Lr0 70 O a) L1) to Lf� rn 0 LOn U) O-LO ton N p O to ca cn � L to � is LO � � to > Ga a) to c @ ■ C V tOn V tOn V >' � V (n C V U) C V '0 -0 J Q : Q c Q J Q 3 Q c S Q E c 0 N to I m V- U o> oU m c Y � a- Y > U O oo o U C L c l c L to L L L L !n L L Y 0 C C LC a) 0 a) 0 Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 L EH 0 o v) - > E aE Q E � O Q flE � 0- E _� E °) v �N E � � > c > c > c � ^c c > c c °) > c �a > �F °)L > � U 0-= Q O_� -0 to E > E > E E E � c E o — — m C L w O a) T o to V L to 0 (0 U a) U a) 0 C m m m U O _O E 0 _ y U L w_ E O � E =L V U -0 C E tt3 f0 C) 3 a) — a) O M O to a) () co a) a) Y n Z z a" z a. 0Y CO cn U) 0 � o N 0 m m IT \ o _ LO ¢ CEA _c \_ _u / o = m y « y o � X c § § § ƒ 2 \ \ \ / \ > ° 02 � g 2 y 2 0 / / § / / / E 2 CD 5 3 o e o 0 ` E m / / { j / \ ) f QF\ ƒ � E f E v± o > > > / > Z - @ x e � 23 3 A _ = x f 7 r 0 � o ® « � e \ 2 $ n ¢ _ ± > e ƒ $ = o CO m % W ae/ / ƒ � R \ LL ) > � \a) e = Eo T 2E o \ k / c \ E E E§> < _0) / \ x \ 7 e E » [ n « % k ( \ / k k � � \ ^ E x x r o \ \ / D _ x ® / r m . _ ) 0 m a a n > / \ 2 ± 0 & UM \ ƒ k 2 � 2kg Uz0 a < % % _ % nZcg 75 2 = 2 22 ° < .o o 9 e o m 2 0 O 2 2 L % m = _ ._ a) a = cu s = 0 2 0 = | Cl) o > _ 2 s > o o = o = o = 2 0 -0 a) c:—0 o 0 % E o 0 o _ - = o < � o o \ e = - 'Q o - - x I e m coZ , R » E I m (i) F4 < e M m 7C / C / o E0 0 Ga ° \ oCG / = mo GGa/ ) 2 Sm G2G � _ - cE % / % v % $ v obi % $ v % v 0 j 0 _ _� < § / < R / G - / k R < R ƒ k §� cpT C) ƒ f � ƒ / � / ? U ƒ � \ 2 \ ® 2 O a 2 = m » f ^ « - 2 | ® k 7 \ m .g ¥ \ ® � \ ƒ = o b = _ _ ■ \ % $ \/ � E ± CL E % \ E $ � E � E / / % 2 C \ o o 5 k o E » o - \ \ / > Z $ \ E z 1 & G E &_ m % & || / 3 / > / \ E § § \ E ƒ / / / % \ E \ / 2 ± § > I 0 / k o co c ? \ 0 0 E . \ / k $ � / / \ ƒ / / Al / | a - | IT-' _Lr, O Ja) C i O O a L L L 7 V) a) .r (0 C (� N U) ~ O (6 p O V) (0 O U O a w C > > > Q (0 CO Q) U Q) OU d m Q) `O a) LL. 41 .L. " U L cn D V) (0 6 � w -0 a) O)� Y U a) C p ca > o C C - G� O O � O (n C = O U O LO CDCDLO -00 (0 a) 'C Q L C (V CDU � . C m U p -0 .c Q Q C C C C VJ U O � _0 (D i O L O L (n C U a) (B p a) w c (� > U) m _ M a) OU �O C Q U O O U (� (on O E 7 CL "p C L L Q 3 C a) N L E ,� Q� c O _ Q a QN L ° (n a�i � (a � � cn L cow �) � v LL - -0 — C V) U U C - Cn (0 C O (6 M M CO L �, C - -0 U p 7 C AM (no a) c (n c a o 0 O T oo 00 U O O O (D � a -0 3 o b o 0 -� O _L 0 0 o L p (n LL o 0 0 0 0 o ui 2 + L o a) C U 3 a) a) � LO (n o 0 u� cna � > cU O c N cn cB cn p Q) -o O Vi ca ` C C C L Q �O c w p O cv 0 p (6 Q- a) � Q O Q Q C O L Q � C O U U L N (D - �- a) O � C L O L L L -O M Q L Q c a) 0 N a) 4) C U (j V) () 7 '-' + O U O7 L L ` C (0 `' Q N O) L Cl) O 7 0 E 0 O p U O C L - N a) L a) -Q) Q C) O U 0 Q p O -O Q-i O (B CC -0 U -Q (n > 4) a) L U U o o p a) cO) O U C O j o\ L o Q C LL U `�-' O (n O 4) Q (B p 4) 7 LL _ o O o 0 O M -0 w -O N Q-6 7 - M = m O In c- O O Q c (D " a) o a) E > (n p (n " V C N M cn Q (o L C O U) Q L - U cn O O U _� U > L U (n O U (a 7 Q o n Y cz Q) O +� Q a) T (6 0 E M C E (0 U 'O > o - a) m C (/j 7 a) L V)a) cB oLo ._ C a) c - O . M ( n� O -C m a) O O V)a) U aL U O O C C- >Oo 0-- E U)o o -a V) O C C O ^ p a) c0 N c ca Cl Q U L (n +J a) U T c _ i N > a) V) m - C � L V T L Q Q C 3 `O C C O a) N U) M c E (DE 4) Q)C C) cnE M O O w O ON +r L) - OL (0 E a a) Q O C (n > (� (0 +L -� > ) O O m O O O V o O > a) a O U 4) d O C V) w d U - CO O - a) -0 Q � O C CO O QE cn CL E U F—O O O O U) co a Q N o aa) J `� 0 (� to J U o C 1 E > f- oC � � � co o ca � o0 � Q � � co � � � @ (aLO Z a) (C c C L) U _ a _ LL m �. O a) a) Q c �y U 4+ Q+' (0 O r r •" V Q O CL L O v- O (6 m m (Da) 'O O E X a) U +" D V ink O m LLB U- C LU uJ C D 7 N CL a) o o L o L m Y 0 _ o N Ln Ln Lf) T U 2 -0 _0 _0 a 'O '0 ° a) c cc c c c c aU'i c : a) c� (a (a (o (a (o (a 0 N C (6 NN (B 0 N a) 2 a) N N a) `p (0 o c a) -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 n -0 C a "O _0 •a _0 "O _0 �. V a) o C 0- C 0- C 0- C Q C 0- C Q C Q QLL U 00 C > - Q) a) +-' N +-' Q �-. Q) ) a) —) a) M a) L L C > C > C > C > C > C > C > Q > L O C O co (1) (a (1) N C O (D a) Co O L L L -0 O O U -0 U -0 U -0 U -0 U -0 U -0 U -0 m (B B W (a O o o > N (6 M ( >> N > > > 0 > O LO L L L L L L L L L L L L L L O O O O O O 0 .2 O O O O O O O O OO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.o- 0 0 i i � r o o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C i LC) O C O U') O LO LO CD O LC) LO O O LO LO O r r 0 r (V r r r r r C14 a) y LL C NO Cn Q C U) a) _ _ � \ LL 00 C � (0 (B � O NN N '0 N a) V C LL a) O (0 O N c CN o N L L o d (a ch ° O O LL a) L LL O LL 0 �\ L d C N ��/ o o o L O o (a Cn o 3 O U) n � L O O \ _ O O L L 3 C C C CO o (9 r o O �O �O lf) O O O O o O O O O O O O LL O o o ° o 0 0 0 00 ~ o 0 0 lf") o 0 o C o C Q� N N Z 00 LC) N O r V 0 O LO r Ln (D Lo r C (� 'cu C/) � V) O C o (DV) (0 (B a) a) �O o LLL CDCO C N (0 -p C -p n W O _ N (0 O L Q) a) (3) LL L N O C C C L L t C N LL __ o (0 O O D C Cn L (n N N L � (6 (� O O C LL O (D LL o LL \ L � — CO (n L �_ (n — Cn LL O L Q) N O Lf) o 0 0 \ O O C o :3 .� a) a) r 0 00 r Ln 0 0 (B r o 0 0 0 00 LL U C C C o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 0 0 o OO � o 0 o Lo -. Lno � o 0� N N Z 00 LO r C r r V 0 O LO r LO r LO — — C � O C > _0 (0 -L- o a) C U L (0 U Q a) m C� _0 co Z U c Y o L "- > U c o }o ism o � af°i ca Q o U> U' >, U `n UU)) -0 � U' 0 U' >,_ L Q a°i N >, ° �03 c c c _0 -0 U c c c � v a) - c �°� a L T c vi C 0 Z5 M � > }� C (0 Cn O (0 a) (0 7 i- (0 C 0 -0 C C L @ (B (B c L T C �' L >>L o L CO U Q ° Q C F a) (0 a) U T Q) O (n a) > a) T �� ` C V J Q _ > > .(n = (� > QNa L O > 2 > J -00 > o +' (LO O o O (n o o fn � O O (a U O (n � ° U ° T u) = L) 0) vi Y c_n J U (n o J co = U m 0- o (n (_n (n _0 CO T° o > o U U T U (n U m 0 > a L VJ � T C� � U U J U U c �,, > �•, (n o F- UL - c -0 � � Ua c �Y � -0 = sa a) � () -o �Y -o Y -0 -0 U) ao ° Oa)00 O ~ o ° (n � 0 ooL (n (n = c (a J (B a) COa) (D a) J (0 a) J (� Y a) J Co C a) Q > Q J (B O J (9 a) (� O J � o o2 Eoo o � U) (oho o � (no c� � (� �' z � o � � o � (no (n m C a) 0 c D Y o o 0 'a °> � o� _ (Q (0 _T CO m o m m U U U a) � 0 0 N Ln ll'1 Ln i a) O O a) N a) O N 4) U p c ++ LO c0 (0 � ca � a3 � (0 _ > � (� 'D (� C C C C C C C C C tC O O O O m 0 O (d -p O O a L1 Q +-' C > C > C > C > C > C > C C > C > a) Co O M 4) Co O co O m O m a) M *- cB 4) ca N Y U a U p U p U -p U _ U � U U � U p L L L L L L L L L L L L L L O L L L L O O O O 00 O O 0 ,2 00 O O O O O - O O O O p 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O LO O O LO O LC) O LO O LC) O Ln C t17 0 0 0 0 N O r- .-- c- — — .-- - - M N N N N O � C C 0 3 O O c U) U a �-_ 'p Q) O C N L ca c L U) c co 7 U N a) O C O 0 (� d L' C m N C Q V C -C() O ON L U-- a) N O O — a) L a) N � — (6 ll � LSO > > 3 LL N ,_ LL C � O O — C 'Op d �j cII CO O C p m O N o 0 7 o 0o C Oo o C UC) o L9 o C) O c- L? LLB O i LL L(� o O o o i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-11 <- V N O O O 00 00 00 <- N O O C C m Cl) w C a) (0 a) �- C C NN - O C (0 C a) L a) p N N L 0 O O d C N C LL O N C O O m _ U) +L > j LL LL a) LL C O O C a) a) d U) L U) O 4- — O O L L L U L o 0 0 0 o 0 O y+ 2 � o _OLo OO CDC LO _ o o N LO O o m LO LO LL o \ o- \ \ — \ \ \° \ \ \ \ � \ LO o t 0 ko i o 0 0 0 0 0 o i o •- V N N 00 O LO C) NLO N O O O Q .0 m U (3) cQ E M > ■ U •J O a) E O C O C Q) U) o U) U)C -O o m -O C CO C W > mL Ca) M N O 2: r ■ O U "a -O C U) U) U (n Co V1 C/)_ U) U) O CO C C C E -0 N (� N E Q C C C C U C C N >, C L U m m m m m Y m co > — U m N U Z U) Z cn _� c� a >o lt� U � � c� o aco a) a) aa o � o � Uo � oo 0 ) ) 0 ) 6C > c U)� U L JC� � � U' F- m � JC7 � I- C� V� C7 � a � J (� � f- CD = U' 0M Q- U) C� U` co � U) C� U' U) U U' �0 - (n C � U o U) C� U' U) +> � HY -0JU -0 JY_ � JY � -) U � � U � c I- Y � JY � FU o M � J U) � 0_ � r MLA � -C � � � cis O a) cn mot_ m � c� � U) M m °) J O J c4 Q J ( 4) F-(6 I (0 J a) N J cD Q) > J cD O Q J cB O O " a) cc U) Z 0 mwo Z U) 0 N ace 5 7 m m > CL O -C- u a) cB ' � U m j O m U M E O cQ N C a) -p 3 C a) 3 (n a) a) L M M m a) a) — Y W LL 2 N Y Y Y J W .2 T r- o 04 L Ln Ln ca ca m c ca c � -0 cLa c Lca c La ca Loo _cc T a) co O —aap N O n 70 Q a ° ca a av c o c Q QQ o nQ > Ua a a >aco LLUa u CU a ma) — ) — o m m L j>> c > > > > > a) m ca oa) cU a) o a) m L)_ -p -p U -p U -0 o -O ) 0 -0 o L O Q - O LO o o L " > - o O O O O Ln N O O r O � O O O O O O O O O ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � ' ' -0 \ \ \ \ \ \ «-- \ \ N -0 o 0 o 0 L L 0 0 o C C o 0 L 0 0 L o L i C o Ln O In O In l() O O O o o O L(") Ln O O Lo o 0 lC) O O r r r N r r N r r 0 0 r r r N r r L0 r r N @ d C C ca La >, L y0 � (o � 7 EL (� M N � a) � J � L . a) U C cn cn � a) C a) a) r a ° o mo a) c � � � ( oo � 2 � c c c co cn L cn a�'ia) occ oL � � a) o cnc° 0aa)) 3 a> L L c Q c C LL (i) LL L O O O — +� o. v- — 0 0 (� O U) O o -0 -0 -0Oo 0 4) > C O 3 0 0 — (a Ln O D N o o (n -p (B 4+ L.) � \ \ -0- r r ,0 r r \ L0 N U o LL o N o o Lo C) o 0 0 0 o C Lo o ¢ `' con NO rLO O rr O 00 00 23 r O Z co2 70 70 _0 -0 — — (o m a) u) a () a) c a) p O O N c -p U cn C C C co U a) ca U) O ca O L L Q) U Q U i L N ` N a) O L O C LL a) LL L O C O a) y o O U) L U) 0 \ C o o (o O o o o 0 1O — o (o lf') N LO LL") o U) -O o 7 w o (a I o o o O L() La o LL o o Lo o o LL7 O o o O a o 0 00 o Q 0 N O r LO O r r Lo C) r C) 0 r O Z La 0� O m U m Q O Q o_ wU U a) mQ c U) LL ` O N O U E o co U U a CL a) > >1 2 m U) _p U U c rn ° > > a) L c n.— N U) ca w E ca �' w L m cn O cn ° o L cn d ca LL > o > E >,c c cn -E U u) Q -p ca ca c ca m L ca -- o � `- :- ca Z N O C z (�D c a) C N ' U C a) - U C Q co ca E n3 c az Co � Imo (D U az � � co V U ,--� a) U O >, Ln L U C Q y� L La L U) Co U) La a) La La La m La L a) C C L O L O i > i O L a) a) +` a) LL L O >' (n O N a) >� a) C '� () C a) :_ a) E a) a) >' a) >, C w a) V U U > J co > La cn > ca > = U > > (o > co > +� O > C cn ; O O N O N O LL C O O m O U O 'Fn U U) O -0 0 U) U J U) 3 U) 1) Cl) -o U) J ca CO U) -— U) U' E o H C� Q — — h- C� — (� — a o U) > U C� ° C� U) C� U U >,C� U C7 U J JY a, - -a JU -0FU -0UJ � � -0 U > o � 0U) o OU o oLL a)U) c6 J ca a) J� 0 ) = a oJaQpM M CO a) a) 0 -02CS0 Ea � LLDn 0 � 0a2EU0 (o02iU0 z o Q. U0 '::t m C L o a) >1 o o v o m E m An mm E ° E m C: C ° 3 i v -a E m m o a) O co O ca a) a) co N a) L r- - Z Z a_ z 4 U) U) U) U) 0 0 N �Ln �Lr) Ln a 7:3 _0 c C C C 70 ca ca -o — U) a) m m (1) m m ca v o -0 � .. o 0 r _ T) m _0 (aC: — a� V C Q C Q m Q C a ca (1) d m M O m O U O (a O U > a LL 0 — a) > Q) C N > '0 Q - > > L > > L m a) a) a) m a) L V7:) U -0 0 _0 U -C 0 L c>6 C) M � o N m a) o O - O �O O O O O O o o o .o 0 0 0 0 0 o o � 0 0 0� o 0 0 0 0 0 o I C C) LO C) (D LO O LO C) LO C) LO M N N NJ O T a. L I O L d O C LL N O d o C C 0 0 L 3 LO0 S CD 0 LL O O O- O O O O r C C _cu cn Y rO O O O y L O O CD CD U. f) N= t CV o o ,o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 'O w O m `° 0) a) m L (� m C O 3 C Q O n to o E O a) L cC L n L > Q 0 m L m E C C L _ O a) cn O Cf) a) �O Cn M O V C/) a) >> L L w+ L C //_/^) m N a) m O M N D V J L L > L >> L L 0 L >1 V aO aO + W a) a)O LL LL O 'p O n O 0 0Lo _ _ (0 JY tn -O F-- U -O .O JU -0 � U � HYa J 1 Cn L) O (n O m _C (n O CO O J L O J O O J O J O Q J@ O � 0 o U) o � o z � o � — = m O a Y 0 E > U rn Y 3 0 0 c a) L >, O L 7 _C 1 CYO U) � U Y 0 N r 551 Appendix C: Assumed Future Floor Area per Employee pp p The table below summarizes the assumptions made by each jurisdiction about the intensity of utilization of commercial and industrial space to house future employees. The figures represent square feet of floor area per employee in commercial/office and industrial/warehouse use categories respectively. Ranges indicate that different assumptions were made zone by zone within a single zoning category. Further detail about the methodology employed by individual jurisdictions can be obtained by contacting the county or cities in question. See the Addendum to the Buildable Lands report template for detailed discussion and guidelines on employment density assumptions. Jurisdiction Commercial/Office Industrial/Warehouse Algona 500 800 Auburn 304-600 463-700 Beaux Arts Village NA NA Bellevue 300 -400 600 Black Diamond 500 800 Bothell 350 -600 450-500 Burien 250 - 500 1000 Carnation 400-650 1000 Clyde Hill NA NA Covington 450 800 Des Moines 350 -450 450 Duvall 500 800 Enumclaw 400 -600 700 Federal Way 250 -600 800 Hunts Point NA NA Issaquah 450-545 NA Kenmore 400-500 800 Kent 300 - 550 850 Kirkland 250 - 526 600 Lake Forest Park 500 NA Maple Valle 400—600 850 Medina NA NA Mercer Island 400 NA Milton 350 NA Newcastle 300 - 350 800 Normandy Park 500-600 NA North Bend 400 - 550 700-1000 Pacific 450-500 650-800 Redmond 300 299-565 Renton 250 -400 700 Sammamish NA NA SeaTac 450-550 675-800 ' Seattle 275-300 450 Shoreline 350 NA Sk komish NA NA Sno ualmie 400 - 600 600 Tukwila 300 -600 600 - 1000 Woodinville 325-550 700 Yarrow Point NA NA Unincorporated King County 550 800 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report Appendices- 10 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6G 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT FOR LASER SPEED MEASUREMENT UNIT - ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant in the amount of $3,000 to purchase one Stalker LIDAR-C (laser) speed measurement unit for the Kent Police Department's Traffic Unit. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. i `- 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter from WASPC dated 5/8/08 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/10/08 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) ■ 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No ■ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT Steve Strachan, Chief of Police KENT Phone: 253-856-5888 WA Ni-- Fax: 253-856-6802 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 DATE: June 10, 2008 TO: Public Safety Committee SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission $3,000 grant award MOTION: I move to recommend that Council authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant not to exceed $3,000. SUMMARY: The grant funds will be used to purchase a LIDAR (laser) speed measurement unit for the Kent Police Department's Traffic Unit. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. EXHIBITS: Copy of award letter from WTSC dated 05/08/08 BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Public Safety Committee WTSC grant $3000 June 10, 2008 ■ SCAT O 6 Y �C 188, S-iATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION 1000 S. Cherry St., PO Box 40944 - Olympia, Washington 98504-0944 - (360) 753 6197 8 May 2008 Sergeant Rafael Padilla a Kent Police Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Dear Sgt. Padilla: 1 On behalf of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, I am pleased to inform you that you have been awarded a grant in an amount not to exceed 3,000.00 to purchase a LIDAR speed measuring device. Your agency must pay the cost of the LIDAR using its normal procedures and then must submit an invoice for reimbursement to me. tPlease use the following reimbursement procedure: 1. Your agency must be billed for the cost of the LIDAR. 2. Your agency must pay the cost. 3. Your agency must submit the attached Invoice Voucher (A19-1A Form) along with proof of payment to me at the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for reimbursement. 4. Your agency will be reimbursed when the A-19 Form and cost invoice are received in our office. I have always been impressed with the hard work and dedication of the Kent Traffic Unit. - If I can be of further assistance, please contact me by telephone at 360,753.3022 or by email at pnerup@wtsc.wa.gov. Sincerely, Pe"NeruProgram Manager Police Traffic Services and Speeding Programs `47 �� Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6H 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT FOR STREET RACING EMPHASIS PATROLS - ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant in the amount of $7,500 for overtime costs associated with special emphasis patrols to deter street racing activities. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. 1 1 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter from WTSC dated 5/30/08 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/10/08 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? -N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT Steve Strachan, Chief of Police ' KE 0 T Phone: 253-856-5888 Wns„,„GTON Fax: 253-856-6802 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. - Kent, WA. 98032-5895 DATE: June 10, 2008 TO: Public Safety Committee SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission $7,500 grant award MOTION: I move to recommend that Council authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant not to exceed $7,500 for street racing emphasis patrols. SUMMARY: Grant funds not to exceed $7,500.00 have been awarded and will be used for overtime costs associated with special emphasis patrols to deter street racing activities. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. EXHIBIT: Copy of award letter dated 5/30/08 BUDGET IMPACT: Public SafetyCommittee WTSC 7 500 award — street racing $ 9 June 10, 2008 SQ,Y'STa 1889 STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION 1000 S. Cherry St., PO Box 40944 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0944 • (360) 753 - 6197 30 May 2008 Lieutenant Ken Thomas Kent Police Department 232 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 f'�-/-) Dear Lt. Temas: On behalf of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, I am pleased to inform you that you have been awarded a grant in an amount not to exceed $7,500.00 for overtime costs associated with special emphasis patrols to deter street racing activities. Your agency must pay the cost of the overtime using its normal procedures and then must submit an invoice for reimbursement to me. Please use the following reimbursement procedure: 1. Your agency must be billed for the cost of the overtime. 2. Your agency must pay the cost. 3. Your agency must submit the attached Invoice Voucher (A19-1A Form) along with proof of overtime payment to me at the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for reimbursement. 4. Your agency will be reimbursed when the A-19 Form and cost invoice are received in our office. I would greatly appreciate a record of the number of tickets your officers issued during this emphasis along with a breakdown of the type of infractions written. I am also interested it the age, gender, and zip code of the persons ticketed. This is a very well thought-out and planned project. Special kudos to Sgt. Padilla for his excellent Operational Plan. If I can b, of further assistance, please contact me by telephone at 360.753.3022 or by email at pnerup@wtsc.wa.gov. Sincerely, Penny Nerupp, PI"ogram Manager Police Traffic Services and Speeding Programs Kent Police Department Illegal Street Racing Emphasis Operational Plan The Kent Police will conduct an Illegal Street Racing Enforcement Sweep during the early part of summer 2008. The goal will be to significantly impact racers and racer attendees by conducting a large scale zero tolerance enforcement sweep at a major racing event. Objective The objectives for this enforcement sweep are: 1. Reduce the potential for injury death to racers, race attendees, and the general public. 2. Protect property. 3. Deter racers and race attendees from returning to the City of Kent and the surrounding area to conduct illegal street racing. 4. Enforce state law and City of Kent Ordinances. Emphasis Notifications Notification to the following city departments/personnel will be made at least two weeks prior to the first enforcement sweep date: _ • Chief Steve Strachan • Captain Mike Painter, Patrol Division Commander • Captain Ron Price, Support Service Division Commander • Captain Lorna Rufener, Corrections Division Commander • The on-duty patrol lieutenant • The on-duty patrol sergeant • Officer Paul Petersen, PIO • City Prosecutor's Office Emphasis Date, Times, and Locations Illegal street racing is dependant on the weather. Several dates during early summer will be identified as potential enforcement sweep dates. As we approach an identified date _ in which the weather appears to be conducive to racing, we will activate a task force of officers and support staff assigned to the enforcement sweep via the department paging system. Prospective dates will be released to the officers assigned to the task force, but are to remain confidential. The enforcement sweep is anticipated to run from 2300- 0300 hours. Specifics on times and locations will be released to the task force at the enforcement sweep briefing. The task force commander will make the final determination as to whether or not an jenforcement sweep will be conducted. The task force commander will make notification 1� of this decision by noon the day prior to the date of the enforcement sweep to all task force members via the department paging system. Required Task Force Personnel -- (1 Lt. 2 Sgts. and 21 officers) Task Force Commander— Lieutenant TBA Contact Team Leader — Sergeant TBA Contact Team Members — 6 officers Perimeter Team Leader— Sergeant TBA Perimeter Team Members — 10 officers Surveillance Team — two officers in plain clothes Transportation Officers — two police or corrections officers Narcotics K9 Team Valley Communications Dispatcher — SPECOPS Equipment 1. Unmarked surveillance vehicle 2. Both jail transport vans 3. Multiple Patrol Vehicles 4. ALPR — Patrol Car 3822 5. Digital video recorder (x2) 6. Bull Horn/PA system 7. Supply of Flex Cuffs 8. Supply of NOIs and Criminal Cites 9. Supply of booking forms 10. Supply of PBTs 11. Supply of Large canister OC spray 12. Police Barrier Tape 13. Standard Patrol Equipment Budget Exact cost of the event is difficult to determine at this time. It is anticipated that a large number of officers assigned to this emphasis will have their shift adjusted to minimize overtime expense. Additionally, we will invite neighboring law enforcement agencies to participate in this emphasis at their expense. If the emphasis was conducted using only overtime funds, the cost breakdown would be as follows: 1 lieutenant @ $0 overtime/hr x 5 hrs. _ $0.00 2 sergeants @ $75/hr. x 5hrs. — $750.00 20 officers @ $65/hr. x 5 hrs. — $6,500.00 Narcotics K9 Team @ $0 overtime/hr x 5 hrs. _ $0.00 TOTAL OVERTIME COSTS = $7,250.00 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6I 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT BOATING EQUIPMENT GRANT - ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission grant funds not to exceed $42,471, and authorize the Kent Police Department to sign the Interagency Agreement. The funds will be used to assist with the purchase of a boat and motor for use on Lake Meridian. The purpose of the grant program is to assist local law enforcement agencies with the acquisition of boats and motors and/or the refurbishing of existing boats used 1 in recreational boating safety law enforcement programs. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter dated 5/22/08 and copy of Interagency Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 6/10/08 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? -N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds a DISCUSSION: 4 ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT Steve Strachan, Chief of Police KE 0 T Phone: 253-856-5888 Fax: 253-856-6802 .� Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 DATE: June 10, 2008 TO: Public Safety Committee SUBJECT: Police Marine Unit Boat grant award MOTION: I move to recommend that Council authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Washington State Law Enforcement Boating Equipment Grant not to exceed $42,471.00, place this on the June 17, 2008 Consent Calendar and authorize the Police Chief to sign the agreement. ' SUMMARY: Grant funds not to exceed $42,471.00 have been awarded and will be used to assist with the purchase of a boat and motor for use on Lake Meridian. The purpose of the grant program is to assist local law enforcement agencies with the acquisition of boats and motors and/or the refurbishing of existing boats used in recreational boating safety law enforcement programs. Funding is on a reimbursement basis. EXHIBIT: Copy of award letter dated 5/22/08 Copy of Interagency Agreement between Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Kent Police Department BUDGET IMPACT: Equipment Total Cost,Incl Sales Tax Funds Requested City Match Boat: 2008 20' Almar $45 346.50 $34 009.87 $11 336.63 Motor: 2008 Yamaha $ 8,461.15 8,461.15 Motor Installation $ 3,267.00 $ 3,267.00 Total $ 57,074.65 $ 42,471.02 $ 14,603.63 1 - Public Safety Committee WA State Boating Equipment award June 10, 2008 r sTATE• � T aes do STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 7150 Cleanwater Lane • P.O. Box 42650 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2650 • (360) 902-8500 Internet Address:http://www.parks.wa.gov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (360) 664-3133 May 22, 2008 TO: Successful Law Enforcement Equipment Grant Applicants FRO mes French, Boating Program Administrator SUBJE Agreement for Law Enforcement Equipment Grant Congratulations! Your application for a Law Enforcement Equipment Grant was approved by the Boating Council on April 28, 2008 and by our director, Rex Derr on May 14, 2008, Enclosed you will find 2 copies of the agreement. Please sign both copies and return one to us. The effective date of this agreement is May 1, 2008. We encourage you to pay close attention to the special provisions stated in Attachment A: • This is a reimbursement only program. Invoices must be dated after the effective date of the award, May 1, 2008. • Use a state A-19 form for requesting reimbursement. A copy of your invoice that includes serial and an agency inventory number is required. • If a boat is being purchased, State Parks will provide an aluminum plate i indicating that federal funds were used for the purchase. This must be affixed to the boat. If you need to change the type of boat or motor, please notify Mark Kenny for approval. If approved, we will amend your agreement. If you have questions, don't hesitate to call Mark Kenny (360) 586-6593, e-mail Mark.Kenny a,parks.wa.gov or Toni Lick (360) 586-6672, e-mail Toni.Lick@parks.wa.gov i ■ INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT CEO WWI ' Between WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION And Kent Police Department 220 4th Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 AGREEMENT IAA 2008 -40 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "PARKS," and Kent Police Department, hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR". IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide the professional expertise that does not exist within the limited staff availability of PARKS and that the CONTRACTOR can perform on a mutually beneficial basis. THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: STATEMENT OF WORK The CONTRACTOR shall furnish the necessary personnel, equipment, material, and/or services and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of the work set forth in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this Agreement shall commence on May 1, 2008 , and be completed on June 30, 2009, unless terminated sooner as provided herein. SPECIAL PROVISIONS If funds were provided for the purchase of a boat, State Parks will provide an aluminum plate that is to be welded to the vessel indicating that federal funds were used for the purchase. We encourage you to offer appropriate media opportunities to help build public awareness of our program. Acknowledging the assistance provided by this grant program helps increase the public's understanding of the value the funding provides to local communities. PAYMENT Compensation for the work provided in accordance with this agreement has been established ' under the terms of RCW 39.34.130. The parties have estimated that the cost of accomplishing the work herein will not exceed Forth Two Thousand Four Hundred Seventy One and no/100ths Dollars ($42,471.00). Payment for satisfactory performance of the work shall not ' exceed this amount unless the parties mutually agree to a higher amount prior to the commencement of any work which will cause the maximum payment to be exceeded. Compensation for services shall be based on the following rates, (Boat: $34,010.00 and Motor: ' AGREEMENT IAA 2008 — 38 155LO Page 1 of 6 $8,461.00) and in accordance with the following terms, or as set forth in accordance in Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Request for reimbursement of a boat must include a picture of the vessel with the signage attached that is referenced in Special Provisions above. BILLING PROCEDURE The CONTRACTOR shall submit No more than 2 invoices. Payment to the CONTRACTOR for approved and completed work will be made by warrant or account transfer by PARKS within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. Upon expiration of the contract, any claim for payment not already made shall be submitted within 30 days after the expiration date or the end of the fiscal year, whichever is earlier. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The parties to this contract shall each maintain books, records, documents and other evidence which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect 'costs expended by either party in the performance of the services described herein. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by personnel of both parties, other personnel duly authorized by either party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years after expiration and the Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons duly authorized by the parties shall have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. Records and other documents, in any medium, furnished by one party to this agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the furnishing party, unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party will not disclose or make available this material to any third parties without first giving notice to the furnishing party and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will utilize reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. RIGHTS IN DATA Unless otherwise provided, data which originates from this Agreement shall be "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by PARKS. Data shall include, but not be limited to, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the ' right to copyright, patent, register, and the ability to transfer these rights. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY 1 The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. AGREEMENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS , AGREEMENT IAA 2008 — 38 155LO ' Page 2 of 6 This agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. TERMINATION iEither party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days' prior written notification to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If for any cause, either party does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party violates any of these terms and conditions, the aggrieved party will give the other party written notice of such failure or violation. The responsible party will be given the opportunity to correct the violation or failure within 15 working days. If failure or violation is not corrected, this Agreement may be terminated immediately by written notice of the aggrieved party to the other. DISPUTES In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement, it shall be determined by a Dispute Board in the following manner: Each party to this agreement shall appoint one member to the Dispute Board. The members so appointed shall jointly appoint an additional member to the Dispute Board; The Dispute Board shall review the facts, contract terms and applicable statutes and rules and make a determination of the dispute. The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. As an alternative to this process, either of the parties may request intervention by the Governor, as provided by RCW 43.17.330, in which event the Governor's process will control. GOVERNANCE This contract is entered into pursuant to and under the authority granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. In the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: i a. applicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. statement of work; and C. any other provisions of the agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT IAA 2008 — 38 155L0 Page 3 of 6 The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising thereunder, is not assignable or delegable by either party in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. ' WAIVER A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the party and attached to the original Agreement. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this agreement, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon b the parties. No other g g p Y understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be ' deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The project representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Agreement. The Project Representative for CONTRACTOR is: Tracey Gurr, Sergeant. The Project Representative for PARKS is: Mark Kenny, State Parks, P.O. Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 902-0930 I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. L Washington State Parks and Recreation CommisS By: �� By: Jars Fren ' Title: Bo Ping Program Administrator Title: Date: Date: Approved As To Form Only By: Mark Schumock Asst.Attorney General 02/20/04 AGREEMENT IAA 2008 — 38 155LO Page 4 of 6 Attachment A Recreational Boating Program Law Enforcement Boating Equipment Grants Program Grant Summary ■ Agreement No. AGREEMENT IAA 2008 - 40 APPLICANT: CONTACT: Kent Police Department Tracey Gurr, Sergeant Special Operations Unit 220 4ch Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032 tgurr(a,ci.kent.wa.us (253) 856-5828 FUNDING: MATCH: State Parks - $42,471.00 City general fund- $7,302 VRF- $7,302 DESCRIPTION: Boat: 2008 20' Almar Raiv Rigid Hull Inflatable Motor: 2008Yamaha F115 TXR with aluminum propeller for Yamaha outboard engine SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Equipment may be ordered and purchased, however funds for reimbursement are not available until federal fiscal year 08 funds become available on October 1, 2008. The invoice must include a list of inventorial equipment purchased during the contract that includes serial # and agency identification#. An aluminum plate,provided by State Parks, is to be welded to the vessel indicating that federal funds were used for the purchase. The applicant must keep the equipment purchased in working order for its life expectancy. DATE APPROVED: May 1, 2008 AGREEMENT IAA 2008 — 38 155LO Page 5 of 6 ' Kent City Council Meeting Date_ June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 63 1. SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. adopting the 2008 Transportation Master Plan. Please see Agenda Item K of the Consent Calendar for companion documents; e.g. the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the new Transportation Element, the Ordinance adopting same and the associated documents demonstrating the path toward adoption. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Transportation Master Plan Exhibit 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington adopting the Transportation Master Plan. RECITALS A. In the fall of 2005, the City began the process of developing a new Transportation Master Plan (TMP). When the TMP is integrated into the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, it serves as the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning. The TMP includes, among other items, an inventory of the existing transportation system; level of service standards; transportation demand management strategies; future improvement needs; and a multi-year financing plan for improvements. B. The TMP has undergone an extensive public process. The City worked at length with a citizen's task force to address development of the TMP, and engaged in a stakeholder involvement process to promote and provide a variety of meaningful forums for communication with the City. During the TMP development, two newsletters were mailed to every home and business within the City limits and the Potential Annexation Area. These newsletters provided information about the TMP project, directed people to future involvement opportunities, and encouraged comment. Two surveys were also conducted which allowed people to express their transportation 1 Transportation Master Plan concerns and priorities. Additionally, the City held two open house events and a meeting with neighborhood councils in the fall of 2007. C. Throughout this process, the City Council has held workshop and committee meetings to gather information and analyze the ongoing , development of the TMP. Meetings were held on June 20, 2006; July 5 and 10, 2006; August 21, 2006; September 5, 2006; February 27, 2007; June 18, 2007; December 3, 2007; and January 7, 2008. D. On February 28, 2008, the City provided the State of Washington with the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's proposed adoption of the TMP and corresponding amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Comments were provided by the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development and the State of Washington Department of Transportation. These comments have been taken into consideration by the City. E. On May 5, 2008, the City's SEPA responsible official adopted existing environmental documents consisting of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Draft and Final (ENV-93-51) and a SEPA Addendum, dated May 5, 2008 (ENV-2008-1). The SEPA Addendum explained that the proposed TMP would not create unavoidable impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIS. F. The public involvement process continued with the Land Use and Planning Board holding workshops regarding the TMP as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on April 14 and 28, 2008, and a public hearing on May 12, 2008. Adoption of the TMP and the TMP as an amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan were also considered by the City Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee on June 9, 2008. On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted the TMP for the City of 2 Transportation Master Plan i Kent. iNOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE ' SECTION 1. - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein. ' SECTION 2. - Amendment. The Transportation Master Plan as attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A" is adopted by the City of Kent. SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more sections, sub- sections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of ithis ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. ' SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 3 Transportation Master Plan PASSED: day of June, 2008. APPROVED: day of June, 2008. PUBLISHED: day of June, 2008. ' I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i 1 1 1 1 P\Civil\Ordinance\TransportationMasterPlan2008 doc 4 Transportation Master Plan 1 t Kent City Council Meeting -- June 17, 2008 Consent Calendar Item #K --Transportation Master Plan - Adopt Exhibit A 1 ■ ■ The Transportation Master Plan �.., KT Report i Transportation Master Plan Street System Non-motorized System Transit System Funding the Plan Implementing the Plan w r w., i E 5.g� v B ! i ' 1 Transportation master Plan Report ' Prepared for: 1 City of Kent Public Works Department 400 W Gowe Street Kent,Washington 1 KENT Prepared by: Fehr & Peers I irai M' '' 11410 NE 122nd Way,Suite 320 Kirkland,Washington 98034-6927 (425) 820-0100 In association with Henderson Young & Company Nelson\Nygaard The Transpo Group CH2M Hill June 2008 TRANSPORTATION 13 KENT MASTER PLAN e o', Cc,n Acknowledgements List of Figures and Tables Abbreviations and Acronyms "M Cover Photos Clockwise from left: 64. 14 1. James Street 2. Titus Street 3. Kent City Hall 4. Interurban Trail 1, Kent Transit Center tr 17 Figure 1-1. Transportation Master Plan Developed in Five Steps 1-4 Figure 2-1. Kent and Surrounding Cities 2-2 Figure 2-2. Existing Land Uses 2-4 , Figure 2-3. Commute Trip Patterns for Kent Residents 2-8 Figure 2-4. Distribution Centers in Puget Sound Region 2-9 ' Figure 2-5. Population Growth 2006 to 2030 2-1 1 Figure 2-6. Employment Growth Areas 2006 to 2030 2-12 Figure 3-1. Issues Map Developed at Task Force Meeting# 1 3-6 Figure 3-2. TMP Newsletter 3-8 Figure 5-1. Street Functional Classifications 5-5 Figure 5-2. Highest Collision Locations 5-9 ' Figure 5-3. Traffic Growth on Key Arterials 5-10 Figure 5-4. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 5-12 Figure 5-5. Corridors for LOS Analysis 5-15 Figure 5-6. Existing Corridor LOS 5-17 Figure 5-7. Future Traffic Growth in Kent 5-20 Figure 5-8. Preferred Network Costs 5-23 Figure 5-9. Preferred Street Network 5-27 Figure 5-10. Baseline(2030)Corridor LOS 5-30 , Figure 5-11. Preferred Network(2030)Corridor LOS 5-31 Figure 5-12. Truck Routes 5-33 Figure 5-13. Prioritized Street Projects 5-43 Figure 6-1. Sidewalks Inventory 6-3 Figure 6-2. Width of Existing Sidewalks 6-4 Figure 6-3. Sidewalks with Heaving and Cracking 6-4 Figure 6-4. Examples of Driveway Crossing Treatments 6-5 Figure 6-5. Pedestrian Priority Index 6-8 Figure 6-6. Pedestrian System-Highest and High Priorities 6-11 Figure 6-7. Pedestrian System-Medium Priorities 6-13 Figure 6-8. Sidewalk Repair Priorities 6-15 Figure 6-9. Existing Bicycle System 6-18 Figure 6-10 Bikeway Facility Definitions 6-19 Figure 6-11. Bicycle System Recommendations 6-21 Figure 7-1. Transit Routes 7-6 , Figure 7-2. Transit Boardings by Stop 7-7 Figure 7-3. Peak Period-Only Transit Service 7-16 Figure 7-4. Transit Service and Missing Sidewalks 7-19 ' Figure 7-5. Mid-Term Local Transit Service Recommendations 7-23 Figure 7-6. Long-Term Local Transit Service Recommendations 7-25 Figure 8-1. Commute Trip Reduction(CTR)Worksites 8-4 TRANSPORTATION 15 KE N T MASTER PLAN Table 2-1. Kent Demographic Profile 2-6 Table 2-2 Top Employers in Kent 2-7 Table 2-3. Comparison of Mode Split 2-8 Table 2-4. Kent Travel Model Growth Forecast(2006-2030) 2-11 Table 3-1. Most Frequently Mentioned Issues from Community 3-4 Table 3-2. Presentations to City Council, Public Works Committee,and Mayor 3-10 Table 5-1. City of Kent Street Design Standards 5-4 Table 5-2 Existing Street Functional Classification Breakdown 5-4 Table 5-3. Level of Service Definitions 5-13 Table 5-4. Corridors for LOS Analysis 5-14 Table 5-5. Existing Corridor LOS 5-16 Table 5-6 Traffic Growth Expected on State and Local Facilities by 2030 5-21 Table 5-7. Future Baseline Projects 5-22 Table 5-10. Preferred Network Projects 5-24 Table 5-11. Future Corridor LOS 5-29 Table 5-12. Prioritization Criteria for Street Projects 5-35 Table 5-13. Criterion Weighting Matrix 5-37 ' Table 5-14. Street Project Evaluation Results 5-38 Table 6-1. Pedestrian Plan Improvement Costs 6-16 Table 6-2. Priority Bicycle Improvement Costs 6-26 ' Table 7-1. Transit Service in the City of Kent 7-2 Table 7-2. Transit Service Levels(frequency by minutes) 7-3 Table 7-3. Park and Ride Lots Serving the City of Kent 7-10 Table 7-4. Task Force Priority Needs 7-18 Table 7-5. Transit Recommendations 7-22 ' Table 9-1. Costs of Kent Transportation Master Plan 9-2 Table 9-2 Potential Revenues for Kent Transportation Master Plan 9-2 Table 9-3. Estimates of Specific Revenue Sources 2006-2030 9-3 Table 10-1. Kent TMP Action Strategies Schedule 10-2 17 o !g es n en t s , < The City would like to acknowledge and thank those who contributed to the development of the Transportation Master Plan In addition to those g listed below,numerous individuals provided insight,expertise,and other contributions that informed this plan. City Council Mayor Suzette Cooke 1 John Hodgson,Chief Administrative Officer Elizabeth Albertson,Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bob O'Brien,Deborah Ranniger,Debbie Raplee,Les Thomas City Staff ' Cathy Mooney,City Project Manager Steve Mullen,Transportation Engineering Manager Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Monica Whitman,Project Assistant Other City Staff: Charlene Anderson,Mike Gillespie,Gloria Gould-Wesson, Tim LaPorte,Don Millett,Kurt Palowez,Paul Scott,Bill Thomas,Cheryl Viseth,Jon Napier,Kevin Casault, Chris Thompson,Susan Jensen,Don Wickstrom,Gary Gill,Kim Marousek �1 Task Force Membersb Bill Castagno; Carol Carlile;Dana Ralph,David Anderson,Debbie Eckley; Grant Toschi;Gurey Faarah;Helen Shmdell-Butler,Igor Bilas, Kristin Jensen, Manmeet Dhami,Marcell e Wellington,Marilyn Klelbauch;Mark Gagnon; Mel Roberts,Natalia Datskiv;Omar Lee,Patrick Bimon;Robert Faamausili; Roberto Gonzales;Tina Busemus;Tom Sharp,William Ellison;Bob Whalen, and Emma Harron Alternates: Lea Bishop;Doreen Stewart Community Bob Shull/PTV,Kent Senior Center,Kent Chamber of Commerce,Kent Bicycle Advisory Board,Green River Community College,Kent Downtown � Partnership, King County Metro,Sound Transit,Washington Trucking Association,'the Kent Reporter Consultant Team Prime: Fehr&Peers I Mirai: Donald Samdahl,Project Manager, Jana Janarthanan,John Davies,Virginia Brix,Jennifer Pearson > � Transit Lead: Nelson/Nygaard Associates,Toni Brennan,Scott Chapman " Finance Lead: Henderson,Young&Company;Randy Young Non-Motorized Lead. 'Ihe Transpo Group,Andy Mortensen Public Involvement Lead: CH2M Hill,Jodi Ketelsen,Jeff Crisafulli a -- TRANSPORTATION 19 KENT MASTER PLAN -r At 10 z- �' 1� •F EV ;t Y�` .� ' a` b,.r_ " In 2005,the City of Kent began an update of the Transportation Master Plan(TMP or Chapter Contents Master Plan). hl the 22 ,years since the TMP was last updated,the City of Kent's population has nearly tripled,and the amount of non-resident traffic that passes r, The purpose of the through the City has increased tremendously, stretching the transportation system TMP Over the past two decades, development has intensified and some of the regions a. What does the GMA largest employers have located in the City. Require �• Key Steps in the Transportation affects the quality of life and our economic vitality. The Development the transportation system is the backbone of our economy and a ley component to TMP our economic competitiveness Everyone who lives,works or commutes through How will the City use Kent depends on the transportation network. Developing and maintaining a the TMP? comprehensive transportation system that supports automobile,transit, bicycle, Coordinating with and pedestrian travel is the City's responsibility. The City must ensure that the others in the Region transportation network functions not only for personal mobility,but also for freight How is the TMP Final and delivery service circulation and access and for emergency vehicles Report organized? The TMP as adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan is the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning in Kent. It functions as the overarching guide for developing the transportation system. The TMP provides a framework necessary to balance the existing and long-term transportation needs of people living or working MT in Kent. 'The TMP is intended to benefit everyone-including children, senior citizens,all ethnic communities,business owners, commuters,people with disabilities, those with economic disadvantages,residents, employees and visitors. The plan evaluates the existing system by identifying key assets and improvement needs. 'These findings are then incorporated into a needs assessment, which informs the direction the City will take in developing the future transportation system. the TMP is multi-modal, addressing all forms of transportation in Kent including the street network,non-motorized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly enables the City to address the future network needs in a more comprehensive and ' balanced manner. 'lhe'TMP provides guidance on how the transportation system should develop and function in the long-term future in the context of other elements of the City's comprehensive plan, especially the land use plan. 'fhe Plan ' provides: • A background and description of the existing system di" °_L L"," • A vision for Kent's future transportation system and €.t1 :-t i tr i oa • Policies that include standards . and criteria as guidelines to advise 'A4 project and programmatic decision- making • Maps that indicate the location and e,l�E: °�` s;3...lt , names of all current and proposed ,_ ;i� i streets,bikeways and special , _e. �,°;., >> sa�ical' walkways • Descriptions of proposed new and /or upgraded facilities • An implementation plan that prioritizes projects and identifies funding resources for projects State k ouir �a nitu Re qwrements GMA Requirements Washington's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires rapidly growing communities to prepare a transportation plan directly tied to the City's land use decisions and financial planning. Kent will fulfill this mandate by adopting the Transportation Master Plan as the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. ' I lie TMP addresses all of the following items that a'Transportation Element must include in order to be GMA compliant. • Use land use assumptions to estimate travel,including impacts to state- owned facilities; • Inventory the existing transportation system in order to identify existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; 40 1 � TRANSPORTATION 21 ��N T MASTER PLAN U11:821-1 M 211azo: * V� Identify level of service (LOS) standards for all arterials,transit N, 3 A W routes,and state-owned facilities as a gauge for evaluating system jo 64 performance; I'M E, • Specify actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; Determine existing deficiencies of the system; Identify future improvement needs from at least ten years of traffic forecasts based on the adopted land use plan; • Include a multi-year financing plan based on the tdentified needs; • Address intergovernmental coordination;and Include transportation demand management strategies. j the City of Kent's Transportation Plan must also be compliant with the regional plans. The Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRQ sets policy _ for King, Pierce,Kitsap, and Snohomish counties through its long- range planning documents, Vision 2020, and its regional transportation plan, Destination 2030 Both documents encourage future growth to be concentrated in urban centers. Both plans seek to provide a multi-modal transportation system that serves all travel modes, actively encouraging the -6 use of alternatives to the automobile. Another irriportant policy theme is a % focus on maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system through Sc transportation demand management (TI)M) and transportation system , management (TSM) strategies, as well as completing critical links in the network Kent's transportation plan must be consistent with and supportive of PSRC's regional planning efforts. Under the GMA, counties must adopt Countywide Planning Policies to guide development in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of their jurisdictions. The policies support both county and regional goals to provide a variety of mobility options and establish level of service standards that emphasize the movement of people, and not just automobiles. King County's Countywide Planninc,Policies are also important because they provide direction for planning and development of Kent's potential annexation areas. In line with these policies,the M City of Kent works closely with King County to ensure an adequate transportation infrastructure is provided in the annexation areas. V, 'A P"A as t 0 i9l I or'w;,,ni The Transportation Master Plan got underway with the City Council approval of a "Wa"lar I frir,, 1,1� I contract with Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering',in the fall of 2005. 'IZ4, 's Capital il!�,;1)0 The process was coordinated with and will be implemented through the City, Cap Improvement Plan for transportation protects. J Fall 2005/Winter 2006- Education and Public Engagement (interviews X, with key stakeholders,focus groups, task force created, community telephone survey) and Alternative Development •ilzdbllb, Oav�;10,1' Spring/Summer 2006- Testing of ideas mid Alternatives • Fall 2006/Winter 2007- Draft Elements • Spring/Summer 2007- Council review of plan components Fall 2007- Public review and Plan finalization • Spring 2008 -Environmental Review and Public Hearing • Summer 2008 - Adopted by the City Council Tho TA P Nan was Uevekiped 3 ',<Oy Community Stakeholders 'The TMP was developed in five steps. Figure I shows the key steps in the study and stakeholders are those who how the parts of each step of the TMP process flowed together, and the questions have a signs cant stake Ili a each Step was designed to answer- all leading to projects that improve the way the pamarlar decision, i.e.,they transportation system works. stand to win a lot, lose a lot, Figurel-1. Transportation Master Plan Developed in Five Steps or they aro in a position to sign) cantly holp or hindet Develop Consider implernentation of the plan, Evaluation Criteria Funding When stakeholders(jon't Develop (Examples: Realities paFtiCIP&I In the dOCISIOrl- Transportation reduce PM peak Goals congestion levels; making, [horle is a good provide safe ped, chance they will work agairist crossings) docisiormninlornonting Conduct Statement of Stakeholder Community Evaluate Prioritize Interviews Values Develop Strategies Projects Improvement Strategies Ja,Pri Criteria es_)peak pa& Convene (Examples: A Citizen's intersection lanes; t Task Force_r Draft bicycle lanes; Conduct traffic signal Environmental Transportation coordination) Review Master Plan What is What iniprai,entents tp What imprnvernents should ive consider,td,',,,,Dg? ;ri#nporta�n ) (�� should we inrludr�? �� Sle s I and 2. Hoiv is the Transp ImitioYi ,slcm Whal is Important? j?� __tm --_- �i -_--_ --Important? -----_ One of the first steps was to examine how well the existing transportation system was working. TMP staff conducted interviews with community stakeholders and business groups, mailed a newsletter to every household,established a citizen- based Transportation Task Force, and developed goals for the study. The Task Force and TMP staff identified a list of community values—that is,qualities that the community considers important. 'These values helped set the transportation policies 1 Henderson Young&Company,Nelson Nygaard,CH2M Hill,and The'rranspo Group also assisted with the TMP. 4D TRANSPORTATION 23 KENO' MASTER PLAN that will guide the way the City plans and implements transportation improvements. Community values also played a critical role in guiding the evaluation of the 1 transportation system and the recommendations for improvements. Step 3. What Improvements Should Be Considered? '.- During this step,the TMP staff collected information about Kent's transportation facilities, such as roads, signals,signs,transit stops and service,bike routes, and sidewalks How well each mode works was also examined. For example,how r congested are the streets at different times of the day,how many residents have access to frequent transit,where are there missing sidewalks? This information provided a snapshot of how well Kent's transportation system is working. Locations were examined to identify where improvements should be considered Also,the TMP staff examined what conditions would be like in the future to accommodate the forecast growth in population and employment. 1 Step 4.What Improvements Should Be Included? All of this information was used to come up with strategies to target each issue. Strategies were developed for each travel mode, for example adding turn lanes at intersections,repairing sidewalks, adding bicycle lanes, coordinating traffic signals, and widening roads. From these strategies,the TMP staff developed a list of projects to accommodate future land use. Step 5. Finalizing the Plan! The projects were prioritized using input from across the range of transportation users, and considering all the evaluation criteria and the funding and environmental limitations. Because the TMP will serve as a guide for transportation capital I improvements for years to come, continued input from the stakeholders is important to help the plan become a reality over the next 20 years. i r �s� 'Ihe TMP provides both policy and technical direction for the City's transportation system through the year 2030. Specifically,the City will use the TMP to: • Understand Transportation System Needs • Understand the Community's Preferences • Establish Policies • Guide GMA Requirements for LOS and Concurrency • Identify Projects for the CIP and TIP _ In developing the TMP,the City has completed a system-wide, multi-modal needs assessment that identifies which aspects of Kent's transportation system work well and which ones need improvement. As part of this process potential solutions and _ investment priorities were identified The end result is that the City has a more thorough understanding of system deficiencies and a better grasp of the best way to address these deficiencies and grow the system in a sustainable manner. 21 W, Several open houses and community and neighborhood meetings were held to solicit L feedback from the public on transportation issues. Additionally,a citywide telephone survey was conducted m Spring 2006-', which concluded that investment in City streets is the number one spending priority when surplus tax funds are available. An i° important component of the TMP was the public outreach. i 'Ihe City formed a community task force to provide guidance in specialized areas of t'•> ` transportation. The task force members were tremendously valuable in shaping the plan and advising on behalf of their constituents. The task force was comprised of staff from the Kent School District,local businesses, and Kent residents with different areas of expertise,ranging from neighborhood needs to senior needs to non-motorized travel. 'Ihe Kent Area Chamber of Commerce was represented, along with developers, and freight industry representatives. �f� t ,-'zl �;r`ri,' ;ul The City creates policies to preserve and enhance the existing system and develop the . A $` future transportation system. Policies can be qualitative in nature,but often they are quantitative and prescribe a specific standard. The City often works in collaboration with other governmental or non-governmental organizations. Policies are also important for communicating the City's values and needs to neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies.The policies =; ix'es� '`''r enable the City to more easily influence change that is in keeping with its needs and preferences. Mmint =°iris The 1990 Growth Management Act(GMA) has concurrency provisions. Concurrency requires that local governments permit development only if adequate public facilities are,or can be guaranteed to be, available within six years to support new development. 'The GMA requires local jurisdictions to set level of service (LOS) standards and identify facility and service needs based on their. This ensures that , future development will not cause the transportation system's performance to fall below the adopted LOS standard by taking one or a combination of the following actions: limiting development,requiring appropriate mitigation,or changing the adopted standard. C e l l Facih ;. l l;in and Tf f :,z.a ; ` i;,:tl ia;t ; ; 1 Rtt, T s l`o-ra : The TMP identifies both long-term and short-term improvement protects.The City uses the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) to develop the financial plan for capital improvements in Kent that are consistent with the TMP as adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. These two documents enable the City to fulfill the GMA requirement of having a multi-year , financing plan based on the identified transportation needs. The TIP is a six-year transportation financing plan, adopted annually by the City Council. It is used to implement the list of transportation improvement projects identified in the TMP analysis of existing and future traffic conditions. It is reviewed annually by the City Council and modified as project priorities and funding circumstances change. 2 Survey of Kent Residents,conducted by Nelson Nygaard,March 2006. I TRANSPORTATION 25 KENT MASTER PLAN ► ": i _ <n 'the Capital Improvement Plan is also a 6-year financing plan that is annually adopted in a separate process. It includes non-transportation projects in addition to the transportation related projects also found in the TII? The transportation master plan addresses transportation facilities and services that are within the City or otherwise within our control. But Kent is part of a larger transportation system — the regional system that connects the City to others in the area and beyond that to other states. Kent's facilities are part of regional network of roads, streets,transit routes and other infrastructure and services. , Kent transportation system carries regional pass-through traffic in addition to local circulation and access to homes and businesses. The transportation system connects Kent to other destinations in the region. The City of Kent does have a voice in the decisions that affect this regional system and is involved in transportation , policy-making through a variety of settings— standing committees,task forces and as representation on major regional bodies such as King County Metro, the PSRC, etc. City transportation policies establish preferences that the City advocates in these regional settings. At the same time, Kent's transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its City limits. Growth in neighboring communities,infrastructure maintenance by regional agencies,the lack of funding for road maintenance as well as capacity expansion, and competing demands for transit services all affect mobility in Kent ii =' The TMP calls for effective mterlurisdictional actions to address cross-border issues 7 t 1 ciQt- and to mitigate the impact of new development. AMR- The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns several major + ' routes connecting Kent to the region: SR 167, SR 18, SR 99, SR 181, SR 515, SR 509 and SR 516. The City works with the state to study these corridors and implement roadway improvements.WSDOT also serves an important role as administrator of federal and state transportation funds. All in all,WSDOT is an important partner, helping Kent improve its transportation system. 1 the City works with King County to coordinate roads within the City's potential annexation areas. King County Parks also coordinates the regional trail system through Kent. KC Metro, a division of the King County Department of Transportation,provides local bus services for the Kent area. In addition, KC Metro operates Dial-A-Ride (DART 914/916 and 918) on a variable routing service. The 914/916 shopper shuttle is funded through an agreement with the City and is operated by the non-profit provider Hopelink. The Kent Transit Center serves as a hub and transfer station for local transit service provided by King County Metro (KC Metro) and Sound Transit regional express service Planned transit service for the City of Kent is described in Chapter 7 - 'Transit systsem `Ihe City has also developed an employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program in cooperation with Metro. Details of the CTR program are summarized in Chapter 8 —Managing Demand. 21 .Oil- .4 , Sound Transit is a regional provider offering a variety of regional transit services for King,Snohomish, and Pierce counties. In Kent,Sound Transit provides commuter rail and express bus service. The transit chapter provides more detail on current Sound Transit services,remaining needs for regional transit service,and the role Kent I `too plays in coordinating with the agency. � 'lhe City recognizes the importance of coordinated and strong interjurisdictnonal action because transportation impacts do not stop at local boundaries. The City works closely with neighboring cities to address transportation issues. These neighbors adopt goals and policies that directly impact the Kent community In developing this plan, analysis was undertaken to ensure that all transportation system improvements are compatible with neighboring jurisdictions. City of Auburn The City of Auburn shares Kent's southern border and several regional transportation corridors including S 277th Street, SR 167,and the West Valley Highway. A recent reconstruction project was finished improving a half-mile-long section of S 277th Street. The City of Auburn was also a partner in the SR 167 corridor improvement study. A significant component of this study was to find ways to accommodate regional freight traffic, much of which is generated from the high concentration of warehouses in Auburn and Kent. WSDOT selected SR 167 as a test corridor for its first high , occupancy toll (HOT) lanes project area. As such,Kent residents will have access to the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane by paying a toll if they have fewer than 2 people in the vehicle. City of Renton Kent and Renton are joining together in a Transit Now Service Partnership agreement with King County Metro Transit to provide new 30 minute mid-day transit service on the Route 153 which travels between the Kent Transit Center and the Renton Transit Center along.Bast Valley Highway. Cities of Tukwila, Federal Way, and Covington The City partners with its other neighbors in many respects,including street system planning,transit planning,and regional trail planning. The city worked closely with the cities of SeaTac,Tukwila,Renton,and King County on the Trans Valley Study, which looked at congestion relief and east/west mobility options in the area north of 212th Street. Kent is working with the cities of Federal Way,Des Moines, Sean Fac and Tukwila;WSDOT; and KC Metro in the development of Pacific Highway South (SR 99) in several phases and the development of Bus Rapid Transit service. Strong , partnerships with neighboring cities will continue to be an important factor in successful transportation planning in the valley. TRANSPORTATION 27 KEW MASTER PLAN MMEMMEO MPian The TMP has three primary categories: Streets, Transit and Non-Motorized. The ■ Non-motorized category is further divided into distinct bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel. Improvements to these modes are identified and prioritized. This report has several chapters as follows: Chapter 1. The Planning Process Chapter 2. Trends and Conditions b '� Chapter 3. Public Outreach Chapter 4. Transportation Goals and Policies Chapter 5. Street Plan Chapter 6. Non-motorized Plan Chapter 7. Transit Plan '< Chapter 8. Managing Demand _ Chapter 9. Funding the Plan .M Chapter 10. Implementing the Plan The TMP is not a short-range plan The recommendations in the TMP will be implemented over the next 20 years. However,the City's transportation needs change over time and this TMP will be updated periodically to accommodate the shifting needs,and some projects may be deferred until appropriate funding sources become available. For this reason, and many others,it is important for everyone to keep involved with transportation planning efforts in the City. °y -. ,10-1 f, ,3 %<�✓'..;,.. n!a'w,',.✓r3,i,,'.i..ni � +';°Y%*,'Y£#.�'".33.e.d^34"z^ 9i;%;'; as^s PUBLIC COMMENT i hr nc�nig',hc Conl!ntln!ly Into the plannc,yj �f [?!UCeSS i"J,)S J h1tjll I)rK P/! VdWri y0[I AN `a I s;,e these boxes, Yo(i will Ild rx)nlmun!t" 5SueS,0-ttraach aulivid^,,and lesld;:11 �= 0�;!n!ons ab�n!I the plan 7477 , "s r:srio�rs,�;ld sttaalcs<<�a f;- �jicit,d �I oil(h„i!avel n�cdo ti)r ii�c 1 M „ '�� TRANSPORTATION 29 MASTER PLANKENT fir.. Fzo- Fftt_ �e ��` As one of the established cities in the Puget Sound region,Kent has grown from an Chapter Contents agricultural community into a major industrial center for warehouse, customer service and distribution companies Located between Seattle and Tacoma along the Geography Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor, Kent has the sixth largest concentration of jobs and ► Land Use residents in the region, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 0- Population Demographics This chapter summarizes key demographics and identifies trends that impact the Employment transportation system. Over the past three decades,both population and employment Characteristics have grown at a rapid pace,providing more balance between residential living and . Freight commercial activity. This trend has also changed commuting patterns and increased ► Trends for the Future the traffic loads on the local and arterial street network 'fine residential developments east of downtown Kent have put a substantial burden on the arterial roadway system as residents connect to regional highways (SR 167 and 1-5). The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use policies encourage development patterns of mixed use activity centers and high residential densities downtown. This supports a shift in travel modes from single occupant vehicles to transit and non-motorized travel. Kent's location in the middle of a large rapidly growing urbanized region results in two sources of growth: the increasing size and density of the City itself, and ongoing regional growth and development. 'Ihe Transportation Master Plan (TMP) reflects an analysis of past and future travel growth trends related to autos, and non-motorized and transit modes,inodes that support the residents and businesses that live and work in Kent. a�. 31 Kent is centrally located between the metropolitan areas and ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The area's regional airport,Sea-Tac International,is less than 2 miles away from Kent's northwest city limits. Several communities surround Kent--- Des Moines and Federal Way to the west, Covington to the east,Auburn to the south and Renton to the north (Figure 2-1). Kent is characterized by a valley floor rummrig north to south in the middle of the City,which rises steeply to hills both east and west of the valley floor ("East Hill"and "West Hill"). The Green River flows through the western and southern portions of Kent. The valley is characterized by flat terrain and includes some wetland areas near the Green River. One of Kent's main assets is its access to a number of transportation systems. Three regional freeways run through Kent from north-to-south: Interstate 5 (1-5), State Route 167 (SR 167), SR 181 (W Valley Highway). Five State Routes (SR) are located in or on the borders of Kent: SR 99 runs north-to-south along the City's western border, just west of I-5; SR 516 runs east-to-west through the southern portion of Kent; SR 515 runs north-to-south through the middle of the City;and SR 18 passes lust southeast of the City limits. Figure 2-1. Kent and Surrounding Cities 167) 1 -- , -` Kent 11 F t Iry �I i ✓r r � � �1 J i 187 n ij TRANSPORTATION 31 K E N T MASTER PLAN Two rail lines run north-south through the heart of the downtown and industrial areas on the valley floor. The rail lines support both freight and Sound Transit -w' (Sounder) commuter trains and Amtrak passenger rail service. Sound Transit and KC Metro provide bus service to the City and partner with Kent on a free community circulator shuttle which was pioneered by Kent in 1995. Many city streets have sidewalks and bicycle routes,but both bicycle routes and sidewalks have missing linkages in places. '1he regional Interurban'Frail runs parallel to the railroad tracks V and the popular Green River Trail follows the river through Kent. Although access to regional transportation systems and other major destinations is good,the geography does affect the perception of accessibility within the City of Kent. 41 Kent covers approximately 29 square miles and is comprised of multiple land uses, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. The City has grown by a series of annexations, t c-L- neighborhoods that were built under various King County standards of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. 'these development patterns and Kent's suburban,industrial history present challenges as the City becomes more urbanized and the transportation system needs to be upgraded to meet standards required of new developments. The majority of housing in Kent is single family(between four and eight units per acre).' Multifamily housing is primarily located in the southern,central and East Hill 'R portions of the City, near James Street, along Canyon Drive, and along both sides of Kent Kangley Road. New residential developments are also being planned for the northwest quadrant of the City. Parks and open space are located throughout the City, including the Green River Trail. Corridors of mixed-use land uses(commercial and residential) are located along 104th Avenue SE and W Meeker Street. Commercial land uses are primarily concentrated along major roadway corridors,including between SR 99 and 1-5; along East Valley Highway,Kent-Kangley Road and SE 240th Street; and off SR 167. The bulk of the industrial and manufacturing uses are located in the northern valley areas of Kent, between West Valley and East Valley Highways. fy Downtown Kent designated as an Urban Center,is located towards the south and center of the valley floor. The Kent Downtown Partnership has been active in attracting commercial redevelopment opportunities in this area. The downtown area has mixed-use development and high density housing around the downtown core, and surrounding areas. Downtown Kent has seen major investment in recent years, spurred in part by the introduction of Sounder Commuter Rail service at the Kent Transit Center. Downtown Kent is now one of the busiest stops on the Sounder line and extensive commercial development around the Kent Transit Center reflects the importance of transit in building a vital downtown. Kent residents interviewed during this plan have stressed repeatedly the desire for more frequent service on the Sounder commuter rail tine to support their transportation needs and to achieve the vision for the downtown area. 1 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report,Kent Puget Sound Regional Council http-//ww�v.psrc. or,,/pro)ects/growth/toolkit/kent him 33 C%4 U) ID D M E 0 fj LL -2 E ac In CL 0 C LU ------I Z-j F- --------- ------ 76 E 3. E C) CM CA 15 m 22 LL TRANSPORTATION 35 KENT MASTER PLAN ,. ;al t i . Kent is diverse in many ways,including its geography,land uses, residents and business community This diversity is Kent's success and it represents challenges in creating a'Transportation Plan that will serve the greatest number of people. Table 1 2-1 provides a snapshot of Kent demographics in comparison to the overall State of Washington. Population density and its distribution are used to prioritize transportation services and protects. With a population of more than 85,000 in 2006, Kent is protected to grow to approximately 94,000 by 2030. Total 2030 population is expected to approach 126,000 when Kent's surrounding annexation areas are included .Most of Kent's residents are concentrated in the east and west portions of the City The areas north of Meeker Street and along Kent-Kangley Road have the most dense populations.` The potential Kent annexation area (to the northeast of Kent)is also notably dense, particularly near the city limits. Kent is perhaps the most culturally diverse city within King County. Some of the largest cultural groups include Latino; Russian/Ukrainian/Slavic,Somali;Asian; and ludic communities. Nearly 17 percent of the residents were born outside of the United States, and English-language ability among individuals within cultural groups ranges from perfectly fluent to non-English- speaking. The language barrier can impede the ability to take full advantage of transit and other transportation way- , funding signs. Kent residents also reflect a range of educational and economic backgrounds. The 2000 Census shows that 87 percent of Kent residents over age 25 have high school degrees, and 24 percent have a bachelors degree or higher. The median age in Kent is 32 years old, Il percent of residents are 65 years or older and 26 percent are under 18 years old. Kent is home to a lower percentage of seniors than the rest of Washington,has _ - .. a.. roughly the same percentage of residents with a disability and a slightly higher percentage earning less than the poverty level. Just over 17 percent of the City of Kent's population is defined as disabled according .... = to the 2000 US Census.'- Almost 12 percent of the population live below the poverty level,making it difficult for them to afford to own and operate an automobile. While renting itself is not directly correlated to the use of transit,higher densities of affordable and multi-family housing generally increase the number of residents dependent on transit. 'the City of Kent is home to a high number of renters,with less than half of the households owning their own homes Nearly 13 percent of these renter households do not have access to an automobile. ,A! t 2 71ie U S.Census definition of a disability is Along-lasting physical,mental,or emotional r condition 'Ilus condition cat)snake it difficult for a person to do activities stich as walking,clunbing stairs,dressing,ball ung,learning,or remenibeung This condition can also unpede a person from bung able to go outside the Koine alone or to work at a Iob or business 3 TabUe3-1, Kent Demographic Profile � Geography 29 square miles 66,544 square miles Cultural Diversity* White—70 8% White—81 8% American Indian-l0% American Indian-l6% | Asian Asian / N� / � NativeHawa/mn�e�bbndo -0�& Native Islander-O�& ` | \ | Hispanic/Latino-8 1% Hispanic/Latino-7 5% | | | Two or More Races-5.4% Two or More Races-3R& � � Other Other Languages Spoken at English Only-782& English Only-R6.0% � Home Language Other than English-2l.8& Language Other than English-l40& / Spanish-G6% Spanish-58% � 0� ' Other Indo-European-74% Other Indo-European-32% | Aoon�ao c|dand-S5& A�a�Puo c|dxnd-44% . � Median Household Income / $46,046 $40.770 | (1999) | �0 '----- ' ' - ' - -- ----- - -' -- - -------------' - - --1 - Commute Travel Modes Drove Alone-73.5% Drove Alone-7]3& ( Carpooled 14.8% Carpooled-lZ8% | Public Transportation 57� Public �S� ' N� | - - � Wa|ked-lS% WN|ked-JZ% ' ~~ Worked atHome-JZ% Worked at Home-4J% | Other-0�8& Other Y / Mean Travel Time to Work 28.7mmutes Z55minutes (Population�mr70Yvarg � [_ — Persons Below Poverty llO@ 10,5% | | Luve { N� _ _'--__ __'_________-____ '_____ _____ __~�_~_'-_________-__-_�__ ' ~___-_-� ~ 1bo total`s greater than l00%because Census categories overlap one another. Source:2000D8 Coore;Kent TMp Stakeholder Involvement Report,z007 Kent has uthriving business community,ranging from small businesses tolarge company headquarters,from tea shops to warehousing and freight operations. - 'lhe downtown area is home to a variety of smaller and service businesses, such ua restaurants,banks and retail shops.Many large distributors and manufacturing companies are located beyond the downtown core,primarily in the north valley area. In the area around l 5 and Military Road, West Hill businesses include light industry, freeway-oriented retail,and restaurants, among other categories. Major Employers in Kent Major employers io the City of Kent include the Boeing Company,Kent School N� District,the City o[Kent, and RELuu shown zo Table 2'2.Although the majority nf the City of Kent's current employment is in manufacturing,the highest levels of future growth are expected in the service and retail sectors according to the City land use and N� employment forecasts. Employers with l00ormore fuU|'t/one employees are required to participate/nthe Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (C7[R) program. There are currently ~ -' � 4D �� jTRANSPORTATION 37 KENT MASTER PLAN 35 employers or work sites in the City of Kent participating in the CTR program. Together,these entities employ over 15,000 people within the City. These employers are required to survey their employees every two years and provide annual reports on their progress towards meeting the CTR goals (see Chapter 8 -Managing Demand for more information). iLarger companies report that they located in Kent because of its central location relative to the regional transportation systems, such as the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and major freeways, such as 1-5 and 1-405. '11its central location is one of the Iprime reasons that Kent has the largest concentration of distribution centers in the region, with more than 1,360 truck trips originating from Kent each day' 4 Table 2-2. Top Employers in Kent _ ,:::.:':.sue , :k'•*., - ";,r. a ,aK, r, ,a �,ia,J a°� �_,.� .-;`i-'"-` `��s:; - E,':.t i::41�.:"'`-'-.Q � -;,ri s ,ia The Boeing Company 4,342 Space research Kent School District 3,165 School district City Of Kent 780 City government King County Regional Justice Center 701 Courthouse-detention facility ------____ --_------ ------- __-. _----------- --_------------------------ --__._._______ _. R E I 689 Outdoor equipment Sysco Food Services of Seattle Inc 596 Food service distributor Mikron Industries 595 Manufactures vinyl extrusions Oberto Sausage Company 553 Speci c meat sales/manufacturer _ Alaska Distributors 500 Beverage distribution ------_ Patient Accounting Service Center 439 Process medical accounts Source City of Kent CTR Report,2007 Commuters—the Journey to Work The 2000 US Census reported the mean travel time to work for Kent resident workers ai was 29 minutes,slightly higher than the state average. ' According to the 2000 Census, about 73 percent of those working in Kent drive alone, 15 percent carpool, and 12 percent carpool with more than two people Kent's commute trip mode split (percentage of residents who drive alone,take transit, 1 bike, and walls) is comparable to the State of Washington and neighboring cities, like Auburn and Federal Way. The City of Kent had a slightly higher percentage of residents who carpool and take transit than the state average, but fewer people who _ walk to work. This may be due in part to disconnected pattern of sidewalks and bicycle facilities. A transit telephone survey conducted for the TMP provides a more detailed description of commute patterns for Kent residents. (See Chapter 7-the _ Transit System). Table 2-3 shows the comparison of mode split between Kent and = neighboring cities as well as the state average. 3 The Washington Transportation Plan,Freight Systems presentation by Barbara Ivanov,2005 .�� .��. °: : . 31 Table 2-3. Comparison of Mode Split VA "W Roo"'NMI 11"'i'iII;1'1'11""POt","', �7 P "V iu��'J R,; 'ft;m % % % % DFOVC alone 2,040,833 73% 13,800 73% 30,445 1 74% 29,113 1 73% ` Carpooled 357,742 13% 2,873 15% 6,351 15% 5,883 15% Public transportation 136,278 5% 938 5% 2,422 6% 2,251 6% Bicycle 16,205 1% 95 1% 72 <1% 92 <1% - ----------- —--------- J Walked 89,739 3% 566-- 3% 524 1% 763 2 19,499 1% 101 1% 216 1% 200 1%I Other means Worked at home 120,830 4% 543 3% 1,190 3% 1,286 1 3%_ __ —------------- LTotat 2,785,479 100% 18,922 100% 41,259 , 100% 39,629 100% Source:2000 US Census Commuters can be characterized as follows: * Local commuters: Figure 2- 3. Commute Trip Patterns for Kent Residents Commuters who live and work in Kent. * Regional Commuters: Rednioiwl Commuters who live in Kent but work in other cities or towns. Bellevue Through-trip Commuters: Seattle 5% Commuters who neither live nor work in Kent, but 25% Bellevue pass through on their way to - Samiiiamish work. As shown in Figure 2-3,over Seattle 70 percent of Kent commuters travel outside of Kent each day, TUkWila challenging the road network Renton and all transportation modes to 6% 8% meet the peak demand.About a ukwil, fourth commute to Seattle with the rest dispersed throughout the SeaTac Kent south Sound and the Eastside. Most commuters use their own 27% vehicles,but 34 percent used the bus and 9 percent used the Kent N Sounder commuter traiDS . SeaTac 3% Tu k� 6 0 Se, Kent 7 0 Kent Tacoma 2% ALir el lbun y Auburn ---PeU — a/y 5% 406ma TRANSPORTATION 39 KENT MASTER PLAN The Washington State Department of Transportation (the WSD01') estimates that ft �1 over$160 million in goods are moved to and from the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma daily,making Washington the most trade-dependent state in the nation. Kent's location in the Green River Valley is midway between the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The City serves as a distribution point for both seaports as well as air cargo moving through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Kents 40 million square feet of warehousehridustrial space makes it the second largest freight transportation i center on the west coast, second only to the Los Angeles/Long Beach freight corridor Figure 2-4 compares the number of distribution centers in Kent to the rest of the Puget Sound. The City partners with regional agencies and the State to build and maintain freight routes through the Green River Valley and to the ports to promote international trade and maintain manufacturing and distribution)obs A telephone survey was conducted on March 2006 for the TMP. Specific commuter issues voiced were commonly focused on regional transportation systems. ► 11ne congestion on SR 167, 1-405 and 1-5 greatly impacts commuters coming into and out of Kent. ► Transit was a frequent issue of concern for commuters. o- The inflexibility and limited connections between the Sounder train and buses is unsatisfactory for many P- Larger businesses who would like to attract broad-base of workers to their location are concerned about the frequency and ease of transit use. A 0_= Source. Washington State University,Strategic Freight Transportation Analyses,2004 41 Figure 2- 4. Distribution Centers in Puget Sound Region Another input for determining freight needs is identifying where future warehouses are located. In a 2006 study,the WSDOT identified where future warehouse and industrial space would be built. The Ivey finding from the data was that there is a significant shift towards the markets south of Seattle. More than 91 percent of all new warehouse space under construction is in the south Sound or Tacoma areas. '[he conclusions of the report emphasized that the infrastructure that feeds these southern regions needs to be a high priority. `` The safe and efficient movement of freight is of premier importance to the City of A Kent. 'Ihe majority of)obs in the City are tied to the movement of freight in some manner, and this dependence on the smooth flow of goods is expected to increase in the future as Pacific Rim nations become more technologically developed and international trade booms. In addition, more than ever,firms rely on just-m-time inventories of parts and supplies, not to mention perishable goods. In this sector, �,;.,- -..: �,- time is money. If trucks cannot reach their delivery points or intermodal transfer points in the required time,the firm has -li rit si g,r a _ as ri; 1p no alternative but to divide the delivery stops between two or rowohmore trucks,thus exacerbating the congestion problems, �.�; increasing operating costs to firms,and ultimatelyraisin consumption costs everyone. g t to t Truck and rail freight movement often come to conflict points within the City of Kent. Since both systems are of vital importance to international commerce, the City has identified railroad grade-separation projects as high priority to improve the safety for rail, truck,and vehicle traffic. A'Alh at Dloerz the Oded The future promises growth in population and employment for the City. A glimpse of the future follows,to set the context for the TMP. Kent has developed rapidly over the last 15 years.Ile population has more than doubled from around 40,000 in 1990 to over 85,000 in 2006 through both household +r growth and the expansion of the city limits. If the City's potential annexation areas are included,the population in 2006 was closer to 109,000. Employment has also grown to over 57,000 jobs'in Kent in 2006. Table 2-4 shows the forecast growth in households,population and employment between 2005 and 2030. Population Growth By 2030,the population within the City and surrounding annexation areas is expected to increase by another 16 percent,to about 126,000 residents. However,populations in communities surrounding Kent are expected to increase at higher rates as shown in 4 Wilbur Smith Associates,Heffron Transporation,NohBell Group;RNO Group,`Freight Efficiency&Competitiveness Phase I,Final Report",WSDOT June 2006. 5 The employment forecasts were provided by the PSRC "Ihe 57,000 jobs(City plus annexation area)is lower than recent City estimates of between 67,000 and 71,000 jobs 1 TRANSPORTATION 41 <KEN T MASTER PLAN Figure 2-5. Table 2-4. Kent Travel Model Growth Forecast (2006-2030) AIPW '" - r, "_a = '= ' 4.+ VIP Ap r_ e '% <.-s, 3�"J'i="at"15�Kent and Annexation Area Households 43,100 49,900 6,800 1 16% Population' 109,000 126,000 17,000 16% Employment 57,300 82,300 24,100 44% Source City of Kent Ti avel Demand Model(2006),PSRC Data *Population assumes 2.53 persons per household (2000 US Census) _ Figure 2- 5. Population Growth 2006 to 2030 � t 5 City of Kent - --- PAA Household Growth —' Low Medium High Employment Growth Employment in Kent and the potential annexation area is forecast to increase by around 44 percent reaching over 82,000 Jobs by 2030. As shown in Figure 2-6,about a quarter of the south end's employment growth will occur within the Kent urban growth boundaries. Impacts of Growth on Transportation Needs Growth in population and employment within Kent will continue to create needs for travel by all modes. The diverse travel patterns of Kent residents and employees will 1 tax both the local and regional transportation system. The growth in new residents and)obs outside of Kent is also likely to result in more traffic passing through the City's roadway system. 41 Figure 2-6. Employment Growth Areas 2006 to 2030 r.. 'j - -- City of Kent or°'PAA m z -` - - Employment Growth LG'vv Medium . _ ......' Hioh �,-- u trnn a r y The City of Kent with the sixth largest concentration of jobs and residents in the region has grown over the past 20 years to nearly 109,000 residents (including the potential annexation area) and has become the home to some of the state's most well known businesses,including the Boeing Company, REI, Oberto Sausage Company, and the Starbucks Roasting Plant. 71he large warehouses are managed by companies not known by name,but well-known in the National Freight Industry.With 40 million square feet of space,Kent is second only to the Los Angeles/Long Beach freight corridor on the west coast. The cultural diversity of the residents,the old timers and the newest immigrants make Kent an interesting place to call home. The Transportation Master Plan described in the following chapters will be a guide for the City leaders as Kent grows over the next 20 years. L i l 1 t TRANSPORTATION 43 K�NT MASTER PLAN Pfl��. Ea y - t s ' .2 c - ._... ,w Gam .� ,. _ •- L AN 4 v LIM i P t `,`}� 4 �� x g�1Wf.2 ,mwme ,• y f 114 haw Chapter Contents r Purpose and Ob)ectives of the Public Outreach Program An important goal of the Kent City Council is to include all residents and businesses ► Outreach Activities who are impacted by the City's transportation system in the planning process. The ►- Stakeholder Interviews City's public outreach program for the Transportation Master Plan was designed to - Citizen Task Force accomplish this goal. . Open Houses Newsletters ■ Pro)ect Website �.. Transit Telephone Survey City Council The City designed the public outreach program to promote the Transportation Master Meetings Plan and provide meaningful forums for stakeholders to talk and work with the City . Email Updates and other stakeholders. The City developed the TMP Public Involvement Plan in - Public Comments partnership with the stakeholders — businesses, residents, seniors,and the schools _ — who depend on and make heavy use of the transportation system. To be successful, the public involvement program required not only that stakeholders understand the planning process and provide input on transportation priorities but also that they feel that their input was meaningful and included in developing the recommendations for the final plan. This ensures the stakeholders have a vested interest in the implementation of the TMP. ppal D 0v' [1'11 2�,,' 41 17ie public involvement program included the following objectives. Inform stakeholders about the planning process and use their input to develop the TMP ,,r ,_ F ,°F� �;,, „ • Discuss with stakeholders the transportation system in Kent, what needs to be improved, and what is required to make those improvements Gather community perspectives on transportation issues • Understand community values Encourage two-way communication during the planning process Engage and be responsive to community groups that have not previously • been involved in City government decision-making processes 4 * Provide a variety of ongoing opportunities for input 1 To achieve these objectives, a variety of outreach activities were implemented to build early awareness of the protect while gathering and categorizing the public's values and interests. 'the City incorporated stakeholder issues and priorities into the planning process. By incorporating public input into the TMP,the plan has been developed with public endorsement. the remainder of this chapter describes these outreach activities and their results. The City has made it a priority to understand the community's needs and issues, and Group Interviews to use these insights to guide future transportation decisions.The TMP outreach Doier q Advisory Board program was designed to reach out to as many people in the Kent community as w Sonicr citizens/citizens w0l Possible. TMP staff,in consultation with City leaders,focused on the most effective disabilities public involvement tools- tools that would reach the most people and offer maximum opportunities for community input. Success of these tools was Sma;I husiness oUwnel", demonstrated by participation at public meetings,validation during interviews, 1_ar,le l)usiness owners and responses to comment opportunities,and increase of visits to the TMP web site after operators other public involvement contacts. Dovi'rtown l)usinOss assaci�+tions(Kent the application of these tools and their results are described throughout the chapters Ditv,,rilr�.wiT PaitnrrsNl)) in this report in green colored boxes. The key components of each outreach activity ! 1111 11c caniniunides are summarized in the remainder of this chapter. (Slavichj<airian Somali, Latino.Asian) t t eight providers aryl City Council members helped identify key stakeholders—individuals and groups— truckers that represented a diverse range of users of the transportation system in Kent. The • Indiistririlfinanufacturinri City interviewed individuals and organized focus group sessions to talk with these nianaye,rs stakeholders about their transportation issues and needs and to identify the types of I)evelopers and huildots solutions they would perceive as most effective. ,i��laster Builders Individual interviews were held with people recognized as leaders in the community Association) --- church leaders, chairs of volunteer associations, and City Council members, as well as with people who could not easily convene in a group setting. Focus group meetings involved small groups of individuals with similar interests or situations, such as trucking associations,builders and developers,cultural/ethnic groups,and school district transportation staff.Meetings with both individuals and focus groups helped identify individuals for the Citizen Task Force. City staff participated in focus group sessions, responding directly to the concerns of the group. = TRANSPORTATION KENT MASTER PLAN In all,interviews were conducted with nearly 40 individuals and focus groups in March and April 2006, and follow-up focus group interviews were held in September, Individual Interview; October, and November 2007. '1-he groups and individuals who were interviewed as a part of the public involvement process are shown on this page. ;i- Stakeholder interviews consistently revealed that commuters want improved internal and regional connectivity; hours of congestion are expanding to all day, but north- Lfl_<i'1 s c south roadways are perceived as slightly less congested than east-west roads;the TI t:S°' backups caused by trains are a major concern; better transit service is a key issue for everyone and there are language barriers regarding transit information;people are concerned about safe street crossings near transit and trail locations; better parking :-Iml,ne.3, ,f arrs'� downtown is wanted;businesses use Kent transportation system 24 hours a day; and businesses and shipping companies are concerned about the effect of traffic on r ,;JM; U tEl[)t,ci"c.;crt transporting goods. Also,neighborhood groups are concerned about traffic in their communities,especially as it relates to safety. Table 3-1 provides a summary of repeated themes brought up by stakeholders through these interviews,with the most ' frequently mentioned concerns denoted by a checkinark. [USfri"Ss ar;rl BIcyd sfs s Ltd no) ifi� it: r<i S�)C�f�ltl�lC1 sialf R �{i,11U1!h'G(it`1�F�lUI�E�i�;tlt • Veil rl�urli'rs � GthC.s �7t;C1'Clf'S „ E 0' 41 Table 3-1. Most Frequently Mentioned Issues from Community . �M W"'Z90 , Transit �� a �r�° �,•;; "� Conestion .e� ...,. . .a�� EasC-West roadways Access ,- r z,�;� �.. - - �✓ ; Frequency(bus) ___ __ _ - North-South roadways I,Frequency(Sounder) 104[h Avenue � In-City Service 116th Avenue ' ----�� `""� ? �' Lack of routes 124th Avenue Language-translation 132nd Avenue 11 Regional service � SR 167 _ r - Sa[etylSecurity 208th Street ___ r Stops(bus) 212th Street r Pedestrian 238th Street Access 240th Street i �i Safety t 256th Street s I � Crossings _ 277th Street Bicycle SR 516 .__ �Benson Highway Access --- i Safety Central AvenuelE Valley Hwy James Street ! Maintenance CleaninglMowing______ ? et Kangley Road _____h-�----- _-__.-___�°,-.— -__ _-K___n__ i+ 4° Lighting Meeker Street Military Road RoadworklConstruction _ . ___.-._- L____w ._____._____.___.-..-_-._ -; Other Issues ordlia Road — ---- Freight traf c-need to ac- Smith Street _commodate __ __ --- ;----- _ _E P _._ - m_ _- _ -_____-- _. _..-__._.-__—_Parking _� W Valle Highway — Valley SafetylSecunty Willis Street t Signage Railroad Tracks(backups) -------- I Downtown Kent(general) arm ,a 't3lS; t;'. s xUs' 7, €f', .,F4R - ,'',a „`I.'-1'SC3da Is TRANSPORTATION 47 '� MASTER PLAN KENT ("Rizen Task Fore. . . The City convened a Citizen's Task Force to work with as the TMP was developed. Members provided input and feedback that helped the City prioritize protects that are recommended in the TMI? Task Force members also served as liaisons to the rest „ of the community. As the members gained more knowledge about how the City's ;,- if transportation system worked and better understood the community values —they =rr„ also learned what it would take to accomplish these goals and became uniquely qualified to take this information back to their communities. Task Force members were recommended by City Council members and the Mayor, based on comments received during community interviews.Members represented a h very broad cross section of transportation system users in Kent,including neighborhood groups,parents,builders, freight interests,businesses,seniors, cultural TMP Task forces�,iembers community groups,transit users, and others. Re�rl�n s a.nizr� The City set several goals for the'Task Force: Identify transportation issues Kept SCli(,,d Jr iriCt- � � �p,_ [3 • Build a collective vision ranslrort:_tiE�ft� Identify success goals and criteria Kent Sdioci O;s,tio -Pi • Develop solutions that reflect community values Senu�r fa'Z Ila/,;t�7ci s r^dlh • Serve as liaisons to the community li�,�ahilin�� • Understand funding opportunities and limits Kent [1ayal 'V1v,,ory 3oar�l • Prioritize community needs Slit�iil bu°,ii ri;~s • Endorse a plan that meets community needs (tri i The Task Force met seven tunes over the course of a year. The topics and results of i OQC'rili"t7 these seven meetings are summarized below Meeting#1 (April 11,2006). The purpose of the first Task Force meeting was for members to understand the role of the Task Force and identify transportation issues i vl[ainar, Soinl:i, ! rhiio, facing the City. The Task Force began its work by exploring the values, goals, and policies to be used as guiding principles and markers of the success of the TMP. The l mijit trxkers Task Force confirmed the values identified during the community interviews. 14: 5'ua"o I[ Breaking into small groups that mixed people with varying interests was a method In(l�tstral,'m<lntal_tcEitrtntl used frequently to get task force members to think in different ways and look at things rnan`art `, from other points of view The groups clarified the transportation issues identified Of ce""'V rt c's by the community,including vehicular congestion areas, key destinations, and areas i ran,Ft:1 ran rnm3nulors needing transit,bike, and pedestrian improvements. 'Ihe results of the issues exercisetU, lo ,.�a are shown on Figure 3-1. I I' I 011 A 41 Figure 3-1.Issues Map Developed at Task Force Meeting 1 2 to soutncenter 1} Rentonl s shoPP^9 i Bellevue ` Mao Congested Roads i [ tKe^_ 1 City Limits WAS € to A*vvauay g I Parks Seattle Meawal oreat wan Water ' ` - Shopp.nS Mau t Railroad S QF, 5e Freeway Access Points 167 Congestion Hot Spots I, P Pedestrian Issues se 99 ' S Oath S 212th `" School g Transportation Master Plan Task Force Input Key Destination ` aAdditional Enhancements Needed 3 Kont a a Vehicular Congestion — _ o Pedestrian Route James -m-ri-- Bicycle Route _ spurs. .,�I) t �1',�'S h Transit Meeker wr t Q. I SR 516 _ y f Ch SE 256th c[ � � ❑ f_ IU � ��9/ey � � S 277th to 8 r I Covington " o Federal to Auburn m� Meeting#2 (May 10,2006). At the second meeting,the Task Force discussed and evaluated the existing transportation issues shown in Figure 3-1 and developed a vision of potential solutions. The Task Force looked at several critical pieces of the transportation system and identified factors that would indicate successful improvement of each of these elements. The list was used to select and weigh the criteria for prioritizing TMP projects. Meeting#3 (June 14, 2006).At the third Task Force meeting,the group reviewed the existing transit and pedestrian elements of the City's transportation system.This information was used to develop priorities for use in the TMP. 'lhe Task Force selected the top five transit issues,which include more local service to residential neighborhoods, connections between industrial areas and Kent Transit Center,new midday and peak hour service on commuter rail, and pedestrian improvements to transit. The Task Force also identified the types of destinations where it was most important for there to be safe and effective pedestrian access. 'lhe top 3 were,in order,schools, transit,and lower-income housing. These priorities were used by TMP staff to weight transit and pedestrian projects for the final Plan. Meeting#4(August 9,2006).At the fourth meeting,task force members reviewed the findings from the existing conditions analysis for streets and bicycles. Members examined the trade-offs that need to be made between reducing congestion or maximizing non-motorized facilities. Meeting#5 (September 13,2006).At this meeting members discussed what they had learned about the transportation system in Kent and how to address priorities. Members met in small groups to clarify issues and TRANSPORTATION 49 MASTER PLAN KE N T concerns for all modes. Ihis allowed discussion about the issues to be best addressed by the setting of TMP project priorities. Meeting#6 (October 25, 2006). At the sixth Task force meeting, City staff presented an overview of the preliminary recommendations for all modes—streets,transit, and non-motorized(pedestrian and bicycle)—and tool:comments from'Task Force members,either responding to them at the meeting or at a later date if the solution had not been considered. Meeting#7 (May 2,2007).At the last meeting, members ieceived an overview of the final draft set of recommendations for all the modes Different funding options were presented for discussion. s 1 The City held two open houses and a neighborhood meeting in0en House Dates are the fall of 2007 to p explain the TMP plan and offer an opportunity for public feedback. Kent residents Locations In 2007 took advantage of these opportunities, and turnout was very good �rle� � �r�'C,`rFi;?tct l;t'i Members of the City's Public Works Transportation Section staffed the open houses "'`'' � and the neighborhood councils meeting. At each event,stations were set up to ni present information on the existing and future conditions for each mode.The open "� `r�rn 1 tt�; :Q `, houses explained the current conditions, showed the growth that is expected by Kent :1,;;1t0r 2030, and the impacts on the transportation system For example,stations offered I ht,, Newl {L,,xcils information about plans for new sidewalks;streets;transit;bicycle facilities; and level of service. During the development of the TMP,the City identified several r-h-c 2 fmm /tfi irrr protects that are needed to accommodate growth;these were included in the Open Ci �ov.n�il vlzr�7E�ersr Houses as part of a station featuring the Transportation Improvement Program The September 26th neighborhood meeting began with a short presentation about the TMP planning process and had a question and answer session before the meeting moved to an open forum where people visited the display stations and asked individual questions of staff. y At the open houses residents had the chance not only to share their ideas and concerns but also to engage in discussion about those concerns with the staff directly involved in developing and implementing solutions to address those concerns These concerns are noted on the web site and the comments have been used in the finalization of the TMI? ' r Ilk ` {a 51 'the newsletters provided project updates to the broadest possible cross-section of Kent residents. The City mailed two newsletters to every household in the City. Figure 3-2.TMP Newsletter 'the first,mailed at the beginning of A Plan in the Making. The Pieces the planning process, in spring 2006, The Five Steps to prioritizing Out Transportation improvements the Puzzle provided information about the project, —,,,, d�,,, x�, ' „ °n ,,,"Ga^t' such as reasons for the TMP and 1+„up u(b, I�,1•eiaur,�le,o.rve�o-]Aa ,.�rmn ti*e,r,>rkc%�then,ia�u� <. , .� h , ,, rq<�„�,u,,, information about the issues that had n.,.W,d s waat�mp<�amesnoviawe been gathered through traffic surveys, < e i(Ihnohmgu n,v,I,d,es nnproa.It, Stop 4� �°� ^ �'°"°"'^�''�'"'�"' group and individual interviews,and Steps 1 and 2 flow Are We Da,ng did What is Important +q=�^,(h�ir�ir(no.,n,,,�•c,,h,rs,r��`v the transit survey(Figure 3-2). It also 16c lie.,mop�t t[n (�fY vri.za.,r�.i,i I�J»,R'd,lmpnrc✓.In nn.+uul.n.dun,.v,_ �,,,�,n.a„e�(�.:u •,,� ,,.� F, �- v.y,�. b,,�,�,,��5 t,,, directed residents to future involvement d,a,h„kii dim*,Anse- ,,J„H4 onp—0, r•a➢vrulu,t5.�snWr.,rvx,+Ah,+n,mu,ei'1 Ueewai_ntya.�v.,tu,x,l�.,deyxn•i iaat,d „�h,;. .<F�,.,,.. .,.r<(,,,.,,,�e.��„ <<„�.,.� .e.<",,,�.�r�.•(�,urc(,,.:,,,.. n�,•��,-„na,,.�;,�.,r.,; opportunities and encouraged feedback. .,ea„i.uh.i6,d r.,LnYselxn„sen lvwl M'r 1,4t8mr51,„h,,,.rnr,,u,f <� , steps F�na�xetiePtsn! The mailing of the first newsletter ( 'P VIA dh`',Vf o'd add w,V,ie P. irre JI.H i k.P.a 1-1,•'., „ W(A(t ,Jl,we pr,odru<J,h,e r��,ra o�sg tn7Ft da+::Y,rz„a.I9p,,,,J,ds+ ' (M1O,n< „"„ "��.,, ,,,,��,.,,, � coincided with an increase in web traffic, ��n� (�. •,�,,,,,,�,,,�„<,(,,:,� ��.,.. „�,�„�,.n.,n„e a,r,a,n�,:,,�,v(.�,t,,, ,., e-mail feedback, and telephone feedback. r,d,irwu,.hug�n..ealuut„«,,,,,,t,u icaue tlr II,d. A0 w IJ aura a.eroed -irar,na Ft<i,m•¢d r,e n mttn�nJn,nn. rnua*�,e,rxarrn�irrrapnnl ia„�n,nnnn•ni. tr�i:p, , .,„�,,,.,,„,<,�.K,��w„ ��F11-1,1, „ 'to reach a larger portion of Kents minority .�i il,v r,„«lases mn,,a wk,rhn r,n✓. im,x,,,d,a.ih. i,ae p�n,rlEm<a„1•�+r, 2ur,nupa u Nh�t,t ,+4,, communities,the newsletter was translated J.aO vwes lu..z(„=aa._ v,tc tn rr Next Steps I,, ,X O step 9,What Improvements shauldlNe �.„,a„u(,�,U,,,„,,.,,,�,,,�, �,., <„ into Spanish and Russian.Both translated Cnnstder7 ft ,ga, ttm°�'aart,rlr,w I� .,.;ily-.b 7vai.apzm xx ere ke�bC r ix 1x r..,w,IuJ+. aav tka'PiwdF",Nr,�ju-'d=.n•t ttu•, ,t,e,K,,,,,•,#„��,�,.. ,,.��.,,r..,,��. versions were made available on the TMP 6.,,ais,runaprnnu,n ia,bbr.nu.h.a.na,ls w,ll hnlp,.(be plm l�rx+�raKa ma d,Anne Gatna skxerrtr.nr,ri nt^r,nn7�, "Fa 1a�µ..a,„„,,..,�F ,,ate ,... ,fiti„r.,. , M rN, tx web site. „w,+no �.nrr V.rw i�ra•i,<,.t,,a,r T<r,Fes""ry4tlx a,lar+•.yu,u ,rr lnu'rr,d ESfCOd ofWsEttfr,_,.Y,lr.aa,, mailed In nan�mwW, ra,a PMr.A .w^fle,(nsM.,u,f5.,,•1a`u(+, 1i•, the summer of 2007, described the ,aat p�esePepN jxragh t+m,n h+.,L w.,4 , .� �� `"" a,( .�,r�, �� ;'. „ recommendations developed for the ants«m e�M �� ni{hfe�irai,NcS.na,!,r ,,.m• draft TMP in all modes and encouraged the Kent community to attend the open � . r,(�rpwr„��.,,•,,,(,.,.r,"ai Y P c„x pas. �n,.raMi amine Find fiae.,nedev Hrcj+�urt houses and provide comments. Because it cumxaoi rr.�.. p,mr a�a� 'Yh.xrapa,unr„r,,•. .r a,+,,. dnef urzrgEjr�dt,{,l«tine"` was timed to coincide with the two open .'it ter.,.,.� F rcxnr•��1 {tieF.,a,,,,,w.,xm,�r`�°�+7Fr..nP.,,. ,,.rr�r�....�—��.'' kit rarfsra.e,toa 11,4 ro, i'dt,n I� (ie�rs rM Y'�onl q7 C'r xnn:.ai,d.�i[, ,,,.,,( �i ,„N«,.,,.;,,� �,,,�ra,�t�,a�.,r�(�M„r�,,,,;;�<��,� � _�• � '" houses,attendance at both events was very � � ' 1•an..(x snit,n sear, good. In addition, a postage-paid comment card was inserted into the newsletter,and the information sent back was used to help make final project prioritization decisions. As of October 2007,nearly 400 comment cards were returned. The website was structured to match the organization of the TMP. It includes pages for streets,transit/pedestrian/ bicycle,funding resources, and community involvement. The purpose of the TMP web site was not to serve as an independent,primary source of information. Instead,the fact that it had no space limitation and that it could be updated regularly made it an ideal support tool for all the other outreach activities. For example,when a statistical phone survey of Kent residents was conducted to gather transit use information,the web site offered a follow-up survey that provided valuable information supporting transit priorities,despite the fact that the web survey was not statistically significant. When newsletters were mailed to residents,the web site provided verbatun copies of newsletter text and provided additional information that was referenced in the newsletter. For example, all street project recommendations could be shown on the web site, and visual representations of all three types of the City's bicycle facilities could be presented,whereas the newsletter provided information only about selected projects and brief descriptions of bike facilities. TRANSPORTATION Jr 1 �- MASTER PLAN TRANSPIDRTATIIMASTERIPLAWl # 1YVRp Provide your comment � ¢o1 feedbz6 is.Ralto the s,c-ess attne TMl �Itcr re.;a..ino t4=�[ree�s _6 aid T-a 1 Pedestnar_E,c,de Hodge ragas v-11ha seb site,please take a - - ,�r,m-utes tr_use the aut-,mated Dolma F=ettaeK cpVoihnnt,balm i y Plat<'[he tliree t,Pes�1f pi e7erts dessnbe�l m isn Judeh in the TiTinsp�rtat ^iasser n in"der of vnportar—to— ,wh 1 being most important 3—3 being _ least important St _t 14rn Ftatonzed n=d,,hian and C,Jingo TI 3n5.t Ming oot_nbal p nte,t_are Ils_eJ�r Ch_TMP.,eb pace-and in the� n-,s(,:to Using the names of the pi Diem=as tha.appear 1 sr the thi ea p',7ects foi earh nude of ocst im.eitantto Streets non-Motorized Trans%t 1 " �tl i The web site also supported Open House events, not only by providing information .... a�. about upcoming events,but also by being used to post responses to frequently asked questions,providing a degree of connection to and interactivity with residents not otherwise easily available. The web site also served as a funnel to bring feedback to TMP staff. It provided relevant phone numbers, click-access to e-mail addresses, and online feedback opportunities. Upon completion of the TMP,the web site will provide permanent and open access to an online version of the TMP, similar to the access provided for the City's 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program document. In March 2006 a telephone survey of Kent residents was conducted to gather information regarding use of and opinions about transit service. The survey provided a statistically valid sampling,meaning that enough people were surveyed to provide a reasonable approximation of the sentiments of the entire Kent community. The survey included several questions regarding usage,routes, frequency, location of bus stops, 1 length of trips, and safety. A research firm conducted the surveys over the phone with 401 randomly selected Kent households. The data were used to identify transit issues and determine effective improvements in transit service. Chapter 7 reports on these findings in detail Transit Survey Results • 65 percent of Kent residents commute outside Kent (34 percent to Seattle; 14 percent to Bellevue) • 34 percent of Kent residents had used a bus in the past year • 9 percent of residents had used the Sounder commuter tram in the past year • 12 percent of Kent residents would like to use the bus,but there are no bus stops near their homes or desired destinations • 57 percent of Kent residents would be more likely to ride the bus or train if service was offered every 15 minutes 51 "he d bii{^,r V , , `',O5 miltee and City '1he TMP was a standing agenda item for the second Public Works Committee meeting every other month. Each update included the TMP progress since the previous meeting and an overview of upcoming tasks. These updates kept the Council informed,maintained their engagement, and made sure that the City's elected leaders knew the TMP was on track. In turn, at the City Council meetings,the Public Works Committee delivered a committee report to the full council,including noteworthy E developments in the TMP TMP team members appeared on several occasions before the City Council to directly present TMP updates and respond to questions from the council members. These Council meetings provided an opportunity for the TMP team to explain the planning process and keep City leaders up to date about development of the recommendations that would appear in the final plan.They also provided an avenue to incorporate feedback from Council members and their constituents into the Plan as it was being developed. TMP star also met with the Mayor to discuss the Plan. Table 3-2 provides a summary of these meetings with the City Council,Public Works Committee,and Mayor and their topics. Table 3-2.Presentations to City Council, Public Works Committee,and Mayor " '� '- t :,�f%',�,Ey `� :.mod' ,All `�'" is Ah wN n, June 20,2006 Council Workshop Concurrency and Performance Standards July 5,2006 Council Workshop Transit and Non-Motorized July 10,2006 Public Works Committee Public Involvement Report August 21,2006 Public Works Committee Streets Analysis and LOS Standards September 5,2006 Council Workshop Transportation Funding Options l February 9,2007 Mayor's Of ce Min"I`- Brief Mayor and Executive Staff on TMP Funding Options February 27,2007 Council Workshop TMP Funding Options,Streets m. ' April 19,2007 Mayor's Of ce Brief Mayor and Executive Staff on TMP Project Priorities and Funding Options June 18,2007 Public Works Committee CTR Plan I Demand Management December 3,2007 Public Works Committee Transportation Impact Fees 1 January 7,2008 Public Works Committee Draft TMP j E-mail ..ndl-E'l lI ma-don 'the City used email to quickly disseminate information to a group of people that had indicated specific interests in the transportation system. A special e-mail address(trap@ci.kent.wa.us)was set up and everyone who used it was added to the distribution list. The distribution list also included members of the Citizens Task Force, people who gave their e-mail address at public meetings, and anyone who left their e-mail address on the traffic hotline.As more people expressed an interest in TRANSPORTATION 53 * T MASTER PLAN KEN Kent's transportation system their names were added to the list, expanding the reach of City public outreach. E-mail updates were also used to notify recipients of new information available on the web site,public meeting opportunities,new information about TMP development, and any other opportunities to participate in the public process. E-mail distribution was a key tool used to generate interest i1 the second TMP open house,which was not advertised in the newsletter. E The public involvement program offered several avenues for public input, including direct discussion at the project task force and community meetings, open house comment cards,reader-reply cards in the second newsletter, web site comment opportunities, a transportation hotline, and a'I'MP e-mail address.As a result of these opportunities,the TMP planners received additional evidence to support the recommendations of the plan In some cases,issues that might otherwise have remained hidden were identified as a result of these opportunities. The community comments received and how they were used to change the final TMP are detailed in the implementation chapter (Chapter 10). o - 'i�� ;;.+A'�' '"" � ;,;�^," — : �,'✓',;, '.°' -�, '`t`N:; i'."rr ;o::'s,:o %��Jfr, -_I +?a;::� j 4'^: �'':r'a`F;s �� €;'i a- Iff ■ n- i n. s , 1 r r.. U[.= E Ss +,..- _ _ £. ,. .. _.s� a._ s :W, J _ ,el ,..t Et, ilt' �.�latbj" , TRANSPORTATION u 55 KENT MASTER PLAN •= 'il\I ".r £•3 r o . ati :'•' �'.`,'�r�,.,sus � `� �y� >i �,�, a� .,, ��`�s��.��, e«":;`v=s;r, A, ',� _ `i R» ,• ;gy p° n.Er3 "t' :�. -s E ;'.E�€,`i'. '., _> ''s�" •' � . E _ `riE".� - a "• E€€[[I°; >��` - '3 .. a • p y'° aF ['d�i. ' i The TMP will guide the development and funding of a transportation network that Chapter Contents will provide mobility for residents and employees within the City of Kent in a way that preserves the quality of life. The TMP establishes policies on how to prioritize > Community Values the City's transportation improvements and how to identify the City's strategic > Transportation Policies interests in regional investments, adjacent transportation facilities and funding alternatives. The residents of Kent value specific attributes of our community,whether it is the 1 economic vitality of the downtown area,the ease of mobility and safe streets,the quality of the schools, or the system of parks. These values are important; as they help the City Council and staff make decisions and manage the City. These values are integrated into the policies that guide the City and the evaluation criteria that are - used to prioritize transportation improvement projects. The City's review of goals and policies began with the TMP Task Force The group developed statements that best described the future transportation system they envisioned for Kent. Community members also confirmed the core values Identified by the community interviews. These core values became the foundation > " for evaluating the proposed multi-modal transportation improvements. ' The previous transportation related principles,goals and policies were reviewed and -- revised using input from the community and stakeholder interviews,the task force, J and City Council members. 51 WAS,"g>', 14 €` R€ {. r .. .,`a°s'. al°:f 1.a `"` 4 a't'v ,`.dil ;. ,a- `- s c, 1 ?a 1's (-,'e,r!:; `..� 'scI2Cros '`;.c, s3 , �'tLr"' ,i;a; �s_.. :4 `to4 ��tf �vie all E A€:, ;2j kY- 1nco-.�.�Z.cmi,a�:.as,°t, 4f>.'.�3:` ;1-io' Err crgenc iai` w,:kz_ a'cos ( risc dastri a➢ s;"oc:`dlv if S-Ii ects; Ikirl to il's u2Pprove&,'`rt1, ""VC, "s gt h ,on I I, €'„i311i111umt';i,>s 3 S.'.OE.fld SLR 'port needs .'sa? ood Ori ted-- d'�a'53,� � ffr,; E 11. i Tss.,: Efficient t ,s � � di 3� L.;,''i,l:'L=;1 ? ,o��;` o,it3u kt31 Provi " 'l-Vi I Itobilily I , =US) <.,.. _ alid provide adr-w load zone,nc ar E:..:tr f( ,.ft,,,rl€ cli-,i..Ar$l.s mn tra-h up by krucks r, early Pri or,tv - w T%'s'. ."o;`b, 'i:,. ,.s ,dk� ii T.ItLies, f3y"k, ii? ri r -yl- a'a '>,t "r'E r, i= Force - c 7 - .h�., 11 y;tx"a " °I `: +� 3� [ 1, .�: rCt rJll€. 1 �i_ cnr t " S�.mdord, or i?,-Ai',E €--ix, is wort, upholds ti?i' hC: P'.. . ,ow?' �. Goah s'€r -w"' '111 is dircckd m;i, Au-'! �'ic3 f r!",- l-D', Piic `, 2I' iP -f •fFl: at�i;sl `�lrl i'sl3#> f11i`t a`�i .�C , . 1 3 f11 %ll Aim TRANSPORTATION 57 * MASTER PLAN ! b �a' '� KE N T The policies were revised to align with community values and maintain consistency with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Then the goals and policies were caretu ly reviewed by City internal staff and the City Council. Using the City's overall transportation goal as a base, several specific transportation system goals and policies were established. These goals and policies, described in the remainder of this chapter,provide guidance to implementing the'Fransportation Master Plan. Hq I t .,3 w,�,-, .. .."'fit; .. _-_ C',.F. , - ,-.,, ,. `t.�.. a, �_ _S- :, ri.. _,, •'S '�� ,� f� _ Policy TR-1.1: Work actively and cooperatively with state, regional and other South County jurisdictions to plan, design,fund and construct regional transportation projects that further the City's transportation and land use goals. � Policy TR-1.2: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that transportation facilities are compatible with the type and intensity of land uses. Policy TR-1.3: Prohibit development approval if the proposed development would cause the level of service to fall below the City's adopted level of service standards, unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Policy TR-1.4: Phase implementation of transportation plans with growth to allow adequate transportation facilities and services to be in place concurrent with development. Approval of new development will be dependent on the active participation of development property owners in the funding of the transportation improvements needed to maintain the City's level of service standards The City may contract with owners of real estate for the participation in LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas,or other available processes for construction or improvement of street projects required for further property development. Policy TR-1.5: Use a"Plan-Based" approach as the basis for a multimodal transportation concurrency management system. A plan-based approach means that the funding of programs, construction of facilities, and provision of services occur as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and are proportionate with the pace of growth. Policy TR-1.6: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility and service capacity is sufficient to accommodate the new development. Policy TR-1.7: Prioritize those projects that improve transportation facilities and services within designated centers and along identified corridors connecting Centers; those that support the existing economic base and those that will aid the City attracting new investments to those centers. Policy TR-1.8: Ensure the transportation system is developed consistent with the anticipated development of the land uses and acknowledge the influence of providing transportation facilities to accelerate or delay the development of land uses,either by type or by area. 1 Policy TR-1.9: Promote multimodal facilities and services, street design, and development that includes residential, commercial and employment opportunities 51 "i within walking/bicycling distance so that distances traveled are shorter and there is less need for people to travel by automobile. Policy TR-1.10: Incorporate pedestrian and transit friendly design features into new development. Examples include: • Orient entries of major buildings to the street and closer to transit stops rather than to parking lots. • Avoid constructing large surface parking areas between the building frontage and the street. • Provide pedestrian pathways that provide convenient walking distances to activities and to transit stops. • Cluster major buildings within developments to improve pedestrian and transit access. « Provide weather protection such as covered walkways connecting buildings, s and covered waiting areas for transit and ridesharing. • Design for pedestrian safety,providing adequate lighting and barrier free pedestrian linkages. • Provide bicycle connections and secure bicycle storage lockers convenient to major transit facilities. Use design features to create an attractive,interesting and safe pedestrian environment that will encourage pedestrian use. • Design transit access to large developments, considering bus stops and shelters as part of the project design. • Encourage developers of larger commercial and public projects to provide restrooms for public use. Policy TR-1.11: Manage access to all residential,recreational, commercial, and industrial properties along principal, minor and collector arterials. Consider consolidating access points whenever feasible during development review or design of road improvement protects. ..,� ' �. ; GO¢'� ��tt � ryry EE E }} 3 g-�-^_. 3""'�L 101-c,., e l,m',&^-�.% y: €O r¢ . n.8k 1 �4 Yk"a'3`<:. iw�.o w.Ww 13',n4#`t: ix r ; h7u ""o'si— 's16.e-: b) balance '`��k".�'>'e, bo@@5.ggb4pp�'J .yy�I_ i>,. Fr it€";�d �k'#'tt , iE .l �,"',o. xa e_ l:.md €.tires, enner .nSac rr_,s JFa w-�,_, Policy TR-21: Assign a functional classification to each street in the City based on } factors including travel demand of motorized and non-motorized traffic, access to adjacent land use and connectivity of the transportation network. Policy TR-2.2: Preserve needed traffic capacity when planning street improvements by consistent application of functional classification standards. Policy TR-2.3: Establish procedures to implement the authority granted to the City by RCW 35.79 to inventory,evaluate, and preserve right-of-way needs for future transportation purposes, and wherever possible,make advance acquisition in order to minimize inconvenience to affected property owners and to safeguard the general public interest. Policy TR-2.4: Consider the context of adjacent land uses(existing and future), the benefits and desirability of non-motorized travel,and the competition for street space when reconstructing or adding streets. TRANSPORTATION 59 KENT MASTER PLAN R �1�� ' it " Policy TR-3.1: Maintain level of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where �j appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Set LOS E as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard for ="M the Pacific Highway (SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while recognizing , ` WSDOT's LOS D for SR 99. 4 Policy TR-3-2: Evaluate the City's transportation facilities annually to determine compliance with the adopted level of service standards and,as necessary, amend the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Policy TR-3-3: Maintain the flow of traffic on the road system and provide adequate access to adjacent land uses by using adopted Access Management strategies These include. limiting the number of driveways (usually one per parcel);locating driveways away from intersections, connecting parking lots and consolidating driveways to create more pedestrian-friendly streets. Policy TR-3.4: Use Transportation System Management(TSM) strategies to maximize the efficiency of the existing street network;include techniques such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and synchronizing traffic signals to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow on the arterial street system. Policy TR-3.5: Develop Transportation Demand Management ('I'DM) strategies in support of mode-split goals and Cominute'Trip Reduction. .J j tips Policy TR-4.1: Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads,especially on regional through routes,while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased s ' traffic volumes. ` Policy TR-4.2: Minimize through traffic on residential streets by emphasizing through traffic opportunities on collector and arterial streets. ' _® Policy TR-4.3: Protect residential areas that are nmpacted by overflow traffic from the -A regional system. Policy TR-4.4: Enhance the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) to help residents identify and resolve neighborhood traffic concerns. Policy TR-4.5:Maintain a connected street network to give people more options and to spread out the traffic over more streets. �E 61 0'TV, R" A-,An t rn n. rf t u s`r,I r,rax .-- .-a to -_ :"- ,I-:-cvj' to b-', CO-'S1!7'Te'n t wit�" t"",Ara It a Policy TR-5.1: Encourage landscapes at transportation facilities that complement neighborhood character and ame nities, incorporate street trees in planting strips to improve air quality and visual aesthetics, and implement traffic calming strategies. Policy TR-5.2: Separate pedestrians from traffic lanes on all arterials,wherever possible,by the use of street trees and landscaped strips,and avoid the construction of sidewalks next to street curbs. Policy TR-5.3: Maintain and incorporate prominent features of the natural environment when landscaping transportation facilities. Policy TR-5.4: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential developments, neighborhood commercial centers,and recreation areas. Policy TR-5.5: Arrange streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods to form a grid network,providing multiple choices as to path and mode. Policy TR-5.6: Avoid the creation of excessively large blocks and long local access residential streets. I$ re Nlove n it i':""'Ltirinr and Int ztistrial, Center_-Z- a prurnal- hub f�-,,r r, f.i'a o a I u t o n ,,jood-,I -r,_)v�arnent and forintern,-6orml f"rtij 5, V j Policy TR-6.1: Support investments in trucking and rail facilities to enhance the freight transportation system and strengthen the City's economic base. Policy TR-6.2: Establish a network of freight routes to improve freight reliability and mobility incorporating sensitivity to land use context into roadway design. Policy R-6.3: Coordinate with BNSF Railroad,UP Railroad,Washington Utilities and Trade Commission(WUTC),and Sound Transit to ensure maxii-num transportation efficiency on both roads and rails while minimizing adverse impacts on the community. Policy TR-6.4: Locate new spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings and to serve a maximum number of sites. Policy TR-6.5: Provide,when feasible, grade-separated railroad crossings on arterial corridors to eliminate conflict between rail and road traffic and to enhance the safety and efficiency of both transportation systems. Policy TR-6.6: Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at-grade crossings. Develop traffic signal preemption that is activated by crossing signals in order to maintain non-conflicting auto/truck traffic flow and to facilitate clearing of the grade crossings prior to when crossings are occupied by trains. TRANSPORTATION 6 KEIVT MASTER PLAN 0 TO '~ ..' s' n w Policy TR-7.1: Implement the Non-Motorized system in a way that reflects the 1 priorities identified by the public process. Emphasize completion of sidewalks identified as the highest-high priority (shown in Figure 6-6) and bicycle facilities identified on the Bicycle System Map (shown in figure 6-11). Policy TR-7.2: Provide non-motorized facilities, including signage,within all areas of the City to connect land use types, facilitate trips made by walking or bicycling, and reduce the need for automobile trips Policy TR-7.3: Create a comprehensive system of pedestrian facilities using incentives and regulations All future development should include pedestrian and bicycle connections to schools, parks, community centers,public transit services, neighborhoods and other services. Provide special attention to the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) regarding the location and design of sidewalks and crosswalks. Policy TR-7.4: Encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs will educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling,and walking Policy TR-7.5: Encourage an increase in the percent of modal share of commuter trips made by cyclists by the year 2030 by fostering an environment that eliminates deterrents to bicycling and encourages bicycle use city-wide for all types of trips. Policy TR-7.6: Consider needs of bicyclists and pedestrians when developing design plans for City street construction projects consistent with the Citys bicycle system plan and Construction Standards. Policy TR-7.7: Encourage the installation of bicycle parking facilities at park and ride facilities,train/transit stations, shopping malls,office buildings, and all land use types that attract the general public. Policy TR-7.8: Work with the Dent,the Federal Way,the Highline school districts and neighborhood associations to support programs that encourage walking and bicycling to local schools. Policy TR-7-9: Encourage efforts that inform the public about the health effects of cycling and walking. Encourage walking and cycling for travel and recreation to achieve personal health and well-being and to support a more healthful environment for the community by reducing noise and pollution. Policy TR-7.10: Encourage schools,safety organizations,and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on bicycle safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. . 6 , -a nsn' 1-1ioxc' Hin,gh ccuc'- - he devv�,, pen,,n, f Policy TR-8.1: Work with regional transit providers to resolve the transit needs identified in the TNIP and provide high quality travel options for local residents, employees,students,visitors,business,and other users of local and regional facilities. Policy TR-8.2: Work with regional transit providers to establish a hierarchy of transit services focused on three major elements: 0 Kent-Kent Connections * Kent-South County Connections - Kent-Regional Connections Policy TR-8.3: Emphasize transit service and capital investments that provide mobility and access within the City of Kent and make it possible for residents to access local services and support local businesses while reducing their travel by auto. Policy TR-8.4: Work with transit providers to maintain and expand direct and frequent regional bus routes. Policy TR-8.5: Develop a network of park and ride facilities in cooperation with regional transit providers and the Washington State Department of Transportation Work to ensure that the regional transit system includes park and ride lots in outlying areas,which could: • Intercept trips by SOVs closer to the trip origins; • Reduce traffic congestion;and • Reduce total vehicle miles traveled Policy TR-8.6: Secure a share of regional transit system facilities and service priorities for Kent residents proportional to the City of Kent's contributed share of regional transit revenues. Policy TR-8.7: Coordinate with transit providers to enhance transit service information and provide incentives to encourage and facilitate transit use. Policy TR-8.8: Develop the Kent Transit Center with complete set of transit center amenities,including timed transfers between most routes,passenger waiting areas, Intelligent Transportation System(ITS) bus arrival notification, on-site route information,and other amenities. Policy TR-8.9: Coordinate with transit providers and other transportation agencies in the design and placement of bus shelters and transit supportive facilities that are needed at both ends of the transit trip when the transit rider becomes a pedestrian or a bike rider. These include but are not limited to transit shelters,bike racks or lockers, good(illuminated)pedestrian paths to and from transit stops and covered walkways wherever possible. Work with transit agencies and developers to design transit facilities that are compatible with neighborhood character. Policy TR-8.10: Work with employers to provide Transportation Demand Management(TDM) measures in the workplace that promote alternatives to single occupant vehicles(SOV). Jhe City will lead by example by implementing a successful Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)program for City employees. TRANSPORTATION 63 ... KENT MASTER PLAN •' tPolicy TR-8.11: Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in support of mode-split goals. These include,but are not limited to,parking management,individualized marketing,ridesharing and support of non-motorized travel. Policy TR-8.12: Work with private developers and transit providers to integrate transit facilities into residential,retail,manufacturing, commercial,office and other types of development using the following actions: • Support transit by including land uses with mixed-use and night-time activities, • Support transit-oriented development opportunities with the private and public sectors; • Integrate multiple access modes, including buses, carpools,vanpools, bicycles and pedestrians; • support and facilitate transit use by choice of urban design and community character. 1i s:,t of s'd ten f1 o u35�e. -'7 iiS at€ T=1 C, in Policy TR-9.1: Consider the full range of public and private funding sources available for all modes of transportation. -,l4a0 i lNA. Policy TR-9.2: Allow for funding of growth-related traffic improvements by impact fees or other mechanisms that apportion costs in relation to the impact of new fl i development . ;. Policy TR-9.3: Identify and evaluate alternative land use and transportation scenarios,including assumptions about levels and distribution of population and employment densities,types and mixes of land use, and transportation facilities and ' services,and assess their effects on transportation funding needs. Policy TR-9.4: Support regional,state and federal initiatives to increase transportation funding. 'the City will also continue to use its authority under law, including chapter 35 72 RCW and Chapter 6 05 KMC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the construction or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. Contracts may provide for LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas,or other available programs Policy TR-9.5: Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships,such as Local Improvement Districts (LID),Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD),Transportation Benefit Zones (TBZ),and Transportation Management Associations (TMA)to help pay for transportation improvements The City may contract with owners of real estate for the participation in LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for construction or improvement of street protects required for further property development. Policy TR-9.6: Establish a mechanism to provide a multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements,participate in joint ventures and promote them ' to improve inter-jurisdictional transportation systems. ., 61 Policy TR-9.7: Create a funding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact on the City's transportation system of growth outside the Cityss boundaries. Policy TR-9.8: Emphasize investments for the preservation and enhancement of the ' existing transportation facilities. Seek funding from a variety of sources and consider pursuing new revenue opportunities for roadway maintenance and improvements to encourage non-SOV modes of travel. ator ° weh t Policy TR-10.1: Emphasize City representation on planning boards that have authority over or can affect the City's transportation system Policy TR-10.2: Identify opportunities to partner with neighboring)urisclictions, regional transit agencies, or other agencies in order to improve funding opportunities ' from state, federal or other grant providers. Policy TR-10.3: Coordinate planning for developments that impact transportation level-of-service across jurisdictional boundaries. Policy TR-10.4: Support intergovernmental programs that emphasize regional mobility for people and goods,promote the urban center approach to growth ' management, and seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy TR-10.5: Coordinate with state, regional and neighboring agencies to encourage pass-through traffic to by-pass downtown Kent,thus reducing unnecessary au-pollution and congestion. Policy TR-10.6: Support innovative transportation system management strategies , such as High Occupancy Toll (HOT)lanes that help keep the regional traffic on the freeways rather than spilling over onto the City arterials. n mk a i ��a � F am$,i v,,If ;.i a it inner that Policy TR-11-1: Minimize levels of harmful pollutants generated by transportation- related construction,operations, and maintenance activities from entering surface and groundwater resources. ' Policy TR-11.2: Improve management strategies to reduce contamination from street runoff and stortnwater. Coordinate these efforts with other jurisdictions,as well as regional and state agencies. Policy TR-11.3: Ensure that transportation-related improvement projects comply with state and federal guidelines for air and water quality. Policy TR-11.4: Promote energy conservation and greenhouse gas reductions by implementing TDM goals and policies. TRANSPORTATION 65 KE�NT MASTER PLAN : t ` ry "r` --...'.- r —s A e E€€.cat '�. .�,a _,.,, -<, •; 2„.,'", ,� It i The street system provides the primary means for all modes of transportation ' throughout the Kent area. The City is served by an extensive street network that Chapter Contents includes freeways,arterials,residential, and local streets. This chapter describes that ► Street System network and how well it serves the City today and in the future. Infrastructure Residents and businesses have identified traffic congestion as the# I issue for each of . Functional the past five annual surveys. This chapter examines the underlying reasons for this Classification congestion and offers some recommendations to improve these conditions - Freight Safety The analysis considers the different types of users of streets — commuters,freight and s How well does the delivery trucks, public and school buses, seniors, students, children,moms and dads. Street Network Streets play different roles within the network. Some are used to access freeways Operate? for regional connections such as SR 167 or SR 18,while others provide access to . Traffic Volumes neighborhoods. . Level of Service This chapter describes the street system plan and the analysis, as follows• ► Future Traffic Conditions • Examines the infrastructure of the street network,the role of each street in . Travel Forecasts that network and the inter-relationship with adjacent State highways and , Street Network regional arterials. > Level of Service • Evaluates how well the existing street network operates and the traffic . Truck Routes _ conditions forecast for the future street network. ► Prioritization of * Identifies the preferred street network and the improvement protects for Protects �• that network. 61 �' � ,- em ,,�, „ .. �u at m = Streets represent The most visible and influential infrastructure in the City—their size, appearance and operational characteristics shape everything around them. 1he street system in Kent is a network of roads that carry both regional and local traffic. Each street plays a role in that network,providing access to individual properties or supporting mobility for vehicles. But Kent's streets serve more than automobiles and trucks. 'the City's street network represents the principal infrastructure for all modes of travel---vehicle, public transit,walking or biking. ' w PT Good street networks are not developed solely in response to traffic demand. The V, street plan reflects careful consideration of the users and Kent's community character, urban design and quality of life. Kent's community vision calls for improving transportation(mode) choices and personal mobility. This will require that the streets 1 function as well for public transit,pedestrians and bicycles as they do for personal motor vehicles and commercial trucks. x3 s,rr �,x 'nie City's street network is the backbone of the transportation system. Street types €i range from local streets,which are designed to provide access to neighborhoods,to freeways that primarily serve through traffic. The street system is described in the n ,. d,iy following section,starting with the State highways,followed by City streets. State Highways ,,, State highways are those roads owned by the state and managed by the WSDOT. 'these highways include the regional freeway system together with major roads that connect communities. To serve through traffic at higher speeds and meet mobility and safety goals, access to these roadways is often restricted. the freeways are designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic moving at high speeds under free-flowing conditions. More than 12 miles of freeways within Kent, such as 1- 5 and SR 167, connect Kent to the region and serve longer-distance travel from areas outside the City. 'Ihe State highways that are within or adjacent to Kent fall under two categories, depending on their role in the regional network: highways of statewide significance (HSS) or highways of regional significance (Non-HSS). Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) The following HSS roads are located within or adjacent to the City of Kent: • Interstate 5: As the principal north-south freeway in the region,I- 5 contains eight general purpose lanes and two high occupant vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Kent area.The City of Kent is directly served by four interchanges, which are located at S 272nd Street,the Kent-Des Moines Road(SR 516),S 200th Street, and S 188th Street/Orillia Road. • State Route 167: SR 167 contains four general purpose travel lanes and two HOV lanes in Kent. Interchanges are located at S 277th Street, Willis , Street(SR-516), 84th Avenue S,S 212th Street,and S 180th Street. • State Route 18: SR 18 is not inside the city limits,but is immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the City. SR 18 is a major freight corridor between 1-5 and 1-90 and serves as another gateway into the City TRANSPORTATION 67 ~KENT MASTER PLAN Y3 Interchanges with the greatest impact to Kent are located at the Kent- Kangley Road/SE 256th Street and SE 232nd Street. • State Route 99: SR 99 (aka Pacific Highway) runs north-south from S 272nd Street north to the Kent-Des Moines Road. Highways of Regional Significance (Non-HSS) The following Non-HSS are located within or adjacent to the City of Kent: • State Route 181:SR 181 (aka Washington Avenue N, 68th Avenue S, and W Valley Highway) runs north-south along the valley floor from SR-516 to S 180th Street/SW 43rd Street; * State Route 516: SR 516 (aka Kent-Des Moines Road,Willis Street, Central Avenue, Canyon Drive, SE 256th Street,and Kent-Kangley Road) runs east from Pacific Highway S east to the city limits,near 156th Avenue SE; and, • State Route 515: SR 515 (aka Benson Highway, 104th Avenue SE, and 108th Avenue SE) runs north-south from SE 256th Street to the north city } limits,near SE 226th Street. City Streets Each street in Kent is but one element in the street n`,Itwork. The network operates as ' a system, handling a wide variety of modal users. Thus, it is important to define the role that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of traffic through the skeletal street network, and making sure that there are enough of the right kinds ' of streets in the right places. The City considers each street and intersection in terms of its role in the overall street network. Streets serve many functions, as follows: • Connect Kent to other parts of the Puget Sound Region; 0 Connect local districts and neighborhoods within Kent;or • Provide internal circulation within local districts and neighborhoods. Each street type reflects the function of the street relative to the rest of the network. Street Functional Classifications are established to balance and recognize differing needs of vehicles and non-motorized travelers Arterials generally support higher traffic volumes,much of which is generated outside of the immediate area— or what is termed`through traffic:Arterials support the travel of cars and trucks and other modes, including public transit, cycling and walking. Conversely,local and collector streets carry substantially lower volumes of traffic and support more localized forms of transportation, including walking,cycling and neighborhood transit services. Local streets are the most abundant streets by mileage, but carry the least amount of traffic over the smallest trip distances. Local streets also serve as the way for pedestrians and cyclists to move around Kent's neighborhood. The functional classification of each roadway determines its roadway design and ultimate cross section. Classification is important to the City because it helps ensure that the needed capacity will be available and that street improvements will be consistent with the assigned function. In addition, from a planning perspective, acknowledgment and proper designation of functional classifications preserves the ' right of way for future transportation corridors,whether for cars,transit users, cyclists or pedestrians. 61 Functional classification also defines the character of service that a road is intended to provide. Specific standards for streets and roadways are shown in Table 5-1 and are detailed in City of Kent's Construction Standards-Section 6. Standards for Streets and Roadways. The current street classification assigned to City streets is shown in Figure 5-1. Table 5-1. Street Design Criteria f - '- �� ; -- '�t. -»'«§,�",-`iIM „^r N --; ;-a, %;:'i�_ ,s„E;' ;s;'s:; ^.,o,E.* x.saW.- ,art -3- x;€:. $ ,; _ ',[`,x's'»' --' ` '" ^ , , '; , . i'i,3; 3*:�,�a�.�`. �,�:+:ad` 3,3A �.>, : `��. „ - �€��„i[ir .::E. ,�- g'��; .;� "; il s_^- �,°i'''° i:Y€€R,,•; :iiii:'�` '3a�=<_ - s">='yt. M-=:"�6`[:';, Principal Arterial 50,000 50 80 6 lanes h turn lane MinorArtenal 30,000 45 58 4lanes/1 turn lane Collector Artenals Industrial 15,000 35 44 2 lanes/1 turn lane 4-- - _�� ___�— � ______ -—__--_� - _�.--------- - _ - - --__ _ Residential 5,000 35 �36 2 lanes/1 turn lane or 2-way left turn lane Residential Collectors 3,500 30 36 2 lanes/2 parking lanes * All classified streets in the City also provide for sidewalks Bicycle facilities are designated according to the Bicycle System Plan Source: City of Kent Table 5-2 stratefies the City's street mileage by classification. Jhcre are more miles of local streets than any other category,as local streets are present in all neighborhoods and represent two-thirds of the street mileage Principal arterials represent only 7 percent of the roadway miles,but carry most of the daily traffic volumes. The current street classification ratios fall close to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Table 5-2. Existing Street Functional Classification Breakdown — ": _ _ Vie;;::., n €. ; MA, E: „ ,� �€E�[ •� _ °�`"` ri�=< �%`.<�``,.�'t5`, ;;'`'•„'�i;3;,<„ `e; j, .iN.n €€m '2.. wiz Principal Arterial 26 7% 4 5% 5%-10% MrnorArtenal 33 g/o 6��------ ° 8% 10%-15% Collector Arterial 510-1010 Industrial 13 4% 0 0% 1 1 Residential 28 7% 3 4% 1 ` __-_._ ___- Residential Collectors 28_ Local Access Streets/ Unclassi ed 246 66°lo i 57 68°l0 65%80% Total (excludes freeways) 374 100% 83 100% Note. Approximately 12 centerline miles of freeways are also located within the City limits of Kent Source: City of Kent i 1 1 69 C _ 2 � O a) O O O E � r O a Q Q Q Q O CE C N _ a 8o o Fu m (� C U U (6 X C O O N U 2 LL am.= 'ems• - O N Q Q ais 71 Principal Arterial ' Principal arterials are designed to provide relatively unimpeded traffic flow between major activity centers within the City, and provide access to the State highway system. Generally they are four travel lanes,some with a center turn lane.Access from i adjacent private property to the arterials is limited or controlled.Turn restrictions, - w _ median channelization,elimination of on-street parking,or prohibition of direct _l: driveway access are used to control access. Sidewalks are provided to allow safe pedestrian movements. � hntersections generally cross at minor arterial streets,or with grade separated interchanges to State/Interstate highways. Principal arterials in the City include: Principal Arterial Minor Arterial , Minor arterials provide connections to and from principal arterials and State highways, and access to major land-use activity centers.The traffic-carrying capacity of these .. streets is accomplished by means of the same types of access restrictions and design criteria as the principal arterial roadways;but balance increased levels of direct property :. ► access,with lower geometric design and capacity requirements. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are common features.Access to the minor arterial system will generally be from collector arterial roadways at signalized at-grade intersections. Minor arterials mR4dE - - include: .. Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Collector arterials connect to and from higher classified streets in an orderly and well planned manner, and as a secondary function, provide access to land use activity centers. These streets provide high levels of traffic carrying capacity; but serve as the "bridge"from high capacity roadways to local access roadways and abutting land uses. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are common features. There are three sub-categories of the collector arterial classification-based upon the ' type of the adjacent land use.These sub-categories and their functions are: Industrial Collector Arterial:These streets provide traffic distribution and collection from abutting industrial and commercial land uses to higher classified roadways. Access to Industrial collector arterials is typically not restricted, although access and on-street parking may be limited for safety reasons and/or proximity to a major signalized intersection.These roadways include specifications that allow truck traffic to safely traverse these roads. Industrial collector arterials include: �`,_:� 1 _ ', �' Q. Residential Collector Arterial:'These streets provide traffic distribution and collection from the local street system to higher classified arterials. Driveway access and on-street parking will typically be prohibited. Residential collector arterials include: e kbI i CA Residential Collector Arterial L ttic't'',P" _, I,t t "I"'."''r; TRANSPORTATION 71 KEIVT MASTER PLAN Residential Collector:These streets provide traffic distribution and collection at a neighborhood level —from the local street system to the arterial classified roadways. The design of these roadways balances the traffic carrying capacity with property access and discourages the utilization of these roadways by non-locally generated ("cut-through")traffic. Driveway access and on-street parking typically is prohibited The design of collectors emphasizes accommodating pedestrian and non-motorized traffic in the design of these roadways. Residential collectors include: Local Access Streets (unclassified) Other roadways in the City provide direct access to abutting land uses (businesses, parks et al) from residential collector streets, safely and efficiently.The design parameters of these roadways minimize vehicle operating speeds and non-locally generated(cut-through) tratfic. Typically, on-street parking is allowed except at those locations necessary for public safety, a high emphasis is placed on safely accommodating pedestrian and non-motorized traffic in the design of these roadways. Unclassified/local access streets include: '- , . Another critical piece of the street infrastructure is the traffic signals and signs that RIGHT TURN ON control traffic, including railroad crossings. Traffic signals, signs, and pavement /R^ED"ELD TO markings are used to direct drivers,pedestrians, and bicyclists,thereby increasing U-fURk THRU the effective use of the roadway by moving traffic more efficiently and safely The City ° uses the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) except as modified by 1 ` the guidance and practices of WSDOT, or by City standards as guidance for design, construction, and placement of signs in the right of way. �. . :Wid l J;iE The confluence of important geographical elements makes Kent an important freight distribution center in the Puget Sound area. As was noted in Chapter? (Trends and Conditions),the efficient movement of freight,through and within the City is critical to Kent's economic health. Both rail and truck freight,originating largely in the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle,pass through Kent regularly. Trucking is a frequently used, versatile,and often the most efficient means of movement Whether as a beginning or interim step in distribution,or as a final delivery to a retail outlet or end user,trucks will continue to be the way most goods and products are moved in Kent and the region. 1 Trucks are subject to most of the same traffic constraints as other vehicles. With vehicle miles of travel increasing and congestion worsening during the peak travel hours,travel times have increased encouraging truckers to look for alternate routes to it their destinations it ` 'The City tries to balance the needs of trucks to travel to and from intermodal facilities, industrial parks and other destinations with the needs of residents for quiet livable streets.Truck routes, weight load limits,better access to the regional network and improving general congestion are all ways to improve travel times for freight vehicles. 7JF Railroad Crossings When roads and rails intersect,trains have the priority. Kent is severely impacted by at-grade railroad crossings on many east-west arterials. In the downtown center, , James Street, Smith Street,Meeker Street, Gowe Street,Titus Street, and SR-516 (Willis Street) cross the tracks at-grade and create significant conflicts between the railroad and the movement of people, either in vehicles or on foot, as well as the movement of freight via trucks. These conflicts are anticipated to increase in the future as both systems forecast sigm ficant growth. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway(BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) run parallel rail lines in the north-south direction through Kent. The City has nine streets that cross railroads at-grade with approximately 65 trains passing through a the City each day.These junctions cause delay and create potentially hazardous situations for motorists and non-motorized travelers. '[he City regularly works with the railroads to take appropriate measures of safety, such as installing signal interties k and constructing grade separations.The 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan ('TIP)includes constructing grade separations at both BNSF and UPRR railroad ' crossing at S 212th Street, S 228th Street and Willis Street(SR 516). o 'Ihe City places a high priority on providing a safe transportation system for travelers of all modes and promotes road safety for the ongoing management of the street , network and emergency services. Continual efforts are made to construct and retrofit streets in a manner that improves safety and decreases the likelihood of collisions and makes the street safer for pedestrians,transit, and bicyclists. Constructing streets for ease of use by pedestrians can increase overall safety by altering the behavior of drivers who anticipate pedestrian activity. Pedestrian crossings and other non- motorized safety issues are discussed in another chapter. Safety issues related to ' emergency response, collisions and railroad crossings follow. Emergency Response (EMS) Providing residents with quick responses in emergency situations is a high priority for the City. An adequate street network helps to ensure that multiple alternate routes are available for emergency vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped with devices that control traffic signals enabling emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage through signalized corridors. In addition,the City has mutual-aid agreements with nearby emergency response operators to ensure adequate coverage in case of road closures or other obstacles that would otherwise prevent timely emergency response. Collisions The City collects and nnonitors collision data to identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct hazardous locations by implementing appropriate safety measures. Many of these collisions occur at or near intersections. Figure 5-2 shows the intersections ' where the highest number of collisions occurred (9 or more) between January 1, 2002 and December 31,2004. Collision rates weight the number of collisions by the number of vehicles that enter the intersection in units of collisions per million entering vehicles. The intersection with highest number of collisions was 104th Avenue SE (SR 515) at SE 256th Street(SR 516). During the given time period,there were 71 collisions with a collision rate of 1.29. Ihe majority of the collisions were rear ends,common under congested conditions. Other intersections with a large number of collisions are located in the downtown area and along State highways. 73 N W .� %W M L J cy N Ln Ln Ln LO m T N CD 117 p O o o °' \ J y 04 o Q � i ox _ i I 0 w`E EI - CD ■ 00 a�� N N v 75 ` >. q e saes t: � � "A `�: 4 �� " Both residents and businesses use the road network every day to go to work or school Wr€ng ilhe(lev.Iwi-Bent N and carry on with their lives. The City must balance the needs of vehicles with the 1i1�S `an :I ; �,�I,�,�<<jCls needs of pedestrians and cyclists. When traffic flows smoothly,trips can be [1J)l-t,!rUri,)Lis predictable and efficient. However,when the roads are congested traveling becomes more difficult, delays increase, and frustration rises Congestion is the term generally Ke-11 S[a`f U-r1 sev(;al used to describe the traffic conditions in a corridor. An uncongested corridor would Uall"TU'tr,.11 :r; Is,):le>in ifie ' have high speeds and short delays at intersections, while a congested corridor would CitNol Kent E:Fn�,esti� Pd�i; have low speeds and long delays. t,iti',rnit-ilx;r c-ne iSsuc 1&1111 ed try th,.wnir iwi:ty. There are three key questions to consider when evaluating the street system: How well does the existing street system work? • How well will it work in 2030,when population and employment have both increased? • What improvements can we make that will help the network operate better in 2030? To answer these questions,the performance of the street network was evaluated for two situations: the existing system in 2006 and the future system in 2030. To measure the performance of the existing street system,the City reviewed existing traffic volumes and the amount of resulting congestion. To assess how the street network will work in the future,the City developed a model for the street system in 2030 Models are a tool used to forecast travel demand for local, regional and countywide trips. The regional planning organization,the PSRC, has developed a regional model for the Puget Sound Region. How that model was customized for the City of Kent,is explained in the Future Traffic Conditions section later in this chapter. Traffic conditions are measured by reviewing the traffic volumes and the congestion, measured as the delay(the waiting tine) at intersections.Measuring changes in traffic volumes helps identify capacity needs. Two measurements are needed for the analysis: average daily traffic totals(ADT) and the PM peals hour traffic volumes. Figure 5-3. Traffic Growth on Key Arterials 40,000 West Valley Hwy(SR 1 181)at S 212th St 30,000 li -- Kent Kangley Rd (SR pQ 516)at Benson Hwy -�- Benson Hwy(SR 515) 20,000 at Kent Kangley Rd ♦ Pacific Hwy(SR 99)at SR 516 � 10,000 --- 1985 1995 2005 YEAR TRANSPORTATION 71 x" KENT MASTER PLAN Traffic volume counts were obtained from the City of Kent and WSDOT The counts ' provided intersection turning volumes for the PM peak period and hourly traffic flows along major routes throughout the day. , Traffic Volumes Growth both within the City and the region have caused traffic volumes on city streets it to increase during the past 20 years. Figure 5-3 shows the historical growth of traffic on several ley streets 'llze average daily traffic grew steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, but leveled off during the 2000s. However,peak hour volumes have continued to grow.A major contributor to the high traffic volumes on the arterials is traffic passing through Kent. This pass-through traffic originating to surrounding jurisdictions uses ,; the City's arterial streets to access the regional highways,such as 1-5,SR 18 and SR 167. The City continues to work with WSDOT to improve the State highway system, to order to shift traffic away from the City street network. Average Weekday Volumes Figure 5-4 shows the average weekday traffic volumes for 2006. The heaviest volumes , are on the principal arterials and State highways. "lhe volumes on principal arterials ranged from 17,000 to 39,000 vehicles a day. 11ne highest average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were found on the following principal arterials: • S 180th Street(19,900 - 38,600 ADT) • S 208th Street(34,500 ADT) • S 212th Street (34,500 ADT) • Canyon Drive (32,200 ADT) Minor arterials showed daily volumes ranging from 6,800 to 32,700 ADT. The minor arterials with the highest average daily traffic were: • SE 256th Street(32,700 ADT) • E Smith Street(32,200 ADT) • S 240th Street(James Street) (28,700 ADT) , 'Ile industrial collectors typically have daily volumes i1 the 4,900 to 13,400 to ADT range. PM Peak Hour Volumes The City uses traffic volumes during the PM peak hour (typically 4:30 to 5:30 pm) to determine how well the street network works, at those times when it serves the greatest number of vehicles. The PM peak hour represents the highest volume that typically occurs on a city street during the week. The peak hour can vary from location-to-location,with peaks occurring earlier around school zones, and later , along commuter routes. Traffic volumes were analyzed at 71 intersections around the city. The PM peak hour volumes range from approximately 8 to 10 percent of the daily volumes shown in Figure 5-4. 77 =Z 0 0 U; C) CD CD CD CD m CD C) CD CD a) (D CD CD CD C) - CD CD CD CD Q CD LL — N ch C) � 0 C CD Q CP X cc CD CD CD (D C) CD CD C\j co -Fo 0 (1) uj to, O'D ,L-1 o"I mWi Vv— kV N.I-r E 1: < ova LL 00 TRANSPORTATION 79 KIEWT MASTER PLAN se, N 4.� .a' .'v0, " Transportation planners and engineers use the term"level of service" (LOS) to �1 measure the operational performance of a transportation facility(also known as a street or intersection)."This measure considers the perception by motorists and passengers in terms of speed, travel time,freedom to maneuver,traffic interruptions and delays, comfort and convenience. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow,little delav) and LOS F the worst(congestion,long delays) Generally,LOS A and B are good, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F represent congested conditions. The City of Kent used roadway corridors to evaluate the level of service. The methodology calculates the LOS operation for key corridor intersections (in seconds of delay) and then develops a corridor-wide average based upon a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. 'This method provides a"corridor-wide" result, _ allowing some intersections to operate at a congested LOS as long as the overall corridor operation is maintained For intersections with a signal,the LOS is calculated as the average delay of all the approaches to the intersection and is weighted by the total PM peak hour volume entering the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the worst individual movement or approach determines the delay for the intersection and is weighted by the volume of the same movement or approach. Table 5-3 defines the LOS operation based on the seconds of delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 5-3. Level of Service Definitions ;. r``a ., „.u$. -,-,;;;;'. G't't€;,•"' A"'t �*'-„A,.' s- A 0-10 0-10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 ( >15-25 AA D ; >35-55 >25-35 �'' E >55-80 >35-50 i = �......- E `` >80 >50 Source Htghway Capacity Manual(HCM 2000,Truisportation Research Boaid) Level of Service Corridors For the LOS analysis, the City chose t6 corridors including the downtown street system,which was represented as a zone.The corridors represent the primary north- south and east-west travel routes within the City. Non-Kent corridors,such as I-5 and SR167 were not included in the evaluation. Downtown Kent is treated as a zone rather than a corridor, since traffic flows along multiple streets within the downtown grid the corridors and their limits are listed in Table 5-4 and illustrated in Figure 5-5. 8(i Table 5-4. Corridors for LOS Analysis n "4111F""'%,"""M" '-ilm_ i 4" t NO �'O� K"1 21- 21"114 I S 196th SYSE 192nd St Corridor W Valley Highway SR 515(Benson) 2, -,S-212-t-h SYS-208th-St '42nd-Ave S 1 132nd Ave SE - - ---------- 3 S 224[h SUS 228th St SR 516/MiJitary Road S 228th SI/84th Ave S 4 James SUSE 240th St 64th Ave S 132nd Ave SE 5 S 260th SU Reith Road/W Meeker St SR 99 1 Washington Ave Smith Stl Canyon Drive/256th St I 6 Kent-Kangley Road 152nd Way SE Jason Ave 7 S 256th St SIR 515 132nd Ave SE 8 S 272nd St SIR 99 Military Road 9 Paci c Highway s S 240th St S 272nd St 10 Military Road 231st St S 272nd St 11 641:h Ave S S 21 2th St Meeker St Wwyashington Avel 18th Ave S/W Valley 12 S 196(h St Meeker St H L13 Central Ave/84th Ave S S 196th St James St 14 SR515IBenson Ave SE 192nd St SE 256th St 15 11 6th Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road 4---------—----------- [--,-16--- -1-32-nd Ave SE ___S_E_2_0_8l:h St I Kent-Kangley Road 17 Downtown Area 4th Ave N to E Titus St James St to W Willis St Level of Service Standard 9 1 ,„=;t,, 'Ihe City has set the level of service (LOS) standard to require that most corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. ' Corridors that operate below this adopted standard are considered deficient. CI Two locations are allowed to operate at LOS F:Pacific Highway south (SR 99) and downtown Kent. Pacific Highway has an LOS F standard since it is largely outside st A a o, of the Citys control and is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). e t gi Ihe City recently improved SR 99 and any further widening is unlikely The operation I ccal C�: -, of SR 99 is highly dependent upon travel conditions along 1-5 and the effects of the SR 509 project under design by the WSDOT Note that WSDOT has set an LOS D standard for SR 99. The City will work with WSDOT to determine whether this is a I I A realistic standard for the SR 99 corridor. Downtown Kent is also designated with an LOS F standard. The City considers the downtown street system to be largely complete and few street capacity increases are available. The City also recognizes that traffic conditions in downtown Kent are heavily influenced by conditions on the State highways, SR 167 and SR 18 and railroad _�'d co r ',,vi,h activities. City policies encourage non-auto modes such as transit,pedestrian, and bicycle for travel within downtown Kent. 1 The City's PM peak hour typically occurs between 4.30 and 5 30 pin, 81 L6 c ZZ 2 Lo 2- C M CD m N M v LO Qc) m 70 c 72 LL U) 3: 0 01- t: o 0 L) 0 (3)x _j 't LO (0 00 wmw 00 1p CD ' EYo - C14 E2 i 83 LOS for Existing Conditions For the analysis of the City's roadway system during the PM peak hour Synchro 6.14 software was used to calculate the intersection level of service. This software considers the traffic volumes, signal timing and phasing, presence of pedestrians and transit and topographic features to estimate the LOS operation of the intersections. The evening commute traffic conditions were analyzed at each corridor intersection to calculate the existing PM peak hour LOS conditions. The weighted average LOS for each corridor in the analysis was calculated using the LOS results of each intersection. _ Figure 5-6 shows the 2006 LOS in Kent.Table 5-5 identifies Kent's LOS standards, as well as the 2006 corridor LOS. Within the City, corridor signals generally operate between LOS C and LOS F,with most corridors impacted by at least one LOS E or LOS F signal. One corridor, S 272nd Street, currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Pacific Highway S, Military Road,the Benson Highway, SE 256th Street, Kent-Kangley Road and the roads in the Downtown Zone all operate at LOS E for the PM peak hour existing conditions. Table 5-5. Existing Corridor LOS __--` y� a: 3 :�,,:, ,-; y..I',;;;r = .,- >r_§ :a s::''P _ :':, � :.s.,i`� sue: , tea-= - - -" =�' :r€Yi< - -'-_ � �v,r�g��,. �_'`_,,,�.: ';�...,,,, - .";�$' _: ✓�«; 4<W'-- :,£ r,., ,,,, „' - � ,� c » -Y�--, = a.. „ a�--.� ==a ,€�..,.., cam;�..:�,.......,..;,�` �;, _.', %` t"l,�✓9�, ,V-1,,o wv'°� 1 S 196th St/SE 192nd St Corridor W Valley Highway SR 515(Benson) E D 2 S 212th SUS 208th St 42nd Ave S 132nd Ave SE E C 3 S 224th St/S 228th St SR 516/Military Road S 228th St/84th Ave S E D 4 James SUSE 240th St 64th Ave S 132nd Ave SE E D 5 S 260th St/—---- Road/W Meeker St SR 99 Washington Ave E D 6 Smith SU Canyon Drive/256th St/Kent-Kangley Jason Ave 152nd Way SE E E Road 7 S 256th St SR 515 132nd Ave SE E E 8 S 272nd St SR 99 Military Road E F 9 Paci c Highway S S 240th St S 272nd St F` E 10 MilitaryRoad 231st St S 272nd St E E 11 64th Ave S S 212th St Meeker St E C 12 Washington Avel 68th Ave S/W Valley Hwy S 196th St Meeker St E D 13 Central Ave/84th Ave S S 196th St James St E D 14 SR 515/Benson Ave SE 192nd St SE 256th St E E 15 1161h Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road- - E D _ ----.— 16 132nd Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road E D 17 Downtown Area 4th Ave N to E Titus St James St to W Willis St F E * 'Ihe WSDOT LOS Standard=LOS D 85 L? U) co cn Lo 0 6 0 0 w 0 —J C) 0 0 LL L) 0 i < c 70- (n Q) x IL uj INN col �mi I L ("co) 3g E:3; S. —Al �L 75 U 00 lE T lo 2 CD i 04 CL • 3st III 87 Washington State Department of Transportation Standards for HSS 'Ihe adopted LOS for HSS facilities,including the ramp intersections,is at LOS D for urban areas (RCW 47.06.140) This LOS target is established for Comprehensive Plans and Developer impacts along all State Highways In addition to this LOS standard,the WSDOT also analyzes"screen lines"for deficiencies along state routes rising a standard of 70% of the posted speed. This screen line analysis allows WSDOT to identify the"most congested"locations along the HSS facilities. A speed of approximately 70% of the posted speed equates to conditions where a highway achieves the maximum throughput of vehicles. There are three HSS facilities that travel through the Kent's city limits- SR 99,I-5 and _ SR167. All of these facilities are defined as being within an urban area. _ E WSDOT has not published the LOS along the three HSS facilities, although previous studies indicate that the LOS is worse than the standard of LOS D during most of the PM peak period. The State's 2007-2026 Highway System Plan (Figure 46) indicates that SR 99, 1-5 and SR 167 are expected to operate below the 70% speed threshold (termed`operating less than efficiently') during peak hours in 2030 Puget Sound Regional Council Standards for Non-HSS 'Ihe Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC) in its long range planning document, Destination 2030, adopted LOS standards for Highways of Regional Significance (non- HSS) facilities. A three tier system defines the LOS standards,which varies depending on the location of the facility. All standards are based on the PM peak hour. Tier 1 facilities are located i1 highly developed urban areas and have a"LOS E/ mitigated" standard.The E/mitigated standard allows Tier 1 prolects to operate at below LOS E, but they must provide mitigation that may address congestion such as transit facilities, HOV lanes,pedestrian and bicycle facilities and other travel options. _ Tier 2 facilities are those i1 "outer urban areas" Tier 3 facilities are considered rural. Within Kent, SR 516, the W Valley Highway(SR 181) and Benson Road(SR 515) are classified as Tier t non-HSS facilities by PSRC and have a LOS E/mitigated standard. There are no facilities within Kent classified as Tier 2 or Tier 3. State and Regional Facility Level of Service The GMA also requires that cities take a look at the performance of the State-owned highways near them. The City of Kent is surrounded by state highways and freeways that are used by residents to get from here to there in the region. Both the State and the regional planning organization, the PSRC;, have set LOS standards for the roadways they manage. .1 SO i TRANSPORTATION $1 KENT MASTER PLAN �n Fouture Traffic 0� it Since the Transportation Master Plan will be used by the City for transportation planning for the next 20 years,the City needs to assess the traffic conditions the City will have in 2030 and identify projects that will improve these conditions. Over the next two decades,population and employment are expected to continue to grow, not only in Kent, but in adjacent cities and throughout the Puget Sound region (For more details see Chapter 3). 'Ihe population and employment growth forecasts are used to estimate future traffic levels expected on City streets. In turn,future traffic levels are used to calculate future traffic operations. A description of the traffic forecast methodology used to develop Kent's travel model follows. The model includes a Baseline 2030 street network and its traffic operations(the conditions expected if no additional improvements are made)and a 2030 Preferred street e srFa}��s network and its traffic conditions that include street improvements. =J. E�s.� The travel model uses geographic areas for the estimates and analysis. For Kent, .,.; the travel forecasting model study area consists of 310 transportation analysis zones (TAZs) as the basic geographic unit for estimating travel demand. The TAZs were laid out using digital information,including 2000 Census TIGER files and aerial photos. Approximately one-third of the TAZs are located within the City of Kent, with the remaining TAZs representing potential annexation areas and surrounding jurisdictions. The model includes travel data for the entire Puget Sound Region in order to accurately analyze the impact of regional traffic on the City. For the model,the City also updated roadway and intersection characteristics. Initially,the model's trip purposes,trip generation rates and trip distribution parameters were based on those of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) surveys and parameters used in other travel models in the region. These were adjusted as part € of the validation process.The final model validation procedure calibrated the 2006 base year model to the PM peak hour traffic counts,which had been collected as part of the transportation planning effort. The 2030 transportation network assumed two alternative levels of development, _ a baseline and a preferred network,to allow a comparison of future transportation system performance. To predict the future traffic conditions the existing land uses were replaced with the proposed future land uses and the resulting traffic levels were analyzed on the assumed future street network.The City supplied the 2030 land use estimates and identified the expected growth in households and the employment for each TAZ. To capture the impacts of traffic growth from areas outside the Kent Urban Growth Area(UGA),the model used the PSRC household and employment forecasts. The Kent travel model was run with these land use and transportation inputs to generate estimates of 2030 travel demand on the future transportation network. Population and rnp1 w�,,e i During the last 15 years,Kent's population has more than doubled from both household growth and the expansion of the City limits. Over the next 20 years,the model forecasts that population within the City and surrounding Urban Growth Area (UGA) is expected to increase by another 16 percent,to more than 141,000 residents. Employment is forecast to increase by around 42 percent between 2006 and 2030. 89 Kent,s location to the middle of a large and rapidly growing urbanized region creates I two sources of growth: increasing size and density of the City itself, and ongoing regional growth and development. The travel demand model uses future land use forecasts within the study area combined with regional travel along State highways to estimate future traffic growth. 11ne existing 2006 and 2030 traffic models were compared. Figure 5-7 depicts the relative magnitude of growth for traffic throughout the Kent study area Much of this growth is expected to occur on State and regional highways and the major arterial routes within the City. The widening of SR 167 will expand capacity and travel. Other major facilities will have more modest growth due to constrained conditions, as shown in Table 5-6. Figure 5-7. Future Traffic Growth in Kent 17 1 r� "0000 1 i Sourcc: Mirai City of Kent Model. Note Width of line indicates greater volumes TRANSPORTATION 91 ` KENT MASTER PLAN & Table 5-6. Traffic Growth Expected on State and Local Facilities by 2030 ,�>1r ,�„�°`a �,t - r,�, •.,:.E::i..:,:,�i�g�',;..: ;�'z;•,'r,f° .;;3°�4�3`+�''� r"'• - .a"fiq' �j:.!i...n ,,,. ,7,. State Roads 1-5 36% 1 3% Assumes 1-5 widening " SR 99 105% 3 0% Assumes completion of HOV lanes _ 1 Assumes additional GP lane and SR 167 84% 2 6% completion of HOV system 1 a SR 516 � _____- 23% (West of Downtown) 9% No widening assumed ;I SR 516 9% o ( 0 /o 4 No widening assumed Kent Kangley Road) R SIR 181(West Valley Highway) 39% 1 4% No widening assumed I SR 515 7% 0 3% (Benson Highway) No widening assumed Arterials S 212th St ' 88% 2 7% No widening assumed i E Valley Highway i (Central Ave) 36% 1 3% No widening assumed S _ SE 256th St 22% 0 8% No widening assumed , Military Road S 181% 4 4% No widening assumed E James Street 24% 0 9% No widening assumed i (SE 240th St) ' 132 Avenue SE 20% 0 8% No widening assumed In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on City streets, two future roadway improvement scenarios were examined:the Baseline and the Preferred street network. While the Baseline represents a minimum level of roadway improvements, the Preferred scenario represents a level of roadway improvements necessary to bring the street system into compliance with the City's level of service standards. Baseline Network The 2030 Baseline scenario represents the conditions in the street network with the pro)ects committed to date. 'the Baseline network consists primarily of the existing city street system,funded pro)ects programmed in the City's Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) and the State's Highway Program. The projects in Table 5-7 are assumed to be in place by 2030 as part of the City's baseline traffic model and street system. Most of these projects are at least partially funded and have a reasonable likelihood of being implemented during the next 20 years.This set of projects provides a frame of reference for examining the performance of the City street system in 2030. 91 Table 5-7. Future Baseline Projects Regional Projects SR 167—1-405 to SR 18 i Add one travel lane in each direction Add travel lanes for merging traf c tolfrom SR 509 1-5—SR 509 Extension to S 277th Street Extension SR 509 Extension—SR 518 to 15 Construct new freeway extension from SeaTac Airport to 1-5 Q Add travel lanes(funded by WSDOT gas tax 1405—15 to Bellevue projects) City of Kent Projects This new 5-lane minor arterial is included in the E 7. S 228th Street Corridor Phase I— Military future baseline,because the existing traf c volumes Road S to 64th Avenue S were collected prior to its 2007 completion S 277(h Street Corridor Extension—Widen Widen 116th Ave SE to provide a 5-lane roadway 2 116th AveSE from Kent-Kangley Road(SR between Kent-Kangley Road and SE 256th Street 516)to SE 256th Street 8 72nd Ave S Extension—S 200th St to S 196th Extend 72nd Ave S to provide a parallel corridor to Street the West Valley Highway SR 181/West Valley Highway/Washington The widening project would expand the existing ve 27 Avenue Widening—Meeker St north to ; lane roadway to seven lanes approximately the 218th block, 'llus pro)ect was under construction during the collection of existing data and is not in the curt ent T[P. ' Preferred Network The Preferred network consists of the projects in the Baseline scenario and additional ' projects targeted to improve traffic operations. Several of these projects have already been identified in the Kent's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Preferred network includes intersection improvements, new streets, street � widening and railroad grade separation projects. Intersection improvements vary from simple changes such as changing the lane assignment at Sinith Street/Central Avenue,to more complex projects such as revising the I-5/S 272nd Street freeway ramp interchange. Street widening projects would improve the amount of capacity on the arterial system and allow development of bicycle lanes and sidewalks.Railroad grade separation would alleviate the delays caused by railroad crossings on the street network. The Preferred street network calls for at total of$599 million (2007 dollars) of transportation improvements. Of this total approximately, $97 million is for street projects located within the City's potential annexation area, and is not the City's current responsibility. Therefore,the current City share of the street projects equals $502 million. 'llie City's share is inclusive of all local revenue sources (e.g. local taxes, special assessments, developer payments,et al). The City's share of project cost(by -" project type) is depicted in Figure 5-8 The Preferred network includes $235 million (City's share) in widened and improved streets. Intersection improvements,such as adding turn lanes or modifying a signal, comprise$62 million (City's share). New streets, such as connecting S 224th Street from 84th Avenue to Benson Road, would 401�p " TRANSPORTATION 9� KENT MASTER PLAN t improve east-west links within the City. Approximately$43 million(Ctty's share) t in new streets is included in the preferred network. Approximately$162 million of railroad grade separation pro)ects are also included in the Preferred network plan. The Preferred network improvements are displayed to Table 5-8 and depicted in Figure 5-9. ; The travel demand model was also used to help identify locations that require modification in the future. For example, comparing the 2030 traffic conditions with the Baseline network, it became clear that there needs to be more capacity for vehicles traveling east-west between the Kent Valley and East Hill. In response,the Preferred street network includes these pro)ects to improve east-west mobility: • Widening S 212th Street(SE 208th Street) • Constructing a new road between 84th Avenue S and 104th Avenue SE along S 224th StreetlS 218th Street • Constructing a new road between 84th Avenue SE to 108th Ave SE along the SE 192nd Street Corridor. These improvements will spread traffic over the City more evenly by allowing more route options,which in turn,will ease some of the traffic in the downtown area. These new routes will also be designed to accommodate growing pedestrian and bicycle demand for east-west travel (see Chapter 6). They can also handle existing and future transit services as they become available (see Chapter 7) Figure 5-8. Preferred Network Costs Intersection Improvements, __- $62 M, 12% New Streets, $43 M,9% Street Widening, $235 M,47% Railroad Grade, $162 M,32% (Note.City of Kent Share Only) 93 �. @� Table 5-8' Preferred Network Projects I CO- 540,000 1-1 S E I 92nd SI/S R51 5-Benson-Add southbound right turn pocket 1-2 S 196th SUBOth Ave S-Change intersection phasing and lane approaches, 250,000 w� / 1-3 / 3l9@AIt/84th Ave S Add eastbound righ turn pocket arid southlbound dual left turn lanes / 7'190,000 | 1-43E208U 5K3R5l5'Bensmn Add dual suuth le ft 6� phasing 'N0 KV � 1'5 SZl2�30 Av e Add sombnun hddua||dt Nm lanes 3l0'N0 ---'---' - - ---- - - ------ -' '-- -' —'— - � |'6 ----- 3Zl2SK �9� �r5 Ex�odeastbound|eM Wm lane and add noAhboundand sou�hounddw||ek l.710'N0 0� mm mnm A SZ|�S�KlB75n��d� »�� d�Nm\ 4�{�mp� � m� ' _ - _ -_' _ - _ _ + 18 SD2th St/SR lQNorallbound Ramp Mod��mak��dright 0�h� Z�{� -- m� |� ! SZ40th St/SR 89 Change signal phasing | 420,00 | 1-10 | Mb Ave NfC\nudy3i'Provide northbound and southbmmd exclusive left turn lanes Install trafcsignal | 2'160.000 | | 1l . S[Z4O�St/SR Add�m|nov�bnun andmu� &bo m]|e �m|anes Add no"�boondand 1,650,000 �houndright N kp� -�oun� um'Poo _ -_-______--____' '- - _______-__ __-_-----__- -___ 1-12 | 3mkh St/Lincoln Ave(Smart Growth Initiative) Add eastbound left turn pocket l.990.5OO -_-' _-- |l3 VV�e�arS,and VVSm/�St |me�onne�|mrm�un�a/|crossing signals 342'00 � | 14 Smith Ra�nu�buundandnokhboundN lane i Z000 � _��___ _m � evnv _ _ man assignment . - 1'75 Meeker St/WashmgtonAve Modr�ogoo|phaong Ad eauboundand wegboundnghtmm�zk�s 780.m0 _-__- _ --- __'-- 1l5 32SNh St/SR 99 Add westbound dual left turn lane Add eastbound andweskmundngh/mmpuckgs . 1.180.000 --- -- '- -- ---' ---' -- | l7 Military Rd��R � Rd Widen intersection to d � | U h 1,945,000 / � e/ / 'upmvmx m lanes approaches _ - - - ---' 1-18 3[Z58NSU3Rbl5'8umon-Add northbound right turn lane and chaoge signal phasing 550,00 1-19 Kent-KongleyKd/10DNAve3[-Add eastbound and westbound dual|ektUmlanes Add eastbound 1,410,000 pocket Chaogenukhbuundng»Nmphaun------- SE ' ' -_-___- __-_- -__--_' _------_ N� | 256NSue�andl32nV�eSE Ex�ndn��bnund|e�souhLmund��andmes�ound left�m ' w� |'Z0 / JU200O pockets Construct owea�boundaodmo�boundright t | s ' Pno�� -- /x - _ - -um/ono__ ----- � Reconstruction- �~ |�l | |' �272nV�a}�»� �hangeRen�mcnon-Pha�u|'PmmdeVnnu(axdH0VD/m�AcceabekwuenS i 42'J3�00 ' Z72ndSt and|'5 ~~ i.Z2 | 3Z7ZndS�M/|/W�Rd Add umm�bound�mugh lane aL/meoecUon Add ooA�buunddual|e��m 1'640.00 lanes 1-23 Kant-Kang|eyRd/13Znd Ave S[ Add northbound and southbuuod dual left turn lanes i 1'360,00 �= Total Cost ! * 63'309.500 (City Share ofCost) $ (62'079.500) '-'--' - m� ---------'------------ --' -----' --'-- --- ' --- ---- - - '-- -T------ '-----' 3El9ZnVS\N4th Ave S[NlO8th Ave SE) Create new roadway connection with 4'5 lanes and 45'200'000 N'l bicycle lanes, � p4'329'0ON N'2 72nd Ave 3(SZ0Oth StN3l0QhSt) Extend roadway to connect N3l0hth St ' 1,015,000 3Z2�h3t �h�aS�ulO�hAxe�E(BeomnRd'SR575)) Extend 3h0000O0 N'3 � p | ' ' ~^ Hwy undvw�mem�Uw�mad�3'5|ano ' �4'0D3'O00 ' -' - ---_ '_- _ � N4_ |_SZ20hD Corridor-Phase| (Military.RdIto54th Ave S)` oognCt new roadway.with 5|a/xs _Completed 108U Ave IE(SE Kent-KanghyRd�R5lWNSE250h3V Extend roadway connection | N'5 ' 2,500,000 | - St � Total Cost ' � 84Jl5.�0 | . , _---------------_ __(C.ity ofCos $H2,827,0OO. . � � TRANSPORTATION 91 K E N T MASTER PLAN IN111110 Table 5-8. Preferred Network Projects (cont'd) "IN P.k 0" 'a t�"& *� AM "92 4 15 "B"�e P 5 N RO ple , ;6EP W-1 80th Ave S Widening(S 196th St to S 188th St)-Widen to 5 lanes 1,323,000 ,100, W-2 S 212th St(SR 167 to 108thAve SE)-Widen to 5-6 lanes (6,10046,000)000 —--—----------- W-3 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening(Meeker St north to 218th block)-Widen to 7 lanes 16,150,000 —-—-------- -------------------------------------- —-—---------------------- -——- --—----------------------------- W-4 i 84th Ave S(SR 167 to S 212th St)-Widen to 7 lanes 5,106,666__ ----------- -----— ----- --—--- W-5 116th Ave SE(SE 208th SttoSE256[hSt)-Widen to5 lanes with bike lanes 46,430,000 (17,730,000) 20,990,000 W-6 1 32rid Ave SE(SE 200th St to SE 236th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes (0) W-7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S from SIR 516 to Bolger Road)-Widen to 5 lanes Completed James St(Union Paci c Railroad to 4th Ave N)-Provide eastbound and westbound exclusive left turn W-8 1,800,00 0 E W-9 132nd Ave SE-Phase III (SE 248th St to SE 236th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 11,950,000 W-10 Military Rd S(S 272nd St to S 240th St)-Widen to provide a center turn lane,bike lanes and sidewalks, 13,630,000 W Meeker St-Phase 11(Lake Fenwick Road to east side of the Green River)-Widen to 5 lanes including W-11 anew bridge 70,000,000 -----—------- W-12 I W Meeker St Phase I (64th Ave S to Green River Bridge)-Widen to 5 lanes 5,960,000 ---- ------ W-1 3 SE 248th St(116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE)-Construct a 3 lane roadway 5,640,000 SE 256th St-Phase 11 (SR 516(Kent-Kangley Rd)to 116th Ave SE)-Construct a 5 lane roadway with W-1 4 5,100,000 bike lanes W-1 5 SE 256th St-Phase 111 (132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 16,980,000 S 277th St Corridor(116th Ave SE from Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 lanes W-16 7,500,000 with bike lanes W-17 132nd Ave SE-Phase 11 (Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to SE 248th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 23,200,000 W-18 S 272nd St-Phase 11(Paci c Hwy S to Military Rd S)-Add 2 HOV lanes and a center left-turn lane 13,916,000 W-19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I (SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516))-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 13,120,000 Total Cost 288,895,060 (City Share of Cost) $ (235,151,000) ----------- --- —------- ------- I R-1 S 212th St/Union Paci c Railroad-Grade Separation 33,000,000 ---- -------- ------- ---------- d------ ----------- R-2 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad-Grade Separation, 33,000,000 1 ------- -------------- -—-—-- ----------- R-3 S 228th St/Union Paci c Railroad-Grade Separation j 24,200,000 2 RA S 228th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad-Grade separation l 23,000,000 R-5 1 Willis St(SR 516)/Union Paci c Railroad-Grade Separation. 26,500,000 R-6 I Willis St(SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad-Grade Separation 22,600,000 i Total Cost $ 162,300,000 Grand Total Cost $ 599,219,500 (City Share of Cost) $ (502,357,500) 95 ervi The future PM peak hour levels of service for the 2030 Baseline and 2030 Preferred network are displayed in Table 5-9. Figure 5-10 displays the results for the 2030 baseline and Figure 5-11 shows the LOS for the 2030 preferred network. Under the baseline scenarios traffic operations are expected to degrade throughout the City.About half of the corridors will operate at LOS F with the remainder operating at LOS E.The City defines satisfactory LOS as maintaining an LOS E or better along designated corridors The SR 99 Corridor and downtown Kent are allowed to operate at LOS E Corridors that operate at LOS F typically have heavy congestion and are impacted by poorly operating intersections. The following section describes the corridors that would operate at LOS F under the Baseline conditions along with the improvements needed to >; meet the acceptable LOS operations. Corridor 5 (Smith Street/Canyon Drive/256th Street/Kent-Kangley Road) this 1 t heavily congested corridor is forecast to operate worse in 2030 with four of the nine intersections operating at LOSE The intersections within the corridor that operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour are: SE 256th Street/Jason Avenue,SE 256th Street/SR 515 (Benson),Kent-Kangley Road/116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE.The preferred networks intersection improvements at 108th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE will allow the corridor to meet the LOS E threshold. The corridor will also serve transit and will also have bike lanes. Corridor 6 (S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street) - By 2030,four of the seven intersections along this corridor are likely to operate at LOS F. Heavy congestion along Meeker Street between Washington Avenue S and 64th Avenue S contribute to the poor performance of this corridor. The preferred network would widen Meeker Street to five lanes between Lake Fenwick Road and 64th Avenue S and add turn pockets and signal phasing changes at the Washington Avenue S intersection,resulting in a corridor improvement to LOS D. The corridor will also serve transit and will leave bike lanes _ Corridor 8 (S 272nd Street) -S 272nd Street currently operates at LOS E The City and State have planned improvements that would widen the roadway and modify the freeway access ramps The proposed improvements would allow S 272nd Street to meet the LOS E threshold. The corridor will have bike lanes when completed. Corridor 9 (Pacific Highway S) This corridor is classified by the State as a Highway of Statewide Significance, and the traffic impacts are prnnardy related to traffic traveling through the City of Kent. This corridor is forecast to operate at LOS F under future conditions. The City has assumed that this corridor is built-out to its maximum configuration and has set a LOS F threshold. While general traffic conditions will worsen,this corridor has existing HOV lanes that can serve a future bus rapid transit (BRT) system.Therefore,the LOS will be substantially better for transit and carpool users. and should be consistent with WSDOT's LOS D standard.The corridor also accommodates bicycles. Corridor 10 (Military Road) -Between 231st Street and S 272nd Street,Military Road 1s a two-lane road,lacking turn lanes at intersections and driveways. The lack of adequate capacity at the intersections of Military Road/S 272nd Street and Military Road/SR-516 results in corridor congestion during peak commuter periods. The preferred alternative would widen the roadway to three lanes. New turn lanes at Military Road/Reith Road and an additional southbound lane at Military Road/S 2721ld Street would bring the corridor up to LOS D This corridor serves transit and will have bike lanes. rl rn rno a° m � � • ♦ 6 ---- �Z - m LT ;+ 4 m v 3 m n - d C L = � - e 3s am LG �J SF 3G antl LGl 3J - 3S antl Hl iG a^voft n Jy,� . M, � nanY Ovt Y C1`\ 4s } '-- --- '- . per s 3 as.nY au - - 3S antl PoL d� 35 antl Got 45, 39t^r 991 J ag--n canna sanrK„ �p r• Pa un"aa y ca., G —. 9 antl >�I �� Ili lam. nbCP ONaiVI lua Sant/lal WaJ `> BN 6anYU9 I > Nigu � — � �� MN 15❑ � 1 1 li rl _ Fi OIVJ N - naa�� .• Y+ — a9 GIdU > 421�� _ �_ C - �saM aXd 111> Ptl MaiwLej rMal � I Z Fri _ G)6 TRANSPORTATION 99 MASTER PLAN KENT Table 5-9. Future Corridor LOS g U411 0 M"M r 4- ,X, R q eek"E, 74 Toil' sp j 1 S 196th SUS E 192nd St Corridor W Valley Highway SR 515(Benson) E D 2 S 21 2th St/S 208th St 42nd Ave S 132nd Ave SE E D 3 S 224[h SUS 228th St SR 516/Military Road S 228th St/84th Ave S E E 4 James SYSE 240th St 64th Ave S 132nd Ave SE E E 5 S 26-0th St/Reith Road/W Meeker St SR 99 Washington Ave F D 6 Smith St/Canyon Drive/256th St Jason Ave 152nd Way SE F E Kent-langloy Road -------------- ----------- 7 S 2561h St SR 515 132nd Ave SE E D 8 S 272nd St SR 99 Military Road F F 9 Paco c Highway S S 240th St S 272nd St F F 10 i Military Road 2 31 st St S 272nd St F D 11 64th Ave S S 212th St Meeker St E D Washington Ave/68th Ave S(W 12 S 196th St Meeker St F E Valley Hwy 13 Central Ave/84th Ave S S 196th St James St D D 14 SR 51 S/Benson Ave SE 192nd St SE 256th St F E 15 11 6th Ave SE SE 2081h St Kent-Kangley Road E D 16 132nd Ave SE SE 208th S1 Kent-Kan le Road E D 17 j Downtown Area 4th Ave N to E ritus St James St to W Willis St F F Corridor 12 (Washington Ave/68th Ave S/W Valley Hwy) — This stretch of West Valley Highway is a primary north-south route through Kent and an important truck route. The corridor also serves high transit volumes.`1he section between James Street and the Meeker Street intersection is forecast to have high delays during the 2030 PM peak hour. The preferred network would widen Washington Avenue to seven lanes from Meeker Street to approximately the 218th Street block to provide additional vehicle capacity along this corridor. With the preferred network improvements,the corridor would operate at LOS E during the 2030 PM peak hour. Corridor 14 (SR 515/Benson Ave) —This is the primary north-south route to Kent's East Hill and serves as a major transit corridor. With four to five lanes in its current configuration,this roadway has been widened to its practical Z:) limits. Improvements at major intersections (S 192nd Street, S 208th Street, S 256th Street) along the corridor and widening of parallel routes on 11 6th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE would bring this corridor to the City's LOS F threshold. Corridor 17(Downtown Kent) - Downtown Kent is treated as a zone that extends from 4th Ave N to E Titus Street (east-west) and from James Street to W Willis Street(north-south). The downtown area accommodates all modes — cars,bus transit,commuter trains,pedestrians and bicyclist Downtown operates as a hub of the transportation system with major roadways radiating out from its core,resulting in congested conditions. 'Ile preferred network includes a few targeted intersection modifications downtown, but no major street widening. This approach matches the City's desire not to impact business or degrade pedestrian mobility The City will allow LOS F operation within the Downtown zone and encourage public transportation to provide growth in person-carrying capacity. 101 --� o00o c � � 170 a� J to J o � � 0) w LL � o 0 O CLD LL U X CD 16T- t W - - --—- -- 1 L LLI r U 1 LL i t Q ' U44 � EU co LLkr �LLl c� LLi�Ea_-_ I N io� 00 J o W LL mo o i < L L ,L O CL) o LL. L V g _ O U I C � N o L °- �",' - - 1 7 r _ m �6�- (Di i��myo LL a3r � 00 - c N ¢ - N 2-6 I Y = - a Q 103 Kent has substantial industrial and commercial development throughout the City."the =A _ „ �_ City is committed to supporting local industry,business, and residential needs and ``` recognizes that the ability to ship and receive freight is essential to the success of many i ` businesses. The City will continue to collaborate with local businesses to improve freight access,while maintaining the roadway infrastructure,whenever possible. EJ=_ As noted earlier in Chapter 2,Kent is one of the region and west coast's largest distribution centers. More than 1,400 trucks enter or leave Kent each day. The forecasts by the state show that Kent will continue as a center for warehousing and distribution within the region. The City wilt accommodate trucks by providing truck routes that encourage distribution businesses to locate in Kent. The City expects that the majority of regional truck trips would take place Oil the State highways.However,recognizing that trucks need to travel on city streets to access the �" ' ' ` ' State highways and also need to travel into and within the City, Kent has designated 1 " " a network of north-south and east-west corridors as truck routes Figure 5- 12 shows the designated truck routes. These truck routes will incorporate special design considerations such as wider turning radii and stronger pavements. The City has also designated a set of industrial truck routes for several north-south roads parallel to and adjacent to SR 167.'These routes are located within the areas zoned as manufacturing and industrial sites and provide local truck travel options. F rZ _ P for �, t a s LO �° 4 O LL O o o a) U U 2 d c� 1 CQ i6 L - , la m�E} i gym'- u m N N LL 105 What the Corniriunity:said anoint. Street improvements i Community Interest for Railroad i h cnn�ri,un;ty volr, i Il�eir,rlcas�:alit liry nEr�st I �;tit stlac€ Grade Separation Projects hrorro"= ol'c ci rhi-f'I ',, MP,opJl I ou; "t-;s' rca(Jhrlg th„ � 01`t"<W"Oi n th:' no!a SCII' I C ,d,�nq�;'1C'foloGvii:q ollc11 In the rhtr{JE[� � CvCll'eC,h S 228th UPRR I F1I 10"1C"(J)'`d�.i;Se[)a �3lIon (SC'f�i;<'iC��.l; q 2% J S 212th UPRR ;;1"L/3611'Sliee-,"t`' a°io l i ln-, iwE;Ii"ents SR 1 ,'1 w'aIley Nljih.`kaf, I'llplav�1°11r:nts 212th BNSF Willis SNSF Z1,'1 5�i��e1 C;ttrllrir,r LxleilsciE 24% = 37% S� 1E7:lCOIf?rtlCr[S i * 32"0 Jlil'Jrii4`Caaellts 1 rt_ Willis UPRR tc3lf�:a C�'d��G'S� ir�lt C�ICj=1C�S 4�dkLl�t (� ��iC[! Ord 16 1 lt`f IOSt 33% 3tlefl�IS'��C;Iagil i3ElU<f� SiC(;E`t j)ru)ecC i1C.ud{ ;, i tic,cli-i)rare Sho:vrS the pl?rCt;Cl1=i�1(;id: ;GIT{'illll(t; 'sCi�('rra',li)C SplOC;l {:'ill€iO�]�E C(ii7E�C',Shhrli.allfilS hr�hc �s. The street projects contained in the 2030 Preferred Network vary in size,scope, and benefits. Since all of these projects cannot be built immediately,the City must identify a way to select which projects to do first, and which can be done at a later date. This is accomplished by prioritizing the projects. The TMP Task Force was asked to develop a set of criteria to help the City prioritize the projects. The criteria were based on the community values identified at a workshop that updated the City's transportation policies. Several criteria were selected to rank the street projects. These criteria, covering the nnportant issues of project cost,performance,values, as well as tangential benefits to the transportation system and community, are as follows: Mobility: The ease with which one can move about the city and the region, including traffic mobility, regional mobility, freight movements, and preservation (improvements)of the roads • Safety: Traffic safety improvements at high accident locations (HAL);improvements that reduce travel times for EMS vehicles • Multilnodal: Street improvements that support other modes including, transit mobility, pedestrian mobility, bicycle mobility and connectedness/ accessibility(completing missing links) 0 Environment: Environmental preservation (protecting open spaces) and neighborhood street protection • Implementation: Cost effectiveness (per $1000 investment); funding commitment;project readiness (is it ready to go forward) �i These criteria and how they were measured are shown in Table 5-10. Measurements include improvements in LOS;the degree to which the project supports transit operation on primary transit corridors;improvements that benefit pedestrians based on composite accessibility index;improvements provided for bicycle facilities; and the degree to which the project completes missing lucks or improves access. TRANSPORTATION 10(m KENT MASTER PLAN ' , CD CD CD cc CD fi� J O C U U a Y , CO U 3 Q v j N CD 3 O U JO E cO✓'z N N ( Oy s N O N r O 77 C - Q' i o a2 -a E I cUo a n aGov CD j E Z o m ca CD _ CDCD @ O E o 'O 7t y 'O cu O N c:, 1 Q c�`��✓� Ql ` � U to 3 �i O O a) , O � O � O O , ca E i N CD C O J > Q1 N C ' ¢ i CL d CD m sz to U O C > F d i C C ?j CDOs4 NO E CD m € is U o> E is r Ql CD > IID > .fn O 47 — { O C O s'" a E .n r L n ro oCD O N O > U m t o j c F a iv in++ _ d o CD > E o .� o i m o m a� aN � U ! m , i 0_ E a a o a E ";. E m z to o y E o z CD m € . CD :- n Y o o s„3 m s o cl v v g U j V7 Q) O c6 C i x ` ° C O I T' N C O aJ L u Q O O ( .._ cU V n c m o C o o o 0 4 O ID CD CD aU E fl a s as a j a a m c v o _E D a E E o E E n c E c,5cc T - d CD cu 35'tl ,"""i�l I'll fn N C > O OG CD U V? d > Lo cn H= w w;. �jjpg4w.. luawuol[AU3 Fg(! 107 2 -to • - ;rig C pCDCD U U _ V ro C) O � O � p co CD -p U U i p YO Q) Q1 `O O QJ i CD CDCT O E a z m z CD y O U x o 'D QJ C O 1 O Y O U 47 c CD cm CD CD- O ` O N a N O CD i o T � C CCD C76 U O O O co0CL a c E � i c -o -0 Q) 7 a� 4 -a <L Z w F- CIO w co O x C o Ct) CD CD 'L, ,x,✓o,;ad ,"` ��=� v� ._� to � C �n rr` S� � o E Wn O +. r a CDo _ n LD CDa � ° a E 0 u o a N -U) �¢_ c- m �� In oCL C O 'O .' cc p L) w to w=j U- a lepowialnW uoilejuawaldwl F— TRANSPORTATION O KENT MASTER PLAN W- The measurement system presented is broad enough in selected criteria to provide a good overview of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposed projects,and one must realize the scores produced are simply one more tool to use in producing a list of recommended projects. Each criterion was assigned a weighting as shown in Table 5-11. Table 5-11. Criterion Weighting Matrix _ Mobility(total maximum points=85) 34% � Traf c Mobility (30) Regional Mobility (25) System Preservation (10) ( Freight Movement (20) Safety(total maximum points= 30) 12% Traf c Safety (15) Emergency Response (15) Multimodal(total maximum points=50) 20% Transit Mobility (15) Pedestrian Mobility (15) x Bicycle Mobility (10) • Connectedness-Accessibility (10) Environment(total maximum points=35) I 14% Environmental Preservation (15) ; Neighborhood Protection (20) I i Implementation(total maximum points=50) 20% • Cost Effectiveness (15) i Funding (15) Project Readiness (20) � Total 100% The results of the streets rating process are summarized in Table 5-12 and depicted in Figure 5-13.'Fhe projects are grouped into quartiles based upon the overall project ratings. Table 5-12 shows that each Criterion Ratings project has different rankings by criteria. Few projects rank the Symbol Value same across all criteria. The highest rated projects contain the ++ - 2 highest number of good criteria rankings. The rating for each + = 1 criterion was multiplied by the criterion weight to produce a 0 = 0 project"score" For example,a project that achieved a(++) rating for a criterion with a weight of 30 would create a score of = i 2 x 30 =60 points. �. 109 Table 5-12. Street Project Evaluation Results -� uF�F`i=',P€�' "Ilk �,,� s:<'�'` ` bi':d ,`^.�i ,3�-�f ,1� '„n� F: - £,F�ayr °2s_; _-'x-s9= i✓,1�y: <f^'g _ ,�� mv TRIP - "" ��' - �G+f,:• ;^` ,;;:,,:_ ..fit ;.�'� "'`„ 'y.�,`,'„ v;, `'„ <J, , -, c -`E Al41 ^-�e'r.- -"__ :!`rr';• �t'#ik: ;! „„.;., ,<.y.,y i,.. ,; <- °__ °."- __ ^'i'n�,9i ,1° £,✓'`.Fhi4< ;,I`3r< 9T✓s,•,, - SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave i 245 W-3 28 Widening(Meeker St north to 218th block) 16,150,000 Widen to 7 lanes S 277th St Corridor(116th Ave SE from Kent- 230 W-16 1 t Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 7,500,000 lanes with bike lanes 230 �W 4 6 84th Ave S(SR 167 to S 212th St)-Widen to 7 5,106,000 lanes _-_---------- - - - _ — 230 R 4 7 S 228th Street/Burlington Northern Santa Fe 23,000,000 i Railroad-Grade separation F 1-5/S 272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction f 220 1-21 17 -Phase I-Provide transit and,HOV Direct Access ( 42,330,000 between S 272nd Street and 1-5 220 9 116 S 240ih Street/SR99 Change signal phasing 420,000 a S 212th Street/SR 167 Northbound Ramp-Modify 220 18 111 signal timing by making northbound right turn free 220,000 Smith Street/Central Avenue-Revise southbound 220 114 i 104 ( and northbound turn lane assignment. I 20,000 215 18 106 SE 256th St/SR515-Benson-Add northbound 550,000 ! right turn lane and change signal phasing James St(Union Pac! c Railroad to 4th Ave N) 205 W-8 4 Provide eastbound and westbound exclusive left E 1,800,000 turn lanes 205 5 108 ` S 212th Street/72nd Avenue S-Add southbound 205 dual left turn lanes ` I 4th Avenue N/Cloudy St-Provide northbound and 205 110 15 southbound exclusive left turn lanes Install traf c ' 2,160,000 signal s TRANSPORTATION l i t KENT MASTER PLAN Table 5-12. Street Project Evaluation Results (cont'd) - - - -tti pa Ri b t.€_.17[3 11"rf; iry � ' ue� 200 123 112 1 Kent-Kangley Rd1132nd Ave SE-Add northbound 1,360,000 I and southbound dual left turn lanes f _.___-------___-.__ .-_-___._______-__ __ ________.-__---__ _ ___ ___--- S 272nd St-Phase II(Pace c Hwy S to Military Rd t 200 W 18 27 S)-Add 2 HOV lanes and a center left-turn lane 13,916,000 ; i08th Ave SE(SE Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to 200 N-5 29 SE 256th St)-Extend roadway connection to SE 2,500,000 256th St ; 132nd Ave SE-Phase I (SE 288th St to Kent j 195 W-19 32 1 Kangley Rd(SR 516))-Widen to 5 lanes with ( 13,120,000 bike lanes ' I i SE 2561h Street and 132nd Ave SE-Extend { no left,southbound left,and westbound 195 1-20 10 l 302,000 I left turn pockets Construct new eastbound and j_ E southbound right turn lanes ; 3 ------------_--------------- SE 240th Street&SR 515-Add dual northbound ( 185 1-11 107 and southbound left turn lanes Add northbound 1,650,000 and southbound right turn pockets. ; € 132nd Ave SE-Phase III (SE 248th St to SE 236th z 11,950,000 180 W 9 34 St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes � 72nd Ave S(S 200th St to S 196th St)-Extend f 180 N-2 13 ; 1,015,000 _ roadway to connect to S 196th SC __ _____________._-___--�--t--_ _.__; S 224th St(84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE(Benson 180 N-3 16 Rd-SR515)-Extend roadway to correct to E f 24,983,000 I i Valley Hwy and widen existing road to 3-5 lanes € _ _ — - 165 R 6 22 Willis Street(SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa 22,600,000 Fe Railroad-Grade Separation 165 R 5 21 j Willis St(SR 516)/Union Paa c Railroad-Grade 26,500,000 - 3 Separation 3 t---- - _-__-_-__--...___ j S 212th StlBurlin ton Northern Santa Fe Railroad ' r ' 165 ? R-2 24 E 33,000,000 _Grade Separation. 3 ! S 212th St/Union Paa c Railroad-Grade 1165 R-1 23 Separation 33,000,000 111 Table 5-12. Street Project Evaluation Results (cont'd) , 44 rlx ' ,€ - ,:'`;; "F- - _ +ram sE,,,t. `€';''>€ '" ,,%'-; ,, ;,r ,=,a 1' ✓r3;f '`-rN,[F�,• __ -�_, tea, - -�_�. ;� F Y.` ��€r�,``}•�••'r,, - F „�;;�-," _",*�a', n� € <;�,.;��" •'i4,•�.�� = -'�" §`^ F'q`"` k:`€• _�€` ,�"J;i S.{ika'dv'r,3v� Awl -�o y-*��,'arm' '�ry'�_:;ti='�.�••`'•'�'^4"';"__ ;ss ,'_,, '��'.6",.e,''i';'";r�..' ,e'°�'€,',-3t�>,"',',.�, `,_•,„rN", '�,, .s;�.sit"�<'�;,_, �`_•"" F SE 248th St(116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE) 5,640,000 160 W 13 12 Construct a 3 lane roadway --- ___ _ 160 112 11 Smith St/Lincoln Ave(Smart Growth Initiative) 1,990,500 Add eastbound left turn pocket SE 256th St-Phase II (SR 516(Kent-Kangley Rd) 160 W-14 15 to 116th Ave SE)-Construct a 5 lane roadway 5,100,000 with bike lanes S 260th St/SR 99-Add westbound dual left turn � 150 1-16 117 lane Add eastbound and westbound right turn 1,180,000 - pockets 132nd Ave SE-Phase II (Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 150 W-17 33 516)to SE 248th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike 23,200,000 lanes Military Rd S(S 272nd St to S 240th St)-Widen � 145 W-10 26 to provide a center turn lane,bike lanes and 13,630,000 C sidewalks M S 212th Street(SR 167 to 108th Avenue SE) 140 W-2 102 6,046,000 _Widen to 5,6 lanes 140 W 15 35 SE 2.56th St Phase III (132nd Ave SE to 148th 16,980,000 Ave SE)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes S 228th St 1 Union Paci c Railroad -Grade 24,200,000 140 R 3 25 Separation Meeker St/Washington Ave-Modify signal 135 1-15 103 phasing Add eastbound and westbound right turn 780,000 Pockets 120 1-7 110 S 212th Street&SR167 Southbound Ramp-Add 400,000 soutbound left turn lane ��°a TRANSPORTATION 11' KEN T MASTER PLAN >'. Table 5-12. Street Project Evaluation Results (cont'd) 'Y I 7*4, " E.;r, . Or Wa J, - Nrl .,,ti,;,��'•y :ii.a. a�' >" U E t:E,b�.'>,. rE!%.' „ .ag.'a %6✓vra9.E`. �I.i�z �, 'V.` �-;`��sl,'"e'� i 115 117 18 Military Rd S/Reith Rd Widen intersection to - I provide turn lanes on all approaches - 1,945,000 S 212th StreeU84th Avenue S-extend eastbound I �` 110 1-6 105 left turn lane and northbound and southbound 1,710,000 ; dual left turn lanes 116th Ave SE SE 208th St to SE 256th St) T T'100 W 5 100 i -Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 17,730,000 f ( SE 192nd Street(84th Avenue SE to-1 08th i ' 100 N-1 37 Avenue SE) -Create new roadway connection ( 14,329,000 with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes S 272nd SUMilitary Rd-Add a southbound 195 1-22 115 through lane at intersection Add northbound dual 1 1,540,000 I left turn lanes ui 95 12 f 113 S 196th Street/80th Avenue S-Change intersection phasing and lane approaches 250,000 Q .. o � Kent-Kangley Rd/108thAvenue SE-Add � � E 95 I_19 109 eastbound and westbound dual left turn lanes i Add eastbound right turn pocket Change 1,410,000 northbound right turn phasing. i _J_ 95 1-13 8 W Meeker St and W Smith St-Interconnect Interurban Trail crossing signals 342,000 I l 90 W-12 30 B�Meeker St Phase I (64th Ave S to Green River € Bridge)-Widen to 5 lanes. 5,960,000 j , S 196th StreeU84th Avenue S-Add eastbound t t 50 1 3 114 right turn pocket and southbound dual left turn 1,190,000 lanes , W Meeker St-Phase 11(Lake Fenwick Road to — ( 45 W 11 31 east side of the Green River)-Widen to 5 lanes 70,000,000 including a new bridge 1 f ( 25 W 1 80th Ave S Widening(S 196th St to S 188th St) 119 Widen to 5 lanes � �e_ la _.. _ 1,323,000 ( �� Total 502,357,500 A �, M N 17 ° • • • •CO) I- a p 2 (b C _ N J C) c - D Z IL C a - (L 5 _ Q� - sc Y° '�y 36,nv LSI m b - x -'fie „b„ ]S anV6K J Itf - _ � — _�✓ y F�fffMM�N 3S enYZC4 39•^v LCI •E - x ,� _ Y �� as•nr rel w� x 11 Fc - x r Y ltl. 6 3s uY ltll 3s•nv eel ti _ 3f•1Y U81 gl Ql e� 1 S e 9,nYn S,nV Ie y - k /!r — 61a Ot nY C•nrC, `r = S.nb BY N+nb .rvi»u Is•w ae 1 - _ _ s n•N>a MN19O vL< i7" N _ — _ e5•vY9 i S^^YN 6 1 Y - Lt- Spb a/114 `Q•+Y'° Pb4i� � w tin Z b 1 „ E TRANSPORTATION 115 0 ”' `;�.,, KENT MASTER PLAN A � al -! G3 ro vy, rF i zn� ;u,� r3RN ' , W:14E .tl, 1 Walking and cycling are integral components of the City's multimodal transportation system. Walking is considered the preferred mode for short trips.Walking is the most affordable and accessible of all transportation modes. It is also clean, easy on the City's Chapter Contents infrastructure,healthy for the individual, and integral to community livability. In the last several decades, Kent has annexed many neighborhoods where streets were ADA requirements not built with sidewalks or the sidewalks are in need of repair. In addition,bicycles, Pedestrian System scooters and inline skating provide both teenagers,adults and even older residents a . Existing Inventory choice of movement. . Needs Analysis Recommendations the City is committed to providing the benefits of walking and cycling to all residents , Costs by supporting pedestrian and bicycle travel as a safe, efficient, desirable, and accessible s- Bicycle System mode throughout the City's neighborhoods. A key part of the Transportation Master , Existing Inventory Plan is an interconnected system for those who walk or use a bicycle. The City carried . Needs Analysis out a Non-Motorized Study to identify critical gaps in the City's pedestrian and , Recommendations bicycle transportation systems. This chapter evaluates the-existing pedestrian and . Costs bicycle facilities and provides comprehensive recommendations for future facilities. This chapter Evaluates how well the existing pedestrian and bicycle systems operate. r Identifies a future pedestrian and bicycle network and a prioritized list of Kent Noii-IVilotCNlLfia pedestrian and bicycle protects for those networks. ! Vi n The inventory of the existing pedestrian and bicycle system was integrated into the Dent Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS data were used to conduct spatial analyses to identify priority pedestrian and bicycle improvements, while considering accessibility to public transit,schools,parks,civic centers and other critical factors. The Non-motorized Transportation Study was coordinated with the other modal elements and financial planning efforts in the larger Transportation Master Plan effort. 4,. .°`} j _i; ,{ g:%�' ,">ar.,.�x�, 'r,�,„ a :.3 ✓sa °fit, :;', ",,.a _ ,t The Kent Non-motorized Study addressed the guidelines and regulatory requirements i ns va Ld of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Of the five titles or parts to the ADA,Title 11 is of most concern to the City of Kent. Title II requires a public entity to evaluate its services,programs,policies, and practices to determine whether I they are in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. The ADA requires that a Transition Plan be prepared,to describe any structural or physical changes required to make programs accessible to all and to outline how they will be made. 'this chapter will serve as the Transition Plan to meet ADA Title II requirements. e r i a n P!aft Commensurate with the ADA requirements for inventory and self-evaluation,the City targeted a significant portion of the overall Non-motorized'Fran sportati on Study to complete a walking inventory of the major street-side pedestrian system within the Kent urban area. The pedestrian plan was developed to address the needs identified } during the assessment of the existing system; community priorities helped the City sort short term and long term projects. ,N 4 i ' ,tr=}{, 'tt.C>= s, �a•�� t* lei �,:», .. :Yi"�� In early 2005,the City inventoried the pedestrian facilities along Kent's major streets. The GPS data collection was focused on arterial and collector streets,while local � (residential) streets were inventoried using the most current aerial photograph and ,P;(11 the City:s GIS database. 'The resulting inventory,shown in Figure 6-1, is a map and database of existing and missing sidewalks and curb ramps. The inventory database,formatted specifically for GIS analysis,was added to the City's other GIS- based mapping themes for analysis and evaluation. More than 450 miles of existing and missing sidewalks and 1,950 street corners(curl)ramps)were inventoried and assessed as part of Kent's required self-evaluation. 117 E E cz o o Q -2 W LZ cna o 0 M to (3) co U) 00 A, -Az !'IV c is 0,0 .a Q-4-4 LTI bad— Ow go& 00— IT R, -_4, 2,2 00 CD ... C14 -6o cz 2 a LL nlh r.r.. 119 Sidewalks The sidewalk analysis collected information on several characteristics, including the surface conditions,the width, heaving and cracking issues, obstacles blocking portion of the sidewalks, driveway crossings, and missing sidewalks. Sidewalk Surface Conditions. The older developed areas of the City have a larger portion of older sidewalks needing repair and needs for new sidewalks where they are currently mussing. In some cases these areas were developed prior to the current sidewalk design standards and/or site development standards that required sidewalks to be built on both sides of the street. = Older Kent neighborhoods have a greater number of missing sidewalks and sidewalks in poor condition. x Sidewalk Widths In the study area, most existing sidewalks are Figure 6-2. Width of Existing Sidewalks at least four feet wide and most are wider than five feet,as shown in Figure 6-2. Only a small percentage of existing sidewalks are less than <o o four feet wide,mostly along some Principal 85 0 , Arterials. Not all of the existing sidewalks are free of obstacles that reduce the effective clear width (minimum of four feet),but the fact 25° ! that the majority of existing sidewalks are at 200 least four feet or wider is an excellent starting point. 4 Feel 10,0 Sidewalks with Heaving and Cracking Sidewalks with heaving and cracking can be problematic for pedestrians with limited 00 mobility. Only a small portion of the stud Principal Minor Arterial Industrial Restdent�al Residential Width Index � Y Artanal Collector Collector Art Collector area sidewalks have significant or extreme ll heaving and cracking conditions, as shown in Figure 6-3.Many of these sidewalks are Figure 6-3. Sidewalks with Heaving and Cracking located along principal and minor arterials next to buffer strips where older trees are causing heaving ao u 35 0 Sidewalks with Obstacles ao p The inventory program was developed i specifically to identify the location,type and 250 density of fixed and removable obstacles 200 found along existing sidewalks. Fixed obstacles are considered those that reduce the pedestrian clear width to less than four S�gnrFlca nt s '00 feet. A high percentage, 97 percent of existing sidewalks are free from fixed obstacles Review of the data indicates that mailboxes 00 are the predominant type of fixed obstacles. Principal Minor Arterial Industrial Residential Res�denhal Widihlndex Arterial Collector Collector Art Collector Street trees are also a Common occurrence Arterial While utility pole obstacles are less frequent, *0�. TRANSPORTATION 121 - KENT MASTER PLAN k- they are likely the most difficult and expensive fixed obstacle to remove from the sidewalk area. A variety of moveable obstacles were noted in the inventory,including advertising message boards, sometimes referred to as "sandwich"boards. Along residential _- collector streets,in particular,the presence of parked cars was noted as a significant movable obstacle that hinders pedestrian travel.Along residential streets a variety of movable obstacles were identified in the inventory. Over 4 miles of existing sidewalks ' were noted as having some type of movable obstacles that hindered pedestrian mobility. Removal of these kinds of obstacles is often corrected by enforcement. Driveway Crossings on Sidewalks Figure 6-4 illustrates a number of different driveway crossing examples. 'Ihe type of driveway crossing design can also be a factor in pedestrian mobility. A large number of older sidewalks were constructed without level landings,especially along principal and minor arterials. 'The City has revised its sidewalk standards to require level sidewalks as they cross driveway access points. Figure 6-4. Examples of Driveway Crossing Treatments 4 Level Landing wl Level Crossing wJ Level Landing wJ Driveway Xing Return Curb Parallel Ramps lagged Sidewalk w/out Levert Xing Missing Sidewalks C- In general, and over the past 10 to 20 years,the City has been ensuring that sidewalksare constructed on both sides of new streets.As a result,newer subdivisions have few missing sidewalks. A greater number of streets with missing sidewalks are located within older neighborhoods. - Figure 6-1 illustrates the location of existing and missing sidewalks throughout the City. Approximately 53 percent of Kent's streets have sidewalks on at least one side. �,� Local street sidewalks constitute about 40 percent of the total sidewalk mileage within the Dent urban area.For non-local street sidewalks,most of the existing sidewalks are located along principal arterials,minor arterials and residential collector streets. Only about 18 percent of the sidewalks have some form of a buffer that separates sidewalks from the street and curb section. "r-n- Curb Ramps Of the more than 1,950 street corners inventoried along existing sidewalk corridors, only about 8 percent are missing curb ramps.All other corners have some type of curb ramp to assist the mobility-impaired pedestrian when crossing the street. Characteristics of the existing curb ramps collected include the ramp type,width and top landing. n 121 3 �. A number of the existing curb ramps are essentially ADA non-compliant. ADA non- compliance can generally mean that: (a)the ramp width is too narrow; (b) the top landing is either mussing or too narrow; or, (c) the ramp slope is too steep. Many of the non-compliant ramps were built before the ADA was passed. As there are many more pedestrian needs than dollars available,the City has to prioritize pedestrian improvements. 'Ihe prioritization method must consider the relative cost of a needed improvement.'the City seeks to select protects within areas of Dent that require higher levels of pedestrian accessibility, A pedestrian priority index (PPI) was developed based on separate index measures for physical characteristics,called"attributes", and for destinations and activities accessed by walking,called"accessibility" characteristics. The City prioritized the pedestrian improvements by assigning each sidewalk segment and curb ramp in the GIS database an attribute index value. Sidewalks were scored in seven categories with a maximum possible score of 35, as seen in the box to the left. - 'Ilse attribute index enables the City to consistently measure and quantify problematic sidewalks and curb ramps that may pose as obstacles to the mobility-unpaired. The Attribute Index scoring values for sidewalks, missing sidewalks, curb ramps and missing curb ramps were a maximum of 5 points each. Each existing sidewalk and curb ramp identified for each pedestrian attribute was given a condition rating,ranging from very poor to good or excellent. The current pedestrian system attributes in the poorest condition(or missing) were scored highest in the Attribute Index as the segments in greatest need for improvement. 'Me accessibility index identified the proximity of pedestrian facilities to various important trip generators and other transportation facilities noted below.Accessibility indices were established by ineasuring and scoring the proximity of existing and missing sidewalk segments. Sidewalks were scored in 1 l categories from 1 to 5,with a maximum score of 55. • Schools (by school type, crossings and walk-to-school routes) • Civic/commercial centers Parks • Transit(routes and bus stops) Traffic signals (street crossing access) Street functional classification(type and level of auto/truck traffic conflict) • Lower income residence Mobility-impaired residence • Population/employment density • Senior/adult housing • Walk-to-work(US Census of areas with high walk-to-work mode split) TRANSPORTATION 12.r— KENT MASTER PLAN The accessibility measures were coordinated and ranked by the Kent 1'MP Task Force. To reflect the community's priority, a slightly higher emphasis was placed on ' accessibility improvements near schools or along walk-to-school routes, and those near transit facilities. ' _�" (€• s h Walk to School Routes Population & Employment Density 7-- Population Below Poverty Level Population with Disabilities -',.,-...3'4`fY,1 x3, i' � rq`Lfir,3 .v R di"k,.`,.4, T,Pg"*g i-,i`�q / J �53«#4..,�vd3 P•. b..� �m�#V?u� #�"_^ It#�'�ti#Y ,£i n' A composite pedestrian priority index(PPI) was developed using the attribute and ��,}': accessibility indices. The map in Figure 6-5 shows that areas in darker shading reflect higher pedestrian accessibility index values. The map also shows streets with missing sidewalks (automaticallyinapped and graded as "very poor") or existing sidewalks in poor condition. Those poor or missing sidewalks within the darkest shaded areas are ranked the highest in priority for future improvements. The City used these values and scoring system as the basic input when prioritizing the pedestrian system improvements. Potential sidewalk or curb ramp improvements with the highest composite PPI score have the highest priority for future project completion. 123 x a) x a) a) D CD Li in CD in CD U-) c' U-) m .4 co (o co iz N N to co 1 " � cn al 10A J-13 #7 7 7"T -41 E 00 cD 6o 04 E LL TRANSPORTATION 125 KENT MASTER PLAN The Composite PPI was applied to all sidewalk segments and curb ramp locations, including missing sidewalk segments and missing curb ramps. Four priority levels 1 J;o I f".1p task 117ot ce,,�,as were assigned to all possible pedestrian improvements: highest, high, medium, and III to low Funding for pedestrian improvements is scarce and the number of projects greatly YA 6('J dratl �(,(l exceeds the resources. 'therefore, only the projects scoring in the top three categories tihn are potentially fundable within the next 20 year planning period. More details about 111ali-il'?,the these projects - new sidewalks,sidewalk repairs and new curb ramps and repairs - are plan r�lal�s provided in the Non-niotorized Transporation Study and summarized below The pedestrian plan identifies sidewalk and curb ramp improvements and their costs. For the TMP,projects are categorized in two major priority groups: Highest/High- projects that can likely be funded within the next 20 years (generally based on traditional funding sources and levels), and Medium- projects that are constructed as additional funding becomes available, likely beyond the 20-year planning period. Pedestrian Improvements include three types of projects . • New Sidewalks • Sidewalk Repairs • New Curbs and Ramps Installing new sidewalks along critical street corridors helps remove barriers to What the Cornnitinily pedestrians of all types. 'Those streets that currently do not have sidewalks on one said about Pedestrian or both sides of the street are identified in this chapter for the installation of new improvements sidewalks. These projects,totaling more than 100 miles in new sidewalk construction, -o void-(! ('It provide important system connections to major pedestrian trip generators and safety l �c,,-J,,al)cut the.mnosa inipci lam enhancements for pedestrians traveling along busy city arterial streets. Medium Irlai isil 'ieccls afltui Liticiidiiq of�tli(-�( ily's T�,,,,11-1 wicfi priority projects are located more on the periphery within the urban area. holjs��S, i I the ie I Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 map and illustrate the high/highest and medium priorities. These figures also illustrate a sizeable increase in new sidewalks that will be t1io TWIF Mary constructed as part of the street plan development(see Street Chapter 5),which are pmple Idea od[[I('Ilcu(j 10i not itemized in terms of stand-alone pedestrian system needs. Major street projects iristalhum of iTiore�,idewalk�) that add critical sidewalk connections and help complete the pedestrian system t1Ir0,uq1ioutHi(,,city an(i i.-Ivctall include: Military Road; W Meeker Street; SE 256th Street, 11 6th Avenue SE, 132nd solety Avenue SE. as ovorklla(l ifq iunrj; SVC1 ""(I Other new sidewalks would be built in areas around schools and parks,and near civic "AhlrO sidcv�jaik nTq)rovcn cats and commercial centers. Many of the new sidewalk needs are found along Local or'mlli(a,,'!Poacl Rel,111 9 streets within neighborhoods, as is the case for the Highest and High priority projects. ��i)art,,,.darty around 2,60t-i The Highest/High priority pedestrian system improvements include the completion of AvOti-C, sidewalks along Principal and Minor Arterial streets,including portions of: Military Road; Rcith Road, Kent-DesAltoines Road,E Smith Road;SE 248th Street, Canyon Drive. 12' Reconstructing existing sidewalks with significant structural problems can greatly improve pedestrian safety and access,particularly for the young, elderly and mobility- impaired pedestrians.Existing sidewalks were identified for reconstruction if they are currently rated with either (a) significant-extreme heaving and cracking, (b) T. substandard width(less than four feet in width),or (c) below average or very poor surface condition. Slightly more than 25 miles of existing sidewalks are in need of a repair within the Kent urban area. Figure 6-8 maps those existing sidewalks that should be reconstructed due to poor conditions. Many of the sidewalks on streets in the downtown area are in need of repair. Other critical corridors in need of sidewalk repairs include portions of Reiten Road,Kent Kangley Road, 104th Avenue SE, 84th Avenue S and SE 208th Street. Installing new curb ramps in critical locations will significantly remove obstacles for the mobility-impaired pedestrian. Those street corners that currently do not have curb ramps were identified in the Plan for the installation of new curb ramps. Some „ of Kent's older curb ramps are in such poor condition that they are more a hindrance and barrier to pedestrians than they are helpful. Through reconstruction these curb ramps can provide the needed safety and access improvements for the mobility- P i impaired and others. Existing curb ramps were identified for reconstruction if they pant are currently rated with either (a)very poor surface condition, O non-compliant Y E ramp width (less than 3 feet wide), (c) non-compliant top landing(missing or less than 3 feet wide), or (d) non-comphant ramp slope (8.4% or greater). Individual curb ramp pro)ects are not mapped in this chapter but are included within the City GIS database for reference in project planning. However,the cost for new curb ramps and curb ramp replacements are included in the following section. r r r r r r r �0 r h , N 3•� Y C tll m m to `p `p � � - 3r J C U - v 5t d � _ a+ .` 3a NV iL n 1 31 NbLal � rl y 36 My sat d4 a+V vrl cL{ - jl b - �� -j a an of 1 ��"I�tt,.�, r ��,�� 6 ur coi�a as•^ sw 14 �• �� -- � � — a.v uv sF - /„ r�r1P j7 Vk v" S anV Od _ �t5 a ' 16a M.11a d anp LG savvy Z� 4-_ _ - - �n usS�vaan.V L j 1 s a+r ve t R •ptyd --_ � _9•^V VS i a Id tS � qi1� Al _ b + N ON CL L. m 9 a c m m m m j 3 ate. ci U s a i cd '. 3 9 m u a- \ A - w IL __ w bt I JPS --3S anV IS i6y 7 V r.� e ' " _ _ ~ ._ 1 ��1 f / ( '�'�✓it V L6 4 i � 777777yyyyyy ___ X 6vnyp ' iJv � �y LS NanVI+I 6anV IuWa7 w � bwa _ �+.✓J — Swp ,�a•Mon,aRn "d �a 8 ° 1-5 CL 2 0 CL 76 iT) \ _. � -'l FEE`_j N _ 00 O C) CIA LL 133 V, v"'; " The cost to build new and improved sidewalks and curb ramps fully compliant d with the ADA is estimated at about$174 million. Table 6-1 summarizes these 110V pedestrian improvement cost estimates by priority and improvement type. Not all pedestrian improvernents are essential for system pedestrian mobility and access. C, The cost of constructing new sidewalks is the largest of all improvement costs, and the greatest portion of these costs is amongst the"medium" and"low" 3"C P priorities. Low priority,new sidewalk improvement needs are essentially in areas outside many or all of the accessibility measures calculated as part of the study. The "highesf' ($2 0 million) and`high' ($ 33.4 million)priority pedestrian improvements are the focus of the recommended projects. 'these improvements are located in areas where pedestrian activity is highest (near schools and transit stops,or near dense population and employment centers) and needed accessibility improvements are greatest (along or across busy arterials or near civic buildings). Table 6-1. Pedestrian Plan Improvement Costs M, q 4, F A rk M , ' 4 Ali I'M au" 'AA VW, M N M, OW" New Sidewalk $1 3 $321 $67 9 $62 7 $1640 Sidewalk Repairs $02 $3 2 $09 $4 3 New Curb Ramps $0.2 $04 $2 2 $2 8 Curb Ramp Repairs $0,5 $07 $05 $12 j $2,9 Total $2.0 $33 4 $73 8 $648 $1740 (2006 dollars,in millions) The costs of the combined"Highest/High priorities,when averaged over 20 years, results in an annual cost of about $1.7 million to add or repair over 100 miles of sidewalks and curb ramps in Kents critical corridors. Bicycling has become more common over the past decade. A variety of bicyclists travel within Kent depending on their skills, confidence and preferences,they use the facilities differently. The City of Kent urban area spans both the west and cast plateaus on either side of the valley floor, home of the city center. Overcoming the steep terrain has been a major engineering and design issue,for both streets and bicycle system features. Other transportation constraints that have limited bicycle system connectivity in the Kent urban area include SR-167 and the two major railroads. Green River is both a barrier to east-west bicycle travel and also a partial asset with the development of the Green River Trail facilities.As a result of the terrain and barriers,Kent's bicycle system has TRANSPORTATION 13' KENT MASTER PLAN Mi ua a rrrt many excellent features but is lacking a cohesive and connected system The City inventoried the bicycle system including bicycle lanes,shared-use paths and shared travel lane facilities. 'the inventory expanded the City's bicycle planning database to allow assessment and identification of bicycle corridor enhancements that would fill in gaps in the bicycle system. Figure 6-9 illustrates the existing bicycle system in Kent. Two fundamental building blocks are needed in understanding the study of Kent's bicycle system: (1) a baseline definition of the various terms and language used in describing bicycle facilities,and(2) acknowledging the physical constraints which have limited Kent's bicycle system development. Past City plans include a`Bikeway" or`Bikeway Route"network. Figure 6-10 f illustrates the basic forms of bikeway facilities similar to those that the City of Kent = could be used to complete the future bicycle system shown in Figure 6-11. Defining Bicycle Users A variety of bicyclists travel within the City. Depending on their skills, confidence , and preferences,the bicyclists fall into the following categories of users. Each category based on the shills and goals of riders,favors a different bicycle facility type. Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. 'they are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. 1 hey are typically comfortable ' riding with motor vehicle traffic;however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, e.g.,to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy �; # overtaking by faster motor vehicles.'Thus,basic riders are comfortable riding on _ neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents,may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in then-community, such as schools,convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds,linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well- defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate , children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials. —Ln t E • AA N t/� fP • 33� O O O L V/ L J.. C Ci L J O I t � Oto o V m y y [� 0 U) Eg J�onn W y — — --- -- n -- �3 y ! I y Ar o75 y —= 75 T = 00 _ N E N a`o J ch c TRANSPORTATION 137 KENT MASTER FLAN COMM � The City worked with the TMP'bask Force and the City's Bicycle Advisory Board _ to identify candidate corridors for bicycle lane and route enhancements. The recommended bicycle system will expand along corridors to provide better links with major areas of the City, especially between downtown and the east and west Kent ' neighborhoods. The TMP Task Force helped to establish bicycle plan recommendations. The map indicates the priority bicycle projects identified to be constructed over the next 20 years in Kent The Kent Bicycle Advisory Board provided review and comment on the draft bicycle system map. Their suggestions were considered by the Task Force and many are reflected in the final map. ' Figure 6-10. Bikeway Facility Definitions Shared LAO Path _ g. Pn,wdeti a r.-or .�lexdus(ve use trqhi t;P yew Sar tha zxelus.+e[rse � ut t- c,cs ur)a redestrians wvi wa5tloo"nim ZedSt [<< 521AREQ USE PA It{ 4l'i:.'srti�rry � A.nt.i z rite txxvxi� •"� fILt.lS ** n•+� _ Bike Lena f)"d""'Io for CA 5%,11eaennes'11p. , Etna way 4'*e••a,-.„i or OW BWE LANE -W,— to Roule E Signed Shared Roadway pm"IJ"S log atiar"d U, '-mlh Ctt(Sas9siao at rrxaat rct�>�,�,ti.+mc A typ'c von b)wut vol.rm•�au Jvrais �, B.4 Pouts Ci1Qh ' 11 Priority was placed in the process to identify opportunities to build new(as part of street projects identified in the Transportation Master Plan) or re-stripe existing arterial streets with bicycle lanes to close critical gaps in the existing system. The City is tasked with trying to effectively connect its east and west neighborhoods to downtown and industrial employment centers by means of overcoming extremely steep terrain and crossing the Green River, two sets of railroad tracks and SR 167. There are limited corridors making these connections, and in each corridor the public rights-of-way are constrained or already filled with needed sidewalk and travel lane capacity.The study examined a number of options to help connect the bicycle system within and through the urban area. As an alternative to bike lanes,striping and posting many routes as shared lanes are recommended. For example, along existing streets where space is limited (existing 131 travel lanes and curb/sidewalks)or there are underlying design constraints (such as , steep terrain bicycle lane re-striping was found to be impractical. Cyclists in Kent enjoy the existing shared-use path(trail) system,particularly for recreation,but for some commuter traffic as well. The Interurban Trail is heavily used as a commuter route to downtown Kent and through the City north and south.A series of new shared-use path connections are identified along Green River and Soos Creek. Figure 6- 11 maps the existing and planned bicycle system for the Kent urban w area. The next page shows more detail for downtown steets. The bicycle system plan includes re-striping about 27 miles of bicycle lanes, 19 miles of shared-use lane routes, g and over 9 miles of new shared-use paths to fill critical gaps in Kent's bicycle system. New Bike Lanes As seen in Figure 6 -11,the arterial street improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan will add significant mileage to the bike lane network, including major sections of: • Military Road • SE 248th Street • SE 256th Street 116th Avenue SE • 132nd Avenue SE Several arterial streets have sufficient paved width for the possibility of re-striping travel lanes to accommodate on-street bike lanes (see the Non-motorized Transportation Study for design guidance on marking and posting bike lanes). These routes provide critical linkages to major cycling activity centers,particularly in downtown, and connections to the shared-use path system. These streets include: S 260th Street/S 259th Place/Reith Road • 76th Avenue S/4th Avenue N • Meeker Street • 92nd Avenue S/SEA 200th Street • 132nd Avenue SE „ _ Y _- • S 212th Street .' ' MOW Shared-Lane Routes ' For the several major corridors that are severely constrained in width, it is difficult to re-stripe the existing streets without removing important travel lane vehicular - capacity or incurring significant costs to purchase new right-of-way to widen existing streets. The use of"sharrow" symbols, and sign-posting shared-use routes call help inform motorists and cyclists of those critical corridors intended for significant bike r use. See the non-motorized study for additional information on marking and posting shared-lane routes. New Bike Lanes on As illustrated in Figure 6-11,the proposed shared-lane routes provide critical linkages for SE 256th Street cyclists in a number of corridors,including:Cambridge Street, 72nd Street S, 64th Avenue S, 94th Avenue S, 96th Avenue and Talbot Road, 100th Avenue SE, 108th Avenue SE, 124th Avenue SE,Reiten Road,James Street, SE 224th Street, and SC 192nd Street. r E N Q : • 1 r � E 1 m ' LO r III J to fn N T m 0L C m N � � LL E Q c a ` m E m o u' ° •' maw y v o a x :S U- c m m 4 vEs R m o Q IL 2 ° W o to Y ~ a U _ 3r r,a rr«.ar ♦M 0. ur Y •35«r rt T p�• w z Yac a.r ou . ~ � �cM' �• r 35 anr9L4 � s«v rota d • 4�•� • L•S �t,CFI +a� T • u lV«urn 7 SH as � S wru a •' s smut r _ n � vr�[ rnv i3a J t ■or■ a .7 + R Sawr4� ee[4� 1• �b. ��T((��v t.Mon �` ^ r y c.rrw y Bn�d E� e'+It «r. x �a3p3 TRANSPORTATION 141 KENT MASTER PLAN 3* N T Sri i 114104140 a ' '�R I 'I fw" AW "M 5". ——--———— ——— aw N Shared-Use Path Extensions and Connections The extension of the Green River and Soos Creek trails to the perimeter of the urban area will provide important linkages for future trail users, and provide greater regional access,especially for commuter and recreational cyclists and pedestrians.'there are also a number of locations where greater access to the Green River"Frail can help develop important cast-west bike routes, particularly near Grandview Park and the extension of the Uplands Greenbelt to the Interurban Trail.'these projects wilt require significant design efforts, considering the level of topographic and environmental constraints. Shared-use paths usually intersect major city arterials at critical functions The city has already programmed in the current TIP,intersection traffic control enhancements at some of the Interurban'frail junctions Similar design treatments maybe warranted at other junctions in the future. Routes for Future Study The Non-motorized Transportation Study includes various new bike lane,shared- lane and shared-use path connections within a fairly comprehensive system spanning the Kent urban area. However, due to topographical and geographical constraints and obstacles, not all corridors are optimally connected and require further study to identify the appropriate,long-range plan solutions. Routes with severe limitations, primarily overcoming steep grades, include the SE 192nd Street, SE 208th/212th Street, Canyon Drive, and South 272nd Street corridors. A number of critical connections that will require further analysis are identified in the non-motorized study,including: SE 282nd Street Corridor- 108th Avenue SE to 152nd Avenue SE • SE 267th Street Extension - 104th Avenue SE to 116th Avenue SE Mill Creek Canyon -possible trail connection from Titus Street to Canyon Drive at 94th Avenue S (requires significant structural access overcoming € grade and creek crossing) SE 218th Street Extension -grade separation of SR 167 to 84th Avenue S i S 208th Street Extension - Extension across 84th Avenue S to connect to S 212th Street • 64th Avenue S to Interurban Trail-two possible connecting routes in the section between S 216th Street and S 228th Street • Riverview Boulevard to Green River Trail -north of new 228th Street connection Interurban Trail Crossing Furthermore,analysis of future traffic conditions within the Kent industrial area may Of 212th Street yield findings that su suggest the possibility of re-striping Some arterial streets either Ygg • p Y p� g,. with on-street bike lanes or as shared-lane facilities. In these corridors the original street design characteristics were established to facilitate truck mobility serving the industrial lands. Balancing the needs for trucking and cycling access and mobility will be important in future re-assessments of the non-motorized plan. Bicycles in Downtown Kent There are limited streets in the downtown area where bicycle facility enhancements can be made without removing on-street parking(undesirable to local merchants) or travel lanes (undesirable to commuters).Yet downtown Kent is an important non- motorized destination and inter-modal hub. Key corridors in which bicycle lanes can be added by changing current traffic control measures have been identified in the downtown area. Meeker Street is the best-suited corridor that links the Meeker Bridge crossing of the ' Green River through downtown with connections across the railroad and Central Avenue S to Canyon Road. Today,Meeker Street,east of SR 167, has two travel lanes in each direction but no bicycle lanes. Examination of current and future vehicle traffic volumes indicates that a 3-lane configuration (one lane in each direction and a left-turn lane) should suffice for vehicular operations. By re-striping Meeker Street to 3 lanes instead of 4,there is sufficient space to add on-street bicycle lanes in each direction. There may also be the need for minor intersection traffic control revisions. Within the downtown area, 1st Avenue provides a direct,north-south connection linking Meeker Street and James Street with an important connection to the Kent Transit Center. Today, 1st Avenue has two travel lanes and on-street parking,but sufficient space that a combination of reduced travel lane widths and possible parking space reduction can accommodate the addition of striped bicycle lanes.This 1 reconfiguration is often referred to as a road diet.In addition, 1st Avenue is currently disconnected at Smith Street. Bike-only access and street crossing traffic control devices will be required for a continuous bike route along Ist Street. Currently 4th Avenue holds four travel lanes in the downtown area(between Willis and Smith Street),transitioning to five lanes north of Smith Street to James Street. Due to limited space,it is likely untenable to reduce the number of travel lanes or Meeker Street Today- remove on-street parking to accommodate new bike lanes. This section of 4th Avenue 4 Travel Lanes can be posted and marked with"sharrow"symbols as a shared-lane facility. TRANSPORTATION 143 KENT MASTER PLAN Meeker Street Bridge The Meeker Street Bridge over the Green River is subject to long-range plans for replacement as the structure is antiquated and 117 n eventually reaching the end of its design lifetime. The ig T V -Aivan W bridge is located at a nia)or)uriction for Kent area cyclists,linking Reith Road (planned on-street bike 44' lanes) to downtown via Meeker Street bike lanes; and 11. it, iv 51 It' 121 It' 51 north-south via the Green River Trail shared-use path. Westbound cvclists can leave the Meeker Street bike lanes and join' the shared-use path system bridging the Green River. Eastbound cyclists from west of the SR 516/Meeker Street intersection cannot access the Cf eastbound bike lanes on Meeker Street. Long-range plans for the Meeker Street Bridge should include continuous, on-street bike lanes on Meeker Street and the bridge, with fully-accessible connections to the Green River'frail in each direction. I'L[" n tv 1 4, P j, 1 WSDOT Coordination I foot=,305 rr ters There are a number of corridors that require coordination of the NMTS findings with WSDOT as the state proceeds on short- and long-term highway improvements. The City recently completed the streetscape, travel lane and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane improvements to Pacific Highway South, SR 99, along its western city limits. Cyclists in the community have offered 1�4 X-4 suggestions that the HOV lane be re-signed and designated to allow for bicycle use. WSDOT does not currently support policy and design criteria for bicycle use of HOV lanes. The City will continue to coordinate with WSDOT for possible future policy revisions or clarification of bicycle access and use of HOV lanes along Pacific Highway 99. As depicted in Figure 6 -11, within the downtown Kent area,Meeker Street provides one of the most important east-west corridor connections. Meeker Street is proposed to be re-striped with two travel lanes, a center left-turn lane and bicycle lanes on each side, east of SR 167. The SR 167 under-crossing is a significant barrier to both bicycle Green River Bridge and pedestrian travel. As WSDOT continues its upgrading projects along SR 167,the Connection under-crossing improvements should include enhancements to non-motorized access, circulation and safety by the following- . Add pedestrian-scale lighting for improved safety(it's dark, even during daylight hours) . Add bicycle lanes Relocate sidewalks, behind support columns if necessary,to accommodate added bike lanes Similar non-motorized design and safety issues should be addressed as part of other SR 167 interchange and under-crossing improvements. Meeker Street Undercrossing of SR 167 o rN 141 Planning-level costs were estimated for stand-alone bike lane and shared lane re- What the Community striping, and the extension of the shared-use path network. The total cost of the said about Bicycle bicycle system improvements is estimated at$2.2 million over the next 20 years. As Improvements summarized in Table 6-2,the total costs of bicycle system priorities results in an Arnong bicycle enthusiasts, annualized cost of slightly more than$111,000.Note that the street protects also there was 31rong support for include 16 miles of new bicycle routes representing approxnnately$36 million of more sharod-use paths, bike additional bicycle investment. 'I he street projects also include 15 miles of new lamas and shared lanes for sidewalks. bicycles. Several people cited rho[iced for bicycle � Table 6-2. Priority Bicycle Improvement Costs facilities on 116th Avenue SL � 0 M� •,, and S 2481h Sireet, better �� `: „ €; `�� ;r�;';''�,;• '�''�f .,,v �t ;$, S .�` •�.:� ;G Ei'�... <is,`.'� ;.�%'.a`�di aw*a;'•� .�€{i'i.�iii';:i'i'�"t conncchotts to the Green i Bike Lane Signing and Marking 16 $405,000 $20,300 Diver and Inteftirban trails, and improved conne;tlon,) s Shared Lane Signing and Marking 27 $903,750 1 $45,200 arj�3rlg.hc various bike routes New Shared-Use Path Construction 6 $924,000 $46,200 11r10 City, Total i 49 $2,232,750 $111,700 Note. Does not include 16 miles of bicycle lanes provided on proposed street protects,valued at$36 Million. 1 1 r TRANSPORTATION 145 ' KENT MASTER PLAN 4. . ..... Z- _4 r i700 W Z �X ma 4N U -J' A t "W lot s Chapter Contents Transit solutions are an increasingly important element of the Kent local ► Existing Transit transportation system and the regional system. Improved transit services and new Services capital investments are integral in meeting 0 the the City's land use goals and reducing Transit Infrastructure 0 1-, magnitude of capital investment needed to maintain roadway level-of-service. ► Transit Policies,Plans Recent surges in growth have led to increased congestion on Kent roadways and have and Programs increased maintenance and capital budget requirements Attempting to meet travel o. Kent's Transit Needs demand growth through roadway development and traffic management alone is not - Community Needs economically viable and could affect the city's livability. . Technical Analysis . Prioritized Needs This chapter describes the existing transit service and facilities, identifies community > KC Metro and Sound needs and observed gaps in service, and recommends service improvements that Transit Short-term provide local circulation in the City of Kent and that connect Kent residents to other Changes regional communities. The recommendations are based on an extensive needs o- Transit assessment. Ca pital improvements and pedestrian projects that support transit Recommendations service goats are also detailed, as are transit-supportive land use policies. —---------------- 1)repa-,u ',iv ("ollstj trq 141 King County Metro Transit(KC Metro) and Sound Transit serve the City with fixed route transit and commuter rail service. In addition to regional bus service, KC Metro operates Dial-A-Ride (DART 914/916 and 918) variable routing service.'Ihe 914/916 shopper shuttle is funded through an agreement with the City and is operated by the non-profit provider Hopelink. Sound Transit operates both regional bus service and Sounder commuter rail to the Kent Transit Center. KC Metro's Access Transportation Services program offers demand responsive service to those residents that are eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The following section describes Kent's existing transit service and facilities. t e riZ-auIa ;..;;rrvi e Existing fixed-route services operating in or through the City of Kent fall into three primary categories: • Regional Routes -These services cross Metro subarea (Seattle or East County) and/or King County lines- connecting Kent with other regional destinations within King,Snohomish, and Pierce Counties(routes to Seattle are considered regional routes). • South County Routes-'lese services provide connectivity between Kent and other South King County communities,such as Renton,Auburn, Tukwila,Des Moines, Covington,and Federal Way. Local Routes -These routes exclusively serve the City of Kent- connecting Kent neighborhoods to each other,with downtown Kent, and with major employment sites Table 7-1 lists the KC Metro and Sound Transit routes that operate in these three service categories(as of September 2006). Figure 7-1 graphically displays the KC Metro bus routes serving the City of Kent overlaid onto the current distribution of population and employment for Kent. Here and throughout this chapter, density information is presented with the use of a bi-chromatic density map that illustrates combined employment and population density by planning zone (K-Zone)to illustrate the relationship between land use and transit demand. Population (or household) densities are displayed using four gradations of blue. Similarly, employment densities are shown via shades of yellow. Table 7-1. Transit Service in the City of Kent �y ._ d� R s>✓.E ✓E-n.FI'. .1�,..fN. H i i�i+ .. m KG Metro Bus Routes:150,154,158, 159,161, 162,173,174,175,190,191,192,194,197, � KC Metro Bus Routes:, Kent DART Shuttles 914, 153,164, 166,168,169 � ( `s 941,952(Boeing Shuttle-Everett) � 916,918 1 180,183,247, Sound Transit Express 564,565,574 E Sound Transit-Sounder Commuter Rail Table 7-2 shows the routes by the frequency of service during peak,midday,evening, night, Saturday, and Sunday periods. Service frequency greatly affects the viability of transit service. Low frequency of service often leads to long wait times for bus riders and becomes a deterrent to the use of public transportation,especially for those passengers with other travel options. This is the case east of 1O8th Avenue where there is no midday service more frequently than 30 minutes. TRANSPORTATION 147 KENT MASTER PLAN ;g " .,n,. r - RfUEaNftgBBNbI+H v ,ttn Y 3 cq °n c:D t CD � � cocQY i I 4 € E (-0 O C M [ Co co 4 M f M M Q Y j (k J I 4 E C t � C O O O i 0 O O C M � (D Co M M M Q Y CD (9 CD C O iC-D O O ¢ CD Y O j r O O O O O C O M i CD CD M M M Q Y C Q t OM (OD i OM CD Q Y COD (D CD C , O O O O O O Cl)M co CD � CD M 4 M Q Y , 4 � D C O ID CD CD (-D ` CD CD O a Y N ? G7 C o l o 0 0 0 a o CD i M CD M _.�....-_ M i M Q Y ..� ...............F 3Y�'c t a a E j o . u � o � C° � � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o � o 0 0 0 0 aCD :5w , of > C o �z c o � J C7) CD o CD a Y L) GJ - m a c CD _ C _ L a) = O C S ) ' E - -C, c Y a a a a ° m W E D — cn � E LiJ w E— 0 io (v T C c 0 c E E c c c E c -o co —0 a a a a a a a a a a d e w (D CD R Y Y Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y L d Y (n Y Q Y (n 4 x O m LV p W m co CV V CD (- `O� r) V Cn t CDM CD� � � � � � co c.D co CD cc cD I' 141 ........ .....m OF j C) o I ME O � 3 , TIT" o O o o M M Co D co a y.. p€ T I t E+ t,3a t G O O O O CDco CO cD i U _ v cL V CD O O L23 O O O O O ____________ ____...__._ ___�____-_____.__......,t.........._...�._.- � 7d 75 O o [ Y a CL a oOf o € l N Cn 9' 9 {[€E:E agtd v v > Cl) s �_ o o a� ' CD v� c m o cn cn v oYo cD- ` : a o a o v j o a s O .fE'.''b,,� �n , n c� z aJ; v > h ;z'; ' o CD °J o ' m Q € s. v ? w :Q>,x a) 0 0 o a) ' c > a a m o a a v t3 c Y Y L u F- ' O Q L � F-- Y Y Y [ w ' C �. 9 � i", V C' ( CD N € N cC cljlCJ 11'J In c"QJ i m O u * Ff,l 4000`�. TRANSPORTATION ;, `VE149 ' KEWT MASTER PLAN " ' Transit Ridership Levels Figure 7-2 shows bus stop boarding levels on the KC Metro routes (the downtown and commuter shuttle ridership by stop is not available). The greatest numbers of boardings occur where a high level of service is provided and moderate to high population and/or employment densities exist. High levels of boarding activity also occur at locations where convenient transfers are possible between routes and where automobile drivers can access the transit system via park and ride facilities. The highest boarding activity is at the Kent Transit Center. Other high hoarding areas nmclude James Street, 104th/Benson Road(SR 515), 132nd Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road and the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride. Routes 150, 166, 168 and 169 have the highest ridership The Kent Shopper Shuttles, (DART 914/916) are a free shuttle service fundedlointly by KC Metro and the City of Kent, and operated by the non-profit Hopelink 'file ` DART 914/916 offer two transportation services to Kent riders: fixed and (limited) _ variable routing outside of downtown. All of the scheduled DART 914/916 routes pass through the Kent Transit Center, City Hall, the Senior Center and the Regional ' Justice Center. These routes operate from 9:00 am until 5:00 m on weekdays and � T 1 p Y' Saturdays. Hopelink estimates that 60 percent of the DART 914/916 rides start and end within " the downtown. Hopelink also estimates that about 80 percent of the current Shopper Shuttle (914/916)ridership is comprised of seniors and people with disabilities. _ Despite being eligible for ACCESS, some passengers prefer the 914/916 dial-a-ride service as they do not need a reservation, and there is more flexibility in using the Huy shuttle t Aeoara&. SHOPPER SHUTTLE f ate," s ;a, AN �Ln Ln 3 :0 L 0 1p LL N m v v o ri C — a S E 7 m a a O E i m W ON pow roUI mat Fo — wo aad�uawdo/dw3 AS ~ 8d(n �3S 3AV BbL 3S 3AV B4 o L POI. _ d_ 3S 3AV bb w 3S 3AV 04l AV ZSL 1 A. 3S AVZEL 3S 3AV bZ I. AV CZ L d W 3S 3 IN 0V 3S 3AV 9LL I ry 4a 3S 3AV 9L1 *� � S3AV 9LL - i _ 3nve9L 110N �'�°4 3S 3AV 90 L W oN� r ® � w 'D 3S 3AV 40 L mu, s as loelvi m S 3AV b S � - AMH A3llVA 1SV3 3AV EB 3 V"b �b S 3AV 49 4 g i t - ` a c 4 • m of ' - �N N 3 �v0 n a dy E �il�y"' ! S 3AV SS Z m o E —" 5 ,�Saanaviniw lw r=vgo 3AV 0, 5 DAasm ^OAP, S3AV 9l ! S3AV9L IAvgoo� o 60S2JS" � MARINE VIEW DR S � � N die (n_ �� e N in LL C L ;7 m • = y n, m r�� q�� p u one jad juewdoldmg m _ W ar4� l u afxvPPt JA Jul .Y 4s 3',. AAV 94l 5 J1N4L. a l 5 t77!AOE Tv1 Jav c'5 �, lqi�18 truvi A37,t+�l�Jhl S 3ls-t v .s w S 7l:V 6` xn — r - l,N Ari.+_ IN r 94' S RAV3(wq AARIN. DR 153 . , 1n e 'Ihe City of Kent funds a local circulation service that connects the industrial area to downtown and the Kent Transit Center. This route provides peak-only service on weekdays. Despite limited hours of operation the route has been successful, carrying over 100 passengers each day. .i. ;' x KC Metro provides paratransit service within its service area through its ACCESS Transportation Service. Access service is available between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm Monday through Friday to individuals who meet ADA eligibility requirements. ACCESS service in the City of Kent exceeds the ADA 3/i-of-a-mile requirement (from fixed bus service) mandated by King County. On the weekends ACCESS adheres to the ADA minimum requirements, providing service only within 3i4-of-a-mile on either side of Metro fixed route bus service during the times they operate. ACCESS"Transportation Service provides about 7,350 trips per month in Kent. Just over a third of ACCESS trips within Kent are described as"work trips." Only 9 percent of ACCESS riders described"Non-Emergency Medical"as their trip purpose, which correlates with the various medical trips cited in the demand center data. Several characteristics of transit service are important to understanding how the system operates. These include the fares charged and the performance of the transit routes. Transit Fares KC Metro and Sound 'Transit collect fares by zone for long-distance travel Metro also - charges a higher fare during peal:travel times. Base fares range from$1.25 (Metro off-peak) to$4.00 (three-zone Sounder commuter rail). Discounts are often available for youth, seniors and residents with disabilities KC Metro sells the one-month PugetPass for$45 (off-peak) to$72 (two-zone peak). The PugetPass is accepted as valid fare payment on KC Metro, Community Transit of Snohomish County, Pierce Transit,Everett Transit and Sound Transit service- up to the fare value purchased on the pass. Transit Performance KC Metro and Sound Transit use performance measurement systems to monitor bus and shuttle services. Performance measures, along with guidelines or standards,are often used to monitor the operation of individual bus routes and identify services requiring special attention. KC Metro uses two performance categories when reviewing results against defined measures - "below minimum" and"strong." Those routes termed as"below iminnmum"are evaluated for modification or termination if changes cannot improve 1 performance. Routes rated as "strong"may be considered for expansion. Sound Transit employs Express Service Standards and other performance measures to rate individual ST Express routes and to determine when remedial actions may be needed. TRANSPORTATION 151 KENT MASTER PLAN Route Performance Analyses Transit Performance Data from the 2005 Annual Route Performance Report—South Planning Subarea It e SUres (October 2006) show Routes 153, 154 and 167 under performing relative to other peak services. Routes 150 and t69,however, are performing well during peak,midday KC,ht'eli r fzoitte E'cr(or"narice, and at nighttime periods. Route 162 only operates during peak periods and is the best Mcasure� performing service during commute tines. F�ideis pu seven x-iotir The Sound Transit 2006 Service Improvement Plan (SIP)reviews route-level Fare rovenue to o er,tting performance using the standards defined previously along with other assessments. xuen,c rauci 'Ihe SIP acknowledges the unsatisfactory performance of Route 564 on an overall Pas,-,eny-s[ miles per basis. It highlights the role of Route 564 in providing additional peak serviceA rcvcnue hour and capacity when combined with Route 565 and that ridership has been steadily Passt nqer rn1cs p:,r growing. 'the Sound Transit 2006 service changes include the extension of Route 564 -latforrn mile, south of Auburn to the South Hill Mall in Puyallup (replacing the service currently F ortte eticclrveloss mtirrl provided by Route 585);the SIP suggests these changes should raise the unsatisfactory I performance to the marginal level. In response to Route 574's low productivity,late morning service was reduced from every 30 minutes to every 60 minutes in June `oii yid f ransit F'f�rfo��nf ice 2005. t�(;asureti for Routes: Passengers per rcvnnr ie 'rE � �� „t ads, « . Passcngers j)er one-vtay trp The City of Kent, State of Washington and the regional transit agencies have invested I«rebox recovery in transit-related infrastructure in and around the City of Kent. ..., per , iav xer In June 2005,KC Metro moved the Kent Transit Center at West Jaynes Street to Sound (-ons;stellcy Soup id Transit's Kent Station on Railroad Avenue North (between West James Street and West Move, So,,xd Traw it`s Smith Street). The new center was designed to be a multi-modal transfer station for 91aster plrin Sound Transit's express routes in Kent as well as the Sounder Commuter Rail and lripacts on ex)sting and Metro routes serving the City of Kent. uure riders hkcliliocd of ridership The City of Kent contributed funds to help increase the parking capacity to 994 spaces gimvth and improvod s,VS1ern (surface and garage) and improve passenger amenities such as bus shelters,lighting, ar,dr ctr;tty sidewalks,bicycle racks and lockers, as well as rider information. The new Kent A o,dt h:-ty Transit Center is centrally located for riders to access key destinations such as the , Regional Justice Center,the Kent Library,and downtown businesses. Mn KC Metro is responsible for bus shelters and has specific criteria for which routes merit a shelter. The minimum number of daily passenger boardings to qualify for shelter placement is 25 boardings. Stops meeting this first cut are further prioritized , based on ridership (highest ridership zones) and ease of construction or right of � way(ROW) availability. Additional shelters can be sited at stops with special needs, for example stops with large concentrations of elderly or stops close to health and r �5 social service facilities. All approved and built shelters include benches and litter receptacles,which are attached to the adjacent concrete pad or sidewalk. � l low 1 155 i L a ,AKA KC Metro and Sound Transit provide transit patrons with nine park and rides in the Kent area,with varying levels of transit service and parking capacity. Table 7-3 ' provides details on the park and ride capacity, utilization and the routes served. I Table 7- 3.Park and Ride Lots Serving the City of Kent :� a �,, a• _ ��. .5s; =�`:s��v'� � ` "Q Kent Transit Center"* Metro 150, 153, 154, 158, ",• _,r. ` - 301 Railroad Ave N 159, 162,164, 166, 167,168, 169, 183,952 P&P Garage 869 36% DART 914,916,918 i Sound Transit 564, 565 Surface Lot 125 91% Sounder Commuter Rail PAR'K':WIVE Kent/James St P&R*' Metro 150,154,158,159, Kent James SC, 902 W James St, N Lincoln 713 34% 162, 166, vel W James St DART 918 _A ti Metro 152,183,190,192, ;. .� Star Lake P&R 1 27015 26th Ave S 1-5/272nd St ' 540 83% 194, 197,941 Sound Transit 574 w = Kent-Des Moines P&R° Metro 158, 159,162, 166, 23405 Military Rd S 1-5/Kent- 370 96% 173,175,192, 194,197,941, I Des Moines Rd 949 Sound Transit 574 Lake Meridian P&R Metro 158,159,168, 26805 132nd Ave SE/SE 172 27% DART 914 272nd St Kent United Methodist Church o Metro 163, SE 248th St/110th Ave SE 23 13/o DART,914 Kent Covenant Church o Metro 158, 12010 SE 240th St 20 25/o DART,914 916 Valley View Christian Church % Metro 168, 124th Ave SE/SE 256th St 20 5/a DART,914 St Columba's Episcopal ' - Church 15 20% Metro 183, 192 26715 Military Rd S Source.Source.PSRC 2005 P&R llata,and Ring County Metro ;v= *Lot is filled to or above 90%by 9 00 am on weekdays **]like Lockers on site %,� '��y+� U The City recognizes that transit services can improve livability,enhance mobility and increase economic development. Transit is a priority in the City's goals and policies,to local plans and is included in ordinances dictating the nature of development in the City. The TMP promotes transit supportive land uses,including higher densities and enhanced pedestrian circulation.The goals and policies for transit are included in Chapter 3. TRANSPORTATION 151 KENT MASTER PLAN Since 1991 the City of Kent has complied with the State's CTR Law by implementing a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. Large employers,transit providers, and the City have partnered to encourage employees to reduce their drive-alone trips. The program supports the use of transit,ridesharing,walking, biking and telecommuting to reduce congestion; conserve energy; and improve art quality. The City completed an update of the CTR plan in Fall 2007. Chapter 8 summarizes the CTR planning process and provides details of the plan. The Plan sets goals, identifies facility and service improvements and puts forth marketing strategies that support reductions in drive-alone trips and vehicle miles traveled by 2011. Consistency between the CTR Plan,this Transportation Master Plan,zoning code, Nam- CIF design standards, concurrency regulations and other applicable City of Dent land use and transportation plans and codes is a key element of the CTR planning process. City land use and planning policies can also serve to encourage or discourage the use of transit, dictating the impact of transit investment in vehicle trip reduction. In assessing existing service and possible service improvements,it is possible to see how the City's current land use policies impact transit use in the City. The City has implemented several strategies to encourage transit. In many areas land use patterns, street design issues and low residential densities have prohibited public transportation from having a more meaningful role in vehicle trip reduction. Transit Efficient Land Use TTie City's land use map (Figure 2-2) indicates several mixed-use zones;these areas typically have good proximity to transit. The City,throughout the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,emphasizes mixed-use development and its role in reducing future traffic demand. the City emphasizes mixed-use development as a priority; "Mixed-use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the planning area(UG-5)': Goal LU-4 in the City's Comprehensive plan details the importance of developing and funding transportation in mixed-use corridors. The City has developed several mixed-use corridors served well by transit.Two in particular are: the mixed-use zone at SE 250/Highway 515 southeast of downtown (urban center), and the mixed-use zone at SR 167/Meeker Street directly west of the downtown (urban center). However,the majority of Kent's new owner-occupied housing units remain single-family residences. Parking Provisions The City of Kent has enacted progressive policies related to parking,intended to reduce minimum parking requirements as a means to encourage transit and reduce SOVs in the downtown area. The City gives the Planning Director the authority to waive or modify minimum parking requirements;to impose additional off-street parking requirements in unique circumstances;and to allow for flexibility and innovation in design. These provisions allow developers to build less parking,saving costs and increasing useable square footage,when developing in areas where good transit service allows residents or employees to travel without a private vehicle. 157 2005 Downtown Strategic Plan The City's 2005 Downtown Strategic Plan recommends concentrating growth in the i downtown core and to using public transportation as a means to reduce dependency ...� on the automobile. The Plan envisions downtown Kent as a pedestrian-oriented �- business, shopping and residential destination, accessible by multiple transportation anodes (including pedestrian,bicycle, and transit). The Downtown Plan suggests �i new levels of service standards for all modes, designed to facilitate a more balanced downtown transportation system. The Plan recommends improvements,such as increased cdmrnuter rail service,improved transit circulation,better pedestrian and bicycle connections, and housing development close to lobs that will help mitigate the probable adverse environmental impacts on traffic levels and service in and near downtown. rz _ A•$ , The City used community input and technical gaps analyses to assess transit service and facilities within the City of Kent. Both of these key inputs led to a set of recommendations for future service and the supporting infrastructure that would be needed. The community TMP Task Force identified a set of existing and future transit needs. The Task Force considered a number of factors when determining unmet needs .. .. including: community stakeholder inputs; a household survey of Kent residents; and the technical analyses of transit service and facilities. A number of community issues came up repeatedly representing gaps in the existing transit system and also matching the technical analysis completed for this plan. These common concerns addressed service and facility improvements that meet the City's land use goals and policies. - ` - During the development of the Transit Plan,there were several opportunities for the community to comment, including the stakeholder interviews,telephone survey,the _ task force meetings and the City's open houses. Community Stakeholder Interviews „ Protect team staff spoke with major employers,politicians,business owners, and L f community representatives to gather their feedback on major transit issues,needs and gaps in service. Stakeholders identified a number of deficiencies in the transit services offered in Kent as shown on the right. All stakeholders interviewed felt that transit improvements were critical to meeting future transportation demand and accommodating growth in a sustainable manner. TRANSPORTATION 152 f ENT MASTER PLAN y ,_ �_ Needs Identified by Community ♦ hncrease frequency—particularly on Sounder commuter rail; ♦ Extend service hours—particularly for shift workers in the industrial area; ♦ Limit transfers; ♦ Decrease travel time; ♦ Decrease transfer waiting time; ♦ Add bus shelters; ♦ Improve east-west service; ♦ Increase Auburn service; ♦ Improve passenger information for immigrant/low-income populations; ♦ Promote bike use; ♦ Reduce employee parking; ♦ Improve pedestrian access—particularly in the areas outside of the I downtown core; ♦ Enhance safety at bus stops and park and rides;and ♦ Increase parking at park and rides lots. A , ♦ Specific service improvements cited for the Kent Shopper Shuttle (DART 914/916) were to: o Expand service area o Better serve senior housing o Provide more senior shopping o Promote Kent Shopper Shuttle Telephone Survey asked • Add bus stop at Great Wall Mall respondents about. o Increase medical stops Heusefae(,rier:ae��rapfa�cs not niw,(f s t:)Vv'C?l'} an(ar�r Public Transportation Household Survey _>drari To assess Kent residents'use of and opinions about public transportation, a random • t;trront use eF transit v�aithua public household telephone survey was conducted in the spring 2006. '11ie survey Kent and tl e region provided a statistically valid sampling,meaning that enough people were surveyed to . Sligg"'as"loos for €1upruving provide a reasonable approximation of the sentiments of the entire Kent community. nut's' �s.�,th'n Kent The survey included several questions regarding usage, routes,frequency,location of . Opinions an pubic bus stops,length of trips,and safety t�a sh��tt anon A research firm conducted the surveys over the phone with 401 randomly selected Kent households. The data were used to identify transit issues and determine effective improvements ui transit service. Chapter 7 reports on these findings in detail. The key findings from the general public telephone survey include: Most Frequent Responses Single occupancy trips-More than 80 percent of Kent residents drive alone to work to the Telephone Si,trvey or school. �r.insit Srarme hip,ovcn,t;nL, Carpooling- Carpooling is the most common alternative to driving alone for both P- hequent servol-1- 1arc work/school commute trips (8 percent) and non-commute trips (14 percent). Fixed froguent e'er`ic`;or. lain as route transit is the second most common alternative to driving alone (6 percent). well as Solinde,COMM iter rail servr(:es, Commuting-Two-thirds of respondents commuting outside of Kent do not travel to 11- -I ravel l 11tic, Rlodujco Itavol Seattle, which is the focal point for most of the transit serving Kent. trine; Transit use- Out of the 30 percent of survey respondents who said they use transit, ► Pedestrian tattd p assenge; the majority only use it a few times a year. safety Iinprove safety at stops, t�ons,and Park access- Slightly more than half of transit users walk to their transit stop. sto nlIa 159 N"I N rl 4 i4"' 11,41"IE!" , H N' ,," "N' Mode for Commute (School(Job) Trips Got Dropped off Mode for Personal Trips at Stop or Park & Ride CoininuteRad Paraba-it Tim) Fixed Route BLIS_ Paratransn._V I a I k Fixed Route Bus 0 Walk 7 2" _ _�l, I," Pike v3npo I U t 4 6 2 2 carpool to Park 50 Vanool S.Ride capool 2 Dropped Off -1h someone 7 7% i walk Dropped Off Drive alone to t t V 0 81. Park&Ride 3 7 Drive alone Bike 5", Otil-e Alone 79 5'0 1 ill. I 1 81, Service frequency- Approximately 57 percent of respondents agreed that they would be more likely to ride the bus or train if service was offered every 15 minutes Respondents are sensitive to frequency, indicating that improvements in this area could positively impact ridership. Stop proximity- Almost half of respondents said they would be more likely to ride the bus or train if there was a stop near their home. Travel time-About 45 percent of respondents would be more likely to take the bus or train if travel time to their destination was no more than 30 percent longer via the bus, showing that travel time is an important consideration for potential riders and that many non-riders view the travel time difference between transit and drive alone as considerable. Passenger information- While many respondents knew where to get information about bus and rail service,there is a substantial gap (25 percent) in knowledge about where to access information needed to use the transit systems. Traffic congestion-Congestion is the major transportation issue facing Kent in the next five years, according to the rria)ority of respondents. Tax increase/fee hike- Over 60 percent of respondents said they would support some increases in taxes or fees to fix the transportation system. y� The protect team presented the TMP Task Force with a series of technical analyses illustrating existing and future constraints and opportunities with respect to the use of transit. These included: • Community demographics impacting transit use • Current and future land uses • Gaps in current transit service Gaps in supportive capital infrastructure Key Community Demographics Public transit performance can be linked to a number of demographics. These include seniors over 65 years of age,persons with disabilities, residents tivina below TRANSPORTATION 16� K . MASTER PLAN l , the poverty level and households without access to an automobile (ether by choice or j due to financial constraints). All these groups tend toward a higher than average use of transit services. The City of Kent is home to slightly fewer seniors than the rest of Washington,has roughly the same percentage of residents with a disability and a slightly higher percent earning below the poverty level. As mentioned in the community profile (Chapter 2),many seniors in the City live in the downtown area and overall make up 7 percent of the population. Just over 17 percent are defined as disabled according to the 2000 US Census. The US Census defines a disability as"a long-lasting physical,mental, or emotional condition that makes it difficult for a person to do normal activities" including driving an automobile. Almost 12 percent of the population lived below the poverty level making it difficult for them to afford to own and operate an automobile. Current and Future Land Use Research has shown that population and employment(land use density) are by far the two most crucial factors in determining ridership demand in a transit corridor or service area. Development patterns also cause challenges for transit service providers. The largest concentration of lobs in the City is in the manufacturing and industrial area between the SR 167 and West Valley Highway and James Street and the northern City Limits (SW 43rd Street). Transit accessibility from these sites varies based on the proximity to major north-south transit carrying streets, such as the West Valley Highway. Business stakeholders would like to see better transit circulation within this district. The City of Kent has several pockets of high-density residential development, including several multi-family developments in the downtown area,the Lakes at Kent, and to the southeast on Kent-Kangley Road. These areas are served via primary and secondary arterial streets,but in few cases does transit penetrate residential or commercial developments. Two serious impediments to growth in transit ridership are the heavy traffic volumes and low levels of pedestrian amenities and safety features on major transit carrying arterials. Gaps or Missing Service in Current Transit System Gaps in service occur because service is not frequent enough nor close enough to be used,or it doesn't go to the destination of the travelers.Neighborhoods with the density for transit or important destinations without service are identified as areas of missing service. Gaps in Peak-only Service Peak period transit service is shown in Figure 7-3. Gradations of green indicate the j intensity of combined population and employment activity. . The majority of the routes operating in Kent are peak-only services oriented towards commuters,particularly those bound for Seattle. Total coverage is the greatest during the weekday peak and midday periods. Residential areas northeast of Lake Meridian and north of North Meridian Park, along with the industrial area along 84th Avenue have peak-only service. The Downtown shopper shuttles provide additional midday coverage in downtown and along Meeker Street to the west. Evening and Sunday service is limited to the major corridors with a loss of service in East Hill. (east of , 104th Street). lk oneiad juWojdwg 7E r CL CD pt-t CL zj I'll t is AAV q i S lb ell JS JAV r0i ly Fib 44,v V, LF S C11 l,,V,1,VJ h6 1 �� Y?l s 3Rvlll S JAV q tAtRINL,ljEla DR S TRANSPORTATION 163 KENT MASTER PLAN Missing Service Coverage Several areas in the City of Kent have moderate to high population or employment densities (see Figure 7-3),indicating a strong level of transit demand. However,there is little or no transit service available in some of the densest neighborhoods. The Lakes at Kent development south of Russell Road/228th Street at 54th Avenue is identified as a high population density zone but is not directly served by transit. 'lhis area is characterized by a concentration of high-density multi-family units. Some moderately dense neighborhoods (east of 104th/108th Avenues,between 208th and 240th Streets) have peak-only service with many residents living more than one- quarter mile from any transit route. The principal east side routes operate on 240th Street and Kent Kangley Road out to 132nd Avenue. There are pockets of dense residential and commercial development at the center of, and around the perimeter of, this triangular route configuration. There is no service on the west side,between 1-5 and SR 99 and north of 260th Street, an area with moderate residential densities and several large multifamily units. Route 166 provides service nearby,but runs on the other side of the interstate highway. Gaps in Transit Related Infrastructure Transit is more convenient if there are bus shelters and good sidewalks to and from the bus stop. Bus Stops Based on November 2005 boarding data,there were roughly 20 stops in Kent that exceeded 25 daily boardings but did not have a shelter. Based on the ridership criteria and/or KC Metro's 6 Year Plan or Partnerships program,Metro has seven shelter projects planned for Kent stops during 2006 and 2007. Similarly, stops with greater 4 than 15 boardmgs qualify for a standalone bench. Metro is proposing benches at five I:ent locations and investigating another five for future installation. Pedestrian Access All transit trips start and end as walking trips. Missing,narrow or deteriorated sidewalks are deterrents to the use of transit. Similarly, dangerous intersections or a lack of crosswalks put transit riders at risk and also cuts down on the number of residents walling to use transit when they otherwise could. Chapter 6 summarizes the pedestrian network identifying missing sidewalks,poor sidewalk surfaces,narrow sidewalks and missing curb ramps. Figure 7-4 shows streets within one-quarter mile of transit service that are missing sidewalks. Results from this inventory and subsequent analysis identified a need for better sidewalks for many transit riders and guided the selection of projects for the Non-Motorized System. _ Prioritized Needs The development of the TMP was guided by a community Task Force, which reviewed and confirmed needs,identified priorities, and supported the final recommendations of the Study. The TMP Task Force assisted in finalizing the transit needs assessment based on the findings. At the June 2006 task force meeting,the Task Force discussed the gaps and missing services in transit and voted on the set of priorities,which are detailed in Table 7-4. These priorities served as a guide to the City of Kent as transit recommendations were selected. 161 Table 7-4. Task Force Priority Needs "Lig Provide more local circulation service connecting residential neighborhoods to Kent Transit Center Add new midday service on Sounder Commuter Rail [_Improve pedestrian crossings on 104th/Benson Add more peak hour trains on Sounder Commuter Rail(more frequency) Improve sidewalk connections totransit stops Providemore local circulation service connecting industrial area to Kent Transit Center Decrease transit travel time to Seattle Rapidly developing areas around 1 08th-274[h underserved by transit Provide direct transit service to SeaTac Provide better route and schedule information at stops and other locations P r Aieilts b Recent and pending service changes by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit address a variety of problems and opportunities in the Puget Sound region. Many of these service changes impact the City of Kent and have the opportunity to address specific needs identified in this,plan. Mp King County Metro In response to service performance and/or changes in population and employment patterns, Metro restructures service every few years, under the guidance of King ountys Six-Year Transit Development Plan. In 2006 Metro addressed service L changes in South County services. Due to budget constraints, a very limited number of new service hours were available Z) for new service in all of South King County. Several of the September 2006 service changes involved the reallocation of service hours from poorly performing services to meet high priority transit needs. Sound Transit Sound Move, Sound Transit's master plan,calls for the Sounder Commuter Rail service to provide nine round trips each day, up from the current number of four on the South Line serving the City of Kent. In September 2007 two additional round trips were added. Preliminary 2008 —2012 planning efforts call for the implementation of the seventh,eighth and ninth round trips on Sounder's South Line. TT,, Un ti i E a o 7 u' a afae rad p,)aj totdtug _U d^"v c5l L _n e:V*P� ��9 5V Via:-••�„ f a r 9S 3;1V a4 r i v ?`s w 1 t'1 h c� 3S 3Fb•,L � '^ .1S�.1V Lt[l .z a i � :133F""}OL 35 5 s 353PfroL u Cliff 11 r31V1 � _ S 3f"V rb '7 a ti ; n yP 4-iAVt'H -- z ."i ffl i :2L8Srg 7 a e m � n 6a,as r.� nrw Mg �E �P 11 _ n 3nV r7 g 'gyp 5�l"'oL S 3Pi7 9 u — h1hRIVCvIEOR`URS 167 Tr There are a number of long-range transit plans and unfunded initiatives that will impact how public transportation is delivered in,South King County and in,the City of Kent in the future. Sound Transit Phase II and King County Metro's Transit Now initiative could have considerable impacts on the quality of public transportation services availabte to Kent residents. However,the regional focus of these initiatives may put resources needed for local and South County service improvements in direct competition with expensive high capacity services that meet interregional travel needs and focus investment in a more Limited number of corridors. King County Metro"Transit Now" Transit Now is a five-point initiative approved by King County voters in November 2006. The initiative is intended to develop transit services that will attract 21 million more annual rides within ten years, helping the region keep pace with employment and population growth and addressing congestion. Transit Now funding comes from a one-tenth of one percent sales tax. The mitiative's five-point strategy includes: • Developing a"bus rapid transit" (BRT) system (RapidRide) Improving current services Providing new service in growing areas Developing service partnerships with mayor employers and cities • Additional improvements such as expanding ride-share and improving paratransit programs. How Does Transit Now Serve Kent Transit Now improvements proposed for South King County include A new east-west route connecting Kent to Des Moores and Sea-Tac would provide new service that has been identified by Kent stakeholders as a critical service gap. 1 Kent would receive span and frequency improvements on key north-south services to Renton,Seattle and Sea-Tac. East-west connections would �l improve with new frequency improvements to Maple Valley and Covington service and frequency and span improvements on Kent-Kangley/124th. The Transit Now Service Partnership requires a minimum contribution from the partner of$100,000 per year for five (5) years to add service on ,1".DOMW an existing route or routes or$200,000 per year for five (5) years to add a new route or routes. The City of Kent is currently exploring partnership opportunities for new shuttle service (proposed Route 913) to the Lances and Riverview communities as well as for midday service on Route 153 to Renton. RapidRide,is scheduled to begin in February 2010. It will replace Route 174 along Pacific Highway S/International Boulevard between S 316th Street � in Federal Way and S 154th Street (International Boulevard) in Tukwila_ RapidRide buses will link up with Light Rail in Tukwila as well as local routes destined to Tacoma, Federal Way, Des Moines, Auburn, Tukwila, and Burien. Sound Transit 2 Sound Transit has worked extensively with the public and communities throughout the �j Puget Sound region to set the priorities for Sound Transit 2 (ST2),which is the next set of public transit investments to improve and increase the service that Sound Transit TRANSPORTATION 161 KENT MASTER PLAN offers today. ST2 outlines priority projects that would increase service levels and expand ' the coverage of Link Light Rail,Sounder Commuter Rail and ST express bus services. The proposed light rail extension between Sea-Tac and Tacoma along SR 99 provides benefits to City of Kent residents,especially for high-frequency service to Tacoma. The draft package does not include a number of Sounder and express bus projects that were previously considered. Expanded Sounder service during peak, off-peak and weekend service required extensive track improvements and significant increases in operating costs. Other projects that did not advance to the draft package include Transit Signal Priority(TSP) on SR 161 and HOV access ramps at Smith Street to improve the reliability of express bus service and new express bus service shadowing Sounder service during off-peal:times. 1 ; This section presents a set of regional and local service improvements and capital projects to address the identified transit needs. Service recommendations are presented by route type. Bus routes in the City of Kent can be categorized into three route types based on the markets they serve. Primary Transit Network(PTN) service provides frequent service (typically 15 minute or better) over a long service span, in a market where there is high demand for travel throughout the day. It is narrowly focused on the densest corridors in the region,because that's where potential ridership is highest. More than just bus service,the PTN is a joint commitment,by both the City of Kent and KC Metro Transit to protect the speed and reliability of transit operations in identified corridors. It is also a policy tool to help focus transit- oriented development around corridors where transit can be provided cost-effectively. Local Urban service provides all-day service but at lower frequencies (20 to 60 minute) in lower density areas. These services should provide connections from moderately dense areas to PTN services as well as local destinations Specialized Commute service runs at very specific high-demand times and only operates at the times of day when that demand exists. 'Ihe study recommendations focus on current and expected gaps in PTN and Local What the tlomrriuristy said Urban services. In some cases,recommendations enhance existing commuter service, about lrarisrt €iiuroverients creating all-day PTN service to address the need for reverse-commute travel and off- l,ie c nnirnunity voiced their peak connections. Service recommendations are presented by route type and by ideas about the mos! niporlant implementation timeframe. Short-term projects are envisioned in the next 5 years, transit needs after Atenrljrriq mid-term in a 6 to 15 year timeframe, and long-term in the 16 to 25 year period. one of thn Q(y' _FM1'oper, Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6 highlight potential project corridors for service houses,reading the T(Jp improvement projects in the mid- and long-term timeframes. ri"w bitter, or revierraintj the` 1 ivll �%ebsite, Rosponcilcnts Table 7-5 presents a summary of these transit recommendations in response to the most o[t(�n listed the rollovvrny needs identified in the Transit Master Study,which provides more detail for each t;ansit needs, project. 'Ihe table includes initial costs estimates. Costs for the Sound Transit 2 i. i;nprovcd]rucal bras service: protects are from the project estimates used during ST2 evaluation. Other service ► more bus trips to regional improvements are estimated at$80.54 per hour This represents Metro's marginal r1050nations, particularly operating cost for 2007 and is used when Metro provides additional service to a local South{;aunty;and jurisdiction. ► greater park and ride lot capacity 169 _ N� Table 7-5.Tnansit Recommendations �N�� ' ~ �� j�^��', .`` �.� /�� |�`�� AlW Midday 3T express bus per STZ Project Sll ("shadow bus service betweenlacoma arid Seattle serving all Sounder rail stations) M[ $1'300,000 ' N�/denUodm�eJu�0O�g��nemve�ma�opVmu N Add midday express � w� hn Kent 8lNMekno�o�dKe�S��eExpmo ' service m �� $l260 �mund�p�weokda� 'N Cen�rWdomn�wn 5exnh / U� | A2) Sounder service per 5T2 Project SZ4(6 additional round tr/psonoopW9 ~~ peak mondm[om place byZO08) | $114M0AN.$7535m ! � n $188 0 M Capital / Not/denU edm the July N5set of three investment options 0� Bl.>Renton Increase frequency of Route 7E9 i LT $1'100,000 '- -' - - '------ | U� 0 Regional pxmary 82)Aubum Increase frequency d Route l80 | LT $1'100\000 ~~ Transit Network 83)Bellevue.Add l5-mmutefrequency foroveoecorrinlUte tirries on 564/565 U $190,$0 33enTac |ncmase[�quaocy�Rou�l80ml�mmme | LT � $750'm0 ' . C1)Canyun/104th/108th Increase frequency of Route l09(part dregional � PTN project)o/create short line with turn around at208th5\ (Transit Now NV %750,00 improvement/Uenh ed for Route 169) C2)]ames/240U St from Kent TCto north and south ll6thAve Two routes combing on peast/westm we�i segment for J0' mute(e service �T ��80 frequency e � '00O C)Local Primary Transit ' - - --- Network C3)]ames/24XhSt from Kent TCto north and south ll6th Ave Two routes ` $JDO.�N mmbmmgoneag�esi segment�rl5-mmNe[�quencya|se/wco � (+project CZ) C4)Increase frequency o[Ruutel65ml5'mmute M-Sa'30'mmo\eSundays LT $840.000 �0 C5) Replace Route 9l8with two weekday all-day services east and west MT l l000OO industrial areas 30'mmu�s all-day with|/m/�dO0mmu�n/g�som/ce - ' ' DI)Add 30mmme all day service on 132nd Ave,connecting with other services MT $430,000 . Local Service at Kent Kang|oy Road(Transit Now improvement/dom ed for Route l6w -'----'-- - --- ------ - - - -- - ---- --''-- - - ------ - ---' Improvements D2)Increase frequency of Route l64m30 minutes and add Saservice MIT $480.000 Bus El)Cnn�m�sh�e��l5sNp /den edkrpusoNesNp m2OO8�m@w� 3T $77�N0�»$JS'N0ea - 7 not/denued'yet exceeding standards (05$) '--_------ ---' - --' �l ��u�bn acquisitionF) Ea�Ken'Interceptor � -P&R Fl) Expand capaowin/near Lake MendonP&RbyJ0�paus LT hrsudncc|mexpanoon ' -- $4 M for structured parking G)S/dewm|k NenkcuUnno|po�nUaipn4egspundmgrev/ewo[oon-moNxzedandmadwa - � 3T improvements improvements -- ° Note- S7 refers tv Short lerm(0'5 year umr[,vmc).MIioW1e&um"Fercu(6'/s years)and CrwLnuall,m(|6'Isyears) _ ' ------ IN, iz 0 E 0 ajae lad womAoidlag -lp 91%1Pt. Vt-111-1,110 S(Ill iW Vj A VtH- 710Y Et ri Z 3AY M H pdL 1 L Lam. r i J a EL J " r. n E _-tj O a LU Va1V p- -1 -11i. P,1 a"y a»e.*d IiowXo,dur CD CL) a V J .� _ 3S 3AV Z91 35 3AV W L 3S ! 3AV 9CL RTz'-ti 3S 3AV W l 3S_lAVcot � rn m m N -- - 3S AVZSL 3S 3AV VZL CC y IU n as AAV VZL to � w / 36 3AV 9" 3S 3AV 9LC S3Ab 9LL / } 3S 3AV ZLL O Sry�g 353AV VOL w � � N s aw iosrvl T s 3AV r a'14 - A3ITVA 1S N 1 3AV N - U _ N •_ r I 19l S _ _ IBL US � .lMH h3'I1bA 153M Nf" 4 tl S'3AVV9 ' E S 3AV s R z N r H m+ sill US .3 3AV b f N S ^�P y 5 3AV 9 S3AV% 6`Fp,1F§ V) '.AR114E EW D - TRANSPORTATION w 175 low KENT MASTER PLAN ` r '`"" . y 9. i tl rs�' - w t • �1_fiF�1 ' d t IN '41 v s d t p �g f ¢ +-w e .r . •u -v.. e "ME Wl! w "stir. �` Axle 'c � { { �'P i �wx-� �•,. __ x� "emu-• � � f t � �U � _-�. rrsgv,+ *' 3 F kt Chapter Contents Using the existing network of streets more efficiently is a fiscally sound way to Transportation improve traffic conditions and safety.Transportation demand management (TDM) Demand Management policies and strategies are designed to reduce automobile travel and shift some = Commute Trip trips to non-peak periods (before or after commute hours). Transportation system Reduction Program management(TSM) manages the flow of traffic by adding in turn lanes,Business . Commute Access and Transit (BAT)lanes,or coordinating signals. The City of Kent's efforts in Alternatives implementing TDM and TSM are detailed in this chapter = Marketing and Incentives � � Min i 1 1 a Planning for the Or Future ' Managing demand makes the best use of the transportation system through various . 'Transportation System strategies that maximize unused capacity. TDM emphasizes personal access rather Management than vehicular mobility. TDM strives to treat roadway,transit and sidewalk capacit}' as valuable,limited assets to be carefully managed. ,FEE' - fi ;Ea , TDM strategies include: encouraging ride sharing(car- and van-pooling);providing ��-=� ��E'r.��„t;',�`�'� -t��'t Fs li alternative mode subsidies e. transit passes); providing telecommutln ,flex .iq �ail:;rt � ( g• P ) P g g -� E . schedules, and compressed work weeks; and enforcing parking fees/restrictions. ;��€rq TDM strategies o beyond increasing vehicle occupancy and can range from simple �� g g Y g P� Y' g 1 u [,-A t)r,; ;v��)ys'he Cji,' marketing programs to complex land uses. City land use policies reduce dependence is irat; qitiiovcl(Ianiiaticl on private automobile travel by focusing growth in specific locations and changing �q;r, ;�i, , ��s,of land use development patterns. Land use densities,mixed-use activity, urban design, 171 transit station areas and other concentrated points of activity support frequent transit ' service and pedestrian facilities for centers and along major travel corridors. Kent is a major industrial center with multiple work sites that operate outside of the typical peak transit hours. Vanpool and vanshare programs alone are not flexible enough to meet the scheduling needs of employees. hn addition,ample free parking contributes to the high SOV rate at many work sites. 'Ihe City's TDM program is focused to maximize alternative mode options for all travels. Commute Trip Reduction Program In 1991,the Washington State legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law (RCW 70.94.521) to reduce traffic congestion,increase air quality,and decrease �,- �' fuel consumption. The CTR law is incorporated into the Washington State Clean Air Act. The City of Kent adopted its CTR ordinance (Ordinance No. 3474) in 1993. Currently,the City's CTR program serves 35 work sites providing support to over 15,000 employees and other interested firms. As the State of Washington's population has grown,the need for programs such as CTR has significantly increased. The CTR program encourages companies to work with their employees to reduce the drive-alone and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ' rates. Since the start of the CTR program the overall State single occupancy vehicle (SOV) rate has remained constant even though the volume of commuters has increased- commuters are choosing alternative modes of transportation. Since the start of the program in 1,993 there have been several changes throughout the Puget Sound Region. Job growth has exploded in King County in recent years; ' whereas, the majority of residential population growth has occurred outside of King County. CTR employees are commuting from greater distances, extending the hours of peak congestion. It is becoming increasingly essential to develop specific strategies that focus on VMT. Kent is located near the county line which impacts several of our employers. Commuting across the county line increases transit fares and can cause transfer difficulty. At several of the CTR work sites the SOV rate has been steadily , decreasing;however,the vehicle miles of travel(VM'T) rate continues to slowly rise. Employees have to travel greater distances to find affordable housing and to connect with transit service. The Commute Trip Reduction Law ,s The Washington State CTR Law is unlike many of the required trip reduction programs established in other states through federal air pollution regulations. Washington's CTR program relies on a partnership between the public and private sectors to make progress towards meeting goals. The CTR program is based on cooperation and collaboration rather thatn a punitive approach administered based on regulation and enforcement. 'the State's CTR law requires counties of 150,000 or more residents to enact local CTR ordinances. King,Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are all part of the Puget Sound Regional Council which contains the majority of the CTR sites in the State. The Law requires that employers with more than 100 full time employees commuting to work between the hours of C am and 9 am participate in the CTR program. In order to be considered an affected employee the employee must commute at least two days a week for a minimum of , twelve continuous months. TRANSPORTATION 177 KEN T MASTER PLAN �� the program is not limited to employers affected by the law, the program includes ' "" any local business that has an approved CTR plan which seeks to promote commute alternatives such as rdesharing,tele-working, and flexible work schedules. Changes to the CTR Law in 2006 ' In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act in 2006 (RCW 70.94.521) The goal of the CTR Efficiency Act is to improve the efficiency of the overall transportation system by focusing on the most congested areas of the state and increasing the planning coordination between local, regional, and state organizations. ' c Kent's local CTR plan provides the City's goals and policies for CTR,identifies facility and service improvements, and adopts marketing strategies to reduce drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled over the next four years. The City plan focuses on work sites that require more attention. The new law requires Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) to coordinate the development of local CTR Plans, create a regional CTR Plan, and to measure regional progress. Regional and local CTR plans are then scheduled to be reviewed by the CTR board,which will allocate funding. The modified CTR Program is scheduled to begun in March of 2008. Affected CTR Work Sites The City manages its CTR program proactively by providing public outreach to the entire business community,not lust the businesses required by law to participate in the CTR program. The CTR program makes good business sense for Kent employers because it helps to retain good employees. Kent's CT R program provides information and connections for employees to a variety of alternative commute options including flex schedules, compressed work weeks,tele-working,transit, and ridesharng. The City also actively coordinates with transit organizations that administer marketing campaigns such as Wheel Options, Rideshare, and the Commuter Challenge Currently 35 C''R work sites, 28 active and 7 voluntary, participate in the program. The City's CTR program is the fourth largest program in King County following Seattle,Bellevue, and Redmond. Work sites range from 64 to more than 4000 employees with a mean size around 300 employees. CTR work sites are shown in Figure 8-1. Participating sites include public entities such as King County Regional - Justice Center and the Kent School District, and private firms including Boeing, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, Oberto Sausage and REL (A detailed list is included in the CTR Report). In 2005,the majority of CTR employees reported that their employees commute from within Kent or the neighboring jurisdictions of Seattle, Taconna, Renton,Puyallup, f,.FAN Auburn and Sumner The average daily commute for Kent CTR employees is approximately 32 round trip miles per day. ' Under the new CTR Efficiency Act,Kent will reduce the SOV and VMT rate by focusing on strategies specific to Kent. The local goal for the new program is to reduce the SOV rate by 10 percent and the VMT rate by 13 percent by 2011. The 2011 drive alone goal for the overall jurisdiction is 83 percent and the VMT goal is 13.7 miles per commuter per day. -rn —n l W V/ n 2 e y 2 Uy C O� rn Q ¢ C E o o U •_ �. 0 t r--_— �l Um— LL r - - � r a ` oC) o UmoW Yo � v d � oo i � V mid UYYUtn U' pQQ��]7ali CL2 W Stn U)Otn elm V YSis�»( 1 OcNON }� U�00000��cu�mmNmm rn ms m�rna�i��r�rn of ai c�n�o�mmma�i c>> —`— -- — /1 IL(L lit W W W IL IL W cL iJ W W cL tL W W[Ll L[l LLI W W W W tL[L tL It�l lL W W W[if W iJ� CL _ ? 13 LH _ Z� a _ LAI 1 �- I o wY o U�aU Qo 23 N r --�- t¢ d LL r TRANSPORTATION 181 KENT MASTER PLAN There are a number of alternative ways for commuters to travel to work and reduce the number of SOV work trips Transit Service KC Metro and Sound Transit provide transit services in Kent In addition to regular local service KC Metro provides Express service, Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) circulators, and park and ride facilities. Sound 'Transit provides commuter rail and express bus service from park and rides finking regional urban centers in Pierce and Kraig County. Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail is a popular alternative for ,r= employees commuting to Kent CTR work sites. As detailed in the'Iransit Chapter(chapter 7),Route 918, an innovative commuter ' _ _°-• shuttle,is an example of the City's commitment to the local business community to provide an accessible transportation system The commuter shuttle links Sound i Transit and Metro'Transit centers to CTR work sites including: Boeing, REI, Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines,ACS,and Flow International. The commuter shuttle provided A over 3,362 door-to-door trips in October of 2007. In addition to serving CTR sites, the commuter shuttle is used by several employees that work at smaller employment sites along the route. Employees have expressed the desire for this peak only route-to extend into the midday and evening hours to support the multiple shifts at this active manufacturing and industrial center. Rideshare Programs Ridesharing,particularly carpooling, is one of the most popular and convenient alternatives used by commuters. Ridesharing is particularly helpful for employees that lack convenient,reliable transit service. Rideshare commuters are able to use the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which can greatly reduce their commute time Several Kent CTR work sites provide reserved parking and financial incentives for rideshare commuters. The online ridesharing program (wwwrideshareonhne com) offered by KC Metro connects rideshare participants throughout the region Some Kent CTR work sites offer their own internal ridesharing programs connecting their employees to each other. In a 2005 survey, 52 percent of the CTR work sites reported that they provided w vanpool subsidies for their employees Vanpool riders contribute a monthly rate determined by the number of miles traveled and the number of passengers The Metro vanpool program provides the fuel, insurance, and maintenance for each of their vehicles. The Vanshare program is another alternative for employees that commute by bus, i train, or ferry that need help getting from the transit center to their work location. _, The majority of Kent Vanshare participants commute from the Tukwila and Kent commuter rail stations to Boeing,Alaska Airlines, and Barghausen Engineering. The Kent Transit Center is used as a main transfer point for commutes to SYSCO, FSA, Boeing,REI, and the Centerpomnt Business Complex. Non-Motorized Options Metro and Sound Transit buses and trains are equipped to accommodate passengers with bicycles. Bicycling is often a practical travel mode for commuters who are located further than walking distance from transit services and whose schedules are 181 too inflexible to use Vanshare programs. 'Ihe City of Kent has numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities that connect to CTR work sites including the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Both of these trails are available for all users—walkers, commuters and recreational bicyclists. The Interurban'Frail parallels the Union Pacific Rail Road in the Kent Valley and is known as the bicycle 1-5 to cyclists who regularly use the trail. The regional trail covers 14 miles front I-405 in Tukwila to 3rd Avenue SW,just south of Pacific. The other regional trail,the Green River Trail, I features spectacular views of Mount Rainier and currently covers 16 miles. When the trail is completed it will cover over thirty miles spanning from the Green River in ]-� Kent to Alki Beach in West Seattle Alternative Work Schedules Alternative work scheduling is beneficial to both the employee and the employer. Businesses are able to provide coverage for additional hours and employees are able to work their schedules around transit and ridesharing. Alternative schedules including flextime, compressed work weeks,and staggered shifts are a significant component of the CTR program in Kent Flextime allows employees to work a variable work schedule, contrary to a standard 9 am to 5 pm work schedule, Flex schedules reduce employee anxiety over being late and help facilitate carpools. Another option,the compressed work week,allows employees to work fewer days by working longer shifts, reducing their total VMT by completely eliminating a trip. Staggered shifts allow employees to start and complete their workday outside the peak periods. Telecommuting r Telecommuting is an arrangement that allows employees to work from their home or a mobile location Telecommuting eliminates the travel time for employees -` ' making their time snore productive and allowing them more flexibility within their day. Telecommuting is a great way to reduce congestion and increase air quality b Y g g Y g � 9 Y y �'. completely eliminating a trip. Each CTR work site has an emp]oyee transportation coordinator(ETC)that serves as the employer representative to the City and is charged with promoting commute alternatives to employees. ETCs are the alternative transportation experts at their work sites. They get the word out to their employees through new employee orientations, advertising in common areas,dyers,posters, emails, company newsletters,paycheck inserts, and promotional campaigns. Marketing campaigns such as the October Rideshare week and Wheel Options Campaigns promote increased ridership through prizes like a vacation for two or a shopping spree. The City facilitates promotional events at CTR work sites that help encourage employees , to use the alternative commute options that are available to them. Employee subsidies offset commuting costs and encourage employees to break the habit of driving alone. Common subsidies include discount bus,ferry,or tram passes, reduced vanpool fees, reserved HOV parking,and/or gift vouchers for walking or biking to work. Employers that offer subsidies for parking,transit,and/or ridesharing experience increased participation in their CTR program. The Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH)program provides employees who regularly commute to work with a free ride when unexpected situations at work or home arise. This incentive eliminates the anxiety that many commuters have over being stuck at TRANSPORTATION 183 • MASTER PLAN KENT work without a personal vehicle. GRH is a cost effective solution that employers can utilize to promote their CTR program. By investing more in employees'work environments, CTR employers are able to reduce their employees' needs to make midday trips. Showers "I Ix and storage lockers are key features for promoting a successful R ° walking or biking program. On-site amenities such as daycare, - cafeterias, and ATM machines reduce the need for midday trips The Boeing Company and Centerpoint Business Park in Kent offer their employees many of these amenities, leading the way in _ on-site amenities and providing a positive work environment that supports the needs of employees who choose to use alternative ` ``' 1 commute options. ov ITie City will coordinate with local,regional, and state transportation agencies to increase transportation efficiencies. . . Future city, state, and regional construction projects will greatly �F impact both regional and local congestion Alternative mode commute programs will become increasingly more critical The City will continue to promote alternative commute programs particularly through ridematching programs that link carpool,vanpool, and vanshare participants. 'the City will also encourage businesses in the community to voluntarily participate in the CTR program. The City will review and update the City's CTR Ordinance biannually in order to meet the needs of employers and the community. City Actions Supporting the CTR Program the City proposes to take the following actions in support of the CTR Program. • Continue to work with King County Metro and Sound'I'ransit to increase local transit service and programs. • Support shuttle service through the Lakes and Riverview communities connecting to the Kent Transit Center. • Increase frequencies on Route 153 between Kent and Renton, • Increase frequencies on Route 183 through the West Hills of Kent. • Provide all day service on Route 918 to serve CTR employment sites in the manufacturing and industrial center. a.j'' 5 s • Support KC Metro's RapidRide, scheduled to begin in February 2010 It n., will replace Route 174 along Pacific Highway S/International Boulevard between S 316th Street in Federal Way and S 154th Street(International Boulevard) in Tukwila RapidRide will pass through Kent along Pacific Highway South. RapidRide buses will link up with Sound Transit's light rail in'tukwila as well as local routes destined to Tacoma,Federal Way, Des � # Moines,Auburn,Tukwila, and Burien. • Enhance existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 1 • Incorporate non-motorized improvements into new projects. • Continue to work collaboratively with neighboring jurisdictions and King County to provide incentives for CTR participants. i u m rr 18 1 .AIN 3 ron Transportation system management(TSM) techniques,which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. 'Ihese techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques include: Rechannallzation/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding/nncreasing number of through lanes; • Signal interconnect and optimization; • Signahzation; r • Turn movement restrictions; a Access Manageinent;and • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Tine City uses TSM techniques to maximize the efficiency of the street network. ITS is a relatively new technology that has proven itself a successful and cost effective means of increasing system capacity. With an ITS system the City is able to change traffic signals in real-time,thereby handling unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles,such as event related traffic and accidents. ITS is included in the City's new Transportation Center which will be part of the Kent East Hill Operations Center, which is expected to be operating by 2012.'llie City will assess the opportunity for ITS capabilities on corridors around the City. In addition to TSM strategies,the City strives to provide viable alternatives for the traveler,to ensure freedom of choice among several transportation modes (such as transit,biking and walking) as alternatives to the automobile. The City stresses the development of pedestrian-friendly environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non-motorized system expands. r 1 r r r r r TRANSPORTATION 185 KENT MASTER PLAN A 4 a A_ A*, ft W. I.1W 7- 21 1 1 A major component of the Transportation Master Plan is the financial element. A key GMA planning requirement is the concept of fiscal restraint in transportation Chapter Contents planning. The purpose of the financial element is to balance the transportation The"Big Picture" 'D protects recommended for implementation with the ability of the city to build and maintain transportation facilities and services The remainder of this chapter Overview of Costs and summarizes funding strategies for Kent,s Transportation Master Plan. Revenues Estimates of Specific Sources of Revenue M 4 i -4 N�`%V . Existing Revenues . Potential Additional Revenues The proposed 2006-2030 Transportation Master Plan for the City of Kent contains a ► Transit Funding variety of pro)ects that will cost between$511 and 595 million' over 25 years. Table 9-1 summarizes the costs of the major types of transportation improvements. Street improvement projects comprise approximately$360 million, grade separation projects$170 million,transit projects $4 million, and non-motorized protects UP to$40 million. The transit costs represent a six-year City commitment to fund the existing transit shuttles program and to partner with King County in the new Transit Now program. 1 This cost is consistent with the City's past investment in transportation inipiovements.During the past eleven years,the City of Kent built$260 million of transportation capital improvements(in 2006 dollars). The annual average was$23 6 million. If the City continues to find ways to fund transportation projects during the next 25 years at the same level as the past eleven years, the City would pay$592 million for transportation capital improvement projects II 181 'these costs represent the portion of the projects located within the City of Kent. An additional$100 million of street needs were identified within the potential annexation area of the City,within King County. 'these costs are not included in Table 9-1 since they are not currently the responsibility of the City of Kent. 1 h Table 9�-1. Costs of Kent Transportation Master Plan ($ Millions) Street Projects' $341-373 ` $162-179 $503-552 Non-Motorized Projects 4-38 0 4-38 Transit Projects 4-5 0 4-5 Total $349-416 $162-179 $511-595 x Note 'the street projects also include 16 miles of new bicycle routes representing approximately $36 million of additional bicycle investment The street projects also include 15 miles of new sidewalks Table 9-2 summarizes the projections of potential 20-year revenues from existing and new sources. It appears that the City has several viable options for raising significant revenue for the City of Kent's Transportation Master Plan. These options will be presented to the City Council for consideration as additional revenue is needed to complete projects. The public will have opportunities to participate in these decisions. Table 9-2. Potential Revenues for Kent Transportation Master Plan ($ Millions) , :€•' _ F".,.,,,o g". fob„",.w, `—_F: AL LA 4��Itry*d�, 'E",sn:,�,,:; ..,9 _ ,.,.E.,„= k�. �"` °� Fxisting Revenues $131-234 $18-73 $149-307 - ------- -- - - - - - — - — ---E Potential Additional Revenue $164 383 j 0 $164-383 Total $295-617 $18-73 $313-690 Sources Revi-inue The estimates of existing funding and potential additional funding summarized in Table 9-2 are from a detailed analysis of each source of revenue and identification of the assumptions that are appropriate to each source. Table 9-3 presents 20-year revenue estimates for five existing and six potential additional sources of revenue for transportation capital improvements for the City of Kent. Each source of revenue has a low estimate, a high estimate, and the average of the two. 'The estimate of each of the existing and potential additional revenue sources listed in Table 9-3 is described below. The existing revenue sources are numbered I to 5, and the potential additional revenue sources are lettered A to F. All revenue estimates are in 2007 dollars to match the costs of projects that are a blend of 2006 and 2007 dollars;therefore,the two sets of data are comparable. -- a ■ TRANSPORTATION 187 KEN-- MASTER PLAN Table 9-3. Estimates of Specific Revenue Sources 2006-2030 ($ Millions) @ aa % "IP, ADW- 0" & 4, �-Mr 4 W I. Existing Revenue Sources for Capital 1, Committed Funding $ 77 3 77 3 $ 77 3 2 Grants-Annual Average* 116 619 37 8 3 Grants for Grade Separation Projects 178 73 3 45 6 —------------ 4 Local Improvement Districts(LIDS)' 35.2 75 0 551 b Transfer from Street Fund' 7 2 17 6 12 4 ------------ Total- Existing Revenue for Capital $1496 $307.6 $228 7 W I ME 4 -e R A T,7 11.Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Capital A Impact Fees-City of Kent' $ 45 0 $ 180,0 $ 112 5 B Impact Fees- Reciprocal from King County 5.0 100 7 5 C Business License Fee for Transportation 73.8 98.7 86.3 D Voted General Obligation Bonds 5.5 27 5 16,5 I Real Estate Excise Tax 4 5 22 3 134 F. Vehicle License Fee for Transportation Bene t D,Str,Ct2 300 44,0 37 0 Total, Potential Additional Revenue for Capital $163.8 382.5 E 273.2 Combined Total for Capital:Existing+Potential $313.4 $690.1 $501.92 Net of Committed Funds I- Impact Fees. 'Hie low estimate is based on rates of approximately$3,000 per PM peak hour trip; the h d h hia estimate is base on the n potential maximum of approximately$15,000 per trip 2- Vehicle License Fee. The range of estimates is based on a$20 per vehicle fee using varying estimates of registered vehicles in Kent and the percent of license fee revenues that would be used for the TMP Pro)ects 0 The City of Kent has already secured funding for some of the projects in the Transportation Master Plan. the estimate is based on a list of the specific projects Jects amounts committed funding, and the aounts and sources of the committed funds. The committed funds total$77.3 million,of which$56 8 million is from grants, $4.5 million is from local improvement districts, $12.6 million is from environmental mitigation 1 fees, and$3 2 million is from City revenues. The$77.3 million of committed revenue is listed as both the low estimate and the high estiniate because the amounts are known, and are not estimated. 181 # E The estimate is based on the annual average of$4.2 million of grants received by the City since 1990,other than grants for grade separation projects. 'the low estimate of$11.6 nnlhon is based on 50 percent of the historical average,but the estimate is then reduced by$40.6 million of grants already committed(other than grants for grade separation projects,which are estimated separately). A high estimate of$63.9 million is based on 100 percent of the historical average,but the high estimate is also reduced by$40.6 million of grants already committed to City projects. The average of these values is$37.8 million. The low estimate of grants for grade separation projects is based on the annual average of$2.7 million of grants received by the City since 2004 for grade separation projects. The low estimate of$17.8 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by$16.2 million of grants for grade separation that are already committed. L A conservative high estimate of$73.3 million was based on 50 percent of the cost of the grade separation projects in the TMP,reduced by$16.2 million of grants already ' committed to City grade separation projects. The high estimate uses the cost of projects as the basis because the City's policy has been to only build grade separation , projects if there is substantial funding from grant sources. While the grants have typically covered 85 percent of the project cost,it is unlikely that grants will continue to fund grade separation projects at this level. A more conservative high estimate would be 50 percent, so the high estimate is now 50 percent of$179 million,reduced by$16.2 million of grants already committed to City grade separation projects for a high estimate of$73.3 million. The net low estimate of grant revenue for grade separations is $17.8 million,and the net high estimate is$73.3 million. The average is $45.6 million. The City's match would need to come from City revenues, such as LIDs,transfers from the street fund, real estate excise tax,vehicle license fee for transportation benefit district, and/or a business license fee for transportation. ' — oc .aid` (Cot"WilittOd Local hnprovement Districts (LIDs) have been a major source of transportation funding for the City during the past 20 years. The City anticipates that LID's will continue to be used. The City will also continue to use its authority under law, including chapter 35.72 RCW and Chapter 6.05 KMC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the construction or improvement of street projects 3, which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. Contracts may provide for LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas,or other available programs. The estimate of future revenue from local improvement districts (LIDs) is based on the annual average of$3.18 million of LIDs established by the City since 1986. A low estimate of$35.2 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by$4.6 million of LIDs already committed. -' _ TRANSPORTATION 189 MASTER PLAN KENT 'lhe high estimate of$75 0 million is based on 100%of the historical average,reduced by the $4.6 million of LIDS already committed to City projects. The net low estimate of LID revenue is $35.2 million, and the net high estimate is tB $75.0 million. The average is$55 1 million. 'Ihe�City of Kent has a separate fund, the"Street Fund" in whicli it deposits a portion of the City's utility tax and all of the City's share of the state's tax on motor fuels. The Street Fund is used primarily for ongoing operating and maintenance expenses of the street system. However,the City transfers a portion of the Street Fund money to the City's capital improvement program (CIP)for transportation projects. The estimate a is based on the annual average of$0.8 million of Street Fund revenue budgeted to7� : ' be transferred to the CIP and available for capital projects during the 2007 -2012 CIP. In other words,the estimate is based on extending the 2007 - 2012 commitment + 1 for the whole 25 years of the TMP Continued use of the Street Fund for capital improvements will reduce the amount of money in the Street Fund for the Pavement Management Program. A low estimate of$7.2 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by$3.2 million of Street Fund money already committed rlhe high estimate of$17.6 million is based on 100 percent of the historical average, also reduced by$3.2 million of Street Fund money already committed. The average of these values is$12.4 million. I A- ,� d> the Growth Management Act created RCW 82.02.050 et seq. that authorizes impact fees for streets and roads. 'the fees must be based on, and used for,specific improvement projects in the Transportation Master Plan. the projects must be "system improvements"that provide service and benefits to the community, and not project improvements"that provide service and benefits to individual developments. Impact fees are calculated by identifying the cost of the road projects that serve new development, adjusting for other sources of revenue that would pay for part of the same projects, and then dividing the remaining cost by the number of trips that the road projects will accommodate 'Ilene result is the cost per trip. 'Ihe amount of impact L fee to be paid by each new development is calculated by multiplying the cost per trip times the number of trips that the new development will add to the roadway system. The forecast of impact fees assumes that they would supplement or replace the tj existing program of environmental mitigation fees. The City would continue to use the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) to ensure that new development adequately mitigates its impacts on the transportation system. i Impact fees can only be imposed if the City prepares and adopts an impact fee ordinance that follows the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq. The estimates are ' based on forecasts of future growth from 2006 to 2030. 191 Ilie low estimate of$45.0 million is based on low to moderate impact fee rates charged by other cities in the area, and the high estimate of$180.0 million is based on initial estimates of the maximum amount the City of Kent could legally charge to new development for projects in the draft TMI? Rrci-OE, The reciprocal impact fees that could be received from King County are based on the same methodology as the impact fees for the City of Kent,but the growth forecasts are for the Potential Annexation Areas. f The low estimate of$5.0 million is based on low to moderate impact fee rates charged i by other cities in the area, and the high estimate of$10.0 million is based on estimates of the impact on Kent roads from development in King County and review of higher impact fee rates charged by other cities in the area. The fees would be negotiated with King County;the City would be required to raise its own impact fees in order to make reciprocal payments to the County. An alternative , would be to pursue annexations and then charge Kent's mitigation fees (i.e.,EMAs or n 1G,I n impact fees) rather than to negotiate reciprocal payments from the County. The cities of Renton and Redmond have used their authority to license businesses to impose a license fee that is used to build transportation improvements that benefit businesses. 'the fee would be on the basis of employee count or other measure of potential business impact on Cite facilities and demand on the transportation system.The estimate below indicates how much revenue could be generated from a similar business license in Kent,using employee count as the measure, similar to the approaches in Renton and Redmond. the low estimate of$73.8 million uses a low estimate of 67,050 employees in Kent, the lower rate of$55 per employee count per year charged by Renton, and the lower portion of 80 percent of the license revenue committed to transportation by Renton. The high estimate of$98.7 million uses a higher estimate of 71,915 employees in Kent, Redmond's rate of$83.25 per employee count per year, and 66 percent of the license revenue committed to transportation by Redmond. The Renton program began in the early 1980s to finance the Oaksdale Avenue underpass under I-5,then it was continued to fund other transportation projects. There was a sunset for the first ten years. The fee was developed after significant , discussions with Boeing,the Chamber of Commerce, and other key businesses. A committee met every year to review the program. 'Ihe City was able to leverage the money,typically obtaining$3 00 of state and federal money for every $1.00 of business license fee.After the initial 10 years,the business community felt that the City was putting the money to good use and agreed to continue the program, and to remove the sunset clause. Renton's business license fee applies to for-profit businesses,so governments and non-profits do not pay. Renton's transportation money has been used for street projects. 'the Redmond program was developed in active consultation with the business community. The initial fee was authorized at$65 per employee per year between 1997 and 2000. 'the program was extended for 2001 to 2004 and the rate was increased to $67.50. The program was extended again for 2005 to 2006 and the rate was increased TRANSPORTATION 191 KENT MASTER PLAN s � to $83.25. Some of the transportation money is used for transportation demand management and intelligent transportation programs. 'The City of Kent can issue bonds to borrow money for a variety of purposes the legal limit on such borrowing is an amount equal to 2.5% of the taxable value of the property in the City. In order to borrow the funds, and to authorize an additional property tax to repay the bonds, the City would be required to obtain approval by 60 percent or more of the voters. The estimates are based on remaining debt capacity of the City The tow estimate of$5.5 million is based on a bond issue of 10 percent of the - remaining debt capacity, and the high estimate of$27.5 million is based on a bondu :. issue of 50 percent of the City's remaining debt capacity_ may,or may not, compete for the City's borrowing capacity.Other potential protects If the City proposes a voted general obligation bond for the aquatic center,the bond 4 could be proposed under RCW 39.36.020 (1) for"... park-facilities ..."and thus not =� use any of the statutory debt limit of the City under RCW 39.36.020 (2)(b), and thus preserve that authority for transportation. Furthermore, if the City were to propose a voted bond issue for specific transportation projects that supportjobs, employment and the economy, the bond could be considered part of the borrowing authority of RCW 39 36 020 (4)for `... capital facilities associated with economic development..." The City Attorney and/or bond counsel could provide information on applicability of these potential strategies the City of Kent has adopted both 0.25% real estate excise taxes (REST) authorized by the state law. REET is collected each time a real estate transaction occurs in the city 'The money is used for unary types of infrastructure improvements, including transportation projects. Kent uses half of its REET money for packs and recreation, and the other half for a variety of other capital improvements. 'This analysis does not change the REET for parks and recreation, but it does examine the potential revenue for transportation from the other half of the REET. 'The estnnate is based on the annual average of$1 8 million the City receives for the half of REET that is not used for parks and recreation While there is significant competition among Kent's capital protects for funding by REET, the City could choose to dedicate a portion of its REET for major transportation projects. _ The low estimate of$4.5 million is based on 10 percent of the annual revenue, and the high estimate of$22.3 million is based on 50 percent of the annual revenue In 2007,the legislature passed and the Governor signed a law authorizing a$20 vehicle license fee.-' In order to obtain this revenue,the following would have to occur: 1. King County would have to decide to not impose the fee (County's have right of first refusal), or the County would need to adopt a program and share revenue with cities. 2 'Ihe law authorizes a$20 per vehicle license fee using Council approval.An additional incremental fee up to$80 per vehicle can be unposed with voter approval. 191 �tf r 2. Kent would have to create a city-wide transportation benefit district as the entity that would charge or expend the fee. 3. Kent would have to identify specific transportation projects to be funded by the vehicle license fee. The projects must be necessitated by current or future congestion levels on roads of statewide or regional significance. 4. Kent would need to ensure that the eligible project(s) are listed in a state or regional transportation plan. adopt the license fee,or enter into an agreement 5. The City would need to with King County regarding sharing of the revenue from the County, including a provision that it would"sunset"when the project(s)were paid for. The estimate is based on the$20 vehicle license fee and an estimate of the number of registered vehicles in Kent and assumptions about how much of the money would be used for TMP projects, as opposed to a portion that could be used for operations and maintenance (as allowed by the new law). 'lhe low estimate of$30.0 million is based on an estimate of 80,000 registered vehicles and 75 percent of the revenue being used for TMP projects. The high estimate of $44.0 million is based on an estimate of 88,000 registered vehicles and 100 percent of the revenue being used for TMP projects. f r, ,'t Operating funding for transit services primarily comes from local(regional) sales tax revenues,farebox revenues and in the case of Sound Transit, a Motor Vehicle � Excise Tax. Capital funding primarily comes from federal grants. Metro bus service is allocated to three subareas of the County,the Past, South, and West (Seattle/north suburban) subareas. 'The West subarea has 63 percent of the bus service, and the ¢� current Six-Year Transit Development Plan provides that every 200,000 hours of additional bus service will be allocated among the three subareas on a 40:40:20 basis `'P, � with the East and South subareas each receiving 40 percent of new service hours and the West subarea receiving 20 percent. The City of Kent currently contributes$21,265 annually toward the farebox replacement for the Shopper Shuttles. In 2006 the City paid$43,174 for 10 months of operation of the Commuter Shuttle. Estimated 2007 expenses are$70,250 to provide two additional runs,meeting up with the additional Sounder trains. It appears that the City has several viable options for raising significant revenue for the City of Kent's Transportation Master Plan. These options will be presented to the City Council for consideration as additional revenue is needed to complete projects. The public will have opportunities to participate in these decisions. 193 TRANSPORTATION KENT MASTER PLAN V�. 'a a - � Lit r7 gip"Ae :$r��s �-F� , - t ,tea_„•� � a t .,.a ��,.� ��; �` �.< a vt AYE A Y Implementing the Transportation Master Plan will require close coordination among Chapter Contents the City departments, along with key actions to be taken by the City Council. This chapter identifies the high priority implementation actions and their potential o- Council Actions schedule. P. Monitoring and Evaluation The TMP is a living document, and as incorporated into the City's Comprehensive ► Plans and Programs Plan, will serve as the blueprint for transportation in Kent over the next several years. r Action Strategies Realistically, the actions in the plan are most useful over the next three to five years, Schedule at which point a plan update will be required. Several implementation steps should be initiated over the next couple of years to determine if changes are needed, or to reaffirm a particular strategy. Table 10-1 summarizes the recommended short- and medium term actions in a schedule framework that allows for a reasonable phase-in of the key'hMP actions The types of priority actions are covered in this chapter below, including: Council Actions • Monitoring and Evaluation Plans and Programs Each modal element of the TMP includes implementation actions that are 1 summarized within these categories. i4ma 19 ~ Table 10+1.Kent TMP Action Strategies Schedule N� ink 22 "4V Roo � m��*�.�� ~ Al i — ---- -- - - . Adopt Impact Fee Ordinance ' Update Rates every . N� . Zyean ' l Z Revise Comonm�yManayeme� 20O98onua| 2Ol0Annua| 20ll.B]l2Annua| . | System CuncunencyReport CnncunencyRepok Cnncunency '- _------------ l__-_--........ __ Reports ____� Establish Business Community Implement Initial | Implement RemommgFundmg�ou�es ! � Funding Process Funding sources '� — '---- --' - TmnspnrtamnnStat ngand Ongoing / Resources A6 Establish aTra[ c . | | Advisory Committee � B. Monitoring and Evaluation ' ' - --'7 -- -- '-- — B1 | Annual Rppo�CaW(Euallo �h 2009�ub � 2010Mnbility 2017'2012Muhility { � Skuctu,e'collect data) Report Card | Report CardRepoxCa�� ' ' / | 82 i TMPRevew f J 1 133 Travel Model Update i B5 Public Involvement Ongoing Public Involvement C.Plans and Programs Modify Street Design Standards C2 1 Operations and Maintenance Costs C4 Design and Upgrade Traf c Signal Systern Active Traf c management d� �� ^° �� ~ ��° �� °«�[��,,3�� The adoption of the TMP will lead tou number o[ordinance opdutco.resolutions and budget decisions requiring Ci(yCoonolucz/ou. ]kcmeznduJc|he6/l|o*nog: ° Adopt the Transportation Impact Fee Program N� * Revise the Concuocncy Management System ° Establish u Business Community Funding Process ° Auaosm Icuoaportut/oo Staffing Needs and Resources N� ° Establish u Traffic Advisory Committee Each ofthese actions are discussed below. N� �� TRANSPORTATION 195 * MASTER PLAN ' KENT A"1 dsvp ii Transpo ill t111i` ,kC , Pro€ n,, , The City will adopt a new GMA-based Transportation Impact Fee Program as an integral part of the transportation funding program. The actions will include adopting an impact fee ordinance and rates (with a documented impact fee rate study), and establishing administrative procedures for implementing the impact fee program. The City's concurrency management system will be updated to implement a new plan-based' approach to transportation concurrency. Concurrency is part of the overall transportation context, tying land use and transportation together. 'lhe City expects to use concurrency as a means to better monitor the transportation-land use . connection as the TMP is implemented,rather than as a regulatory tool. In Dent, as long as the growth of the city and the implementation of the city's transportation plan are in balance, then transportation concurrency requirements . will be met. This is the plan-based approach to concurrency- ensuring, at the plan level,that the pace of development reasonably matches the pace of transportation investments This balance will be examined yearly as part of a Concurrency Report Card(see Monitoring and Evaluation action). If the report card shows a transportation/land use imbalance,then the city will take actions to adjust the land use plan or the pace of project implementation. The city may also choose in the future to institute a more rigorous`checks and balances' approach of measuring land use and transportation. The City will establish a process to engage the business community regarding proposed funding sources that affect business. 1be City Council will determine the most appropriate mechanism to establish this dialog with the intent to obtain a consensus on appropriate funding sources and magnitude of funding. The implementation of the TMP will require focused attention by the City's Transportation Section to ensure success. Several new programs are identified, including the transportation impact fees, annual plan monitoring and evaluation, concurrency status monitoring, traffic counting and analysis,non-motorized system, and follow-up implementation studies. Current Transportation Section resources are not expected to be adequate to implement these actions while maintaining its ongoing community functions. The city will closely examine the staffing and resource needs of the Transportation Section as part of the 2008 work plan 191 :4 Specific staffing needs not currently allocated within the city include the following: • 'Traffic counting and analysis' • Transportation report card analysis and documentation • Transportation impact fee administration • Microsimulatron modeling for small area traffic studies • 'Transportation funding support(e.g. Grant applications) • Traffic Calming program * Traffic Signal System Management • Non-Motorized 'Transportation System(NMTS) Coordinator. The Coordinator's general responsibilities could include: r> Monitoring of ADA federal policy refinements and local policy compliance G City-wide crosswalk study Non-Motorized GIS database management Site Plan review to help ensure the Non-Motorized transportation sytsem goals and policies are implemented > Revised pedestrian and bicycle design standards > Pedestrian and bicycle signage and channelization inventory and maintenance i> School safe-walking route development and bicycle education WSDOT project development and plan coordination • Transit stop development/management • Support of other City department priorities(Community Development Subarea Plans,Police Department Grants,etc.) a ,'a f`C ed" "Orvfti l The TMP Citizen Task Force set a high standard for demonstrating how a body of volunteers committed to finding solutions for the enure City will set aside their own s self-interests and give a thoughtful review to difficult transportation issues. This group of neighborhood representatives, small and large businesses,young adults and senior citizens,worked for almost two years to find compromise positions on many Elmo complex subjects. F""" — The Council should consider the establishment of a Traffic Advisory Committee as a continuation of the Task Force experience. This Committee could be a transportation sounding board for citizens and businesses and provide objective input to the Council on emerging transportation issues and city transportation policies. The Committee could then make recommendations to the Public Works Committee and/or City staff. Based upon the lessons learned from the TMP Task Force,this new Traffic Advisory Committee should be kept very balanced to allow all interests to be fairly represented. Such a body of citizen-volunteers could bring a wealth of knowledge,energy, and goodwill to the ongoing transportation needs of the Kent community. 1 Ongoing program to gather traffic data to determine Average Daily Traffic and Peak Hour Volumes on the arterial road network;turn movement counts at all signal-controlled and multi-way stop-controlled intersections,and traffic collision investigation reports TRANSPORTATION 1.97 KENT MASTER PLAN — The TMP is a long-range plan that anticipates the needs and conditions of the future transportation system in 2030, enabling the City to plan for its current and future needs. Nonetheless,the transportation network is dynamic, constantly changing due to circumstances beyond the scope and influence of this plan Hence, regular updates are necessary to ensure the plan remains current and relevant. An annual mobility report card will be developed to document progress towards plan 1 implementation and to monitor the transportation system performance The City 11 will use this information to provide accurate information to the public regarding the t Cnty's actions,and results,related to the TMP. The report card will also provide a basis for future updates of the TMP. k The report card is expected to report on the following topics: • Land Use and Transportation Trends • Transportation Performance • Concurrency Status The following sections briefly describe the expected contents of these topics Land Use and Transportation Trends These data will describe general land use and transportation trends within Kent, Information provided will include: • Current population and employment levels and growth rates • Summary of yearly development activity • Summary of growth in traffic volumes,transit service and other trends Transportation Performance These data will focus on documenting the current performance of the transportation system,by mode. Information provided is expected to include: • Transit route ridership • Park-and-ride lot utilization • Commuter mode shares • Traffic growth • Collisions (current trends and assess potential remedial actions) • Traffic level of service (by corridor) • Traffic signal system (monitor performance by corridor and by individual intersection) • Non-motorized facility usage Specific data needs will be refined as part of the first report card preparation. Concurrency Status A key part of the yearly report card will be a report on meeting transportation concurrency. The following information is anticipated as part of the concurrency status report: 191 Development Activity Identify the location and intensity of development that has occurred in relation to where it was forecast to occur. Produce maps comparing forecast 2007--2030 land use with actual yearly development activity. Describe land uses by type and geographic location. Corridor Level of Service performance Prepare tabular summary of existing traffic levels of service (LOS), by corridor. These results will be based on actual traffic counts. Corridor LOS will also be forecast into a near-term future using the traffic anticipated from approved development and , � ;€ expected TIP projects. = _ `°FF Project Implementation Status t, * For the funded TIP, identify project milestones that have been accomplished relative iw to what was planned. Summarize information,by mode, showing the progress , towards implementing projects identified within the city's TIP. Compare the forecast construction benchmarks to actual benchmarks met. In addition to street projects, _ - summarize the completion of pedestrian and bicycle projects,both stand-alone improvements and those that are installed with roadway widening or new street ' projects identified in the TIP. In this manner the City can recognize the completion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Summary of Concurrency Status Summarize the pace of development activity,travel growth, and transportation performance to determine whether the city;s transportation system is concurrent. Identify how short term and long term land use and project plans could be modified to provide a more balanced system. 2- T P � � t The TMP is adopted in summary into the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will be amended as needed as part of the City's regular Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.the process ensures that proposed changes go through a public review process before the amended plan is adopted by the City Council. In preparation for the amendment cycle,the City will review the plan and propose updates as needed. 'Ihese proposed updates may be due to shifts in Citv priorities,the availability of new information, or the relevance of certain plan components. As part of the process,the City will review the future list of projects and update the Capital Facilities Plan as needed. The City will submit all changes into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan so that they can be evaluated by the regional air quality model and become eligible for federal grants. The City will also review and update the Policies and Funding chapters, in order to remain consistent with the City's vision and current with available funding strategies. 'Ihe City will update the travel demand model on a regular basis (every few years), as new land use, employment, and housing data become available Model updates are important as they ensure the City has an accurate understanding of how land use ' patterns,employment,and other factors impact future transportation conditions. hi �E TRANSPORTATION 99 ICON 1 MASTER PLAN . the travel demand model will be a critical tool for measuring the transportation system performance for determining Concurrency. The model also provides an t understanding of the impacts associated with different projects, allowing the City to devise a revised list of future projects to improve capacity and safety, as well as achieve other City priorities. the City Council can make informed policy decisions using updated travel model data The projects recommended in the What we heard from the Community about Priorities TMP have been prioritized within Th:;1)klh4,Irl'U'OIVC,'%)flt proqri"11 r1bC:niIC',1Qr[7U1)IIG irlpt!', C111f`:l then-respective modes (e.g. street, SCH, li£l€the fro,Crl M3S lurt'C,7ti(I ;'GI,linii;it r;i4ctin(p) operl Y'Ot 7 E)Clil arc's transit,non-motorized). As part retry cards III the sc"'orld n�.;��tsieat�r.+.rcL; ,t;;rt�['lrll:;ill ol;,x(rt�.nr.I(;>,�i ti,rsl�o tatlral of the a inual TIP process,the City I�riFE aitd rr 1-C;.t! e-,i7a�l�rt;dr�sss ��a'hsul.rsf tl](�s€..x;portul;lti�s,lh(�C'i';r(�ef[v(�d will need to allocate resources (X)MtT1ul111V bull m vi.�hat Nyc s at prcl�rts should he c�ri;idGred "iC�!1 u' t"i ity,. 1 and set priorities for the full range ,, l l;ml [" ""aw"N'of C;�l l l�,r rS(C�CI'� t7c', 'ho-I I)C O,ht), lliw t Ki,ii rC-�sidlonts C)h c the of projects, across modes. In -'wales: prlc:.t} CJII sire; t piolects particular,the non-motorized ' '0M-1''h`I"lW ule(1 0 transportation projects have not ^ic;rr, xu.1the K„ni-K2, ct�� yet been fully prioritized.In Phase Sf_2;, t"�5t-y- Uouid�m rorc=l,u:nls to '� II of the TMP the City will further JalTle'7 str;t-J,and hulldiru the rallrowl Ake Non-Motorized 1 4 Projects I prioritize projects and needs. made cr 241l 0 ry eels, pcor to 4� p Iriost ccmr ul�y utr�u � r%� — Refine Non-motorized Plan rie nee.:d [or nil>ravcd alai Streets,Projects Transit � hflCd(,,,r CTk),lS the{>:djl,n:.t iih� 6 'L', �: Improvements Priorities Fr;r 14% The Non-Motorized is %��llly ht�a lc,also In;. tler��o = �v�_ rSlxeci r- h qC:e�a�,Ill;��rneetls 'n i Transportation Plan (NMTP) most cl ed tlall>It lirolcct noed recommends ongoing refinement rnctc,ltegio t to+,al hus to projects,particularly to identify c laar`dod Ii2.Ik-and ild(f,jc!;tUcs,anti specific short and mid-term Ini)lcvied i(dgor{il bus co;ino'c"ioli;, First Priority Project Types sidewalk and bicycle priorities. Based upon Citizen Feedback The City will create a process to itemize and rate specific street segments for new sidewalks and repairs. For example, the City will conduct follow-up planning efforts to focus on critical walk-to-school routes. These actions will guide City planners to establish a sidewalk upgrade program that can be systematically _ applied throughout the city. White the public involvement program to develop the plan has lasted over two years,the TMP is a long-range plan. Now that effective communication has been established, the City and the Transportation Section should build on the existing momentum. By maintaining proactive, open channels of two-way communication and remaming responsive to stakeholders,the trust that has been built with residents will lead to lasting public endorsement of the TMP as it is implemented over the next 25 years. 201 MMM Several implementation actions will require additional technical and policy work by City staff in order to meet the expectations of the TMP.These actions include: f, 1 1 ft, Sir e (*'9 6,fan , The City will review and update the current street design standards and recommend possible revisions to roadway sections and other geometric features. Elements from the TMP,including the non-motorized design guidance,will be integrated into the street design standards to ensure consistent design of street,pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It is also very likely that more detailed federal policies and ADA rules are forthcoming 1n the near future. These policies may require the city to expand its efforts to develop and refine internal policies and standards to guide pedestrian plans and projects. The City will conduct an in-depth analysis to better incorporate operations and maintenance (0 &M) costs into the Citys ongoing transportation funding program. �I New transportation capital investments require an ongoing commitment to O&M costs, such as for pavement maintenance and traffic control. Other ongoing costs include the City's annual transit subsidy,pavement management, scheduled maintenance,equipment replacement cycles,support for TDM,safety programs, and neighborhood traffic calming efforts. 'The City will update and simplify the current Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP). The current program is poorly understood by the public and citizen participation in the program is less than the City has anticipated. There is a need for streamlining the program to ensure faster implementation of recommended NTCP strategies. The plan would include preparation of a model NTCP program for Council review and approval. ,t � The City will continue its program to update the management of traffic throughout the City. 'this effort can lead to the development of a citywide ITS strategic plan r: to enable the City to take advantage of new transportation technology innovations as they become available.The traffic management program compiles best practices TRAPFIC related to traffic signal design and operation,new traffic control systems, and CIRCLE Intelligent Transportation Systems. �I ■ ■ Kent City Council Meeting Date June 17, 2008 Category Consent Calendar - 6K 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ORDINANCE - ADOPT t2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. amending the Transportation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and incorporating the 2008 Transportation Master Plan by reference into the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Agenda Item J of the Consent Calendar for the complete 2008 Transportation Master Plan. ■ 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance with Transportation Element Exhibit, 5/27/08 staff memo to PEDC from Cathy Mooney, 4/7/08, 4/21/08 and 5/5/08 staff memos to LUPB from Cathy Mooney, Transportation Element Goals & Policies Comparisons 4/21/08, SEPA Addendum and Adoption Notices, LUPB Minutes of 5/12/08, Comment letters from DCTED (4/1/08) and 5/12/08 Public Works (PW) response, Washington State Department of Transportation (4/17/08) and 4/30/08 PW response, Mel Roberts (3/17/08) and Jack Nixon and S/12/08 PW responses, and 4/14/08 memo from Steve Mullen 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No ■ -- 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan related to the adoption of a Transportation ' Master Plan. (CPA-2008-1). RECITALS A. In the fall of 2005, the City began the process of developing a new Transportation Master Plan (TMP). When the TMP is integrated into the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan it serves as the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning. The Transportation Element provides the foundation and guidance for the transportation system, motorized and non-motorized, within the City. It includes, among other items, an inventory of the existing transportation system; level of service standards; transportation demand management strategies; future 1 improvement needs; and a multi-year financing plan for improvements. B. The Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires the City to establish procedures governing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that limit amendments to once each year unless certain circumstances exist. RCW 36.70A.130(2). The City has established a procedure for amending the 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transportation Element Amendment CPA 2008-1 Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 12.02 Kent City Code (KCC), which allows amendments in addition to the standard annual update if an emergency exists. Resolution No. 1783 was adopted on March 18, 2008, finding that ' pursuing an amendment to the Transportation Element is an issue of community-wide significance constituting an emergency under Kent City Code 12.02.010(A), and authorizing the amendment to proceed outside the annual amendment process in KCC 12.02.030. C. The amended Transportation Element and TMP have undergone an extensive public process. The City worked at length with a citizen's task force to address development of the TMP, and engaged in a stakeholder involvement process to promote and provide a variety of meaningful forums for communication with the City regarding the TMP. See, Stakeholder Involvement Report (CH2MHill, December 2007). The City Council held workshop and committee meetings on June 20, 2006; July 5 and 10, 2006; August 21, 2006; September 5, 2006; February 27, 2007; June 18, 2007; December 3, 2007; and January 7, 2008. These meetings provided an opportunity for information and analysis regarding the ongoing development of the TMP and Transportation Element. D. On February 28, 2008, the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's proposed amendments. Comments were provided by the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development and these comments have been taken into consideration by the City. , E. On May 5, 2008, the City's SEPA responsible official adopted existing environmental documents consisting of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Draft and Final 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transportation Element Amendment CPA 2008-1 1 1 (ENV-93-51) and a SEPA Addendum, dated May 5, 2008 (ENV-2008-1). The SEPA Addendum explained that the proposed amendment would not create unavoidable impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIS. F. The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops regarding this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on April 14 and 28, 2008, and a public hearing on May 12, 2008. The amendments were also considered by the City Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee on June 9, 2008. On June 17, 2008, the City Council approved an amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment was made in accord with Kent City Code 12.02.050. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1, - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. - Amendment. The Transportation Element of the City Y of Kent's Comprehensive Plan is amended as attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A.". 1 SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more sections, sub- sections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transportation Element Amendment CPA 2008-1 SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be i in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of June, 2008. APPROVED: day of June, 2008. PUBLISHED: day of June, 2008. j 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. i (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civil\Ordinance\TransportationElementAmend-2008 doc 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transportation Element Amendment CPA 2008-1 EXHIBIT A TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF KENT'S COMPREHENSION PLAN r 201 , UMI" , ,� '� �".. , �' ��l� � `,��_. 01 11 _ z, y€ �G, '4 a�3y„,"," N y' " , t CITY OF DENT Transporta tion Element i j June 2008 IA KENT L 203 Put in the New TE# TMP # Title Text 91 Figure 2-5 Population Growth 2006 to 2030 x 92 Figure 2-6. Employment Growth areas 2006 to 2030 x 93 Figure 5-1 Street Functional Classification 94 Figure 5-3 Traffic Growth on Key Arterials x 9.5 Figure 5-4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes x 9.6 Figure 5-5 Corridors for LOS Analysis 9.7 Figure 5-6 Existing Corridor LOS 98 Figure 5-7 Future Traffic Growth in Kent x 99 Figure 5-8 Preferred Network Costs 910 Figure 5-9 Preferred Street Network 911 Figure 5-10 Baseline (2030) corridor LOS 912 Figure 5-11 Preferred Network (2030) Corridor LOS 913 Figure 5-12 Truck Routes 914 Figure 5-13 Prioritized Street Projects 915 Figure 6-5 Pedestrian Priority Index 916 Figure 6-6 Pedestrian System Map -highest and high priorities 917 6-9 Existing Bicycle System 9.18 6-10 Bicycle Facility Definitions x 919 6-11 Bicycle System Map 920 7-1 Transit Routes Serving Kent 921 7-3 Peak Period Only Transit Service / 922 7-5 Mid-Term Local Transit Service Recommendation 923 7-6 Long-Term Transit Service Recommendations 924 8-1 Active and Voluntary CTR Worksites in Kent Large map 11x 17 L r' 201 91 Table 2-4 Kent Travel Model Growth Forecast (2006-2030) 92 Table 5-1 Street Design Criteria 93 Table 5-2 Existing Street Functional Classification Breakdown 94 Table 5-3 Level of Service Definitions 95 Table 5-4 Corridors for LOS Analysis 96 Table 5-5 Existing Corridor LOS Table 5-6 Existing LOS for Kent Area Highways of Statewide 97 Significance Table 5-7 Traffic Growth Expected on State and Local Facilities 98 by 2030 9.9 Table 5-8 Future Baseline Projects 910 Table 5-9 Preferred Network Projects 9.11 Table 5-10 Future Corridor LOS 912 Table 5-13 Street Project Evaluation Results 913 6-1 Pedestrian Plan Improvement Costs 914 6-2 Priority Bicycle Improvement Costs 9.15 7-1 Transit Service ! 916 7-2 Transit Service Levels (freq by minutes) 917 7-3 Park and Ride Facilities Serving the city of Kent 9.18 7-4 Task Force Priority Transit Needs 9.19 7-5 Transit Recommendation i 920 2-2 Top Employers in Kent 921 Table 9-1 Costs of Kent Transportation Master Plan Table 9-2. Potential Revenues for Kent Transportation Master 9.22 Plan 923 Table 9-3. Estimates of Specific Revenue Sources 205 CHAPTER NINE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The Transportation Element works in concert with the Transportation Master Plan to provide direction for the planning of motorized and non-motorized facilities within Kent, identify level of service standards, and identify future improvement needs and a multi-year financing plan based on those needs. The Transportation Element outlines goals and policies for the planning, maintenance and construction of modal facilities, connectivity and mobility between modes within the City and regionally, and the protection of the environment GMA REQUIREMENTS 1 The Transportation Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the Comprehensive Plan required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of the Transportation Element is to establish goals and policies that will guide the development of the transportation system in the City of Kent Washington's 1990 Growth Management Act requires rapidly growing communities to 1 prepare a transportation plan directly tied to the City's land use and financial planning. The Transportation Element addresses all of the following items that a Transportation Element must include in order to be GMA compliant. Use land use assumptions to estimate travel, including impacts to state-owned facilities, • Inventory the existing transportation system in order to identify existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; Identify level of service (LOS) standards for all arterials, transit routes, and state- owned facilities as a gauge for evaluating system performance; • Specify actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; Transportation 9-1 201 • Determine existing deficiencies of the system, • Identify future improvement needs from at least ten years of traffic forecasts , based on the adopted land use plan; • Include a multi-year financing plan based on the identified needs; • Address intergovernmental coordination; • Include transportation demand management strategies, and • Include pedestrian and bicycle component ' THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Transportation affects the quality of life and our economic vitality The transportation , system is the backbone of our economy and a key component to our economic competitiveness. Everyone who lives, works or commutes through Kent depends on the transportation network. Developing and maintaining a comprehensive transportation system that supports automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel is the City's responsibility. The City must ensure that the transportation network functions not only for personal mobility, but also for freight and delivery service circulation and access and for emergency vehicles. The Transportation Element provides guidance on how the transportation system should develop and function in the long-term future in the context of other elements of the City's comprehensive plan, especially the land use plan. This chapter provides: • A background and description of the existing system • A vision for Kent's future transportation system • Policies that include standards and criteria as guidelines to advise project and programmatic decision-making • Maps that indicate the location and names of all current and proposed streets, bikeways and special walkways • Descriptions of proposed new and /or upgraded facilities • A fundingand implementation plan that prioritize projects and identifies p p P p J funding resources Transportation 9-2 N 207 STATE, REGIONAL AND COUNTY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The City of Kent conducts its transportation planning efforts within the context of regional, _ state, and county regulations and planning documents. GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 and subsequent amendments) includes specific requirements for the Transportation Element. However, flexibility is written into the GMA so that jurisdictions can tailor their transportation elements to their own visions, goals and needs, as long as they demonstrate consistency with the regional transportation plan, Destination 2030.PSRC -Vision 2020 and Destination 2030 The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) sets policy for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties through its long-range planning documents, Vision 2020, and its regional transportation plan, Destination 2030. Both documents encourage future growth to be concentrated in urban centers. Both plans seek to provide a multi-modal transportation system that serves all travel modes, actively encouraging the use of alternatives to the automobile Another important policy theme is a focus on maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system through transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies, as well as completing critical links in the network. Kent's transportation plan must be consistent with and supportive of PSRC's regional planning efforts. Countywide Planning Policies Under the GMA, counties must adopt Countywide Planning Policies to guide development in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of their jurisdictions. The policies support both county and regional goals to provide a variety of mobility options and establish level of service standards that emphasize the movement of people, and not just automobiles King County's Countywide Planning Policies are also important because they provide direction for planning and development of Kent's potential annexation areas. In line with these policies, the City of Kent works closely with King County to ensure an adequate transportation infrastructure is provided in the annexation areas. 1 Relationship to the City's Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan provides both policy and technical direction for the City's transportation system through the year 2030 The TMP has several objectives, specifically to. Understand Transportation System Needs • Understand the Community's Preferences Transportation 9-3 201 • Establish Policies • Guide GMA Requirements for LOS and Concurrency • Identify Projects for the CIP and TIP UNDERSTANDING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS In developing the TMP, the City has completed a system-wide, multi-modal needs assessment that identifies which aspects of Kent's transportation system work well and which ones need improvement. As part of this process potential solutions and investment priorities were identified. The end result is that the City has a more thorough understanding of system deficiencies and a better grasp of the best way to address these deficiencies and grow the system in a sustainable manner. UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY'S PREFERENCES Several open houses and community and neighborhood meetings were held to solicit feedback from the public on transportation issues. Additionally, a citywide telephone survey was conducted in Spring 20061, which concluded that investment in City streets is the number one spending priority when surplus tax funds are available An important component of the TMP was the public outreach. The City formed a community task force to provide guidance in specialized areas of transportation. The task force members were tremendously valuable in shaping the plan and advising on behalf of their constituents. The task force was comprised of staff from the Kent School District, local businesses, and Kent residents with different areas of expertise, ranging from neighborhood needs to senior needs to non-motorized travel. The Kent Area Chamber of Commerce was represented, along with developers, and freight industry representatives. DEVELOPING POLICIES The City creates policies to state preferences for preserving the existing system and developing the future transportation system. Policies can be qualitative in nature, but often they are quantitative and prescribe a specific standard. The City often works in collaboration with other governmental or non-governmental organizations. Policies are also important for communicating the City's values and needs to neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies. The policies enable the City to more easily influence change that is in keeping with its needs and preferences. Survey of Kent residents, conducted by Nelso Nygaard,March 2006. Transportation 9-4 i� 209 MEETING GMA REQUIREMENTS FOR LOS AND CONCURRENCY The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) has concurrency provisions. Concurrency requires that local governments permit development only if adequate public facilities are, or can be guaranteed to be, available within six years to support new development. The GMA requires local jurisdictions to set level of service (LOS) standards and identify facility and ' service needs based on them. This ensures that future development will not cause the transportation systems performance to fall below the adopted LOS standard by taking one or a combination of the following actions: limiting development, requiring appropriate mitigation, or changing the adopted standard. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The TMP identifies both long-term and short-term improvement projects. The City uses the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to develop the financial plan for capital improvements in Kent. These two documents enable the City to fulfill the GMA requirement of having a multi-year financing plan based on the identified transportation needs. The TIP is a six-year transportation financing plan, adopted annually by the City Council. It is used to implement the list of transportation improvement projects identified in the TMP analysis of existing and future traffic conditions. It is reviewed annually by the City Council and modified as project priorities and funding circumstances change. The Capital Improvement Plan is also a 6-year financing plan that is annually adopted in a separate process. It includes non-transportation projects in addition to the transportation related projects also found in the TIP. THE PLANNING PROCESS The transportation planning process was coordinated with and will be implemented through the City's Capital Improvement Plan for transportation projects. The plan was completed over several years, as follows: • Fall 2005/Winter 2006 -Education and Public Engagement (interviews with key stakeholders, focus groups, task force created, community telephone survey) and Alternative Development Y Spring/Summer 2006 -Testing of ideas and Alternatives • Fall 2006/Winter 2007-Draft Elements Spring/Summer 2007- Council review of plan components Fall 2007-Public review and Plan finalization Transportation 9-5 211 • Spring 2008 -Environmental Review and Public Hearing • Summer 2008 -Adopted by the City Council REGIONAL COORDINATION The transportation plan addresses transportation facilities and services that are within the City or otherwise within our control. But Kent is part of a larger transportation system - the ' regional system that connects the City to others in the area and beyond that to other states. Kent's facilities are part of regional network of roads, streets, transit routes and other infrastructure and services. Kent's transportation system carries regional pass-through traffic in addition to local circulation and access to homes and businesses. The transportation system connects Kent to other destinations in the region. The City of Kent does have a voice in the decisions that affect this regional system and is involved in transportation policy-making through a variety of settings - standing committees, task forces and as representation on major regional bodies such as King County Metro, the PSRC, etc. City transportation policies establish preferences that the City advocates in these regional settings. At the same time, Kent's transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its City limits. Growth in neighboring communities, infrastructure maintenance by regional agencies, the lack of funding for road maintenance as well as capacity expansion, and competing demands for transit services all affect mobility in Kent The Transportation Plan calls for effective inter-jurisdictional actions to address cross-border issues and to mitigate the impact of new development. Washington State Department of Transportation The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns several major routes connecting Kent to the region: SR 167, SR 18, SR 99, SR 181, SR 515, SR 509 and SR 516. The City works with the state to study these corridors and implement roadway improvements. WSDOT also serves an important role as administrator of federal and state transportation funds. All in all, WSDOT is an important partner, helping Kent improve its transportation system. King County The City works with King County to coordinate roads within the City's potential annexation areas. King County Parks also coordinates the regional trail system through Kent. King County Metro (KC Metro), a division of the King County Department of Transportation, provides local bus services for the Kent area. In addition, KC Metro operates Dial-A-Ride (DART 914/916 and 918) on a variable routing service. The 914/916 shopper shuttle is Transportation 9-6 211 funded through an agreement with the City and is operated by the non-profit provider ' Hopelink. The Kent Transit Center serves as a hub and transfer station for local transit service provided by KC Metro and Sound Transit regional express service. Planned transit service for the City of Kent is described later in this chapter and in the TMP in Chapter 7 - Transit System. The City has also developed an employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. Details of the CTR program are summarized later in the chapter and in Chapter 8 iof the TMP-Managing Demand. Sound Transit Sound Transit is a regional provider offering a variety of regional transit services for King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties In Kent, Sound Transit provides commuter rail and express bus service. The transit chapter provides more detail on current Sound Transit services, remaining needs for regional transit service, and the role Kent plays in coordinating with the agency. Adjacent Cities The City recognizes the importance of coordinated and strong inter-jurisdictional action because transportation impacts do not stop at local boundaries. The City works closely with neighboring cities to address transportation issues. These neighbors adopt goals and policies that directly impact the Kent community. In developing this plan, analysis was undertaken to ensure that all transportation system improvements are compatible with neighboring jurisdictions. CITY OF AUBURN The City of Auburn shares Kent's southern border and several regional transportation corridors including S 277th Street, SR 167, and the West Valley Highway. A recent reconstruction project was finished improving a half-mile-long section of S 277th Street. The City of Auburn was also a partner in the SR 167 corridor improvement study. A significant component of this study was to find ways to accommodate regional freight traffic, much of which is generated from the high concentration of warehouses in Auburn and Kent. No clear answers emerged to reduce traffic in the general purpose (GP) lanes. WSDOT selected SR 167 as a test corridor for its first high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes project area. As such, Kent residents will have access to the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane by paying a toll if they have fewer than 2 people in the vehicle CITY OF RENTON Kent and Renton are joining together in a Transit Now Service Partnership agreement with King County Metro Transit to provide new 30 minute mid-day transit service on the Route Transportation 9-7 211 153 which travels between the Kent Transit Center and the Renton Transit Center along East Valley Highway. i CITIES OF TUKWILA, DES MOINES, SEATAC, FEDERAL WAY, AND COVINGTON The City partners with its other neighbors in many respects, including street system planning, transit planning, and regional trail planning. The city worked closely with the cities of SeaTac, Tukwila, Renton, and King County on the Trans Valley Study, which looked at congestion relief and east/west mobility options in the area north of 212th Street. Kent is working with the cities of Federal Way, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila; WSDOT; and KC Metro in the development of Pacific Highway South (SR 99) in several phases and the development of Bus Rapid Transit service. Strong partnerships with neighboring cities will continue to be an important factor in successful transportation planning in the valley. LAND USE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH As one of the established cities in the Puget Sound region, Kent has grown from an agricultural community into a major industrial center for warehouse, customer service and distribution companies. Located between Seattle and Tacoma along the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor, Kent has the sixth largest concentration of jobs and residents in the region, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This chapter summarizes key demographics and identifies trends that impact the transportation system. BACKGROUND TRENDS Over the past three decades, both population and employment have grown at a rapid pace, providing more balance between residential living and commercial activity. This trend has also changed commuting patterns and increased the traffic loads on the local and arterial street network. The residential developments east of downtown Kent have put a substantial burden on the arterial roadway system as residents connect to regional highways (SR 167 and 1-5). The Comprehensive Plari s Land Use policies encourage development patterns of mixed use activity centers and high residential densities downtown. This supports a shift in travel modes from single occupant vehicles to transit and non-motorized travel. Kent's location in the middle of a large rapidly growing urbanized region results in two sources of growth: the increasing size and density of the City itself, and ongoing regional growth and development. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) reflects an analysis of past Transportation 9-8 1 213 and future travel growth trends related to autos, and non-motorized and transit modes, modes that support the residents and businesses that live and work in Kent. GEOGRAPHY ' Although access to regional transportation systems and other major destinations is good, the geography does affect the perception of accessibility within the City of Kent. Kent is centrally located between the metropolitan areas and ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The area's regional airport, Sea-Tac International, is less than 2 miles away from Kent's northwest city limits. Several communities surround Kent --- Des Moines and Federal Way to the west, Covington to the east, Auburn to the south and Renton to the north Kent is characterized by a valley floor running north to south in the middle of the City, which rises steeply to hills both east and west of the valley floor ("East Hill" and "West Hill"). The Green River flows through the western and southern portions of Kent. The valley is characterized ' by flat terrain and includes some wetland areas near the Green River. One of the City's main assets is its access to a number of transportation systems. Three ' regional freeways run through Kent from north-to-south: Interstate 5 (1-5), State Route 167 (SR 167), SR 181 (W Valley Highway). Five State Routes (SR) are located in or on the borders of Kent: SR 99 runs north-to-south along the City's western border, just west of 1-5; SR 516 runs east-to-west through the southern portion of Kent; SR 515 runs north-to-south through the middle of the City; and SR 18 passes just southeast of the City limits. ' Two rail lines run north-south through the heart of the downtown and industrial areas on the valley floor. The rail lines support both freight and Sound Transit (Sounder) commuter trains and Amtrak passenger rail service. Sound Transit and KC Metro provide bus service to the City and partner with Kent on a free community circulator shuttle which was pioneered by Kent in 1995. Many city streets have sidewalks and bicycle routes, but both bicycle routes and sidewalks have missing linkages in places. The regional Interurban Trail runs parallel to the railroad tracks and the popular Green River Trail follows the river through Kent. LAND USES Kent covers approximately 29 square miles and is comprised of multiple land uses. The City has grown by a series of annexations, neighborhoods that were built under various King ' County standards of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. These development patterns and Kent's suburban, industrial history present challenges as the City becomes more urbanized and the transportation system needs to be upgraded to meet standards required of new ' developments. ' Transportation 9-9 211 DOWNTOWN KENT - A REGIONAL GROWTH CENTER Downtown Kent designated as an Urban Center, is located towards the south and center of the valley floor. The downtown area has mixed-use development and high density housing around the downtown core, and surrounding areas. Downtown Kent has seen major ' investment in recent years, spurred in part by the introduction of Sounder Commuter Rail service at the Kent Transit Center. Downtown Kent is now one of the busiest stops on the Sounder line and extensive commercial development around the Kent Transit Center reflects the importance of transit in building a vital downtown. Kent residents interviewed during this plan have stressed repeatedly the desire for more frequent service on the Sounder commuter rail line to support their transportation needs and to achieve the vision for the downtown area. POPULATION Population density and its distribution are used to prioritize transportation services and , projects. With a population of more than 85,000 in 2006, Kent is projected to grow to approximately 94,000 by 2030. Total 2030 population is expected to approach 126,000 when Kent's surrounding annexation areas are included. Most of Kent's residents are concentrated in the east and west portions of the City. The areas north of Meeker Street and along Kent- Kangley Road have the most dense populations. The potential Kent annexation area (to the northeast of Kent) is also notably dense, particularly near the city limits. EMPLOYMENT/BUSINESS COMMUNITY ' Kent has a thriving business community, ranging from small businesses to large company headquarters, from tea shops to warehousing and freight operations. The downtown area is home to a variety of smaller and service businesses, such as restaurants, banks and retail shops. Many large distributors and manufacturing companies are located beyond the downtown core, primarily in the north valley area. In the area around I-5 and Military Road, West Hill businesses include light industry, freeway-oriented retail, and restaurants, among other categories. Major employers in the City of Kent include the Boeing Company, Kent School District, the City of Kent, and REI. Although the majority of the City of Kent's current employment is in manufacturing, the highest levels of future growth are expected in the service and retail sectors according to the City land use and employment forecasts. Larger companies report that they located in Kent because of its central location relative to ' the regional transportation systems, such as the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and major freeways, such as I-5 and I-405. This central location is one of the prime reasons that Kent has ' Transportation 9-10 ' 215 the largest concentration of distribution centers in the region, with more than 1,360 truck trips originating from Kent each day z Commuters — the Journey to Work ' The 2000 US Census reported the mean travel time to work for Kent resident workers was 29 minutes, slightly higher than the state average. According to the 2000 Census, about 73 percent of those working in Kent drive alone, 15 percent carpool, and 12 percent carpool with more than two people. Kent's commute trip mode split (percentage of residents who ' drive alone, take transit, bike, and walk) is comparable to the State of Washington and neighboring cities, like Auburn and Federal Way. The City of Kent had a slightly higher percentage of residents who carpool and take transit than the state average, but fewer people who walk to work. This may be due in part to disconnected pattern of sidewalks and bicycle facilities. ' Over 70 percent of Kent commuters travel outside of Kent each day, challenging the road network and all transportation modes to meet the peak demand. About a fourth commute to Seattle with the rest dispersed throughout the south Sound and the Eastside. Most commuters use their own vehicles, but 34 percent used the bus, and 9 percent used the Sounder commuter trains. FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION The safe and efficient movement of freight is of premier importance to the City of Kent The majority of jobs in the City are tied to the movement of freight in some manner, and this dependence on the smooth flow of goods is expected to increase in the future as Pacific Rim nations become more technologically developed and international trade booms. In addition, more than ever, firms rely on just-in-time inventories of parts and supplies, not to mention perishable goods. The Washington State Department of Transportation (the WSDOT) estimates that over $160 million in goods are moved to and from the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma daily, making Washington the most trade-dependent state in the nation. Kent's location in the Green River Valley is midway between the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The City serves as a distribution point for both seaports as well as air cargo moving through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Kent's 40 million square feet of warehouse/industrial space makes it the second largest freight transportation center on the west coast, second only to the Los Angeles/Long Beach freight corridor. The City partners with regional agencies and the State to build and 2 The Washington Transportation Plan,Freight Systems presentation by Barbara lvanov,2005 Transportation 9-11 211 maintain freight routes through the Green River Valley and to the ports to promote international trade and maintain manufacturing and distribution jobs. ' Truck and rail freight movement often come to conflict points within the City of Kent. Since both systems are of vital importance to international commerce, the City has identified , railroad grade-separation projects as high priority to improve the safety for rail, truck, and vehicle traffic. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR KENT? The future promises growth in population and employment for the City. A glimpse of the ' future follows, to understand the traffic expected from the future land use in Kent and the region. 2030 Population and Employment Growth Kent has developed rapidly over the last 15 years. The area population has more than doubled from around 40,000 in 1990 to over 85,000 in 2006 through both household growth and the expansion of the city limits. If the City's potential annexation areas are included, the population in 2006 was closer to 109,000. Employment has also grown to over 57,000 jobs3 in Kent in 2006. Table 9.1 shows the forecast growth in households, population and employment between 2005 and 2030. 3 The employment forecasts were provided by the PSRC. The 57,000 jobs (City plus annexation area)is lower than recent City estimates of between 67,000 and 71,000 lobs. Transportation 9-12 zi Table 9.1. Kent Travel Model Growth Forecast (2006-2030) -AI,3�a .= `,.:;::a. v, ``` ;"„ i,:%'`,s�,x==3 :,w. ;` XIM _= jwH s»ter�•� 4-,x''�,�.-�'-"=ad=;`, ,_ -"�.�`�.-,3=�--E__,%'�"hy, , -�r.: ' Kent and Annexation Area Households 43,100 49,900 6,800 16% Population* 109,000 126,000 17,000 16% Employment 57,300 82,300 24,100 44% Source City of Kent Travel Demand Model (2006); PSRC Data * Population assumes 2 53 persons per household (2000 US Census) POPULATION GROWTH By 2030, the population within the City and surrounding annexation areas is expected to increase by another 16 percent, to over 126,000 residents. However, populations in the communities surrounding Kent are expected to increase at even higher rates as shown in Figure 9.1. Figure 9.1. Population Growth 2006 to 2030 emu, 9-1 City of Kent d s PAA Household Growth Medium — High Transportation 9-13 211 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH around 44 Employment in Kent and the potential annexation area is forecast to increase by percent reaching over 82,000 jobs by 2030. As shown in Fig re 92, aboutbou dame of the , south end's employment growth will occur within the Kent ban growth Impacts of Growth on Transportation Needs Growth in population and employment within Kent will continue to create needs for travel by all modes. The diverse travel patterns of Kent residents w d employees will tax esidents and jobs ouboth the tog of cal and regional transportation system. The growth in Kent is also likely to result in more traffic passing through the City's roadway system. Figure 9.2. Employment Growth Areas 2006 to 2030 r7` � OW NA; a City of Kent i PAA ,�)- �, - , , t t Employment Growth 41 Medium •,,,.__ - High ' 9-14 Transportation 219 PUBLIC OUTREACH The City Council wanted to include all the residents and businesses who are impacted by the City's transportation system in the planning process. The City's public outreach program for the Transportation Plan was designed to accomplish this goal. The public involvement program offered several avenues for public input, including direct discussion at the project ' task force and community meetings, open house comment cards, reader-reply cards in the second newsletter, web site comment opportunities, a transportation hotline, and a TMP e-mail address. As a result of these opportunities, the TMP planners received additional evidence to support the recommendations of the plan. In some cases, issues that might otherwise have remained hidden were identified as a result of these opportunities. Transportation 9-15 221 ' STREET SYSTEM ' The street system provides the primary means for all modes of transportation throughout the Kent area. The City is served by an extensive street network that includes freeways, arterials, residential, and local streets. Streets are used by different types of users - commuters, freight ' and delivery trucks, firefighters, police and EMS providers, public and school buses, seniors, students, children, moms and dads. Some users are in vehicles, while others walk or ride bicycles. Streets play different roles within the network. Some are used to access freeways for regional connections such as SR 167 or SR 18, while others provide access to local neighborhoods. This section describes the street system and the analysis, as follows: ' • Examines the infrastructure of the street network, the role of each street in that network and the inter-relationship with adjacent State highways and regional arterials. Evaluates how well the existing street network operates and the traffic conditions forecast for the future street network. Identifies the preferred street network and the improvement projects for that network. ' STREET SYSTEM INVENTORY Streets represent the most visible and influential infrastructure in the City - their size, appearance and operational characteristics shape everything around them. The street system in Kent is a network of roads that carry both regional and local traffic. The City's street network represents the principal infrastructure for all modes of travel--- vehicle, public transit, walking or biking ' Good street networks are not developed solely in response to traffic demand. Streets should function as well for public transit, pedestrians and bicycles as they do for personal motor vehicles and commercial trucks The City's street network is the backbone of the transportation system. Street types range from local streets, which are designed to provide access to neighborhoods, to freeways that primarily serve through traffic The street system is described in the following section, starting with the State highways, followed by city streets. Transportation 9-16 221 State Highways State highways are those roads owned by the state and managed by the WSDOT. These ' highways include the regional freeway system together with major roads that connect communities. To serve through traffic at higher speeds and meet mobility and safety goals, access to these roadways is often restricted. The freeways are designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic moving at high speeds under free-flowing conditions. More than 12 miles , of freeways within Kent, such as I- 5 and SR 167, connect Kent to the region and serve longer-distance travel from areas outside the City. The State highways that are within or adjacent to Kent fall under two categories, depending on their role in the regional network: highways of statewide significance (HSS) or highways of regional significance (Non-HSS). HIGHWAYS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE (HSS) The following Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) roads are located within or adjacent , to the City of Kent: Interstate 5: As the principal north-south freeway in the region, I-5 contains eight general ' purpose lanes and two high occupant vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Kent area. The City of Kent is directly served by four interchanges, which are located at S 272nd Street, the Kent-Des , Moines Road (SR 516),S 200th Street, and S 188th Street/Orillia Road. State Route 167: SR 167 contains four general purpose travel lanes and two HOV lanes in , Kent. Interchanges are located at S 277th Street,Willis Street (SR-516), 84th Avenue S, S 212th Street, and S 180th Street. State Route 18: SR 18 is not inside the city limits, but is immediately adjacent to the eastern ' border of the City. SR 18 is a major freight corridor between I-5 and 1-90 and serves as another gateway into the City. Interchanges with the greatest impact to Kent are located at the Kent-Kangley Road/SE 256th Street and SE 232nd Street. State Route 99: SR 99 (aka Pacific Highway) runs north-south from S 272nd Street north to the Kent-Des Moines Road. HIGHWAYS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (NON-HSS) ' The following Non-HSS are located within or adjacent to the City of Kent: State Route 181: SR 181 (aka Washington Avenue N, 68th Avenue S, and W Valley Highway) runs north-south along the valley floor from SR-516 to S 180th Street/SW 43rd Street; Transportation 9-17 , 223 State Route 516: SR 516 (aka Kent-Des Moines Road, Willis Street, Central Avenue, Canyon ' Drive, SE 256th Street, and Kent-Kangley Road) runs east from Pacific Highway S east to the city limits, near 156th Avenue SE; and, State Route 515: SR 515 (aka Benson Highway, 104th Avenue SE, and 108th Avenue SE) runs north-south from SE 256th Street to the north city limits, near SE 226th Street. City Streets Each street in Kent is but one element in the street network The network operates as a ' system, handling a wide variety of modal users Thus, it is important to define the role that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of traffic through the skeletal street network, and making sure that there are enough of the right kinds of streets in the right places The City considers each street and intersection in terms of its role in the overall network. Streets serve many functions, streets can: • Connect Kent to other parts of the Puget Sound Region; Connect local districts and neighborhoods within Kent; or ' . Provide internal circulation within local districts and neighborhoods The functional classification determines the design and ultimate cross section of the roadway. Classification is important to the City because it helps ensure that the needed capacity will be available and that street improvements will be consistent with the assigned function. In addition, from a planning perspective, acknowledgment and proper designation of functional classifications preserves the right of way for future transportation corridors, whether for car, HOV, transit, bike, or pedestrian. Functional classification also defines the character of service that a road is intended to provide. Specific standards for streets and roadways are shown in Table 9.2 and are detailed in City of Kent's Construction Standards - Section 6: Standards for Streets and Roadzoays. The current street classification assigned to City streets is shown on the map in Figure 9.3. Transportation 9-18 p 0 R L c7ii -W w V _ ! m J :� (B -0 (B (D L '� Q Q Q Q o o . L L L U Cl) _ c0 O O O (� c N N 2 U O L O O N J C w. a- U U a Q Fu Q) C LL O = c e_1u ------- . .. ; LL 10 C L O o N ait. m¢Ej sil 00 n3�L N O _ N nEy — _. - F ._�._ _....._.._.. Q Q 227 Tab|eB'2. Street Design Criteria ,1,""Im, 1 11- ."r-. 0� OWP Principal Arterial 50.000 50 80 0lanes/1 turn lane _ � Minor Arterial | 30.000 45 50 4lanes/1 turn lane Collector Arterials � | Industrial 15,000 35 44 2lanos/1 turn lane 2lanoo/1 turn lane m2+wayleft Residential | 5O0O 35 30 ' turn lane | / Residential Collectors ` 3.500 30 35 2|onox/2 parking lane -_------_-___-____ ^ AJ| daso/fiadatnoetsmtheCih/a|oop/ovide;uro/dewa|ky Bicycle facilities are designated according to the 8/cyoa System Plan Source City of Kent Table 9.3 ubovvu obreakdovvn of the City'o street mileage by classification. There are more miles of local streets than any other category, as local streets are present in all neighborhoods; local streets represent 66 percent ofthe streets. Principal arterials represent only 7 percent of the roadway miles, but carry most of the daily traffic volume. The current street classification ratios fall close tnF|IWAguidelines. ~- Table 8.3' Existing Street Functional Classification Breakdown ,� . . � ol IWO &WI Li� / Principal Arterial 2� �� 4 5% 5%'10% ' | ' Minor Arterial \ 33 9% \ 0 8$ 10%�5% � . / ' | _ Collector Arterial 5%'10% -- | Industrial ' 13 4% O 0% |� .. -- . Residential | 28 r% | 3 4% � . ` —' Residential Collectors 20 7% 13 15% �--------------------- Local Access �� 50� �57 08� 05� 0% / Streets/Unclassified ' /------------------------------ -------' '-- --'' — -- — - --- ----|--- — -- —' — --- — — -------- | Total (excludes freeways) | 374 / 100% ) 03 100Y6 � Note. Approximately 12oentedine miles of freeways are also located within the City limits ofKent Source. City ofKent � 7rzmapnrb,6on 9'20 221 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Principal arterials are designed to provide relatively unimpeded traffic flow between major activity centers within the City, and provide access to the State highway system. Generally they are four travel lanes, some with a center turn lane. Access from adjacent private property to the arterials is limited or controlled. Turn restrictions, median channelization, elimination of on-street parking, or prohibition of direct driveway access are used to control access. Sidewalks are provided to allow safe pedestrian movements. Intersections generally cross at minor arterial streets, or with grade separated interchanges to State/Interstate highways. ' MINOR ARTERIAL Minor arterials provide connections to and from principal arterials and State highways, and ' access to major land-use activity centers. The traffic-carrying capacity of these streets is accomplished by means of the same types of access restrictions and design criteria as the principal arterial roadways; but balance increased levels of direct property access, with lower geometric design and capacity requirements. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are common , features. Access to the minor arterial system will generally be from collector arterial roadways at signalized at-grade intersections. Collector Arterial Collector arterials connect to and from higher classified streets in an orderly and well planned manner, and as a secondary function, provide access to land use activity centers. , These streets provide high levels of traffic carrying capacity; but serve as the "bridge" from high capacity roadways to local access roadways and abutting land uses. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are common features. There are three sub-categories of the collector arterial classification - based upon the type of the adjacent land use. These sub-categories and their functions are: Industrial Collector Arterial: These streets provide traffic distribution and collection from abutting industrial and commercial land uses to higher classified roadways Access to Industrial collector arterials is typically not restricted, although access and on-street parking may be limited for safety reasons and/or proximity to a major signalized intersection. These ' roadways include specifications that allow truck traffic to safely traverse these roads. Residential Collector Arterial: These streets provide traffic distribution and collection from the local street system to higher classified arterials. Driveway access and on-street parking will typically be prohibited. -� Residential Collector: These streets provide traffic distribution and collection at a neighborhood level - from the local street system to the arterial classified roadways. The — Transportation 9-21 ' 229 design of these roadways balances the traffic carrying capacity with property access and discourages the utilization of these roadways by non-locally generated ("cut-through') traffic. Driveway access and on-street parking typically is prohibited. The design of collectors emphasizes accommodating pedestrian and non-motorized traffic in the design of these roadways. Local Access Streets (unclassified) Other roadways in the City provide direct access to abutting land uses (businesses, parks et al) from residential collector streets, safely and efficiently. The design parameters of these roadways minimize vehicle operating speeds and non-locally generated (cut-through) traffic Typically, on-street parking is allowed except at those locations necessary for public safety, a ' high emphasis is placed on safely accommodating pedestrian and non-motorized traffic in the design of these roadways. ' TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS Another critical piece of the street infrastructure is the traffic signals and signs that control traffic, including railroad crossings. Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings are used to direct drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, thereby increasing the effective use of the 1 roadway by moving traffic more efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) except as modified by the guidance and practices of WSDOT, or by City standards as guidance for design, construction, and placement of signs in the right of way. FREIGHT — TRUCK AND RAIL The confluence of important geographical elements makes Kent an important freight distribution center in the Puget Sound area. The efficient movement of freight, through and within the City is critical to Kent's economic health. Both rail and truck freight, originating largely in the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, pass through Kent regularly. Trucking is a frequently used, versatile, and often the most efficient means of movement Whether as a beginning or interim step in distribution, or as a final delivery to a retail outlet or end user, trucks will continue to be the way most goods and products are moved in Kent and the region. Trucks are subject to most of the same traffic constraints as other vehicles. With vehicle miles of travel increasing and congestion worsening during the peak travel hours, travel times have increased encouraging truckers to look for alternate routes to their destinations. The City tries to balance the needs of trucks to travel to and from intermodal facilities, industrial parks and other destinations with the needs of residents for quiet livable streets. Transportation 9-22 231 1 Truck routes,weight load limits,better access to the regional network and improving general congestion are all ways to improve travel times for freight vehicles. Railroad Crossings When roads and rails intersect, trains have the priority. Kent is severely impacted by at- , grade railroad crossings on many east-west arterials In the downtown center, James Street, Smith Street, Meeker Street, Gowe Street, Titus Street, and SR-516 (Willis Street) cross the ' tracks at-grade and create significant conflicts between the railroad and the movement of people, either in vehicles or on foot, as well as the movement of freight via trucks. These conflicts are anticipated to increase in the future as both systems forecast significant growth. I The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) run parallel rail lines in the north-south direction through Kent. The City has nine streets that cross railroads at-grade with approximately 65 trains passing through the City each day. These junctions cause delay and create potentially hazardous situations for motorists and non-motorized travelers. The City regularly works with the railroads to take appropriate measures of safety, such as installing signal interties and constructing grade separations. The 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) includes constructing grade separations at , both BNSF and UPRR railroad crossing at S 212th Street, S 228th Street and Willis Street (SR 516). , SAFETY The City places a high priority on providing a safe transportation system for travelers of all modes and promotes road safety for the ongoing management of the street network and emergency services. Continual efforts are made to construct and retrofit streets in a manner that improves safety and decreases the likelihood of collisions and makes the street safer for pedestrians, transit, and bicyclists. Constructing streets for ease of use by pedestrians can increase overall safety by altering the behavior of drivers who anticipate pedestrian activity. Non-motorized safety issues are discussed later. Safety issues related to emergency response, collisions and railroad crossings follow. Emergency Response (EMS) Providing residents with quick responses in emergency situations is a high priority for the City. An adequate street network helps to ensure that multiple alternate routes are available for emergency vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped with devices that control traffic signals enabling emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage through signalized ' corridors. In addition, the City has mutual-aid agreements with nearby emergency response operators to ensure adequate coverage in case of road closures or other obstacles that would otherwise prevent timely emergency response. Transportation 9-23 231 1 Collisions The City collects and monitors collision data to identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct hazardous locations by implementing appropriate safety measures. Many of these collisions occur at or near intersections. Intersections where the highest number of collisions occurred (9 or more) between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 were examined. ' Collision rates weight the number of collisions by the number of vehicles that enter the intersection in units of collisions per million entering vehicles. The intersection with highest number of collisions was 104th Avenue SE (SR 515) at SE 256th Street (SR 516). During the given time period, there were 71 collisions with a collision rate of 1.29. The majority of the collisions were rear ends, common under congested conditions. Other intersections with a large number of collisions are located in the downtown area and along State highways. HOW WELL DOES THE STREET NETWORK OPERATE? Both residents and businesses use the road network every day to go to work or school and carry on with their lives. The City must balance the needs of vehicles with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. When traffic flows smoothly, trips can be predictable and efficient However, when the roads are congested traveling becomes more difficult, delays increase, and frustration rises. Congestion is the term generally used to describe the traffic conditions in a corridor. An uncongested corridor would have high speeds and short delays at intersections, while a congested corridor would have low speeds and long delays. There are three key questions to consider when evaluating the street system- * How well does the existing street system work? ' • How well will it work in 2030, when population and employment have both increased? • What improvements can we make that will help the network operate better in 2030? iTo answer these questions, the performance of the street network was evaluated for two situations: the existing system in 2006 and the future system in 2030 To measure the performance of the existing street system, the City reviewed existing traffic volumes and the amount of resulting congestion To assess how the street network will work in the future, the City developed a model for the street system in 2030. Models are a tool used to forecast travel demand for local, regional and countywide trips. The regional planning organization, the PSRC, has developed a regional model for the Puget Sound Region. How that model was customized for the City of Kent, is explained in the Future Traffic Conditions section later in this chapter. Transportation 9-24 231 Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions are measured by reviewing the traffic volumes and the congestion, measured as the delay (the waiting time) at intersections. Measuring changes in traffic volumes helps identify capacity needs. Two measurements are needed for the analysis: average daily traffic totals (ADT) and the PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic volume counts were obtained from the City of Kent and WSDOT. The counts , provided intersection turning volumes for the PM peak period and hourly traffic flows along major routes throughout the day. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Growth both within the City and the region have caused traffic volumes on city streets to increase during the past 20 years. Figure 9.4 shows the historical growth of traffic on several key streets. Figure 9.4 Traffic Growth on Key Arterials , 40,000 0 West Valley Hwy(SR 181)at S 212th St , 30,000 " Kent Kangley Rd (SR o 516)at Benson Hwy , a 20,000 _ Benson Hwy(SR 515) at Kent Kangley Rd , --A—Pacific Hwy(SR 99)at SR 516 10,000 1985 1995 2005 YEAR The average daily traffic grew steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, but leveled off during the 2000s. However, peak hour volumes have continued to grow. A major contributor to the high traffic volumes on the arterials is traffic passing through Kent. This pass-through traffic originating in surrounding jurisdictions uses the City's arterial streets to access the regional highways, such as I-5, SR 18 and SR 167. The City continues to work with WSDOT to improve the State highway system, in order to shift traffic away from the City street network. Transportation 9-25 233 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VOLUMES iFigure 9.5 shows the average weekday traffic volumes for 2006. The heaviest volumes are on the principal arterials and State highways. The volumes on principal arterials ranged from 17,000 to 39,000 vehicles a day. The highest average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were found on the following principal arterials: S 180th Street (19,900-38,600 ADT) S 208th Street (34,500 ADT) S 212th Street (34,500 ADT) • Canyon Drive (32,200 ADT) Minor arterials showed daily volumes ranging from 6,800 to 32,700 ADT. The minor arterials with the highest average daily traffic were- * SE 256th Street (32,700 ADT) 1 . E Smith Street (32,200 ADT) . , S 240th Street (James Street) (28,700 ADT) The industrial collectors typically have daily volumes in the 4,900 to 13,400 to ADT range. PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES The City uses traffic volumes during the PM peak hour (typically 4:30 to 5:30 pin) to determine how well the street network works, at those times when it serves the greatest number of vehicles. The PM peak hour represents the highest volume that typically occurs on a city street during the week. The peak hour can vary from location-to-location, with ` peaks occurring earlier around school zones, and later along commuter routes. Traffic volumes were analyzed at 71 intersections around the city. The PM peak hour volumes range from approximately 8 to 10 percent of the daily volumes shown in Figure 9.5. I '� Transportation 9-26 �M m N d U L 4 m O O O O m O O O OCD CD CD N O O O O Q ; O (,� -0 N Mc i O �C O N q d p G1 O O O O m - 'ct O O O i L z O Cl)p � L to W �z : 77- __ _-9 >3 .. s. ._ ' _ ;� v ° ,E O r co - � aEn - _ E _ CG y y - o O L — a Q M 237 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR CITY STREETS ITransportation planners and engineers use the term "level of service" (LOS) to measure the operational performance of a transportation facility. For streets and intersections, this measure considers the perception by motorists and passengers in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and delays, comfort and convenience. Levels of service are given letter designations,from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are good, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F represent congested conditions. The City of Kent used roadway corridors to evaluate the level of service. The methodology calculates the LOS operation for key corridor intersections (in seconds of delay) and then develops a corridor-wide average based upon a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method provides a "corridor-wide" result, allowing some intersections to operate at a congested LOS as long as the overall corridor operation is maintained. 1 For intersections with a signal, the LOS is calculated as the average delay of all the approaches to the intersection and is weighted by the total PM peak hour volume entering the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the worst individual movement or approach determines the delay for the intersection and is weighted by the volume of the same movement or approach. Table 9.4 defines the LOS operation based on the seconds of delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 9.4 Level of Service Definitions ' x ro ..` _#' €,€=i,° , 1 �p cc• '' A 0-1 0-10 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 Source Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board) Transportation 9-28 231 Level of Service Corridors For the LOS analysis, the City chose 16 corridors including the downtown street system, which was represented as a zone. The corridors represent the primary north-south and east- west travel routes within the City. Non-Kent corridors, such as I-5 and SR167 were not included in the evaluation. Downtown Kent is treated as a zone rather than a corridor, since traffic flows along multiple streets within the downtown grid. The corridors and their limits are listed in Table 9.5 and illustrated in Figure 9.6. Table 9.5 Corridors for LOS Analysis {�`€,x,E;c;;N v.€,.`s`ix, i ''sib=�� _ `•w e ' €:�;�, 'i��`�a;.:� �? 4.kk�E�Cd'o€��".:°� °fir .,rre 'm�fi'•' - - — _-° ' -_ ., .. s,9a,,, ,�a _;`r 1 S 196th SYSE 192nd St Corridor W Valley Highway j SR 515 (Benson) ----------------------------------- 2 S 212th SUS 208th St 42nd Ave S 132nd Ave SE i 3 S 224th SUS 228th St SR 516/Military Road S 228th SU 84th Ave S -------- 4 James SUSE 240th St 64th Ave S 132nd Ave SE 5 S 260th SU Reith Road/W Meeker St SR 99 Washington Ave 6 Smith SU Canyon Dnve/256th St/ Jason Ave 152nd Way SE Kent-Kangley Rd -_-------_------- -__T_._---___--------------- _-___-__-- ___-- 1---- ----------_ _ 7 S 256th St SR 515 132nd Ave SE 8 S 272nd St SR 99 Military Road 9 Pacific Highway S S 240th St S 272nd St 10 Military Road 231st St S 272nd St 11 54th Ave S S 212th St ( Meeker St Washinqton Ave/68th Ave S/W , 12 Valley Hwy S 196th St I Meeker St ( 13 Central Ave/84th Ave S S 196th St James St 14 SR 515/Benson Ave SE 192nd St SE 256th St 15 116th Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road 16 132nd Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road € 17 Downtown Area 4th Ave N to E Titus St James St to W Willis St Transportation 9-29 —(ON IN cn �C J cn c LO rn o c I m It Lo (o m o £ c a� �Q g U Q ° w ''^^ O O i = O � aXi o I r Nm �t Ln c0 w w O Q i CL 11.3 �- _ c - _ Eve ' I �_ • �- �C OC�W ' rt 00 _ v1=ti 3 _ n; r co mY o O N Eca 00 a 1 a 241 Level of Service Standard The City has set the level of service (LOS) standard to require that most corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. i Corridors that operate below this adopted standard are considered deficient. Two locations are allowed to operate at LOS F: Pacific Highway south (SR 99) and downtown Kent. Pacific Highway has an LOS F standard since it is largely outside of the City's control and is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). The City recently improved SR 99 and any further widening is unlikely. The operation of SR 99 is highly dependent upon travel conditions along I-5 and the effects of the SR 509 project under design by the WSDOT Note that WSDOT has set an LOS D standard for SR 99. The City will work with WSDOT to determine whether this is a realistic standard for the SR 99 corridor. Downtown Kent is also designated with an LOS F standard. The City considers the downtown street system to be largely complete and few street capacity increases are available. The City also recognizes that traffic conditions in downtown Kent are heavily AMb influenced by conditions on the State highways, SR 167 and SR 18 and railroad activities. City policies prioritize non-auto modes such as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle for travel within downtown Kent. ' LOS for Existing Conditions For the analysis of the City's roadway system during the PM peak hour Synchro 614 software was used to calculate the intersection level of service. This software considers the traffic volumes, signal timing and phasing, presence of pedestrians and transit and topographic features to estimate the LOS operation of the intersections. The evening commute traffic conditions were analyzed at each corridor intersection to calculate the existing PM peak hour LOS conditions. The weighted average LOS for each corridor in the analysis was calculated using the LOS results of each intersection. _ Figure 9.7 shows the 2006 LOS in Kent Table 9.6 identifies Kent's LOS standards, as well as the 2006 corridor LOS. Within the City, corridor signals generally operate between LOS C and LOS F, with most corridors impacted by at least one LOS E or LOS F signal. One corridor, S 272nd Street, currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Pacific Highway S,Military Road, the Benson Highway, SE 256th Street, Kent-Kangley Road and the roads in the Downtown Zone all operate at LOS E for the PM peak hour existing conditions. 'The City's PM peak hour typically occurs between 4.30 and 5:30 pin Transportation 9-31 ry) Cr CD (n C3) 0 w LL m 2 LLI ------------- C4 1 L) 0- L) 06 1 17� ca-7 _gym �- G � ��.. , C.)- C.) (V T . r O-ol F' EE. c -6LLi Im LO co O m CD 04 aEy CL 245 Table 9.6 Existing Corridor LOS T, YW, az 1 S 196th St/SE 192nd St Corridor W Valley Highway SR 515(Benson) E D 2 S 212th St/S 208th St 42nd Ave S 132nd Ave SE E C 3 S 224th St/S 228th St SR 516/Military Road S 228th St/84th Ave S E D 4 James SYSE 240th St 64th Ave S 132nd Ave SE E D 5 S 260th St/Reith Road/W Meeker St SR 99 Washington Ave E D 1 6 Smith St/Canyon Drive/256th St Jason Ave 152nd Way SE E E Kent-Kangley Rd 7 S 256th St SR 515 132nd Ave SE E E 8 S 272nd St SR 99 Military Road E F 9 Pacific Highway S S 240th St S 272nd St F' E 10 Military Road 231 st St S 272nd St E E 11 64th Ave S S 212th St Meeker St E C Washington Ave/68th Ave S/W Valley 12 Hwy S 196th St Meeker St E D ---------- ---- 13 Central Ave/84th Ave S S 196th St James St E D 14 SR 515/Benson Ave SE 192nd St SE 256th St E E 15 11 6th Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road E D 16 132nd Ave SE SE 208th St Kent-Kangley Road E D 17 Downtown Area 4th Ave N to E Titus St James St to W Willis St F E The WSDOT LOS Standard = LOS D A Transportation 9-33 241 1 State and Regional Facility Level of Service The GMA also requires that cities take a look at the performance of the State-owned highways near them. The City of Kent is surrounded by state highways and freeways that are used by residents to travel throughout the Puget Sound region. Both the State and the regional planning organization, the PSRC,have set LOS standards for the roadways. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS FOR HSS WSDOT sets the LOS standards for facilities listed as Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS). WSDOT has used a congestion index to report the severity of traffic congestion over a 24-hour period. Index values range from 1 (little to no congestion) to 24 (theoretically congestion over the entire 24 hours in a day). The methodology computes the congestion index by dividing average annual daily traffic (AADT) by the roadway's two-way, hourly capacity (C). This AADT/C ratio has been organized into a number of thresholds that relate to conventional LOS measurements for peak hour traffic periods. WSDOT has set LOS D (an index = 10) as the standard for urban areas and LOS C (index= 6) for rural areas. There are three HSS facilities that travel through the Kent's city limits: SR 99, I-5 and SR167. All of these facilities are defined as being within an urban area. The existing 2005 congestion index was calculated using 2005 traffic volumes from WSDOT Annual Traffic Report and the estimated capacity of the traffic lanes based on the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 9.7 shows the LOS operation following WSDOT's congestion index methodology based on the 2005 traffic data. For 2005, two of the three corridors exceed the congestion index/LOS D standard. Table 9.7 Existing LOS for Kent Area Highways of Statewide Significance ••VA ""iX".✓ �_ , 4PI'Ase y„ :„ .',tt✓exa..t,.i': .'Ifr Ow 10 ii vrr'{_. '3"i "✓j, .t .�:`. .`e' _ ,( '✓..✓✓` '" £'r`i"x".H "fti'. EVJ.,.3�4...,✓ 33's+. _ `i5.✓..E .E:"1 ii.�l:5�'."r`, Ni E. t7✓ti - 4 .,'.$ $' _,i �`_t 6yt` „,s,.✓.}�'".€E i'i{g„7ma ena✓E... x ,.{,f,:k'a't'" .... SR 99 south of SR 516 29,000 4 1,400 5,600 5.2 Yes — M 1-5 north of SR 516 204,000 8 2,250 18,000 1 113 No SR lb(at SR 515 119,000 4+HOV 2,250 ` 11,250 10.6 No Source- 2005 Trafffic Data (WSDOT) Transportation 9-34 1 247 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL STANDARDS FOR NON-HSS The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in its long range planning document, Destination 2030, adopted LOS standards for Highways of Regional Significance (non-HSS) facilities. A three tier system defines the LOS standards, which varies depending on the location of the facility. All standards are based on the PM peak hour. iTier 1 facilities are located in highly developed urban areas and have a "LOS E/mitigated" standard. The E/mitigated standard allows Tier 1 projects to operate at below LOS E, but they must provide mitigation that may address congestion such as transit facilities, HOV lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and other travel options. Tier 2 facilities are those in "outer urban areas' Tier 3 facilities are considered rural Within Kent, SR 516, the W Valley Highway (SR 181) and Benson Road (SR 515) are classified as Tier 1 non-HSS facilities by PSRC and have a LOS E/mitigated standard. There are no facilities within Kent classified as lTier 2 or Tier 3 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Since the Transportation Master Plan will be used by the City for transportation planning for the next 20 years, the City needs to assess the traffic conditions the City will have in 2030 and - identify projects that will improve these conditions Over the next two decades, population and employment are expected to continue to grow, not only in Kent, but in adjacent cities and throughout the Puget Sound region. The population and employment growth forecasts are used to estimate future traffic levels expected on City streets. In turn, future traffic levels are used to calculate future traffic operations. A description of the traffic forecast methodology used to develop Kent's travel model follows. TRAVEL FORECAST METHODOLOGY The model includes a Baseline 2030 street network and its traffic operations (the conditions expected if no additional improvements are made) and a 2030 Preferred street network and its traffic conditions that include street improvements. i The travel model uses geographic areas for the estimates and analysis. For Kent, the travel 3 forecasting model study area consists of 310 transportation analysis zones (TAZs) as the _ basic geographic unit for estimating travel demand. The TAZs were laid out using digital information, including 2000 Census TIGER files and aerial photos. Approximately one-third of the TAZs are located within the City of Kent, with the remaining TAZs representing potential annexation areas and surrounding jurisdictions. The model includes travel data for J the entire Puget Sound Region in order to accurately analyze the impact of regional traffic on the City. Transportation 9-35 241 1 For the model, the City also updated roadway and intersection characteristics. Initially, the model's trip purposes, trip generation rates and trip distribution parameters were based on those of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) surveys and parameters used in other travel models in the region. These were adjusted as part of the validation process. The final ' model validation procedure calibrated the 2006 base year model to the PM peak hour traffic counts,which had been collected as part of the transportation planning effort. The 2030 transportation network assumed two alternative levels of development, a baseline and a preferred network, to allow a comparison of future transportation system performance. To predict the future traffic conditions the existing land uses were replaced with the proposed future land uses and the resulting traffic levels were analyzed on the assumed future street network. The City supplied the 2030 land use estimates and identified the expected growth in households and the employment for each TAZ. To capture the impacts of traffic growth from areas outside the Kent Urban Growth Area (UGA), the model used the PSRC household and employment forecasts The Kent travel model was run with these land use and transportation inputs to generate estimates of 2030 travel demand on the future transportation network. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH During the last 15 years, Kent's population has more than doubled from both household growth and the expansion of the City limits. Over the next 20 years, the model forecasts that population within the City and surrounding Urban Growth Area (UGA) is expected to increase by another 16 percent, to more than 141,000 residents Employment is forecast to increase by around 42 percent between 2006 and 2030. TRAFFIC VOLUME GROWTH Kent's location in the middle of a large and rapidly growing urbanized region creates two sources of growth: increasing size and density of the City itself, and ongoing regional growth and development. The travel demand model uses future land use forecasts within the study area combined with regional travel along State highways to estimate future traffic growth. The existing 2006 and 2030 traffic models were compared. Figure 9.8 depicts the relative magnitude of growth for traffic throughout the Kent study area. Much of this growth is expected to occur on State and regional highways and the major arterial routes within the City. The expected widening of SR 167 will expand capacity and travel. Other major facilities will have more modest growth due to constrained conditions, as shown in Table 9.8. Transportation 9-36 249 Figure 9.8 Future Traffic Growth in Kent I Source Mirai City of Kent Model Note Width of line indicates greater volumes ■ = Transportation 9-37 251 1 Table 9.8 Traffic Growth Expected on State and Local Facilities by 2030 Wo �s. oil ia,i, '.aA State Roads 1-5 36% 1 3% Assumes 1-5 widening SR 99 105% 3 0% Assumes completion of HOV i lanes SR 167 84% 2 6% Assumes additional GP lane and completion of HOV system SR 516(West of Downtown) 23% 9% No widening assumed ' SR 516(Kent-Kangley Road) 9% 0 4% No widening assumed ; SR 181 (West Valley Highway) 39% 1 A% No widening assumed SR 515(Benson Highway) 7% 0 3% No widening assumed Arterials 1 S 212th St 88% 2.7% No widening assumed ` E Valley Hiqhway 36% 1,3% (Central Ave) No widening assumed SE 256th St 22% 0,8% No widening assumed i Military Road S 181% 4 4% No widening assumed E James Street(SE 240th St) 24% 0 9% No widening assumed 132 Avenue SE 20% 0 8% No widening assumed THE FUTURE STREET NETWORK In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on City streets, two future roadway improvement scenarios were examined: a Baseline and a Preferred street network. While the Baseline represents a minimum level of roadway improvements, the Preferred scenario represents a level of roadway improvements necessary to bring the street system into compliance with the City's level of service standards. Baseline Network The 2030 Baseline scenario represents the conditions in the street network with the projects committed to date. The Baseline network consists primarily of the existing city street system, funded projects programmed in the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Transportation 9-38 251 the State's Highway Program. The projects in Table 9.9 are assumed to be in place by 2030 as part of the City's baseline traffic model and street system. Most of these projects are at least partially funded and have a reasonable likelihood of being implemented during the next 20 years. This set of projects provides a frame of reference for examining the performance of the City street system in 2030. Table 9.9 Future Baseline Projects ,,,: PRI 3- ` -. ,'e,' t,.} i�' •• - w,✓c,.':,:�,,3i - .r.,;5;.,,.. tI "" y _ -,:�;;iis d;;a, +3' q�'� ` 'e+ -�; :firF via Region al Projects SR 167—1-405 to SR 18 Add one travel lane in each direction 1-5—SR 509 Extension to S 277th Street Add travel lanes for merging traffic to/from SR 509 Extension SR 509 Extension—SR 518 to 1-5 Construct new freeway extension from SeaTac Airport to 1-5 1-405—1-5 to Bellevue Add travel lanes(funded by WSDOT gas tax protects) City of Kent Projects 7' i S 228th Street Corridor-Phase I— Military This new 5-lane minor arterial is included in the future Road S to 64th Avenue S baseline, because the existing traffic volumes were collected prior to its 2007 completion 2 1 S 277th Street Corridor Extension—Widen Widen 116th Ave SE to provide a 5-lane roadway 116th AveSE from Kent-Kangley Road(SR between Kent-Kangley Road and SE 256th Street 516)to SE 256th Street 8 72nd Ave S Extension—S 200th St to S 196th Extend 72nd Ave S to provide a parallel corridor to the Street West Valley Highway 27 SR 181/West Valley Highway/Washington The widening project would expand the existing five lane Avenue Widening—Meeker St north to roadway to seven lanes approximately the 218th block. This project was under construction during the collection of existing data and is not in the current TIP Transportation 9-39 251 PREFERRED NETWORK The Preferred network consists of the projects in the Baseline scenario and additional projects targeted to improve traffic operations. Several of these projects have already been identified in the Kent's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Preferred network includes intersection improvements, new streets, street widening and railroad grade separation projects. Intersection improvements vary from simple changes such as changing the lane assignment at Smith Street/Central Avenue, to more complex projects such as revising the I-5/S 272nd Street freeway ramp interchange. Street widening projects would improve the amount of capacity on the arterial system and allow development of bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Railroad grade separation would alleviate the delays caused by railroad crossings on the street network. The Preferred street network calls for at total of $599 million (2007 dollars) of transportation improvements. Of this total approximately, $97 million is for street projects located within the City's potential annexation area, and is not the City's current responsibility. Therefore, the current City share of the street projects equals $502 million. The City's share is inclusive of all local revenue sources (e.g. local taxes, special assessments, developer payments, et al). The City's share of project cost (by project type) is depicted in Figure 9.9. The Preferred network includes $235 million (City's share) in widened and improved streets. Intersection Figure 9.9 Preferred Network Costs Intersection Improvements, _ $62 M, 12% New Streets, $43 M, 9% Street Widening, $235 M, 47% I Railroad Grade, $162 M, 32% Transportation 9-40 ' 253 improvements, such as adding turn lanes or modifying a,signal, comprise $62 million (City's share). New streets, such as connecting S 224th Street from 84th Avenue to Benson Road, would improve east-west links within the City. Approximately $43 million (City's share) in new streets is included in the Preferred network. Approximately $162 million of railroad _ grade separation projects are also included in the Preferred network plan The travel demand model was also used to help identify locations that require modification in the future. For example, comparing the 2030 traffic conditions with the Baseline network, it became clear that there needs to be more capacity for vehicles traveling east-west between the Kent Valley and East Hill. In response, the Preferred street network includes these projects to improve east-west mobility: • Widening S 212th Street (SE 208th Street) Constructing a new road between 84th Avenue S and 104th Avenue SE along S 224th Street/S 218th Street ' . Constructing a new road between 84th Avenue SE to 108th Ave SE along the SE 192nd Street Corridor. ' These improvements will spread traffic over the City more evenly by allowing more route options, which in turn, will ease some of the traffic in the downtown area These new routes will also be designed to accommodate growing pedestrian and bicycle demand for east-west travel. They can also handle existing and future transit services as they become available The Preferred network improvements are displayed in Table 9.10 and depicted in Figure 9.10. Table 9.10 Preferred Network Projects �;.g - -_-- `#:,m t_: _ ,,, ='':i*" `�e`- '."`"'fs*,.`�', d,,�q, -_ -- f;?,,e.e, ,' 3'';" TMI :a.='. 1-1 SE 192nd St/SR515-Benson-Add southbound right turn pocket 540,000 _ (0) 1-2 S 196th St/80th Ave S-Change intersection phasing and lane approaches 250,000 a 1-3 S 196th St/84th Ave S-Add eastbound right turn pocket and southbound dual left turn lanes 1,190,000 E __ - 0 1-4 SE 208th St/SR 515-Benson-Add dual southbound left storage lane and modify signal phasing 690,000 Q (0) 1-5 S 212th St/72nd Ave S-Add southbound dual left turn lanes 330,000 J 1-6 S 212th St/84th Ave S-Extend eastbound left turn lane and add northbound and southbound dual 1,710,000 Transportation 9-41 25 :"��M��ri left turn lanes ! 1'7 | S212th St/SR 107SouthboundRamp Add snuU`bound left turn lane 400.000 . 1'0 S 212th St/SR 167 Northbound Ramp-Modify signal timing by making northbound rightturn free 220.000 | -- - ------------------'' - ---' '----' ------- ' ---- ---- � �� | 1'9 G240th St/SR 89 Change signal phasing 420.000 . . | 1'10 4th Ave N/C|oudy81'Provide northbound and nouthbound exclusive left turn lanes Install traffic ' 2.160.000 | � signal ----------�'- '-----' -- -' ---------� '--- ------- -� --- - ----- �m 1'11 SE240th St/SR 515'Add dual northbound and aouthbound left turn lanes Add northbound and 1.650.000 . oouthboundnght turn pockets --------------_-__'____. � 1'12 Smith St/Lincoln Ave(Smart Growth Initiative) Add eastbound left turn pocket 1.980.500 ___ __''-- - ---- -- i ' | . 1'13 VV Meeker St and VY Smith St-Interconnect Interurban Trail crossing signals 342.000 � ' 1-14 Smith St/Cemra|Ave Revise southbound and northbound turn lane assignment 2O.N� � »� � | | 1'15 Meeker St/Washington Ave Modify signal phasing Add eastbound and westbound right turn 780.000 � p`~e~^ ! 0� / 1'10 S260th St/SR 99'Add westbound dual left turn lane.Add eastbound and westbound right turn 1.180.00 � pockets __.-_- -_----- --_-_ --------- ___'_____--__-__--__-____ ----- ------- __- � |-17 Military RdS/RouhRd'Widen intersection«n provide turn lanes on all approaches 1,945,000 � �m | / ! / 1-18 SE256th0/SR515-Benson Add northbound right turn lane and change signal phasing. 550.00 1'19 Kent-Kangley Rd/1 08th Ave SE-Add eastbound and westbound dual left turn lanes. Add 1.410.000 | eastbound right turn pocket Change northbound right turn phasing. / | , � �2O � SE250�S�oo and 132nd Ave SE Extend northbound |� ooleft,hbound |� and westbound left� 802.000 � turn pockets Construct new eastbound and oouthbound right turn lanes ------- -- ------------ ------ ---- -------- --| 1'21 I-5/S 272nd St Interchange Reconstruction-Phase I-Provide transit and HOV Direct Access 42.330.000 / between S27undSt and | o � 1-22 S272nd St/Military Rd'Add nnouthbound through lane atintersection Add northbound dual left 1.540.000 | ! turn lanes ' � --' - - ------'--'----'- ----' -- ------------------ , �0 1-23 Kont-Kang|oyRd/132nd Ave 8E-Add northbound and snuU`bound dual left turn lanes. 1.380.000 � - � ---- r--'-''--'- --'----'- - --------- --' ----'� ---'------ - '-' - - -- --� Total Cost � $ 63.309.500 (City Share of Cost) $ Q2.079.�� - - - - - - - ^ N'1 | SE192ndEu(04th Ave GEk, 1V8th Ave SE) Create new roadway connection with 4-5 lanes and 45,200000 ' � bicycle lanes (14.3e9.000) | ' - - -� - ------- - --� -- -----'—' - � G 180�S� 1 O1�0O0 ' �p � N'2 72ndAmS(S2O0hGtoS19O�@1 E�o� ma��yo'mnno� o . ! - -- -' -� . � N'3 8224thEx(84th Ave Gto104th Ave SE(Benson Rd-SR 515))'Extend roadway m connect 1oE 80.000.000 zc � Valley Hwy and widen existing road on3-5lanes. � (24.903.000) ' N4 G220hSt Corridor-Phase | (Military RdSto04th Ave S) Construct new roadway with 5lanes Completed . � - ---------------------------- �� -----�� ------ �� Transportation 9'42 �� 255 ar s. .'.,. ,x.A .,_,['3 �F' "hv!!' _:;'1;,..:... :_ ✓":: ;.��U,;K.: _ a' ..1' E:J = 3 ; .::'J A N-5 108th Ave SE(SE Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to SE 256th St)-Extend roadway connection to SE 2,500,000 256th St Total Cost $ 84,715,000 (City Share of Cost) $(42,827,000) W-1 80th Ave S Widening(S 196th St to S 188th St)-Widen to 5 lanes 1,323,000 W-2 S 212th St(SR 167 to 108th Ave SE)-Widen to 5-6 lanes 10,100,000 W-3 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening(Meeker St north to 218th block)-Widen to 7 16,150,000 lanes W-4 84th Ave S (SR 167 to S 212th St)-Widen to 7 lanes 5,106,000 W-5 116th Ave SE(SE 208th St to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 46,430,000 (17,730,000) � W 6 �132nd Ave SE(SE 200th St to SE 236th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 20,990,000 (0) ' W-7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S from SR 516 to Bolger Road)-Widen to 5 lanes Completed W-8 James St(Union Pacific Railroaa to 4th Ave N)-Provide eastbound and westbound exclusive left 1,800,000 I turn lanes Q W-9 132nd Ave SE-Phase III (SE 248th St to SE 236th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 11,950,000 C W-10 Military Rd S(S 272nd St to S 240th St)-Widen to provide a center turn lane, bike lanes and 13,630,000 sidewalks W-11 W Meeker St-Phase II (Lake Fenwick Road to east side of the Green River)-Widen to 5 lanes 70,000,000 including a new bridge W-12 W Meeker St Phase I (64th Ave S to Green River Bridge)-Widen to 5 lanes. 5,960,000 ------ _ -_ - ___---- -----__ -- W-13 SE 248th St(116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE)-Construct a 3 lane roadway 5,640,000 W-14 SE 256th St-Phase II (SR 516(Kent-Kangley Rd)to 116th Ave SE)-Construct a 5 lane roadway 5,100,000 with bike lanes. W-15 SE 256th St-Phase III (132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes 16,980,000 W-16 S 277th St Corridor(116th Ave SE from Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 7,500,000 ' lanes with bike lanes W-17 132nd Ave SE-Phase II (Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to SE 248th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike 23,200,000 lanes W-18 S 272nd St-Phase II (Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S)-Add 2 HOV lanes and a center left-turn lane 13,916,000 W-19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I (SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516))-Widen to 5 lanes with bike 13,120,000 4 lanes A Transportation 9-43 25 | Total Cost $ 288885,000 ' | � (C�3hum�Cosd $ �3�l5l'0O0 . � R,1 821��St/Union Pao�cRo/|mod'Gmdo Separation 33.O00.00O . } R� G 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad'Grade Separation 33,000,000 OOO { �� / S228��/Union Pacific Railroad'Gmde Separation 24.200.000 . ~ . \ ' \ i � �� | R4 8 22O��/Burlington No��om Sa�a Fo Ra/|mod'Gmdo oopmmUon 23.VOO.O0O ! �� | R-5 Willis St(SR 510)/Unmn Pacific Railroad'Grade Sopmmuon. 20.500.000 Northern S Fe Railroad G�d G mm 225000O0 ' �0 R� VV/Um��(8R51�yBud/ngmn o om Santao Separation . . ( - -- ---- ----- ' - --' ----' ''- ------ '--i Total Cost $ 182,300,000Grand Total Cost $ 599,219,500 FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE The future PM peak hour levels of service for the 2030 Baseline and 2030 Preferred network "= are displayed ioTable 9'11. Figure 0'11 displays the results for the 203O Baseline and Figure 9'1%shows the L()5 for the 203U Preferred network. Under the Baseline scenarios traffic operations are expected to degrade throughout the City. About half ofthe corridors will operate uti~0BF with the remainder operating utLOSE. The N� City defines satisfactory [.OSau maintaining aoI.OSB or better along designated corridors. The SK99 Corridor and downtown Kent are allowed Lo operate otl.(}SF. Corridors that operate atL(}S F typically have heavy congestion and are impacted bypoorly operating intersections. The following section describes the corridors that would operate at L[}S F under the Baseline conditions along with the improvements needed to meet the accep table e T.(}S operations. Corridor 5 (Smith Street/ Canyon Drive/ 256th Stremt/Kent-Kang|ey Road) This heavily congested corridor is borcouat to operate vvozne in 2030 with four of the nine intersections operating atLOSF The intersections within that operate at {.{}S � during F. PM peak hour are: SE 256tb Street/Jason Avenue, S8 25bth Street/SR 515 (Benson), Kent- Kangley Road/116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE The preferred network's intersection improvements at 108th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE will allow j� Transportation 9-44 -= _ � � N r L� 131 Q _ N 4 v 4 ¢ a of .k 3k J9bl jai n ck Jf ar•!Tt �a V�-�� a..� a�,.Yo., A - sl �- �2c., �_ I SI yr k } — d - �I Sl^nV eJl ]i�nY Yil - ,j `� Y 9 Away ril • �5 ny I�aN �,nr m� �� --s+•Y as y � ,'� Svc i yuvP�w �yn5. S J d S Id Bf ?r e- - _ - fwri Fa;r � Znitl V � �MOMn ad od iaw.uip aV� � ^ I N El l - JJ =a`sDYE� a 3 a 259 the corridor to meet the LOS E threshold. The corridor will also serve transit and will also have bike lanes. Corridor 6 (S 260th Street/ Reith Road/W Meeker Street) - By 2030, four of the seven ' intersections along this corridor are likely to operate at LOS F. Heavy congestion along Meeker Street between Washington Avenue S and 64th Avenue S contribute to the poor performance of this corridor. The preferred network would widen Meeker Street to five lanes between Lake Fenwick Road and 64th Avenue S and add turn pockets and signal phasing changes at the Washington Avenue S intersection, resulting in a corridor improvement to LOS D. The corridor will also serve transit and will have bike lanes. Corridor 8 (S 272nd Street) - S 272nd Street currently operates at LOS F. The City and State have planned improvements that would widen the roadway and modify the freeway access ramps The proposed improvements would allow S 272nd Street to meet the LOS E threshold. The corridor will have bike lanes when completed Corridor 9 (Pacific Highway S) This corridor is classified by the State as a Highway of . Statewide Significance, and the traffic impacts are primarily related to traffic traveling through the City of Kent. This corridor is forecast to operate at LOS F under future conditions. The City has assumed that this corridor is built-out to its maximum configuration and has set a LOS F threshold. While general traffic conditions will worsen, this corridor has existing HOV lanes that can serve a future bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Therefore, the LOS will be substantially better for transit and carpool users. The corridor also J accommodates bicycles. .. Corridor 10 (Military Road) - Between 231st Street and S 272nd Street, Military Road is a two-lane road, lacking turn lanes at intersections and driveways. The lack of adequate capacity at the intersections of Military Road/S 272nd Street and Military Road/SR-516 results in corridor congestion during peak commuter periods. The preferred alternative would widen the roadway to three lanes New turn lanes at Military Road/Reath Road and an additional southbound lane at Military Road/S 272nd Street would bring the corridor up to LOS D. This corridor serves transit and will have bike lanes. Transportatzon 9-46 26 Table 9.11 Future Corridor LOS ! 1 G186thSUSE182ndStCorridor VV Valley Highway 8R515(8onnon) E D � 2 S212thSt/G2O8thEx 42nd Ave O 132nd Ave SE | E D GIR510/Md�a� S228�GV84�Ave . 3 G224�G�S22O�St E E Road S | !-------- ------------- ----------- ------------------------ -'---- ------'------ - - - ----'| '------ -----'---- 4 James SYGEu4Ouh8t O4th Ave S 13und Ave SE s E | 5 iS20(�h8�Ro/U`Road/VV ' 8RR9 Washington Ave ` F D Meeker St | | Sm�S�C��Dm�� Jason Ave 1�nd��ySE | � | 8 F E / Gt/Kont-Kang|oyRd 7 8uu6th81 SIR 515 18ond Ave SE E / D ' 8 8272ndSt GR88 Military Road ! F E | . .. . ' 8 Pacific Highway G S 240mEu �Sor2noGt F F / - ) . 10 Military Road 281atEx O272ndSt F D / . . ' 11 04th Ave S G212thEx Meeker St E D | VVouh/ng�nAve O�hAvoG/VV / 12 - 819O�2x Meeker St F E Valley Hwy | 13 Contra Ave/O4th Ave O G190th St James St D D m� / 14 Sm5158aonsonAvo SE1oenuSu GEza0�Sa | F E ' i 15 116th Ave SE GE208th St Kent-Kang|eyRoaU E D | ~= � 10 132nd�voGs 8Ec08�Eu Kon�Kang�yRoad E D | �� | ' 4thAvoN to E � m / -- | 17 Downtown F F ' Titus St / — Corridor 12 (Washington Ave/ 68th Ave S/ W Valley Hwy) - Tbis stretch ofWest Highway is u primary north-south route Unnuch Kent and an important truck route. The corridor also serves high transit volumes. The section between James Street and the Meeker - Street intersection is 6mrccuat to have high delays during the 2030 PM peak hour. The preferred network would widen Washington Avenue to seven lanes from Meeker Street to ` approximately the 218th Street block to provide additional vehicle capacity along this corridor. With the preferred network improvements, the corridor would operate utL(]SE during the 2O3OI,Mpeak hour. ` ( Transportation 9-47 � t 261 Corridor 14 (SR 515/Benson Ave) - This is the primary north-south route to Kent's East Hill and serves as a major transit corridor With four to five lanes in its current configuration, this roadway has been widened to its practical limits. Improvements at major intersections (S 192nd Street,S 208th Street, S 256th Street) along the corridor and widening of parallel routes on 116th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE would bring this corridor to the City's LOS E threshold. Corridor 17 (Downtown Kent) - Downtown Kent is treated as a zone that extends from 4th Ave N to E Titus Street (east-west) and from James Street to W Willis Street (north-south). The downtown area accommodates all modes - cars, bus transit, commuter trains, pedestrians and bicyclist. Downtown operates as a hub of the transportation system with major roadways radiating out from its core, resulting in congested conditions. The preferred network includes a few targeted intersection modifications downtown, but no major street widening. This approach matches the City's desire not to impact business or degrade pedestrian mobility. The City will allow LOS F operation within the Downtown zone and encourage public transportation to provide growth in person-carrying capacity. Transportation 9-48 i ry) �o U) O 0 _0 0 0 0 0 LU Ill. M 0 0 C) LL 0 I N �� moo, - o - --—-------------- -M Cy) (uo LU Gca L) -------------------------------- Lu 71 z 0 �.2 12 -2,56 U US LL ,dll N—WWL, LL co E"— 2�l CL w LL m VD < C: O LL 02 o N 9L C.� � z 0. 'Ma min call, ------------------------------- 0- OW om LL co ors EI C6 E It CL 265 TRUCK ROUTES Kent has substantial industrial and commercial development throughout the City. The City is committed to supporting local industry, business, and residential needs and recognizes that the ability to ship and receive freight is essential to the success of many businesses The City will continue to collaborate with local businesses to improve freight access, while maintaining the roadway infrastructure,whenever possible. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, Kent is one of the region and west coast's largest distribution centers. More than 1,400 trucks enter or leave Kent each day. The forecasts by the state show that Kent will continue as a center for warehousing and distribution within the region. The City will accommodate trucks by providing truck routes that encourage distribution businesses to locate in Kent. The City expects that the majority of regional truck trips would take place on the State highways. However, recognizing that trucks need to travel on city streets to access the State highways and also need to travel into and within the City, Kent has designated a network of north-south and east-west corridors as truck routes. Figure 9.13 shows the designated truck routes. These truck routes will incorporate special design considerations such as wider turning radii and stronger pavements The City has also designated a set of industrial truck routes for several north-south roads parallel to and adjacent to SR 167. These routes are located within the areas zoned as manufacturing and industrial sites and provide local truck travel options. ' Trarisportration 9-51 �o �o N --- .__..,._. L LL LL j j V O O O U \ C LL w h� t 1^'mnbddiin�%roH�WixryPNbror�nu�.�A ".— 3 . "^'t�� •,dam... w .._. - -«.-«l-_.�„5,.,,...,, w--»..--,�..,,_.,.�(..e._-,_.»..,,. .,..«....... .. ,. ��,.,.. ....r ,,. i'�«.go--.-'m'...-»..e W4..e-, ,y,-,---m,.._`r.,,�.e.....h-.-... �� ''.has-'•3; _ N�a 6 E 3 . aRra �X'Er11V�4i'G41H%I� o n Z'�- E o m 3 - ~ a Q 267 PRIORITIZATION OF STREET PROJECTS The street projects contained in the 2030 Preferred Network vary in size, scope, and benefits. Since all of these projects cannot be built immediately, the City prioritized the project to select which projects to do first, and which can be done at a later date. Prioritization Criteria The TMP Task Force was asked to develop a set of criteria to help the City prioritize the projects The criteria were based on the community values identified at a workshop that updated the City's transportation policies. Several criteria were selected to rank the street projects. These criteria, covering the important issues of project cost, performance, values, as well as tangential benefits to the transportation system and community, are as follows: Mobility. The ease with which one can move about the city and the region, including traffic mobility, regional mobility,freight movements, and preservation (improvements) of the roads • Safety: Traffic safety improvements at high accident locations (HAL); improvements that reduce travel times for EMS vehicles • Multimodal: Street improvements that support other modes including, transit mobility, pedestrian mobility,bicycle mobility and connectedness/ accessibility (completing missing links) • Environment. Environmental preservation (protecting open spaces) and neighborhood street protection ' • Implementation: Cost effectiveness (per $1000 investment); funding commitment; project readiness (is it ready to go forward) Measurements of the criteria include improvements in LOS; the degree to which the project supports transit operation on primary transit corridors; improvements that benefit pedestrians based on composite accessibility index, improvements provided for bicycle facilities, and the degree to which the project completes missing links or improves access. The results of the streets rating process are summarized in Table 9.12 and depicted in Figure 9.14. The projects are grouped into quartiles based upon the overall project ratings. Each project has different rankings by criteria Few projects rank the same across all criteria. The highest rated projects contain the highest number of good criteria rankings. The rating for each criterion was multiplied by the criterion weight to produce a project "score". For example, a project that achieved a rating for a criterion with a weight of 30 would create a score of 2 x 30 = 60 points. The TMP provides additional details on the rankings '� Transportation 9-53 26� Table 9.14 Street Project Evaluation Results �" ��,' ��_° _- ,;.:ice�,`''"✓a"�&"$' h,.T,_ a:g '` 4_0 „�,".:. � _ , _, o,« 1 , AV JA I lrii =s'fz'' '€�;J' .'e''"$w.,,., ,g;E;,, ;a, �[;.. ';^�,";'.., == NE.,,?s,,;,3., '•�' '�'.... _`%''`, 'io-.. 245 W-3 28 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave-Widening $ 16,150,000 _ (Meeker St north to 218th block)-Widen to 7 lanes r ( 230 [ W-16 1 S 271th St Corridor(116th Ave SE from Kent-Kangley 7,500,000 i Rd(SR 516)to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes _. . ------- - ----- -- __-------— -280 ( W-4 6 84th Ave S(SR 167 to S 212th St)-Widen to 7 lanes 5,106,000 '-230 R-4 7 S 228th Street/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad- 23,000,000 - Grade separation, 1-5/S 272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction-Phase 20 I-21 17 I-Provide transit and HOV Direct Access between S 42,330,000 � 272nd Street and I-5 LU , Q -220 1-9 116 S 240th Street/SR99-Change signal phasing 420,000 ? C) 2 220 1-8 111 S 212th Street/SR 167 Northbound Ramp-Modify signal 220,000 timing by making northbound right turn free Smith Street/Central Avenue-Revise southbound and t =220 ' 1-14 104 northbound turn lane assignment 20,000 1 = 215-_ 1-18 106 SE 256th SUSR515-Benson-Add northbound right turn 550,000 lane and change signal phasing j - 265 W-8 4 James St Union Pacific Railroad to 4th Ave N Provide, 1,800,000 -- - -- eastbound and westbound exclusive left turn lanes. = 205 1-5 108 S 212th Street/72nd Avenue S-Add southbound dual 330,000 _Al left turn lanes 4th Avenue N/Cloudy St-Provide northbound and 205 < 1-10 5 2,160,000 southbound exclusive left turn lanes. Install traffic signal ) Transportation 9-54 269 E., A `�• ':_<: tg3g a€ _,a• s,,+;; °`. '" .,r rd'„;';mot.` _ ' ?,, '- 'i n n>' - vk '..$',•E «,;%; e A i S '_fit: _ •«14.. ;t'.�32s'{E.i f,i5_-°, .rr c�'''•',',''.#,ram _ },,,``>d„';3 V. - < ',d ,a�,��=; ==�,`.i:••`.EE. �` �3�xr= v, _..r'R>""I:;:I„_,ra_ _ x'3, -,=`rr''`r°"„r,^•r'*= € � ,y,t.,'_ xg�� ; '� �re•E'EE�{(f,`{;�:, - k�°' -< F",,:" r'_•� .'� i-,;�..ia=::,41.�;�.,_>-3r's ..� �n _ _ a;�„ ��'?L' ;a >�7,;'s s`�"-:':f�:E:Ei` _ �' -: ;,s«. =d.�; r'y,_>" ,sE?°�y;�' !!".o; �ZE•t _4�r",r€, - -= ° .� �.E° ��. ;�aF;.,a _ �`*i t''sh'3i'ri`.,,u,,�" - �'r`',"tea•�»*;,+;�.:� !„�. .,,. .�` ��e. .'�';�,.,.« -_ - _' :!s, a'sa•,,..* _ `:°'I�;eU say d E.•rr..,. �_'-�- - wo"�Z�''v ,?s`�`,,', �§; z� � t•,,,x,€;,.,_!;�z �'' 'd'Ei`.+'� ��` _-�'`� _ [' - _ 'j - - - * ,,,'�,=�Y'=a€'€lNis,„x5' - "''P..n•u'�r ��,'� y.�, •E'z••`, '�`'`efg=,�?;a Iz_s [Eq`; , =x _ � ':•.,�„ ,,,ra�n}}°°_° �--�"; °'"''*z*:�`:��,•f„-,- ,�'�"�E63,s€„,l.�Sz,> - =r' -;�,' • �EE'a. -�'��,:'n!' _�'w+ ,„'��`i,`,€: i 200 1-23 112 Kent-Kanqley Rd/132nd Ave SE-Add northbound and $ 1,360,000 southbound dual left turn lanes 200 W-18 27 S 272nd St-Phase II (Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S)- 13,916,000 ' Add 2 HOV lanes and a center left-turn lane 200 N-5 29 108th Ave SE(SE Kent-Kanqley Rd(SR 516)to SE 2,500,000 256th St)-Extend roadway connection to SE 256th St ' 195 W-19 32 132nd Ave SE-Phase I(SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley 13,120,000 Rd(SR 516))-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes SE 256th Street and 132nd Ave SE-Extend northbound 195 1-20 10 left,southbound left,and westbound left turn pockets. 302,000 Construct new eastbound and southbound right turn lanes i SE 240th Street&SR 515-Add dual northbound and J 185 1-11 107 1,650,000 i southbound left turn lanes Add northbound and j P ? southbound right turn pockets i -_—� — -- ---- 180 W-9 34 132nd Ave SE-Phase III (SE 248th St to SE 236th St)- 11,950,000 o Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes € N 1 180 , N-2 13 72nd Ave S(S 200th St to S 196th St)-Extend roadway 1,015,000 to connect to S 196th St ) S 224th St(84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE (Benson Rd- � � 180 t N-3 16 24,983,000 SR515)-Extend roadway to conect to E Valley Hwy and widen existing road to 3-5 lanes 165 R-6 22 Willis Street(SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe 22,600,000 Railroad-Grade Separation 165 R-5 21 Willis St(SR 516)/Union Pacific Railroad-Grade 26,500,000 Separation, 165 R-2 24 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad- 33,000,000 Grade Separation 165 R-1 23 � 33,000,000 S 212th St/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation ; Transportation 9-55 271 A— , .'; a "3' ,:;+;; ��,9s, ''��' o - - `E�t�"�.i;� ,�m - E,,;:;;; �.ii.�'"gip°�i`i'^•'��'��i "$� ,�.�„E ;°:r ::'rp:'1`>>�n, .E..::.:t':✓E";, E:;`., Ey r �,�;C,.:"ix - -_ - [:E., - Fe� ,.,. f,:�t::'i•;..'� 0 �.�e�:8ro 1 160 W-13 12 SE 248th St(116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE)- $ 5,640,000 ! Construct a 3 lane roadway , 1 i 160 1-12 11 Smith St/Lincoln Ave(Smart Growth Initiative)-Add 1,990,500i eastbound left turn pocket SE 256th St-Phase 11 (SR 516(Kent-Kangley Rd)to J 160 W-14 15 116th Ave SE)-Construct a 5 lane roadway with bike 5,100,000 ? lanes 150 1-16 117 S 260th SYSR 99-Add westbound dual left turn lane 1,180,000 Add eastbound and westbound right turn pockets, ---=--- --- - — - --------------- --------� 150 W-17 33 ` 132nd Ave SE-Phase II (Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516)to 23,200,000 w SE 248th St)-Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes Q 145 W-10 26 Military Rd S(S 272nd St to S 240th St)-Widen to 13,630,000' provide a center turn lane,bike lanes and sidewalks o B CO 140 W-2 102 S 212th Street(SR 167 to 108th Avenue SE) Widen to 6,046,000 5-6 lanes r 140 W-15 35 SE 256th St-Phase III (132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE) 16,980,000 � Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes � � __--------________ __-____ _ 140 R-3 S 228th St/Union Pacific Railroad -Grade Separation 24,200,000 — — —_ ' f 135 Meeker St/Washington Ave-Modify signal phasing.Add j I-15 103 780,000 I eastbound and westbound right turn pockets � 120 1-7 110 S 212th Street&SR167 Southbound Ramp-Add 400,000 3 f soutbound left turn lane ; ) ( w 115 1-17 18 Military Rd S/Reith Rd-Widen intersection to provide $ 1,945,000 � turn lanes on all approaches of 110 I-6 105 S 212th Streetl84th Avenue S-extend eastbound left 1,710,000 z turn lane and northbound and souhbound dual left turn lanes f 1 Transportation 9-56 271 10 WA" ',. .;_ ,€;3z - - � . '�'a ',>; -":.��;° <ik,.a: .tea° c,^ ,,�„r - -_ a' i' 1,3�,> - .,a, _ a'�E•.., .. �.,3.,,[ �;, `s=s '.r _ - - - �. I - _ - .a:;sa�-€�'::c. ri'i ,vim,'=-yaa - •,�L`_k a�" i'Wx 4 - -- s [,..:i:° �*. „°I�a �,wC x,0. - VMS', . yW,,, ; g � :^€•, "d ;� _ems_ .s�- - ,y��.,,: �" " ',"" �fot�P ,_ is" 'a<� ?s3,.,a; _�°`_ 9' .� � ��', ' 7 i 100 W-5 100 1161h Ave SE(SE 208th St to SE 256th St)-Widen to 5 17,730,000 lanes with bike lanes = 100 N-1 37 SE 192nd Street(84th Avenue SE to 108th Avenue SE) 14,329,000 i Create new roadway connection with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes ? 95 r 1-22 115 S 272nd St/Military Rd-Add a southbound through lane 1,540,000 at intersection,Add northbound dual left turn lanes. 95 1-2 113 S 196th Street/80th Avenue S-Change intersection 250,000 € phasing and lane approaches 95 I-19 109 Kent-Kangley Rd/108th Avenue SE-Add eastbound and 1,410,000 westbound dual left turn lanes Add eastbound right turn pocket Change northbound right turn phasing 95 1-13 8 W Meeker St and W Smith St-Interconnect Interurban 342,000 ! Trail crossing signals 3 90 W-12 30 W Meeker St Phase I (64th Ave S to Green River 5,960,000 Bridge)-Widen to 5 lanes 50 1 1-3 114 S 196th Street/84th Avenue S-Add eastbound right turn 1,190,000 pocket and southbound dual left turn lanes 45 W-11 31 W Meeker St-Phase II (Lake Fenwick Road to east side 70,000,000 of the Green River)-Widen to 5 lanes including a new bridge = 25 W-1 19 80th Ave S Widening(S 196th St to S 188th St)-Widen 1,323,000 to 5 lanes Total $ 502,357,500! i ; Transportation 9-57 N c W / ll d o n ^ 9 y 4 O _ Q d d m a a O a =i nl '4 3f+av 4rV �7� _ ♦1i F��-�i�i7ff{fH-iNN6�{tf bkd Y'.U'.a..d'... '_- IAAra�ir4 z ii a.YL[' vnV'-i x.nvtLi ;I al � • ,� .woo �— _ r y 3e enV ao4 �j„ '�I +V=t 1 tA�4N - '�Y.S�VIi'!wV Y unpl V •>VI�M+� Pr+3 _ � anY f( ♦yN 194 S++V La -r`Y n,•{i- M--A anv C�v -•--T--``4 --_ _-1 - --�-+'_ R J _ _ � VR+V RS •i�ff 4�� qT1� �� f.,.yv� � •F��1a� {E�SgGyj tlN m i275 NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Walking and cycling are integral components of the City's multimodal transportation system. Walking, considered the preferred mode for short trips, is the most affordable and accessible of all transportation modes. It is also clean, easy on the City's infrastructure, healthy for the individual, and integral to community livability. In the last several decades, Kent has annexed many neighborhoods where streets were not built with sidewalks or the sidewalks are in need of repair. In addition, bicycles, scooters and inline skating provide teenagers, adults and even older residents a choice of movement. ' The City is committed to providing the benefits of walking and cycling to all residents by supporting pedestrian and bicycle travel as a safe, efficient, desirable, and accessible mode throughout the City's neighborhoods A key part of the City's multimodal transportation plan is an interconnected system for those who walk or use a bicycle A Non-Motorized Transportation Study was conducted to inventory and identify critical gaps in the City's pedestrian and bicycle systems and provide comprehensive recommendations for future facilities, ' The pedestrian and bicycle inventory was integrated into the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS data were used to conduct spatial analyses' to identify priority pedestrian and bicycle improvements, while considering accessibility to public transit, ' schools, parks, civic centers and other critical factors. The recommendations for non- motorized improvements were coordinated with the other modal elements and financial planning efforts in the Transportation Master Plan. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ' The Non-Motorized Transportation Study addressed the guidelines and regulatory requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Of the five titles or parts to the ADA, Title II is of most concern to the City of Kent Title II requires a public entity to evaluate its services, programs, policies, and practices to determine whether they are in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. The ADA requires that a Transition Plan be prepared, to describe any structural or physical changes required to make programs accessible to all and to outline how they will be made GIS technology provides a powerful way to see things in context Spatially explicit models study relationships between population,land use,and the environment.Mapping can also be very useful in assessing the validity of survey data Transportation 9-59 271 1 INVENTORY OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Commensurate with the ADA requirements for inventory and self-evaluation, the City , targeted a significant portion of the overall Non-motorized Transportation Study to complete a walking inventory of the major street-side pedestrian system within the Kent urban area. ' The pedestrian plan was developed to address the needs identified during the assessment of the existing system. Community priorities helped the City sort the projects into short term and long term projects. In early 2005, the City inventoried the pedestrian facilities along Kent's major streets. The GPS data collection was focused on arterial and collector streets, while local (residential) streets were inventoried using the most current aerial photographs and the City's GIS database. The resulting inventory, is a map and database of existing and missing sidewalks ' and curb ramps. The inventory database, formatted specifically for GIS analysis, was added to the City's other GIS-based mapping themes for analysis and evaluation. More than 450 miles of existing and missing sidewalks and 1,950 street corners (curb ramps) were inventoried and assessed as part-of Kent's required self-evaluation. Additional information for the non-motorized system and detail on their condition are included in the TMP. , Sidewalks The sidewalk analysis collected information on several characteristics, including the surface ' conditions, the width, heaving and cracking issues, obstacles blocking portion of the sidewalks, driveway crossings, and missing sidewalks. In general, and over the past 10 to 20 ' years, the City has been ensuring that sidewalks are constructed on both sides of new streets As a result, newer subdivisions have few missing sidewalks. A greater number of streets with missing sidewalks are located within older neighborhoods. Approximately 53 percent ' of Kent's streets have sidewalks on at least one side. Local street sidewalks constitute about 40 percent of the total sidewalk mileage within the Kent urban area. For non-local street , sidewalks, most of the existing sidewalks are located along principal arterials, minor arterials and residential collector streets. Only about 18 percent of the sidewalks have some form of a buffer that separates sidewalks from the street and curb section. ' Curb Ramps Of the more than 1,950 street corners inventoried along existing sidewalk corridors, only , about 8 percent are missing curb ramps. All other corners have'some type of curb ramp to assist the mobility-impaired pedestrian when crossing the street. Characteristics of the existing curb ramps collected include the ramp type, width and top landing. Transportation 9-60 277 A number of the existing curb ramps are essentially ADA non-compliant. ADA non- compliance can generally mean that: (a) the ramp width is too narrow; (b) the top landing is either missing or too narrow; or, (c) the ramp slope is too steep. Many of the non-compliant ramps were built before the ADA was passed. PEDESTRIAN NEEDS ASSESSMENT As there are many more pedestrian needs than dollars available, the City prioritizes pedestrian improvements. The prioritization method considers the relative cost of a needed improvement and its location. The City seeks to select projects within areas of Kent that require higher levels of pedestrian accessibility To identify these area, a pedestrian priority index (PPI) was developed based on separate index measures for physical characteristics, called "attributes", and for destinations and activities accessed by walking, called "accessibility" characteristics. The TMP provides a detailed explanation of the analysis summarized in the following section. Attribute Index The City prioritized the pedestrian improvements by assigning each sidewalk segment and curb ramp in the GIS database an attribute index value. The attribute index enables the City to consistently measure and quantify problematic sidewalks and curb ramps that may pose as obstacles to the mobility-impaired. Sidewalks were scored in seven categories with a maximum possible score of 35. There were values for sidewalks, missing sidewalks, curb ramps and missing curb ramps with a maximum of 5 points each. Each existing sidewalk and curb ramp identified for each pedestrian attribute was given a ' condition rating,ranging from very poor to good or excellent. The current pedestrian system attributes in the poorest condition (or missing) were scored highest in the Attribute Index as the segments in greatest need for improvement. Accessibility Index The accessibility index identified the proximity of pedestrian facilities to various important trip generators and other transportation facilities Accessibility indices were established by measuring and scoring the proximity of existing and missing sidewalk segments. Sidewalks ' were scored in 11 categories from 1 to 5, with a maximum score of 55. Categories included schools, parks, transit signals, bus stops, lower income residences, etc See the TMP for more ' detail and example graphics for the accessibility index. The accessibility measures were ranked by the TMP Task Force. To reflect the Task Force's priorities, a slightly higher emphasis was placed on accessibility improvements near schools or along walk-to-school ' routes, and those near transit facilities. Transportation 9-61 271 PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY INDEX (PPI) COMPOSITE SCORE Using the attribute and accessibility indices, a composite pedestrian priority index (PPI) was j developed. The map in Figure 9.15 shows areas that are in darker shading reflecting higher need for pedestrian accessibility. The map also shows streets with missing sidewalks (automatically mapped and graded as "very poor") and existing sidewalks in poor condition. Those poor or missing sidewalks within the darkest shaded areas are ranked the highest in priority for future improvements. The composite PPI was applied to all sidewalk segments and curb ramp locations, including missing sidewalk segments and missing curb ramps. Potential sidewalk or curb ramp improvements with the highest composite PPI score have the highest priority for future project completion. The City used these values and scoring system as the basic input when prioritizing the pedestrian system improvements. Transportation 9-62 n N i i d Y -p -O O CD � �+ LO LO LO LO L J FloO O 00 00 ' N N M co. l0 j `fOn� /lO�n a — O O , ¢ j = I 0 V V L-' .L Q O L LO OM M M >co X E _ > d co U a CO QE , i �a A[}9 3 3 i I I f � i� � �� I �.. '€� � axed 4 m `•h I _s `R _ '1 J mv ows e i- --._...,, — I "E 1747 � �3 ao 0 N E m — Q 281 _ PEDESTRIAN FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Four priority levels were assigned to all pedestrian improvements identified through the PPI _ analysis- highest, high, medium, and low. As funding for pedestrian improvements is scarce, only the projects scoring in the top three categories are potentially fundable within the next 20 year planning period. The pedestrian plan is a map and list of projects that identify sidewalk and curb ramp improvements and their costs. For the TMP, projects are categorized in two major priority groups: Highest/ High-projects that can likely be funded within the next 20 years (generally based on traditional funding sources and levels), and ' • Medium-projects will be constructed as additional funding becomes available Three types of projects are recommended in the Pedestrian Plan: New Sidewalks; Sidewalk Repairs; and New Curbs and Ramps New Sidewalks ' Installing new sidewalks along critical street corridors help remove barriers to pedestrians of all types. Those streets that currently do not have sidewalks on one or both sides of the street have been identified for the installation of new sidewalks. These projects, totaling more than 100 miles in new sidewalk construction, provide important system connections to major pedestrian trip generators and safety enhancements for pedestrians traveling along busy city arterial streets. Medium priority projects are located more on the periphery within the urban area and are mapped in the TMP Figure 9.16 maps and illustrates the high/highest priorities. These figures show a sizeable increase in new sidewalks that will be constructed as part of the street plan development, which are not itemized in terms of stand-alone pedestrian system needs. Major street projects that add critical sidewalk connections and help complete the pedestrian system include: Other new sidewalks would be built in areas around schools and parks, and near civic and commercial centers. Many of the new sidewalk needs are found along Local streets within ' neighborhoods, as is the case for the Highest and High priority projects. The Highest/High priority pedestrian system improvements include the completion of sidewalks along Principal and Minor Arterial streets, including portions of: Transportation 9-64 00 CD lL t y $ a s a s o a w "a o R3 `0 1 3 C u y C � � I �� 35 MY�aL 3b Yab vat ��, IL d='_ a urC 1 \� 9 Id 96 � �D•l-�/ \ 1 r V f�Y Cn Moi ;� �Y11� n i 285 Sidewalk Repairs Reconstructing existing sidewalks with significant structural problems can greatly improve pedestrian safety and access, particularly for the young, elderly and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Existing sidewalks were identified for reconstruction if they are currently rated with either (a) significant-extreme heaving and cracking, (b) substandard width (less than four feet in width), or (c) below average or very poor surface condition. Slightly more than 25 miles of existing sidewalks are in need of repair within the Kent urban area. A map of the existing sidewalks that should be reconstructed due to poor conditions is provided in the TMP. Many of the sidewalks on streets in the downtown area are in need of repair. Other critical corridors in need of sidewalk repairs include portions of New Curb Ramps and Repairs Installing new curb ramps in critical locations will significantly remove obstacles for the ' mobility-impaired pedestrian. Those street corners that currently do not have curb ramps were identified in the Plan for the installation of new curb ramps. Some of Kent's older curb ramps are in such poor condition that they are more a hindrance and barrier to pedestrians than they are helpful Through reconstruction these curb ramps can provide the needed safety and access improvements for the mobility-impaired and others. Existing curb ramps were identified for reconstruction if they are currently rated with either (a) very poor surface condition, (b) non-compliant ramp width (less than 3 feet wide), (c) non-compliant top landing (missing or less than 3 feet wide), or (d) non-compliant ramp slope (8 4% or greater) Individual curb ramp projects are not mapped in this chapter but are included within the City GIS database for reference in project planning. However, the cost for new curb ramps and curb ramp replacements are included in the Pedestrian Plan. PEDESTRIAN FACILITY COST ESTIMATES tThe cost to build new and improved sidewalks and curb ramps fully compliant with the ADA is estimated at about $174 million. Table 9.13 summarizes these pedestrian improve- ment cost estimates by priority and improvement type. The cost of constructing new sidewalks is the largest of all improvement costs, and the greatest portion of these costs is amongst the "medium" and "low" priorities. Not all pedestrian improvements are essential for system pedestrian mobility and access. Low priority, new sidewalk improvement needs are essentially in areas outside many or all of the accessibility measures calculated as part of the study. The "highest" ($2.0 million) and "high" ($ 33.4 million) priority pedestrian improvements are the focus of the recommended study. These improvements are located in areas where pedestrian activity is highest (near Transportation 9-66 281 1 schools and transit stops, or near dense population and employment centers) and needed accessibility improvements are greatest (along or across busy arterials or near civic ' buildings). The costs of the combined "Highest/High priorities, when averaged over 20 years, results in an annual cost of about $1.7 million to add or repair over 100 miles of , sidewalks and curb ramps in Kent's critical corridors. Table 9.13. Pedestrian Plan Improvement Costs � :€�a.x .s°has' <;��h, - 'a�,*3 - '�'3' 3'•'r: ? Q, - ...✓ F', ,4;h. 4 ',EEEp,EEE.Et:., ,f 4 &;y„� 3ffw!,� «'�_--_-x�, New Sidewalk $1.3 $32.1 } $67.9 $62.7 $164.0 Sidewalk Repairs $0 2 $3 2 $0 9 j $4 3 New Curb Ramps $0 2 $0.4 $2 2 } $2 8 --- ----------------- --------- - ---- ------------------- -- ----------- —------------- Curb Ramp Repairs $0 5 $0 7 $0.5 $1.2 $2 9 Total $2 0 $33.4 ; $73 8 $64.8 $174 0 (2006 dollars, in millions) THE BICYCLE INVENTORY Bicycling has become more common over the past decade. A variety of bicyclists travel within Kent depending on their skills, confidence and preferences, they use the facilities differently. The City inventoried the bicycle system including bicycle lanes, shared-use paths and shared travel lane facilities. The inventory expanded the bicycle planning database providing the City data to assess and identify bicycle corridor enhancements that will fill in gaps in the ' bicycle system. Figure 9.17 illustrates the existing bicycle system in Kent. The City of Kent urban area spans both the west and east plateaus on either side of the valley floor, home of the city center. Overcoming the steep terrain has been a major engineering and design issue, for both streets and bicycle system features. Other transportation constraints that have limited bicycle system connectivity in the Kent urban area include SR- 167 and the two major railroads. Green River is both a barrier to east-west bicycle travel and also a partial asset with the development of the Green River Trail facilities. As a result of the terrain and barriers, Kent's bicycle system has many excellent features but is lacking a cohesive and connected system. Transportation 9-67 i \^ 00 N .� iTi AMC m coI y y W L 0 x € V ` ' W O U) LLI K y 3�of T. y ago y3° co 0 0 CL -- Q 289 BICYCLE NEEDS ASSESSMENT ' Two fundamental building blocks are needed in understanding of Kent's bicycle system- (1) a baseline definition of the various terms and language used in describing bicycle facilities, and (2) acknowledging the physical constraints which have limited Kent's bicycle system development. Past City plans include a Bikeway or Bikeway Route network. Figure 9.18 illustrates bikeway facilities similar to those that the City of Kent could use to complete the in future Bicycle system. Defining Bicycle Users A variety of bicyclists travel within the City and depending on their skills, their confidence and preferences, fall generally into one of the following categories of users. Each category based on the skills and goals of riders, favors a different bicycle facility type. 1 Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; and they prefer sufficient operating space on the road way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. ' Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation W purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, -- convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well-defined pavement ' markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials. Transportatzon 9-69 291 1 EVALUATING THE NEEDS ' The City worked with the TMP Task Force and the City's Bicycle Advisory Board to identify candidate corridors for bicycle lane and route enhancements. The bicycle system recommended will expand along corridors to provide Figure 9.18. Bikeway Facility Definitions better links with major areas _ Shared Use pets - - -- , of the City, especially pr©VId 5 a YsrrPoPlAy SNpHr81Q4{ syfa av{nav`Cr Ih¢x'>selusav©1i54 of btc'yal- rid pedast-ns Mh between downtown and the east and west Kent yy SNAHEn —aR& USE PATH F neighborhoods. a acrc+ry The TMP Task Force helped establish bicycle plan Bike Lane MEN" PO WAY 8 Sfe=V¢d I`4rAk for ¢•R$a1W NMIV 5Yt4pr recommendations. The map � v, � �-1. ui°e-v,ay u�g,�aw un a ;Srt`�'f pP RYGtsw�y _ indicates the priority bicycle ,"��: n.i...�i.gijywe� BIKE LANE Y projects identified to be r`} WO constructed over the next 20 years in Kent. The Kent Bike Route SigneBicycle Advisory Board also ! ptn"K'sn>�wred`Wmp - Pr�wpxey for,rYarsa4 a�enth traftc provided review and t;��yo z �°outneio dwo YGe{I on RiWYtr Nly)AIfTIH 30S4tW'a 5 54. comment on the drafty " bicycle system map. Their w4'I..,y suggestions were _ _-- considered by the Task Force and many are reflected in the final map. BICYCLE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS In order to create a bicycle system, the City is tasked with trying to effectively connect its east and west neighborhoods to downtown and industrial employment centers by means of overcoming extremely steep terrain and crossing the Green River, two sets of railroad tracks and SR 167. Few corridors make these connections, and in each corridor the public rights-of- way are constrained or already filled with needed sidewalk and travel lane capacity. The City has examined a number of options to help connect the bicycle system within and through the urban area. Priority was placed to close critical gaps in the existing system. The City identified opportunities to build new (as part of street projects identified in the Transportation Master Plan) or to re-stripe existing arterial streets with bicycle lanes. Transportation 9-70 1 291 1 1 NEW BIKE LANES The arterial street improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan will add significant mileage to the bike lane network, including major sections of: \9ilitary Ro,7(_l, SF 2-i8ih Street, SF 256th `�kreet, ]16t1n ,1�Fet1uE�SP, and "1 72nd rlt�encre SI�,. Several arterial streets have sufficient paved width for the possibility of re-striping travel lanes to accommodate on-street bike lanes. These routes provide critical linkages to major cycling activity centers, particularly in downtown, and connections to the shared-use path system. These streets include. S 2(,Utl1 Street/S 25c)th Place/Keith 1Zoad, 76th At-enue S/41 Avenue N, %1cc ker Street, 92ru1 Av,enLrc S/SF 200fli Street, SY, And S 212th Street . 1 Shared-Lane Routes For the several corridors that are severely constrained in width, it is difficult to re-stripe the existing streets without removing important travel lane vehicular capacity or incurring significant costs to purchase new right-of-way to widen existing streets. The use of 1 "sharrow" symbols, and sign-posting shared-use routes can help inform motorists and cyclists of corridors intended for significant bike use. See the TMP and the Non-motorized Transportation Study for additional information on marking and posting shared-lane routes. As illustrated in Figure 9.19, the proposed shared-lane routes provide critical linkages for cyclists in a number of corridors, including: Cambridge Street, 72nd Street S, 64t11 Avenue S, 9-1th AN-ent,ie S, 96th ,AVC11uc and Talbot kocld, 100th Av entte SE, "108fli /Wenue Sl,, 12-Itti A\venuea SE, Reiten Load,Jarnes Street,SF 22401 Street, and SE 19211d Street Shared-Use Path Extensions and Connections The extension of the Green River and Soos Creek trails to the perimeter of the urban area will provide important linkages for future trail users, and provide greater regional access, especially for commuter and recreational cyclists and pedestrians. There are also a number of locations where greater access to the Green River Trail can help develop important east-west bike routes, particularly near Grandview Park and the extension of the Uplands Greenbelt to the Interurban Trail. These projects will require significant design efforts, considering the level of topographic and environmental constraints. Shared-use paths usually intersect major city arterials at critical junctions. The city has already programmed in the current TIP, intersection traffic control enhancements at some of the Interurban Trail junctions Similar design treatments may be warranted at other junctions in the future. Transportation 9-71 M ai O LL E tm O m a v E fi F m �• d Z, w mLO e o 1 0 0 U H es-r► 4__�.___—T�19.al YF. Q i• �♦ M ■i r#ik4rr r•-i s • „�r-r-ri- r�-��rri.r tY r r t r r r r r r r ♦ i 01, ■ •-i 7 y •-• � s�. Yes arr ut i � ■ � Y■ �I � � �• 3e.wuar • y S�si2�;-� ,{�i-rw_r•-i r i- r•_ti•' ♦ r`�r e L�r r-i r r r r rr w a r .�-lk�t�" `tl c�► ,d� ,.,r...�� — i Y •��ngy�P 295 I Shared-Use Path Extensions and Connections The extension of the Green River and Soos Creek trails to the perimeter of the urban area will provide important linkages for future trail users, and provide greater regional access, especially for commuter and recreational cyclists and pedestrians. There are also a number of locations where greater access to the Green River Trail can help develop important east-west bike routes, particularly near Grandview Park and the extension of the Uplands Greenbelt to the Interurban Trail. These projects will require significant design efforts, considering the level of topographic and environmental constraints. Shared-use paths usually intersect major city arterials at critical junctions. The city has already programmed in the current TIP, intersection traffic control enhancements at some of the Interurban Trail junctions. Similar design treatments may be warranted at other junctions in the future. Routes for Future Study The Bicycle Plan includes various new bike lane, shared-lane and shared-use path connections within a fairly comprehensive system spanning the Kent urban area. However, due to topographical and geographical constraints and obstacles, not all corridors are optimally connected and require further study to identify the appropriate, long-range plan solutions. Routes with severe limitations, primarily overcoming steep grades, include the SE 192nd Street, SE 208th /212th Street, Canyon Drive, and South 272nd Street corridors Within the TMP a number of connections are identified for further review. For example, an analysis of future traffic conditions within the Kent industrial area may yield findings that suggest the possibility of re-striping some arterial streets either with on- street bike lanes or as shared-lane facilities. Balancing the needs for trucking and cycling access and mobility will be important in future re-assessments of the Bicycle Plan. Bicycles in Downtown Kent There are few streets in the downtown area where bicycle facility enhancements can be made without removing on-street parking (undesirable to local merchants) or travel lanes (undesirable to commuters). Yet, downtown Kent is an important non-motorized destination and inter-modal hub where bicycle lanes might be added by changing current traffic control measures and adding "sharrow" symbols. The TMP provides more detail for potential bicycle facilities on downtown streets, including Meeker Street, 1st Avenue, and 4th Avenue. WSDOT Coordination The City coordinates with WSDOT on projects that are on state highways within the City limits. For example, on Pacific Highway South, SR 99, along its western city limits, the City Transportation 9-73 291 1 recently completed streetscape, travel lane and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane improvements. . Cyclists in the community would like the HOV lane re-signed and designated to allow for bicycle use. WSDOT does not currently support policy and design criteria for bicycle use within HOV lanes. The City will continue to work with WSDOT for possible future policy revisions or clarification of bicycle access and use of HOV lanes along Pacific Highway 99. Within the downtown Kent area,Meeker Street provides one of the most important east-west r corridor connections. The City proposes to re-stripe Meeker Street east of ST 167 with two travel lanes, a center left-turn lane and bicycle lanes on each side of the street. However, the SR 167 under-crossing will remain a significant barrier to both bicycle and pedestrian travel. As WSDOT continues upgrading projects along SR 167, under-crossing improvements should include enhancements to non-motorized access, circulation and safety by the following: add pedestrian-scale lighting for improved safety (it's dark, even during daylight hours); add bicycle lanes; relocate sidewalks, behind support columns if necessary, to accommodate added bike lanes; and similar non-motorized design and safety issues as part of other SR 167 interchange and under-crossing improvements. BICYCLE SYSTEM PLAN COSTS Planning-level costs were estimated for stand-alone bike lane and shared lane re-striping, and the extension of the shared-use path network. The total cost of the bicycle system improvements is estimated at $2.2 million over the next 20 years. As summarized in Table 9.14, the total costs of bicycle system priorities results in an annualized cost of slightly more than $111,000. Note that the street projects also include 16 miles of new bicycle routes representing approximately $36 million of additional bicycle investment. The street projects also include 15 miles of new sidewalks. Table 9.14. Priority Bicycle Improvement Costs 40, - , a' k `�`�, ar,� 'E s�••�` - ;o@bra, ,. Bike Lane Signing and Marking 16 $405,000 $20,300 Shared-Lane Signing and Marking 27 $903,750 $45,200 New Shared-Use Path Construction 6 $924,000 $46,200 - - — - - - J Total 49 $2,232,750 $111,700 Note: Does not include 16 miles of bicycle lanes provided on proposed street projects, valued at$36 Million. Transportatzon 9-74 r 297 TRANSIT SERVICE Transit solutions are an increasingly important element of the Kent local transportation i system and the regional system. Improved transit services and new capital investments are integral in meeting the City's land use goals and reducing the magnitude of capital investment needed to maintain roadway level-of-service. Recent surges in growth have led to increased congestion on Kent roadways and have increased maintenance and capital budget requirements. Attempting to meet travel demand growth through roadway development and traffic management alone is not economically viable and could affect the City's livability. This section describes the existing transit service and facilities, identifies community needs and observed gaps in service, and recommends service improvements that provide local circulation in the City of Kent and connect Kent residents to other regional communities. The recommendations are based on an extensive needs assessment. Capital improvements and pedestrian projects that support transit service goals are also detailed, as are transit- supportive land use policies. INVENTORY OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES King County Metro Transit (KC Metro) and Sound Transit serve the City with fixed route transit and commuter rail service In addition to regional bus service, KC Metro operates Dial-A-Ride (DART 914/916 and 918) variable routing service The 914/916 shopper shuttle is funded through an agreement with the City and is operated by the non-profit provider Hopelink Sound Transit operates both regional bus service and Sounder commuter rail to - the Kent Transit Center. KC Metro's Access Transportation Services program offers demand responsive service to those residents that are eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The following section describes Kent's existing transit service and facilities. Fixed-Route Service Existing fixed-route services operating in or through the City of Kent fall into three primary categories: • Regional Routes -These services cross Metro subarea (Seattle or East County) and/or King County lines -connecting Kent with other regional destinations within King,Snohomish, and Pierce Counties (routes to Seattle are considered regional routes). South County Routes -These services provide connectivity between Kent and other South King County communities, such as Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, Covington, and Federal Way. Transportation 9-75 291 1 Local Routes -These routes exclusively serve the City of Kent-connecting Kent neighborhoods to each other with downtown Kent and with major employment sites. Table 9.15 lists the KC Metro and Sound Transit routes that operate in these three service categories (as of September 2006). Figure 9.20 graphically displays the KC Metro bus routes serving the City of Kent overlaid onto the current distribution of population and employment for Kent. Here and throughout this chapter, density information is presented with the use of a bi-chromatic density map that illustrates combined employment and population density by planning zone (K-Zone) to illustrate the relationship between land use , and transit demand. Population (or household) densities are displayed using four gradations of blue. Similarly, employment densities are shown via shades of yellow. Table 9.15. Transit Service KC Metro Bus Routes 150, 154, 158, 159, F KC Metro Bus Routes a Kent DART Shuttles 161, 162, 173, 174, 175, 190, 191, 192, 153, 164, 166, 168, 914, 916, 918 194, 197, 169, 180, 183,247 941, 952(Boeing Shuttle-Everett) Sound Transit Express 564, 565, 574 Sound Transit Sounder Commuter Rail Transportation 9-76 rn jo Ul ,v p N G> J .i N EE N T o a Z allo v N E $ o m ad+ E E E op �2 W 46.4 Pow Mot Mol ban anL,iad luaw foidw3 d\�G W 7 _ p�p[ 3S 3AV ZSL �, 3S 3AV 841 3S 3AV 94L 3S 3AV b4L F wI[3S 3AVOVL N d� 3S AV Z£L - 0 3S 3AV 6ZL """"""' a ~ /333Av 4ZL wx m m to� � 3S 3AV 9 L L _ 3AV_ _ ASAAV9lL j S BLL 3S 3AV ZLl nq' f- 3AV 801 ^pn 3S 3AV 80L w 3AV VOL 9 SLS HS o4gv....e„F saal0elvl .a- S 3AV t, ' < 8O AMH A3llVA 1SV3"� •„....,, t w �. s L9L S m 3. L8L ds AMH A311VA 1SAM r� N S 3AV SS E E m o _ a SasAaviniw!7 -,� 0 g eA= y>P- tea, S3AV9L 2iS' IEW DR S # 301 ■ Table 9.16 shows the routes by the frequency of service during peak,midday, evening, night, Saturday, and Sunday periods. Service frequency greatly affects the viability of transit service. Low frequency of service often leads to long wait times for bus riders and becomes a deterrent to the use of public transportation, especially for those passengers with other travel options. This is the case east of 108th Avenue where there is no midday service more frequently than 30 minutes. Transit Ridership Levels The bus stop boarding levels on the KC Metro routes were not available for the downtown and commuter shuttle ridership by stop. The greatest number of boardings occurs where a high level of service is provided and moderate to high population and/or employment densities exist. High levels of boarding activity also occur at locations where convenient transfers are possible between routes and where automobile drivers can access the transit system via park and ride facilities. The highest boarding activity is at the Kent Transit Center. ether J,,igi7 b{7 7rciiog are;_- , ir1c,'lude .aiot,':i Street, -ir040i/Benson Road (SR 515), �30rnJ 4,,enuo SE t Kant-Kan,:Itey Road and t��e Kenf-Des Moines Park and Ride Routes i 5,0, 166f, 168 and i69 t`?avtt the r."c'�?S�t`��. Kent Shopper Shuttles (DART 914 and 916) The Kent Shopper Shuttles, (DART 914/916) are a free shuttle service funded jointly by KC Metro and the City of Kent, and operated by the non-profit Hopelink. The DART 914/916 offer two transportation services to Kent riders- fixed and (limited) variable routing outside of downtown. All of the scheduled DART 914/916 routes pass through the Kent Transit Center, City Hall, the Senior Center and the Regional Justice Center. These routes operate from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm on weekdays and Saturdays. Hopelink estimates that 60 percent of the DART 914/916 rides start and end within the downtown. Hopelink also estimates that about 80 percent of the current Shopper Shuttle (914/916) ridership is comprised of seniors and people with disabilities. Despite being eligible for ACCESS, some passengers prefer the 914/916 dial-a-ride service as they do not need a reservation, and there is more flexibility in using the shuttle. Kent Commuter Shuttle (DART 918) jThe City of Kent funds a local circulation service that connects the industrial area to downtown and the Kent Transit Center. This route provides peak-only service on weekdays. Despite limited hours of operation the route has been successful, carrying over 100 - passengers each day. 1 Transportation 9-78 N O CZ) CD co co MA 0 0 0 i O D M �O OQo co CD Pw i CD CD CD co CO In n :., . o CD o j o o co C CD M M ( ! O O CD CD CO O M M M O O O O vP i i M Cfl M OM O E CD CD co Ln M 1 i O O O CD O CD co CD CD O M M N CD z ,F i t :+a; ,d ?:''� eg I O O CD CDO 1 j( CD I M co M .m. O .� " .,IV;�p?+''P�.4i Worm.`,", � ) _ _ �» -•__ ...... ......... � ,_._,_._..R.._... I _..`... M M i MI I o o o o 0 0 0 � o a I o o CD N 1 M (V M cli ti i i o o s o ? a) a; Y 2 I CD p CC", Y N m CD �? CD co CL u CD CZ U c m Y ) i O Z Z O ( T T O a�i I a E cu a°i c -0CU cm o l'� •td ,. "d,'�rs,, Y Y (( ._. C C C C C CD CD IQ1 O O O (((� M V M �O €d CD „t I ��"y'",.$ �-mot%• i _ � CO aE x, _ cc CIO «r O O O O O CD CD M M CD co Y CU C) CD (D a o cfl co o m (0 All CD CD CD CDO O co CD C) m Co y✓'ix�.%E'id j M co O CDC:)- o CD _a CDM M M E Z3 fs s , , nA cm E E ,c Cu o Ln n Y N Y .6 n ` '. C) — C) a> _ &• tY LY CL) c ° _ a) a p E �S df d3 0 v, o N a-d Q > i Cl) L Lw (n '.rt.a3 ,, co 0 .N. a`ni a) aci a) o r Jc Z m e U T din C O aJ p O O T CL) ° �� a CL a Y a CD ca- Cll O v� N Y d Y O O O E - o m OD C) M Ala Ali O O O j = Occ O O C C O -O Y �- C C C ` QJ N , 4J O a7 O C > > N N CL) N N > — `, Y (n 2 Y Y U- F-- O 2 � J Q Y Y Y LL W (6 y -,I- c o 00 N a G ao rn rn rn rn v co CD = Ey CT) M 301 ACCESS Transportation Service KC Metro provides paratransit service within its service area through its ACCESS Transportation Service. Access service is available between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm Monday through Friday to individuals who meet ADA eligibility requirements ACCESS service in the City of Kent exceeds the ADA 3/4-of-a-mile requirement (from fixed bus service) mandated by King County. On the weekends ACCESS adheres to the ADA minimum requirements, providing service only within 3/4-of-a-mile on either side of Metro fixed route bus service during the times they operate. ACCESS Transportation Service provides about 7,350 trips per month in Kent. Just over a third of ACCESS trips within Kent are described as "work trips." Only 9 percent of ACCESS riders described "Non-Emergency Medical" as their trip purpose, which correlates with the various medical trips cited in the demand center data. Transit Service Characteristics Several characteristics of transit service are important to understanding how the system operates. These include the fares charged and the performance of the transit routes. TRANSIT FARES KC Metro and Sound Transit collect fares by zone for long-distance travel. Metro also charges a higher fare during peak travel times. Base fares range from $1.25 (Metro off-peak) to $4.00 (three-zone Sounder commuter rail). Discounts are often available for youth, seniors and residents with disabilities. KC Metro sells the one-month PugetPass for $45 (off-peak) to $72 (two-zone peak). The PugetPass is accepted as valid fare payment on KC Metro, Community Transit of Snohomish County, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit and Sound Transit service - up to the fare value purchased on the pass. TRANSIT PERFORMANCE KC Metro and Sound Transit use performance measurement systems to monitor bus and shuttle services. Performance measures, along with guidelines or standards, are often used to monitor the operation of individual bus routes and identify services requiring special attention. KC Metro uses two performance categories when reviewing results against defined measures - "below minimum" and "strong." Those routes termed as "below minimum" are evaluated for modification or termination if changes cannot improve performance. Routes rated as "strong" may be considered for expansion. Transportation 9-81 �' 305 _ Sound Transit employs Express Service Standards and other performance measures to rate individual ST Express routes and to determine when remedial actions may be needed. Route Per fo' nnance Analyses Data from the 2005 Annual Route Performance Report — South Planning Subarea (October 2006) show Routes 153, 154 and 167 under performing relative to other peak services. Routes 150 and 169, however, are performing well during peak, midday and at nighttime periods. Route 162 only operates during peak periods and is the best performing service during commute times jThe Sound Transit 2006 Service Improvement Plan (SIP) reviews route-level performance _ using the standards defined previously along with other assessments. The SIP acknowledges the unsatisfactory performance of Route 564 on an overall basis. It highlights the role of Route 564 in providing additional peak service and capacity when combined with Route 565 and that ridership has been steadily growing. The Sound Transit 2006 service changes include the extension of Route 564 south of Auburn to the South Hill Mall in Puyallup (replacing the service currently provided by Route 585); the SIP suggests these changes should raise the unsatisfactory performance to the marginal level. In response to Route 574's low productivity, late morning service was reduced from every 30 minutes to every 60 minutes in June 2005. TRANSIT-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY The City of Kent, State of Washington and the regional transit agencies have invested in transit-related infrastructure in and around the City of Kent. Kent Transit Center In June 2005, KC Metro moved the Kent Transit Center at West James Street to Sound Transit's Kent Station on Railroad Avenue North (between West James Street and West Smith Street). The new center was designed to be a multi-modal transfer station for Sound Transit's express routes in Kent as well as the Sounder Commuter Rail and Metro routes serving the City of Kent. The City of Kent contributed funds to help increase the parking capacity to 994 spaces (surface and garage) and improve passenger amenities such as bus shelters, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle racks and lockers, as well as rider information. The new Kent Transit Center is centrally located for riders to access key destinations such as the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Library, and downtown businesses. Stop Amenities KC Metro is responsible for bus shelters and has specific criteria for which routes merit a shelter. The minimum number of daily passenger boardings to qualify for shelter placement Transportation 9-82 301 1 is 25 boardings. Stops meeting this first cut are further prioritized based on ridership (highest ridership zones) and ease of construction or right of way (ROW) availability. Additional shelters can be sited at stops with special needs, for example stops with large concentrations of elderly or stops close to health and social service facilities. All approved and built shelters include benches and litter receptacles, which are attached to the adjacent concrete pad or sidewalk. Kent Park and Ride Facilities KC Metro and Sound Transit provide transit patrons with nine park and rides in the Kent area, with varying levels of transit service and parking capacity. Table 9.17 provides details on the park and ride capacity, utilization and the routes served. Table 9.17. Park and Ride Lots Serving the City of Kent W. 1m, k3� - Kent Transit Center** Metro 150, 153, 154, 158, 159, 162, 164, 301 Railroad Ave N 166, 167, 168, 169, 183, 952 I DART 914,916,918 ' P&R Garage 869 36% Sound Transit 564, 565 Surface Lot 125 91% Sounder Commuter Rail Kent/James St P&R** 713 34% Metro 150, 154, 158, 159, 162, 166, 902 W James St, N Lincoln Ave/W DART 918 James St Star Lake P&R 540 83% Metro 152, 183, 190, 192, 194, 197, 941 27015 26th Ave S I-5/272nd St i Sound Transit 574 Kent-Des Moines P&R* 370 96% Metro 158, 159, 162, 166, 173, 175, 192, = 23405 Military Rd S 1-5/Kent-Des 194, 197,941, 949 Moines Rd Sound Transit 574 Lake Meridian P&R 172 27% Metro 158, 159, 168, I 26805 132nd Ave SE/SE 272nd St DART 914 i Kent United Methodist Church 23 13% Metro 163, SE 248th St/110th Ave SE ; DART 914 Kent Covenant Church 20 25% Metro 158, 12010 SE 240th St DART 914 916 3 Valley View Christian Church 20 5% Metro 168, 124th Ave SE/SE 256th St DART 914 St Columba's Episcopal Church 15 20% Metro 183, 192 26715 Military Rd S Source Source: PSRC 2005 P&R Data, and King County Metro. * Lot is filled to or above 90% by 9.00 am on weekdays. **Bike Lockers on site Transportation 9-83 307 CITY SUPPORT FOR TRANSIT SERVICES The City recognizes that transit services can improve livability, enhance mobility and increase economic development. Transit is a priority in the City's goals and policies, in local plans and is included in ordinances dictating the nature of development in the City. Goals and Policies ■ The TMP promotes transit supportive land uses, including higher densities and enhanced ■ pedestrian circulation. Commute Trip Reduction Program Since 1991 the City of Kent has complied with the State's CTR Law by implementing a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. Large employers, transit providers, and the City have partnered to encourage employees to reduce their drive-alone trips. The program supports the use of transit, ridesharing, walking, biking and telecommuting to reduce congestion, conserve energy; and improve air quality. The CTR planning process is summarized in the following section and more detail is provided in the TMP. The City completed an update of the CTR plan in the Fall of 2007. The Plan sets goals, identifies facility and service improvements and puts forth marketing strategies that support reductions in drive-alone trips and vehicle miles traveled by 2011. Consistency between the CTR Plan, the Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan, the zoning code, design standards, concurrency regulations and other applicable City of Kent land use and transportation plans and codes is a key element of the CTR planning process. Land Use and Parking Policies City land use and planning policies can also serve to encourage or discourage the use of transit, dictating the impact of transit investment in vehicle trip reduction. In assessing existing service and possible service improvements, it is possible to see how the City's current land use policies impact transit use in the City. The City has implemented several strategies to encourage transit. In many areas land use patterns, street design issues and low residential densities have prohibited public transportation from having a more meaningful role in vehicle trip reduction. Transit Efficient Land Use The City's land use indicates several mixed-use zones; these areas typically have good proximity to transit. The City, throughout the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, emphasizes mixed-use development and its role in reducing future traffic demand. _ The City emphasizes mixed-use development as a priority; "Mixed-use development shall be Transportation 9-84 ■ 301 1 encouraged in designated areas within the planning area (UG-5)". Goal LU-4 in the City's Comprehensive plan details the importance of developing and funding transportation in mixed-use corridors. The City has developed several mixed-use corridors served well by transit. Two in particular are: the mixed-use zone at SE 250/Highway 515 southeast of downtown (urban center), and the mixed-use zone at SR 167/ Meeker Street directly west of the downtown (urban center). However, the majority of Kent's new owner-occupied housing units remain single-family residences. Parking Provisions The City of Kent has enacted progressive policies related to parking, intended to reduce minimum parking requirements as a means to encourage transit and reduce SOVs in the downtown area. The City gives the Planning Director the authority to waive or modify minimum parking requirements; to impose additional off-street parking requirements in unique circumstances; and to allow for flexibility and innovation in design These provisions allow developers to build less parking, saving costs and increasing useable square footage, when developing in areas where good transit service allows residents or employees to travel without a private vehicle. 2005 Downtown Strategic Plan The City's 2005 Downtown Strategic Plan recommends concentrating growth in the downtown core and to using public transportation as a means to reduce dependency on the automobile. The Plan envisions downtown Kent as a pedestrian-oriented business, shopping and residential destination, accessible by multiple transportation modes (including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit). The Downtown Plan suggests new levels of service standards for all modes, designed to facilitate a more balanced downtown transportation system. The Plan recommends improvements, such as increased commuter rail service, improved transit circulation, better pedestrian and bicycle connections, and housing development close to jobs that will help mitigate the probable adverse environmental impacts on traffic levels and service in and near downtown. THE TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS The City used community input and technical gaps analyses to assess transit service and facilities within the City of Kent. Both of these key inputs led to a set of recommendations for future service and the supporting infrastructure that would be needed. Community Identified Needs During the development of the Transit Plan, there were several opportunities for the community to comment, including the stakeholder interviews, telephone survey, the task force meetings and the City's open houses. Detailed comments from the public and stakeholders are included in the TMP. Transportation 9-85 309 r A number of community issues came up repeatedly representing gaps in the existing transit system and also matching the technical analysis completed for this plan. These common concerns addressed service and facility improvements that meet the City's land use goals and policies. Some of those needs included: increasing frequency of service - particularly on Sounder commuter rail; extending service hours - particularly for shift workers in the industrial area, limiting need to transfer buses; decreasing travel times; adding more bus shelters; improving east-west service; improving passenger information for immigrant/low-income populations, reducing employee parking; improving pedestrian access - particularly in the areas outside of the downtown core; and enhancing safety at bus stops and park and rides; Specific service improvements cited for the Kent Shopper Shuttle (DART 914/916)included an expanded service area; better service to senior housing; more senior shopping service; greater promotion of the Kent Shopper Shuttle, additional bus stop at Great Wall Mall; and increased number of medical stops. Public Transportation Household Survey To assess Kent residents' use of and opinions about public transportation, a random public household telephone survey was conducted in the spring 2006. The survey provided a statistically valid sampling, meaning that enough people were surveyed to provide a reasonable approximation of the sentiments of the entire Kent community The survey included several questions regarding usage, routes, frequency, location of bus stops, length of trips, and safety. A research firm conducted the surveys over the phone with 401 randomly selected Kent households. The data were used to identify transit issues and determine effective improvements in transit service. TMP reports on these findings in detail. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT SYSTEM NEEDS The project team presented the TMP Task Force with a series of technical analyses illustrating existing and future constraints and opportunities with respect to the use of transit These included: • Community demographics impacting transit use • Current and future land uses • Gaps in current transit service Gaps in supportive capital infrastructure Transportation 9-86 311 Key Community Demographics The need for public transit service can be linked to a number of demographics. These include seniors over 65 years of age, persons with disabilities, residents living below the poverty level and households without access to an automobile (either by choice or due to financial constraints). All these groups tend toward a higher than average use of transit services. The City of Kent is home to slightly fewer seniors than the rest of Washington, has roughly the same percentage of residents with a disability and a slightly higher percent earning below the poverty level. Many seniors live in the downtown area and overall make up 7 percent of the City's population. Just over 17 percent are defined as disabled according to the 2000 US Census. (The US Census defines a disability as "a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition that makes it difficult for a person to do normal activities" including driving an automobile). Almost 12 percent of the residents in Kent live below the poverty level making it difficult for them to afford to own and operate an automobile. Current and Future Land Use Research has shown that population and employment (land use density) are by far the two most crucial factors in determining ridership demand in a transit corridor or service area. Development patterns also cause challenges for transit service providers. The largest concentration of jobs in the City is in the manufacturing and industrial area between the SR 167 and West Valley Highway and James Street and the northern City Limits (SW 43rd Street). Transit accessibility from these sites varies based on the proximity to major north-south transit carrying streets, such as the West Valley Highway. Business stakeholders would like to see better transit circulation within this district. The City of Kent has several pockets of high-density residential development, including several multi-family developments in the downtown area, the Lakes at Kent, and to the southeast on Kent-Kangley Road. These areas are served via primary and secondary arterial streets, but in few cases does transit penetrate residential or commercial developments. , Two serious impediments to growth in transit ridership are the heavy traffic volumes and low levels of pedestrian amenities and safety features on major transit carrying arterials Gaps or Missing Service in Current Transit System Gaps in service occur because service is not frequent enough nor close enough to be used, or it doesn't go to the destination of the travelers. Neighborhoods with the density for transit or important destinations without service are identified as areas of missing service. Transportation 9-87 i 311 1 GAPS IN PEAK-ONLY SERVICE Peak period transit service is shown in Figure 9.21. Gradations of green indicate the intensity of combined population and employment activity. The majority of the routes operating in Kent are peak-only services oriented towards commuters, particularly those bound for Seattle. Total coverage is the greatest during the weekday peak and midday periods. Residential areas northeast of Lake Meridian and north -- of North Meridian Park, along with the industrial area along 84th Avenue have peak-only service The Downtown shopper shuttles provide additional midday coverage in downtown and along Meeker Street to the west. Evening and Sunday service is limited to the major corridors with a loss of service in East Hill east of 104th Street. MISSING SERVICE COVERAGE Several areas in the City of Kent have moderate to high population or employment densities (see Figure 7-3), indicating a strong level of transit demand. However, there is little or no transit service available in some of the densest neighborhoods. The Lakes at Kent development south of Russell Road/228th Street at 54th Avenue is identified as a high population density zone but is not directly served by transit. This area is 1 characterized by a concentration of high-density multi-family units. Some moderately dense neighborhoods (east of 104th/108th Avenues, between 208th and 240th Streets) have peak- only service with many residents living more than 1/4- mile from any transit route. The principal east side routes operate on 240th Street and Kent Kangley Road out to 132nd Avenue. There are pockets of dense residential and commercial development at the center of, and around the perimeter of, this triangular route configuration. On the west side, between I-5 and SR 99 and north of 260th Street, an area with moderate residential densities and a several large multifamily units is not served. Route 166 provides service nearby, but runs on the other side of the interstate. Transportation 9-88 U i ry) CD 04 00 F 5F m LL1 k6i4 pow vet Mo.1 ane lad juaw)'oldw3 C " 3S 3AV t91 0 Y 35 3AV dbt 3S 311,V R" y F 1 ti 9 3S 3AV bbCL L 3471ANOCL 3S AV LE l 3S 3AV ve 3S 3AV 6Z6 w A, LU Ea cn � — € ` 3S3AV9LL ^ f'� S3AV9u 3S 3AV ZLL °^ 'r 3nV60t 3S 3AV ROL 2 3S3Avtoi uW LS sas N LO N s — O O- n N N s as loeivl � � `) �. S 3AV 48, �n 3ne0 W, "N 3AV 4 F ,�•,•�„ »� �� l8l a9 �' '-__ AMH A3 TJVA ISRM <S 3AV L9 .. - N a .,e— a� o s]AV 99 F SOa AaV11l14V 8fi HS 6&9 5 H S3AV 7Z 5 - -"S3AV9l MARWE'VIENpRS `''� 315 1 Gaps in Transit Related Infrastructure Transit is more convenient if there are bus shelters and good sidewalks to and from the bus stop. BUS STOPS Based on November 2005 boarding data, there were roughly 20 stops in Kent that exceeded 25 daily boardings but did not have a shelter. Based on the ridership criteria and/or KC Metro's 6-Year Plan or Partnerships program, Metro has seven shelter projects planned for Kent stops during 2006 and 2007. Similarly, stops with greater than 15 boardings qualify for a standalone bench Metro is proposing benches at five Kent locations and investigating another five for future installation. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS All transit trips start and end as walking trips. Missing, narrow or deteriorated sidewalks are deterrents to the use of transit. Similarly, dangerous intersections or a lack of crosswalks put transit riders at risk and also cuts down on the number of residents willing to use transit when they otherwise could. The pedestrian network analysis identified missing sidewalks, 1 poor sidewalk surfaces, narrow sidewalks and missing curb ramps Streets with missing sidewalks within one-quarter mile of transit service were identified. . Results from this inventory and subsequent analysis identified a need for better sidewalks for many transit riders and guided the selection of projects for the Pedestrian System. Prioritized Needs a community Task Force guided development of the TMP. They reviewed and confirmed needs, identified priorities, and supported the final recommendations of the Study. The Task Force helped to finalize the transit needs assessment At the June 2006 task force meeting, the Task Force discussed the gaps and missing services in transit and voted on the set of priorities, which are detailed in Table 9.18. These priorities served as a guide to the City of Kent as transit recommendations were selected. Transportation 9-90 311 Table 9.18. Task Force Priority Transit Needs ..A"!^.a id'.[['.< ii...':.-N..l i':.E;i;i" w'i'E✓ by."t[^::3:o'::y ;Il;q 'x '! 3' _ �! w.�;'•- �€.FIE✓; =`!I!?3"`ri ..6 ..E."ME, `tte'i✓.44; +r74' :v14.11i5.Rye:.,; E"' ;'�'d Rp j�y d{' � ANI„q'yya;, - �'[.W¢a ..�':"� _ `` ;. ;I�;rE lE,+.d':�✓w -a 3��': rt �".i5;^� .i.„' _ <<,E �i>•6"3r»" .9i �. 2 ,�a. it`o Provide more local circulation service connecting residential neighborhoods to Kent Transit Center Add new midday service on Sounder Commuter Rail Improve pedestrian crossings on 104th/Benson ' Add more peak hour trains on Sounder Commuter Rail(more frequency) -- - - - — -- -- — v- -- -- —------ -- — - - ---- - Improve sidewalk connections to transit stops 1 Provide more local circulation service connecting industrial area to Kent Transit Center Decrease transit travel time to Seattle Rapidly developing areas around 108th-274th underserved by transit Provide direct transit service to SeaTac Provide better route and schedule information at stops and other locations. .... _ ..__. ...._ .... u__....,,�... _ _ .rv.. ....� a J PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS BY TRANSIT PROVIDERS Recent and pending service changes by King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit address a variety of problems and opportunities in the Puget Sound region. Many of these service changes impact the City of Kent and have the opportunity to address specific needs identified in this plan. Short Term Service Improvements The short term service improvements are those included in the six-year plans of the local and regional transit agencies. KING COUNTY METRO In response to service performance and/or changes in population and employment patterns, Metro restructures service every few years, under the guidance of King County's Six-Year Transit Development Plan. In 2006 Metro addressed service changes in South County services. Due to budget constraints, a very limited number of new service hours were available for new service in all of South King County. Several of the September 2006 service changes involved the reallocation of service hours from poorly performing services to meet high priority transit needs. Transportation 9-91 , 317 SOUND TRANSIT Sound Move, Sound Transit's master plan, calls for the Sounder Commuter Rail service to provide nine round trips each day, up from the current number of four on the South Line serving the City of Kent. In September 2007 two additional round trips were added. Preliminary 2008 -2012 planning efforts call for the implementation of the seventh, eighth and ninth round trips on Sounder's South Line. Long-Range Transit Improvements There are a number of long-range transit plans and unfunded initiatives that will impact how public transportation is delivered in South King County and in the City of Kent in the future. Sound Transit Phase 1I and King County Metro's Transit Now initiative could have considerable impacts on the quality of public transportation services available to Kent residents. However, the regional focus of these initiatives may put resources needed for local and South County service improvements in direct competition with expensive high capacity services that meet interregional travel needs and focus investment in a more limited number of corridors. 1 KING COUNTY METRO "TRANSIT NOW" Transit Now is a five-point initiative approved by King County voters in November 2006. The initiative is intended to develop transit services that will attract 21 million more annual rides within ten years, helping the region keep pace with employment and population growth and addressing congestion. Transit Now funding comes from a one-tenth of one percent sales tax. The initiative's five-point strategy includes. • Developing a "bus rapid transit" (BRT) system (RapidRide) • Improving current services f • Providing new service in growing areas • Developing service partnerships with major employers and cities Additional improvements such as expanding ride-share and improving paratransit programs HOW DOES "TRANSIT NOW" SERVE KENT Transit Now improvements proposed for South King County include A new east-west route connecting Kent to Des Moines and Sea-Tac would provide new service that has been identified by Kent stakeholders as a critical service gap. Transportation 9-92 311� 1 • Kent would receive span and frequency improvements on key north-south services to Renton,Seattle and Sea-Tac. East-west connections would improve with new frequency improvements to Maple Valley and Covington service and frequency and span improvements on Kent-Kangley j124th Avenue SE. • The Transit Now Service Partnership requires a minimum contribution from the partner of$100,000 per year for five (5) years to add service on an existing route or routes or$200,000 per year for five (5) years to add a new route or routes. The City of Kent is currently exploring partnership opportunities for new shuttle service (proposed Route 913) to the Lakes and Riverview communities as well as for midday service on Route 153 to Renton. • RapidRide, is scheduled to begin in February 2010. It will replace Route 174 along Pacific Highway S/International Boulevard between S 316th Street in Federal Way and S 154th Street (International Boulevard) in Tukwila. RapidRide buses will link up with Light Rail in Tukwila as well as local Metro routes destined to Tacoma, Federal Way, Des Moines,Auburn,Tukwila, and Burien. Sound Transit 2 r Sound Transit has worked extensively with the public and communities throughout the Puget Sound region to set the priorities for Sound Transit 2 (ST2), which is the next set of public transit investments to improve and increase the service that Sound Transit offers today. ST2 outlines priority projects that would increase service levels and expand the coverage of Link Light Rail,Sounder Commuter Rail and ST express bus services. The proposed light rail extension between Sea-Tac and Tacoma along SR 99 provides benefits to Kent residents, especially for high-frequency service to Tacoma. The draft package does not include a number of Sounder and express bus projects that were previously considered. Expanded Sounder service during peak, off-peak and weekend service required extensive track improvements and significant increases in operating costs. Other projects that did not advance to the draft package include Transit Signal Priority (TSP) on SR 161 and HOV access ' ramps at Smith Street to improve the reliability of express bus service and new express bus service shadowing Sounder service during off-peak times. Transportation 9-93 319 s TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents a set of regional and local service improvements and capital projects to _ address the identified transit needs. Service recommendations are presented by route type. p Bus routes in the Kent can be categorized into three route types based on the markets they serve. Primary Transit Network (PTN) service provides frequent service (typically 15 minute or better) over a long service span, in a market where there is high demand for travel throughout the day. It is narrowly focused on the densest corridors in the region, because that's where potential ridership is highest. More than lust bus service, the PTN is a joint commitment, by both the City of Kent and KC Metro Transit to protect the speed and reliability of transit operations in identified corridors It is also a policy tool to help focus transit-oriented development around corridors where transit can be provided cost- effectively. Local urban service provides all-day service but at lower frequencies (20 to 60 minute) in lower density areas. These services should provide connections from moderately dense areas to PTN services as well as local destinations. Specialized Commute service runs at very specific high-demand times and only operates at the times of day when that demand exists Transit Projects 1 The study recommendations focus on current and expected gaps in the primary transit network and the local urban services. In some cases, recommendations enhance existing commuter service, creating all-day PTN service to address the need for reverse-commute travel and off-peak connections. Service recommendations are presented by route type and by implementation timeframe. Short-term projects are envisioned in the next 5 years, mid- term in a 6 to 15 year tmneframe, and long-term in the 16 to 25 year period. Table 7.19 presents a summary of these transit recommendations in response to the needs identified in the Transit Master Study, which provides more detail for each project. The table includes initial cost estimates Costs for the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) projects are from the project estimates used during ST2 evaluation. Other service improvements are estimated at $80.54 per hour. This represents Metro's marginal operating cost for 2007 and is used when Metro provides additional service to a local jurisdiction Figure 9.22 and Figure 9.23 highlight potential project corridors for service improvement projects in the mid- and long-term timeframes. Transportation 9-94 3 2(1 Table 7.19. Transit Recommendations 101 Ala)Midday ST express bus per ST 2 Project S1 I ("shadow"bus service between Tacoma and Seattle servinq all Sounder rail stations)[Not MT $1,300,000 A)Add midday express identified in the July 06 set of 3 investment options] service from Kent Transit Center to downtown Alb) Metro operated Kent Seattle Express MIT Seattle (4 round trips/weekday) $126,000 A2) Sounder service per ST 2 Project S24(6 additional round trips on $11 4 M O/IM,$163 5 to top of 9 peak rounctrips in place by 2008) LT $188 0 MI Capital [Not identified in the July 06 set of 3 investment options] 131) Renton-Increase frequency of Route 169 LT $1,100,000 B)Regional Primary 132)Auburn Increase frequency of Route 180 LT $1,100,000 Transit Network 133) Bellevue Add 15-minute frequency for reverse-commute times on LT $190,000 564/565 i B4)SeaTac Increase frequency of Rte 180 to 15-min LT $750,000 Cl)Canyon/104th/108th-Increase frequency of Route 169(part of 1 regional PTN project)or create short line with turn around at 208th St MIT $750,000 (Transit Now improvement identified for Route 169) C2)James/240th St from Kent TC to north and south 11 6th Ave Two routes combing on easUwest segment for 30-minute frequency of service MIT $480,000 Q Local Primary Transit Q James/240th St from Kent TC to north and south 116th Ave. Two Network $390,000 routes combininq on east/west seqment for 1 5-minute frequency of LT service (+project C2) - ----------------------- ------------------ ——---------------------------- ------- —- ---- C4)Increase frequency of Route 166 to 15-minute M-Sa,30-minute Sundays LT $840,000 C5)Replace Route 918 with two weekday all-day services-east and west industrial areas 30-minutes all-day with limited 60-minute night MT $1,100,000 service D1)Add 30-minute all day service on 1 32nd Ave,connectinq with other D)Local Service services at Kent Kanqley Road(Transit Now improvement identified for MIT $430,000 Improvements Route 164) D2)Increase frequency of Rte 164 to 30 min and add Sa service MIT $480,000 E)Bus Shelters Ell)Construct shelters at 15 stops identified for possible stops in 2008 ST $770,000 @$35,000 ea along with 7 not identified,yet exceeding standards. (05$) $1 M plus land acquisition F)East Kent Interceptor for surface lot expansion, P&R 1`11)Expand capacity in/near Lake Meridian P&R by 200 spaces LT $4 M for structured parking G)Sidewalk E Identification of potential projects pendinq review of non-motorized and improvements roadway improvements ST Note ST refers to Short Term (0-5 year timeframe), MT to Medium Term (6-15 years) and LT to Long Term (16-25 years) Transportation 9-95 C4 V) C0 a Y a �:, moo°_ 11 N •�• N y o I tIf n ►+ 7 E a � � W R CD (� 3s 3aV L4L 3S 3AV PVC 3S 3P,V 8tL ro Lu F 3S AAV-t L 3S3AVt,ZL b}-"'""" "' 3nV hzl ,. a LL � LL w H n � w o S AAV s u 1 � � �.Q,..,•; �'� � 3S 3M1b ZLL _ 3S 3nV PO L 3E3AvOt .- m 9 i �9L9'ei5 n .ca L"h' �4 5 S UH 1PSlHl `n v 3'-x„ •i Flo x..aum a ss I- AMH,l3lIvt,1SV3i NAM 3AV CB E _ LBL HS' z a^s` - AMH A3llvA.Ls3M G ,., 83l4Y CI& Ina 9-" o >z m c @ E - � IY � s N - CLnHAavillm N xe t�s �8S � S UJ ar_fqd ! t � S3AV C � a - � S3lV9L os MNE IEW DR - _• M N M �j pp�'y 'N N C_ = CI i L _ IIII_ L f"' & C tX ✓r m P IS r 4 m' o o 4 tj E � I s rc d 3 3 C O' w Ww n" '^a .orr4.i. L alas gad juawAaldw3 � LL O 3s3AVN9 -' as 3AV R" as 3AV 9K -- "- 3S 3AY Ml N N U as3Avotb w �+ � S v~i m �s3nvazL 363AVZl, N w S � r i S 3AV yAH 43-nVA 1SYq--, a _ 3AY 69 —^n T 21S "`�K A �I AMH A3lTVA LSaNr S3Avs Y iE 'P a Yr F=i j+ - nl sr `� •yS5 was y�a m s3nvr S 3AV9 S3AV9;— 5 ry� 09— IM1E 'ErYD ' 325 ' MANAGING DEMAND Using the existing network of streets more efficiently is a fiscally sound way to improve traffic conditions and safety. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies and strategies are designed to reduce automobile travel and shift some trips to non-peak periods (before or after commute hours). Transportation system management (TSM) manages the flow of traffic by adding in turn lanes, Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes, or coordinating signals. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Managing demand makes the best use of the transportation system through various strategies that maximize unused capacity TDM emphasizes personal access rather than vehicular mobility. TDM strives to treat roadway, transit and sidewalk capacity as valuable, Llimited assets to be carefully managed. TDM strategies include: encouraging ride sharing (car- and van-pooling); providing alternative mode subsidies (e.g transit passes); providing telecommuting, flex schedules, and compressed work weeks; and enforcing parking fees/restrictions. TDM strategies go beyond increasing vehicle occupancy and can range from simple marketing programs to complex land uses City land use policies reduce dependence on private automobile travel by focusing growth in specific locations and changing land use development patterns. Land use densities, mixed-use activity, urban design, transit station areas and other concentrated points of activity support frequent transit service and ' pedestrian facilities for centers and along major travel corridors Kent is a major industrial center with multiple worksites that operate outside of the typical ' peak transit hours. Vanpool and vanshare programs alone are not flexible enough to meet the scheduling needs of employees. In addition, ample free parking contributes to the high SOV rate at many worksites. The City's TDM program is focused to maximize alternative mode options for all travelers. COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM In 1991, the Washington State legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law (RCW 70.94.521) to reduce traffic congestion, increase air quality, and decrease fuel consumption Currently, the City's CTR program serves 35 worksites providing support to over 15,000 employees and other interested firms. As the State of Washington's population has grown, the need for programs such as CTR has significantly increased. The CTR program encourages companies to work with their employees to reduce the drive-alone and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rates. Since the start Transportation 9-98 321 of the CTR program the overall State single occupancy vehicle (SOV) rate has remained constant even though the volume of commuters has increased - commuters are choosing ' alternative modes of transportation. THE COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION LAW The Washington State CTR Law is unlike many of the required trip reduction programs established in other states through federal air pollution regulations. Washington's CTR program relies on a partnership between the public and private sectors to make progress towards meeting goals. The CTR program is based on cooperation and collaboration rather than a punitive approach administered based on regulation and enforcement. The State's CTR law requires counties of 150,000 or more residents to enact local CTR ordinances. King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are all part of the Puget Sound Regional Council which contains the majority of the CTR sites in the State. The Law requires that employers with more than 100 full time employees commuting to work between the hours of 6 am and 9 am participate in the CTR program. In order to be considered an affected employee the employee must commute at least two days a week for a minimum of twelve continuous months. The program is not limited to employers affected by the law; the program includes any local business that has an approved CTR plan which seeks to promote commute alternatives such as ridesharing, tele-working, and flexible work schedules. Changes to the CTR Law in 2006 ! In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act in 2006 (RCW 70.94.521). The goal of the CTR Efficiency Act is to improve the efficiency t of the overall transportation system by focusing on the most congested areas of the state and increasing the planning coordination between local,regional, and state organizations. ' Kent's local CTR plan provides the City's goals and policies for CTR, identifies facility and service improvements, and adopts marketing strategies to reduce drive alone trips and , vehicle miles traveled over the next four years. The City plan focuses on worksites that require more attention. The new law requires Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) to coordinate the development of local CTR Plans, create a regional CTR Plan, and to measure regional progress. Regional and local CTR plans are then scheduled to be reviewed by the CTR board, which will allocate funding. The modified CTR Program is scheduled to begin in September of 2008. Currently 35 CTR worksites, 28 active and 7 voluntary, participate in the program. The City's CTR program is the fourth largest program in King County following Seattle, Bellevue, and Transportation 9-99 ' 327 Redmond. Worksites range from 64 to more than 4000 employees with a mean size around 300 employees. CTR worksites are listed in Figure 9.24. As shown in Table 9.20 participating sites include public entities such as King County Regional Justice Center and the Kent School District, and private firms including Boeing, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, Oberto Sausage and REI. Table 9.20. Top Employers in Kent ��,,, ..,Et"F >E�� wad E;:,�•;;...�'; �"',/' `' � WX ¢ �,"'�' _ , ', ,., � :kt The Boeing Company 4,342 Space research Kent School District 3,165 School district City Of Kent 780 City government King County Regional Justice Center 701 Courthouse-detention facility R E 1 689 Outdoor equipment I Sysco Food Services of Seattle Inc 596 Food service distributor Mikron Industries 595 Manufactures vinyl extrusions Oberto Sausage Company 553 Specific meat sales/manufacturer Alaska Distributors 500 Beverage distribution Patient Accounting Service Center 439 Process medical accounts Source City of Kent CTR Report, 2007 In 2007, the majority of CTR employees reported that their employees commute from within Kent or the neighboring jurisdictions of Seattle, Tacoma, Renton, Puyallup, Auburn and Sumner. The average daily commute for Kent CTR employees is approximately 34 round trip miles per day. Each trip reduced prevents an average of 32 3 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per vehicle per day from entering our atmosphere Under the new CTR Efficiency Act, Kent will reduce the SOV and VMT rate by focusing on strategies specific to Kent. The local goal for the new program is to reduce the SOV rate by 10 percent and the VMT rate by 13 percent by 2011. The 2011 drive alone goal for the overall jurisdiction is 83 percent and the VMT goal is 13.7 miles per commuter per day. Transportation 9-100 re) V4 4) cr; :3 7 o 75 n 77- L� ........... -- 331 _ COMMUTE ALTERNATIVES There are a number of alternative ways for commuters to travel to work and reduce the number of SOV work trips including: transit service, ridesharing, non-motorized options, - alternative work schedules, and telecommuting Each CTR worksite has an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) that serves as the ' employer representative to the City and is charged with promoting commute alternatives to employees. The City facilitates promotional events at CTR worksites that help encourage employees to use the alternative commute options that are available to them. Employee subsidies offset commuting costs and encourage employees to break the habit of driving alone Common subsidies include discount bus, ferry, or tram passes, reduced vanpool fees, reserved HOV parking, and/or vouchers for walking or biking to work. Employers that offer subsidies for parking, transit, and/or ridesharing experience increased participation in their CTR program. The Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program provides employees who regularly commute to work with a free ride when unexpected situations at work or home arise. GRH is a cost effective solution that employers can utilize to promote their CTR program. By investing more in employees' work environments, CTR employers are able to reduce their employees' needs to make midday trips. Showers and storage lockers are key features for promoting a successful walking or biking program. On-site amenities such as daycare, ' cafeterias, and ATM machines reduce the need for midday trips. Employers can offer their employees federal tax commute-to-work fringe benefits. ' Employees are eligible for a pre-tax payroll deduction to help offset the cost of transit or vanpooling. Employers can amzually claim up to fifty percent of the amount paid to or on behalf of each employee for ride sharing, car sharing, using public transportation, or non- motorized commuting. Transportatim 9-102 331 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Transportation system management (TSM) techniques, which make more efficient use of the ' existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach ' the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques include: • Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding/increasing number of ' through lanes; • Signal interconnect and optimization; • Signalization; • Turn movement restrictions; • Access Management; and • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The City uses TSM techniques to maximize the efficiency of the street network. ITS is a , relatively new technology that has proven itself a successful and cost effective means of increasing system capacity. With an ITS system the City is able to change traffic signals in real-time, thereby handling unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles, such as event related traffic and accidents. ITS is included in the City's new Transportation Management Center which will be part of the Kent East Hill Operations Center, which is expected to be , operating by 2012. The City will assess the opportunity for ITS capabilities on corridors around the City. In.addition to TSM strategies, the City strives to provide viable alternatives for the traveler, , to ensure freedom of choice among several transportation modes (such as transit, biking and walking) as alternatives to the automobile. The City stresses the development of pedestrian- ' friendly environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non-motorized system expands. , Transportation 9-103 333 i FUNDING TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ' The GMA requires that a multi-year financing plan be identified for the needed multi-modal improvements A key GMA planning requirement is the concept of fiscal restraint in transportation planning. The purpose of the financial element is to balance the transportation ' projects recommended for implementation with the ability of the City to build and maintain transportation facilities and services. The following section summarizes funding strategies available for Kent's Transportation Plan THE "BIG PICTURE" - OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND REVENUES ' The proposed 2006-2030 Transportation Master Plan developed for the City of Kent contains a variety of projects that will cost between$511 and 595 million' over 20 years. ' Table 9.21 summarizes the costs of the major types of transportation improvements. Street improvement projects comprise approximately $360 million, grade separation projects $170 million, transit projects $4 million, and non-motorized projects up to $40 million. The transit ' costs represent a six-year City commitment to fund the existing transit shuttles program and to partner with King County in the new Transit Now program. ' These costs represent the portion of the projects located within the City of Kent An additional $100 million of street needs were identified within the potential annexation area of ' the City, within King County These costs are not included in Table 9-1 since they are not currently the responsibility of the City of Kent. 'This cost is consistent zoitli the p Cit 's past investment in transportation im rovements. During the past eleven y p p years, the City of Kent Milt$260 nnlhon of transportation capital improvements (in 2006 dollars). Tlie anneal average was$23 6 million If the City continues to find ways to fiend transportation projects during the next 25 years at the same level as the past eleven years, the City would pay $592 million for transportation capital unprovement projects Transportation 9-104 33 Table 9.21' Costs of Kent Transportation Master Plan i$ &8iUioma\ Transit Projects 4-5 0 4-5 °Note, The street projects also include 16 miles of new bicycle routes representing approximately$38 million of additional bicycle investment The street projects also include 15 miles ofnew u/devvo|ko Table 9.22 summarizes the projections of potential 2O-year revenues from existing and new sources. It ltoppearo that the City has several viable options for raising significant revenue for the City ofKant'a Transportation Master Plan. These options will be presented to the City Council for consideration as additional revenue is needed to complete projects. The public will have opportunities to participate un these decisions. U� Table 9.22. Potential Revenues for Kent Transportation Master Plan ($ Millions) ! Existing Revenues $ 131'234 $ 1O'73 i $ 149'3O7 m� Potential Additional $ 164-383 | O $ 104-383 . Revenue / | | To�| �295�17 � 18�� 818�9O ' 1 ESTIMATES OF SPECIFIC SOURCES OF REVENUE The estimates of existing funding and potential additional funding summarized io Table 9-2 are from a detailed analysis of each source of revenue and identification of the assumptions that are appropriate to each source. Table 9'23preoeots 25-yearrevenop estimates for five 0� existing and six potential additional sources of revenue for transportation capital improvements for the City of Kent. Each source of revenue has a {ovv estimate, a biob estimate, and the average o[the two. The estimate of each of the existing and potential additional revenue sources listed izTable 9-3 is described below. The existing revenue sources are numbered l to5, and the potential additional revenue sources are lettered AtoF. 7}onayorhr6on 9-105 �� 335 1 All revenue estimates are in 2007 dollars to match the costs of projects that are a blend of ' 2006 and 2007 dollars; therefore, the two sets of data are comparable Table 9.23. Estimates of Specific Revenue Sources 2006-2030 ($ Millions) 'x' •,€' ,p ': ""s'-'''a '•'" ';H„+y, s«;.s�• ''3``'i,_==,�„r;„°�x'S�'a°.••d`rt,.'i �' �, - '-T: ,"-,� �-�:'s4' =`3"'—= #sra r,�:::AP y .;p , ..; �, 0-=°��'d= r;'a :_% 3� I. Existing Revenue Sources for Capital F 1 Committed Funding $ 773 $ 773 $ 773 —------------------ --------- ------- -'- ---------- -- - - - - - 2 Grants-Annual Average' 11 6 639 378 1 ; 3 Grants for Grade Separation Projects 178 733 45-6 4 Local Improvement Districts(LIDS)' 352 750 55 1 5 Transfer from Street Fund` 7.2 j 176 124 Total Existing Revenue for Capital $ 1496 $307 6 $228 7 'r ' f ",r•'',.✓�a^'3F�� '�. " - r" <.�r<o-�+a :a'8..s,•'€t,`:"-,:•�.aq'' fe2__" .r�r. _,a;' _ o„� _-Ir„ r a ' S-'- I�� Ps ',. .' swz �; "oAi And II. Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Capital A Impact Fees-City of Kent' $ 450 $ 180 0 $ 112 5 B Impact Fees-Reciprocal from King County 50 100 7 5 C Business License Fee for Transportation 738 98 7 86 3 D Voted General Obligation Bonds 55 27 5 16.5 E Real Estate Excise Tax 45 223 134 F, Vehicle License Fee for Transportation Benefit Distnct2 300 44.0 370 ' Total Potential Additional Revenue for Capital $ 1638 3825 273.2 Comb,ned Total for Capital Existing+Potential $313 4 $690 1 $501 9 Net of Committed Funds 1- Impact Fees The low estimate is based on rates of approximately $3,000 per PM peak hour I trip-, the high estimate is based on the potential maximum of approximately$15,000 per trip. 2- Vehicle License Fee The range of estimates is based on a $20 per vehicle fee using varying estimates of registered vehicles in Kent and the percent of license fee revenues that would be used for the TMP Protects Transportation 9-106 331 EXISTING CITY REVENUES 1. Committed Funding The City of Kent has already secured funding for some of the projects in the Transportation Master Plan. The estimate is based on a list of the specific projects with committed funding, and the amounts and sources of the committed funds. The committed funds total $77.3 million, of which $56.8 million is from grants, $4.5 million is from local improvement ' districts, $12.6 million is from environmental mitigation fees, and $3.2 million is from City revenues. ' The $77.3 million of committed revenue is listed as both the low estimate and the high estimate because the amounts are known, and are not estimated. , 2. Grants — Annual Average (net of Committed Grants) The estimate is based on the annual average of $4.2 million of grants received by the City , since 1990, other than grants for grade separation projects. The low estimate of $11.6 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, but the estimate is then reduced by $40.6 million of grants already committed (other than grants for grade separation projects,which are estimated separately). A high estimate of$63.9 million is based on 100 percent of the historical average,but the high ' estimate is also reduced by$40.6 million of grants already committed to City projects. The average of these values is $37.8 million. 3. Grants for Grade Separation Projects (net of Committed Grants) The low estimate of grants for grade separation projects is based on the annual average of t $2.7 million of grants received by the City since 2004 for grade separation projects. The low estimate of $17.8 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by $16.2 ' mullion of grants for grade separation that are already committed. A conservative high estimate of$73.3 million was based on 50 percent of the cost of the grade separation projects in the TMP, reduced by$16.2 million of grants already committed to City grade separation projects. The high estimate uses the cost of projects as the basis because the City's policy has been to only build grade separation projects if there is substantial funding , from grant sources. While the grants have typically covered 85 percent of the project cost, it is unlikely that grants will continue to fund grade separation projects at this level. A more conservative high estimate would be 50 percent, so the high estimate is now 50 percent of $179 million, reduced by $16.2 million of grants already committed to City grade separation projects for a high estimate of$73.3 million. ' Transportation 9-107 , 337 The net low estimate of grant revenue for grade separations is $17 8 million, and the net high estimate is $73.3 million. The average is $45.6 million. The City's match would need to come from City revenues, such as LIDs, transfers from the street fund, real estate excise tax,vehicle license fee for transportation benefit district, and/or a business license fee for transportation. 4. Local Improvement Districts (net of Committed LIDs) Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) have been a major source of transportation funding for the City during the past 20 years The City anticipates that LID's will continue to be used. The City will also continue to use its authority under law, including chapter 35.72 RCW and Chapter 6.05 KMC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the construction ' or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. Contracts may ' provide for LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available programs The estimate of future revenue from local improvement districts (LIDs) is based on the annual average of$3.18 million of LIDs established by the City since 1986 A low estimate of $35 2 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by $4.6 million of LIDs already committed. The high estimate of $75 0 million is based on 100% of the historical average, reduced by the $4.6 million of LIDs already committed to City projects. The net low estimate of LID revenue is $35.2 million, and the net high estimate is $75 0 million. The average is$55.1 million. 5. Transfer from Street Fund (net of committed funds) ' The City of Kent has a separate fund, the "Street Fund" in which it deposits a portion of the City's utility tax and all of the City's share of the state's tax on motor fuels. The Street Fund is used primarily for ongoing operating and maintenance expenses of the street system. 1 However, the City transfers a portion of the Street Fund money to the City's capital improvement program (CIP) for transportation projects. The estimate is based on the annual average of $0.8 million of Street Fund revenue budgeted to be transferred to the CIP and available for capital projects during the 2007 - 2012 CIP. In other words, the estimate is based on extending the 2007 - 2012 commitment for the whole 25 years of the TMP. Continued use of the Street Fund for capital improvements will reduce the amount of money in the Street Fund for the Pavement Management Program. A low estimate of $7.2 million is based on 50 percent of the historical average, reduced by $3.2 million of Street Fund money already committed. Transportation 9-108 331 r The high estimate of $17.6 million is based on 100 percent of the historical average, also reduced by$3.2 million of Street Fund money already committed. ' The average of these values is $12.4 million. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REVENUES A. Impact Fees — City of Kent ' The Growth Management Act created RCW 82.02.050 et seq. that authorizes impact fees for streets and roads. The fees must be based on, and used for, specific improvement projects in the Transportation Master Plan. The projects must be "system improvements" that provide service and benefits to the community, and not "project improvements" that provide service and benefits to individual developments. Impact fees are calculated by identifying the cost , of the road projects that serve new development, adjusting for other sources of revenue that would pay for part of the same projects, and then dividing the remaining cost by the number of trips that the road projects will accommodate. The result is the cost per trip. The amount of impact fee to be paid by each new development is calculated by multiplying the cost per trip times the number of trips that the new development will add to the roadway system. ' The forecast of impact fees assumes that they would supplement or replace the existing program of environmental mitigation fees. The City would continue to use the State ' Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to ensure that new development adequately mitigates its impacts on the transportation system. Impact fees can only be imposed if the City prepares and adopts an impact fee ordinance that , follows the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq. The estimates are based on forecasts of future growth from 2006 to 2030. The low estimate of $45.0 million is based on low to moderate impact fee rates charged by other cities in the area, and the high estimate of$180.0 million is based on initial estimates of ' the maximum amount the City of Kent could legally charge to new development for projects in the draft TMP. B. Impact Fees — Reciprocal from King County The reciprocal impact fees that could be received from King County are based on the same methodology as the impact fees for the City of Kent, but the growth forecasts are for the Potential Annexation Areas. The low estimate of $5.0 million is based on low to moderate impact fee rates charged by other cities in the area, and the high estimate of $10.0 million is based on estimates of the impact on Kent roads from development in King County and review of higher impact fee rates charged by other cities in the area. Transportation 9-109 ' 339 _ The fees would be negotiated with King County; the City would be required to raise its own impact fees in order to make reciprocal payments to the County. An alternative would be to pursue annexations and then charge Kent's mitigation fees (i.e., EMAs or impact fees) rather than to negotiate reciprocal payments from the County. C. Business License Fee for Transportation The cities of Renton and Redmond have used their authority to license businesses to impose a license fee that is used to build transportation improvements that benefit businesses. The fee would be on the basis of employee count or other measure of potential business impact on City facilities and demand on the transportation system The estimate below indicates how much revenue could be generated from a similar business license in Kent, using ' employee count as the measure, similar to the approaches in Renton and Redmond. The low estimate of $73.8 million uses a low estimate of 67,050 employees in Kent, the lower rate of $55 per employee count per year charged by Renton, and the lower portion of 80 percent of the license revenue committed to transportation by Renton. The high estimate of $98 7 million uses a higher estimate of 71,915 employees in Kent, Redmond's rate of$83.25 per employee count per year, and 66 percent of the license revenue committed to transportation by Redmond The Renton program began in the early 1980s to finance the Oaksdale Avenue underpass under I-5, then it was continued to fund other transportation projects. There was a sunset for the first ten years. The fee was developed after significant discussions with Boeing, the Chamber of Commerce, and other key businesses. A committee met every year to review the program. The City was able to leverage the money, typically obtaining $3.00 of state and federal money for every $1.00 of business license fee. After the initial 10 years, the business community felt that the City was putting the money to good use and agreed to continue the program, and to remove the sunset clause Renton s business license fee applies to for-profit businesses, so governments and non-profits do not pay. Renton's transportation money has been used for street projects. The Redmond program was developed in active consultation with the business community. The initial fee was authorized at $65 per employee per year between 1997 and 2000 The program was extended for 2001 to 2004 and the rate was increased to $67 50. The program was extended again for 2005 to 2006 and the rate was increased to $83.25. Some of the transportation money is used for transportation demand management and intelligent transportation programs. Transportation 9-110 341 D. Voted General Obligation Bonds The City of Kent can issue bonds to borrow money for a variety of purposes. The legal limit on such borrowing is an amount equal to 2.5% of the taxable value of the property in the City. In order to borrow the funds, and to authorize an additional property tax to repay the bonds, the City would be required to obtain approval by 60 percent or more of the voters. The estimates are based on remaining debt capacity of the City. The low estimate of$5.5 million is based on a bond issue of 10 percent of the remaining debt capacity, and the high estimate of$27.5 million is based on a bond issue of 50 percent of the City's remaining debt capacity. , Other potential projects may, or may not, compete for the City's borrowing capacity. If the City proposes a voted general obligation bond for the aquatic center, the bond could be , proposed under RCW 39.36.020 (4) for "... park factlities ..."and thus not use any of the statutory debt limit of the City under RCW 39.36.020 (2)(b), and thus preserve that authority for transportation. Furthermore, if the City were to propose a voted bond issue for specific transportation projects that support jobs, employment and the economy, the bond could be considered part of the borrowing authority of RCW 39.36.020 (4) for "... capital facilities associated with economic , development..." The City Attorney and/or bond counsel could provide information on applicability of these potential strategies. , E. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) The City of Kent has adopted both 0.25% real estate excise taxes (REET) authorized by the state law. REET is collected each time a real estate transaction occurs in the city. The money is used for many types of infrastructure improvements, including transportation projects. Kent uses half of its REET money for parks and recreation, and the other half for a variety of ' other capital improvements. This analysis does not change the REET for parks and recreation,but it does examine the potential revenue for transportation from the other half of the REET. The estimate is based on the annual average of $1.8 million the City receives for the half of REET that is not used for parks and recreation. While there is significant competition among Kent's capital projects for funding by REET, the City could choose to dedicate a portion of its REET for major transportation projects. , The low estimate of $4.5 million is based on 10 percent of the annual revenue, and the high estimate of$22.3 million is based on 50 percent of the annual revenue. Transportation 9-111 341 F. Vehicle License Fee for Transportation Benefit District ' In 2007, the legislature passed and the Governor signed a law authorizing a $20 vehicle license fee.z In order to obtain this revenue, the following would have to occur: 1 King County would have to decide to not impose the fee (County's have right of first refusal), or the County would need to adopt a program and share revenue with cities. 1 2. Kent would have to create a city-wide transportation benefit district as the entity that would charge or expend the fee. 3. Kent would have to identify specific transportation projects to be funded by the vehicle license fee. The projects must be necessitated by current or future congestion ' levels on roads of statewide or regional significance 4. Kent would need to ensure that the eligible project(s) are listed in a state or regional transportation plan. 5 The City would need to adopt the license fee, or enter into an agreement with King I County regarding sharing of the revenue from the County, including a provision that it would "sunset" when the project(s) were paid for. 1 The estimate is based on the $20 vehicle license fee and an estimate of the number of registered vehicles in Kent and assumptions about how much of the money would be used for TMP projects, as opposed to a portion that could be used for operations and maintenance (as allowed by the new law). The low estimate of$30.0 million is based on an estimate of 80,000 registered vehicles and 75 percent of the revenue being used for TMP projects The high estimate of $44.0 million is based on an estimate of 88,000 registered vehicles and 100 percent of the revenue being used for TMP projects TRANSIT FUNDING Operating funding for transit services primarily comes from local (regional) sales tax revenues, farebox revenues and in the case of Sound Transit, a Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. Capital funding primarily comes from federal grants. Metro bus service is allocated to three subareas of the County, the East, South, and West (Seattle/north suburban) subareas. The West subarea has 63 percent of the bus service, and the current Six-Year Transit Development Plan provides that every 200,000 hours of additional bus service will be '-The law authorizes a $20 per vehicle license fee using Council approval. An additional incremental fee tip to $80 per vehicle can be imposed with voter approval. ■ ■ Transportation 9-112 341 allocated among the three subareas on a 40:40:20 basis with the East and South subareas each receiving 40 percent of new service hours and the West subarea receiving 20 percent. ' The City of Kent currently contributes $21,265 annually toward the farebox replacement for the Shopper Shuttles. In 2006 the City paid $43,174 for 10 months of operation of the Commuter Shuttle. Estimated 2007 expenses are $70,250 to provide two additional runs, meeting up with the additional Sounder trains. ' IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Implementing the Transportation Master Plan will require close coordination among the City ' departments, along with key actions to be taken by the City Council. This chapter identifies the high priority implementation actions and their potential schedule. The TMP is a living document and as incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan will serve as the blueprint for transportation in Kent over the next several years. Realistically, the actions in the plan are most useful over the next three to five years, at which point a plan update will be required. Several implementation steps should be initiated over the next couple of years to determine if changes are needed, or to reaffirm a particular strategy. , ANNUAL MOBILITY REPORT CARD An annual mobility report card will be developed to document progress towards plan implementation and to monitor the transportation system performance. The City will use this information to provide accurate information to the public regarding the City's actions, and results, related to the TMP. The report card will also provide a basis for future updates of the TMP. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN REVIEW The TMP is adopted in summary into the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will be amended as needed as part of the City's regular Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The process ensures that proposed changes go through a public review process before the amended plan is adopted by the City Council. In ' preparation for the amendment cycle, the City will review the plan and propose updates as needed. These proposed updates may be due to shifts in City priorities, the availability of new information, or the relevance of certain plan components. , As part of the process, the City will review the future list of projects and update the Capital Facilities Plan as needed. The City will submit all changes into the Regional Transportation , Improvement Plan so that they can be evaluated by the regional air quality model and become eligible for federal grants. The City will also review and update the Policies and Transportation 9-113 t 343 _ Funding chapters, in order to remain consistent with the City's vision and current with 1 available funding strategies. GOALS AND POLICIES This Transportation Element and the TMP will guide the development and funding of a transportation network that will provide mobility for residents and employees within the City of Kent in a way that preserves the quality of life. Policies are established on how to prioritize the City's transportation improvements and how to identify the City's strategic interests in regional investments, adjacent transportation facilities and funding alternatives. The residents of Kent value specific attributes of our community, whether it is the economic vitality of the downtown area,the ease of mobility and safe streets, the quality of the schools, or the system of parks. These values are important; as they help the City Council and staff ' make decisions and manage the City. These values are integrated into the policies that guide the City and the evaluation criteria that are used to prioritize transportation improvement projects. The City's review of transportation goals and policies began with the TMP Task Force The I group developed statements that best described the type of future transportation system they envisioned for Kent. Community members also confirmed the core values that had been identified from the community interviews. These core values became the foundation for evaluating the proposed multi-modal transportation improvements. The previous transportation related principles, goals and policies were reviewed and revised 1 using input from the community and stakeholder interviews, the task force, and City Council members. The policies were revised to align with community values and maintain consistency with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Using the City's overall transportation goal as a base, several specific transportation system goals and policies were established. These goals and policies, described in the remainder of this chapter, provide guidance to implementing the Transportation Master Plan. 1 i 1 1 Transportation 9-114 341 Transportation and Land Use GOAL TR-1. COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO MEET ' THE NEEDS OF THE CITY CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. Policy TR-1.1: Work actively and cooperatively with state,regional and other South County jurisdictions to plan, design, fund and construct regional transportation projects that further the City's transportation and land use goals. Policy TR-1.2: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that transportation facilities are compatible with the type and intensity of land uses. Policy TR-1.3: Prohibit development approval if the proposed development would cause the level of service to fall below the City's adopted level of service standards, unless , improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Policy TR-1.4: Phase implementation of transportation plans with growth to allow ' adequate transportation facilities and services to be in place concurrent with development. Approval of new development will be dependent on the active participation of development ' property owners in the funding of the transportation improvements needed to maintain the City's level of service standards. The City may contract with owners of real estate for the , participation in LIDS, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for construction or improvement of street projects required for further property development. Policy TR-1.5: Use a "Plan-Based" approach as the basis for a multimodal transportation concurrency management system. A plan-based approach means that the funding of programs, construction of facilities, and provision of services occur as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and are proportionate with the pace of growth. Policy TR-1.6: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility and service capacity is sufficient to accommodate the new development. Policy TR-1.7: Prioritize those projects that improve transportation facilities and services within designated centers and along identified corridors connecting Centers; those that support the existing economic base and those that will aid the City attracting new investments to those centers. Policy TR-1.8: Ensure the transportation system is developed consistent with the anticipated development of the land uses and acknowledge the influence of providing transportation facilities to accelerate or delay the development of land uses, either by type or , by area. Transportation 9-115 345 Policy TR-1.9: Promote multimodal facilities and services, street design, and development that includes residential, commercial and employment opportunities within walking/bicycling distance so that distances traveled are shorter and there is less need for people to travel by automobile. Policy TR-1.10: Incorporate pedestrian and transit friendly design features into new ' development. Examples include: Orient entries of major buildings to the street and closer to transit stops rather 1 than to parking lots. • Avoid constructing large surface parking areas between the building frontage ' and the street Provide pedestrian pathways that provide convenient walking distances to activities and to transit stops. Cluster major buildings within developments to improve pedestrian and transit 1 access. • Provide weather protection such as covered walkways connecting buildings, and covered waiting areas for transit and ridesharing • Design for pedestrian safety, providing adequate lighting and barrier free pedestrian linkages. Provide bicycle connections and secure bicycle storage lockers convenient to major transit facilities. ' . Use design features to create an attractive, interesting and safe pedestrian environment that will encourage pedestrian use. ja Design transit access to large developments, considering bus stops and shelters as part of the project design • Encourage developers of larger commercial and public projects to provide restrooms for public use. Policy TR-1.11: Manage access to all residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial properties along principal, minor and collector arterials Consider consolidating access points whenever feasible during development review or design of road improvement Iprojects Transportation 9-116 341 Street System , GOAL TR-2: IDENTIFY A HIERARCHAL STREET CLASSIFICATION THAT IS DESIGNED TO BALANCE STREET CAPACITY NEEDS, COMPATIBILITY AND CONTEXT OF ADJACENT LAND USES, EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFORTS, NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL, AND MULTIMODAL USER SAFETY. Policy TR-2.1: Assign a functional classification to each street in the City based on factors ' including travel demand of motorized and non-motorized traffic, access to adjacent land use and connectivity of the transportation network. Policy TR-2.2: Preserve needed traffic capacity when planning street improvements by consistent application of functional classification standards. ' Policy TR-2.3: Establish procedures to implement the authority granted to the City by RCW 35.79 to inventory, evaluate, and preserve right-of-way needs for future transportation purposes, and wherever possible, make advance acquisition in order to minimize inconvenience to affected property owners and to safeguard the general public interest. Policy TR-2.4: Consider the context of adjacent land uses (existing and future), the benefits and desirability of non-motorized travel, and the competition for street space when reconstructing or adding streets. , Traffic Flow t GOAL TR-3: PRESERVE AND EXPAND CAPACITY, MOBILITY AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION MODES ON THE ARTERIAL NETWORK TO REDUCE CONGESTION. Policy TR-3.1: Maintain level of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Set LOS E as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard for the Pacific Highway (SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while recognizing WSDOT's LOS D for SR 99. Policy TR-3-2: Evaluate the City's transportation facilities annually to determine compliance with the adopted level of service standards and, as necessary, amend the Six- Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Policy TR-3-3: Maintain the flow of traffic on the road system and provide adequate access to adjacent land uses by using adopted Access Management strategies. These include: limiting the number of driveways (usually one per parcel); locating driveways away from intersections; connecting parking lots and consolidating driveways to create more pedestrian-friendly streets. Transportation 9-11 347 Policy TR-3.4: Use Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies to maximize the 1 efficiency of the existing street network; include techniques such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and synchronizing traffic signals to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow on the arterial street system. Policy TR-3.5: Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in support of mode-split goals and Commute Trip Reduction. Neighborhood Traffic GOAL TR-4: BALANCE THE DUAL GOALS OF PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN ' THE LOCAL STREET SYSTEM AND ENSURING NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SAFETY. Policy TR-4.1: Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic ' volumes. Policy TR-4.2: Minimize through traffic on residential streets by emphasizing through traffic opportunities on collector and arterial streets. Policy TR-4.3: Protect residential areas that are impacted by overflow traffic from the ' regional system. Policy TR-4.4: Enhance the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) to help residents identify and resolve neighborhood traffic concerns. Policy TR-4.5: Maintain a connected street network to give people more options and to spread out the traffic over more streets. Transportation Facility Design GOAL TR-5: DESIGN TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES USING CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN STRATEGIES TO PRESERVE AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS. Policy TR-5.1: Encourage landscapes at transportation facilities that complement ' neighborhood character and amenities, incorporate street trees in planting strips to improve air quality and visual aesthetics, and implement traffic calming strategies Policy TR-5.2: Separate pedestrians from traffic lanes on all arterials, wherever possible, by the use of street trees and landscaped strips, and avoid the construction of sidewalks next to street curbs. Policy TR-5.3: Maintain and incorporate prominent features of the natural environment ' when landscaping transportation facilities. Transportation 9-118 341 Policy TR-5.4: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential developments,neighborhood commercial centers, and recreation areas. Policy TR-5.5: Arrange streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods to form a grid network, providing multiple choices as to path and mode. Policy TR-5.6: Avoid the creation of excessively large blocks and long local access residential streets Freight Movement ' GOAL TR-6: SUPPORT KENT'S INDUSTRIAL VALLEY AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL CENTER AS A PRIMARY HUB FOR REGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT AND AS A GATEWAY FOR INTERNATIONAL GOODS DISTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL MARKETPLACE. Policy TR-6.1: Support investments in trucking and rail facilities to enhance the freight ' transportation system and strengthen the City's economic base. Policy TR-6.2: Establish a network of freight routes to improve freight reliability and mobility incorporating sensitivity to land use context into roadway design Policy TR-6.3: Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP Railroad, Washington Utilities and , Trade Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure maximum transportation efficiency on both roads and rails,while minimizing adverse impacts on the community. Policy TR-6.4: Locate new spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings and to serve a maximum number of sites. Policy TR-6.5: Provide, when feasible, grade-separated railroad crossings on arterial corridors to eliminate conflict between rail and road traffic and to enhance the safety and efficiency of both transportation systems. Policy TR-6.6: Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at-grade crossings. Develop traffic signal preemption that is activated by crossing signals in order to maintain non-conflicting auto/truck traffic flow and to facilitate clearing of the grade crossings prior to when crossings are occupied by trains. Transportation 9-119 349 ■ ■ Non-Motorized Transportation GOAL TR-7: IMPROVE THE NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONNECTING SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES AND SHARED-USE PATHS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE INCREASED USAGE AND SAFE TRAVEL. Policy TR-7.1: Implement the Non-Motorized system in a way that reflects the priorities identified by the public process. Emphasize completion of sidewalks identified as the highest-high priority (shown in Figure 6-6) and bicycle facilities identified on the Bicycle System Map (shown in figure 6-11). 1 Policy TR-7.2: Provide non-motorized facilities including signage within all areas of the City to connect land use types, facilitate trips made by walking or bicycling, and reduce the 1 need for automobile trips Policy TR-7.3: Create a comprehensive system of pedestrian facilities using incentives and regulations All future development should include pedestrian and bicycle comnections to schools, parks, community centers, public transit services, neighborhoods and other services. Provide special attention to the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding the location and design of sidewalks and crosswalks. Policy TR-7.4: Encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs will educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving,bicycling, and walking. Policy TR-7.5: Encourage an increase in the percent of modal share of commuter trips made by cyclists by the year 2030 by fostering an environment that eliminates deterrents to bicycling and encourages bicycle use city-wide for all types of trips. Policy TR-7.6: Consider needs of bicyclists and pedestrians when developing design plans for City street construction projects consistent with the City's bicycle system plan and Construction Standards. Policy TR-7.7: Encourage the installation of safe and secure bicycle parking facilities at park and ride facilities, tram/transit stations, shopping malls, office buildings, and all land use types that attract the general public. Policy TR-7.8: Work with the Kent, the Federal Way, the Highline school districts and 1 neighborhood associations to support programs that encourage walking and bicycling to local schools. 1 Transportation 9-120 351 Policy TR-7-9: Encourage efforts that inform the public about the health effects of cycling and walking. Encourage walking and cycling for travel and recreation to achieve personal ' health and well-being and to support a more healthful environment for the community by reducing noise and pollution. Policy TR-7.10: Encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on bicycle safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. . Transit and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) GOAL TR-8: ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF ALTERNATIVES TO SINGLE-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES. Policy TR-8.1: Work with regional transit providers to resolve the transit needs identified in the TMP and provide high quality travel options for local residents, employees, students, visitors,business, and other users of local and regional facilities. Policy TR-8.2: Work with regional transit providers to establish a hierarchy of transit services focused on three major elements: • Kent-Kent Connections j • Kent-South County Connections • Kent-Regional Connections Policy TR-8.3: Emphasize transit service and capital investments that provide mobility and access within the City of Kent and make it possible for residents to access local services and support local businesses while reducing their travel by auto. Policy TR-8.4: Work with transit providers to maintain and expand direct and frequent regional bus routes. Policy TR-8.5: Develop a network of park and ride facilities in cooperation with regional transit providers and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Work to ensure that the regional transit system includes park and ride lots in outlying areas,which could: • Intercept trips by SOVs closer to the trip origins, • Reduce traffic congestion, and • Reduce total vehicle miles traveled Transportation 9-121 t r 351 Policy TR-8.6: Secure a share of regional transit system facilities and service priorities for Kent residents proportional to the City of Kent's contributed share of regional transit revenues Policy TR-8.7: Coordinate with transit providers to enhance transit service information and provide incentives to encourage and facilitate transit use and ridesharing. Policy TR-8.8: Develop the Kent Transit Center with complete set of transit center amenities, including timed transfers between most routes, passenger waiting areas, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) bus arrival notification, on-site route information, and other amenities. Policy TR-8.9: Coordinate with transit providers and other transportation agencies in the design and placement of bus shelters and transit supportive facilities that are needed at both ends of the transit trip when the transit rider becomes a pedestrian or a bike rider. These 1 include but are not limited to transit shelters, bike racks or lockers, good (illuminated) pedestrian paths to and from transit stops and covered walkways wherever possible. Work with transit agencies and developers to design transit facilities that are compatible with neighborhood character. Policy TR-8.10: Work with employers to provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures in the workplace that promote alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOV). The City will lead by example by implementing a successful Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program for City employees. Policy TR-8.11: Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in support 1 of mode-split goals. These include, but are not limited to, parking management, individualized marketing, ridesharing and support of non-motorized travel. Policy TR-8.12: Work with private developers and transit providers to integrate transit facilities into residential, retail, manufacturing, commercial, office and other types of development using the following actions. Support transit by including land uses with mixed-use and night-time activities; Support transit-oriented development opportunities with the private and public sectors; • Integrate multiple access modes, including buses, carpools,vanpools,bicycles and pedestrians; Support and facilitate transit use by choice of urban design and community character. Transportation 9-122 351 i Funding GOAL TR-9: PURSUE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALL ' POTENTIAL SOURCES IN AN EFFICIENT AND EQUITABLE MANNER. Policy TR-9.1: Consider the full range of public and private funding sources available for all modes of transportation. Policy TR-9.2: Allow for funding of growth-related traffic improvements by impact fees or other mechanisms that apportion costs in relation to the impact of new development. Policy TR-9.3: Identify and evaluate alternative land use and transportation scenarios, including assumptions about levels and distribution of population and employment densities, types and mixes of land use, and transportation facilities and services, and assess their effects on transportation funding needs. Policy TR-9.4: Support regional, state and federal initiatives to increase transportation funding. The City will also continue to use its authority under law, including chapter 35.72 RCW and Chapter 6.05 KMC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the construction or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. Contracts may provide for LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available programs. Policy TR-9.5: Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships, such as Local Improvement Districts (LID), Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD), Transportation Benefit Zones (TBZ), and Transportation Management Associations (TMA) to help pay for transportation improvements. The City may contract with owners of real estate for the participation in LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for construction or improvement of street projects required for further property development. Policy TR-9.6: Establish a mechanism to provide a multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements, participate in joint ventures and promote them to improve inter-jurisdictional transportation systems. Policy TR-9.7: Create a funding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact on the City's transportation system of growth outside the City's boundaries. Policy TR-9.8: Emphasize investments for the preservation and enhancement of the existing transportation facilities. Seek funding from a variety of sources and consider pursuing new revenue opportunities for roadway maintenance and improvements to encourage non-SOV modes of travel. Transportation 9-123 353 rIntergovernmental Coordination GOAL TR-10: COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS, PLANNING, AND IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE STATE, THE COUNTY, NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS, AND ALL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE CITY'S INTERESTS ARE WELL REPRESENTED IN REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND PROJECTS. Policy TR-10.1: Emphasize City representation on planning boards that have authority over or can affect the City's transportation system. Policy TR-10.2: Identify opportunities to partner with neighboring jurisdictions, regional transit agencies, or other agencies in order to improve funding opportunities from state, federal or other grant providers. Policy TR-10.3: Coordinate planning for developments that impact transportation level-of- service across jurisdictional boundaries. Policy TR-10.4: Support intergovernmental programs that emphasize regional mobility for people and goods, promote the urban center approach to growth management, and seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy TR-10.5: Coordinate with state, regional and neighboring agencies to encourage pass-through traffic to by-pass downtown Kent, thus reducing unnecessary air pollution and congestion. Policy TR-10.6: Support innovative transportation system management strategies such as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes that help keep the regional traffic on the freeways rather than spilling over onto the City arterials Environmental Preservation GOAL TRA 1. ENSURE THAT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE DEVELOPED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND SUPPORT A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MINIMIZES ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Policy TR-11-1: Minimize levels of harmful pollutants generated by transportation-related construction, operations, and maintenance activities from entering surface and groundwater resources. Policy TRA 1.2: Improve management strategies to reduce contamination from street runoff and stormwater Coordinate these efforts with other jurisdictions, as well as regional and state agencies. Transportation 9-124 351 Policy TR-11.3: Ensure that transportation-related improvement projects comply with state and federal guidelines for air and water quality. Policy TR-11.4: Promote energy conservation and greenhouse gas reductions by implementing TDM goals and policies and Commute Trip Reduction strategies. 1 I 1 Transportation 9-125 355 r r �arE � S 1 4n J a' f� rrz 6 3 _ � T - t � 367 AGENDAS & MEMOS FROM THE � APRIL 14, APRIL 28 & MAY 12 - 2008 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS f i 1 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director KENT PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W A 5 H I N G T O N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 May 27, 2008 TO: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Planning & Economic Development Committee Members From: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Kent Comprehensive Plan - Amendments of Transportation Element and adoption of 2008 Transportation Master Plan For Meeting of June 9, 2008 Item A. MOTION: I move to approve/deny/modify the recommendations of the Land Use & Planning Board to amend the Transportation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, incorporate the 2008 Transportation Master Plan by reference into the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and adopt same by ordinance. Item B. MOTION: I move to approve/deny/modify the recommendations of the Land Use & Planning Board to adopt the 2008 City of Kent Transportation Master Plan and adopt same by ordinance. SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on May 12, 2008, the Land Use & Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan by accepting all of the updates to the Transportation Element (Chapter 9) and incorporating the 2008 City of Kent Transportation Master Plan by reference as recommended by staff. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In 2005, funds were budgeted for a multi-year, multi- phase, planning effort related to a master plan for transportation. It is intended that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will be adopted concurrently with an amendment to the Transportation Element (TE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Master Plan is based upon and supports the City's Land Use Plan as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. f� The source document referred to in the existing Transportation Element is the Comprehensive Transportation Plan which was adopted in 1984, prior to the Growth Management Act. The Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Element which are before you tonight are the result of almost two years' work with resident and business volunteers who were involved in a task force to update the 1984 plan. The City Council's Strategic Goals and the Task Force's list of Community Values are factored Into decisions in the TMP and TE. The TMP is a 20-year plan which will be updated every 5 years. The TE will , be updated with the regular cycle of the Clty's Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) held two workshops on April 14 and 28, 2008. They reviewed both of these documents and specifically considered the changes in language and intent of the Goals and Policy section of the transportation element. They then held a public hearing on May 12, 2008 and unanimously recommended approval of both documents. Staff will be available at the June 9th committee meeting to further discuss these items. CA/CM/pmS\Permt�Plan\COMP PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2008\CPA-2008-1_TransportabonMasterPlan�PEDC\06-09-08_PEDC TMPmemoFnl doc Attach. 2008 Transportation Master Plan and the Transportation Element TMP and TE Draft Ordinances Agendas & Memos from the April 14, April 28 and May 121h LUPB meetings Public Comment letters and City Staff Replies SEPA Addendum and Adoption documents CD containing resource documents used as technical background cc. Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, CD Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Project File June 9, 2008 Page 2 of 2 PEDC Meeting TMP and TE 369 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager - KENT wnsHINGT0N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP APRIL 14, 2008 7:00 P.M. LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS: CITY STAFF Jon Johnson, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Dana Ralph, Vice Chair Cathy Mooney,Sr.Transportation Planner Steve Dowell Kim Adams Pratt, Assist City Attorney Alan Gray Aleanna Kondelis Jack Ottini Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Workshop on MONDAY, April 14, 2008 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers West at 7:00 p.m. No public testimony is taken at workshops, although the public is welcome to attend. The workshop agenda will include the following item(s): CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan (Charlene Anderson) Discussion of an amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan related to adoption of the Transportation Master Plan. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City In Advance for more Information. For TDD relay service for Brallle, call 1-800-833-6385. For TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at (253) 856-5499 (TDD) or the main line at (253) 856-5454 For further Information or a copy of the staff memorandum contact the Planning Services office at (253) 856-5454. Please access the City's Website: http:11www.ci.kent.wa.us/tmp/mdex.asp. for Transportation Master Plan documents. PM S �Permt�Plan\LUPB\2008\AGENDAS\041408LUPBWkshp_Agda doc 371 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 40 PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W AS HI N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ' April 7, 2008 TO: Chair Jon Johnson and Land Use and Planning Board Members j FROM: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner RE: #CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan ' SUMMARY: In 2005, funds were budgeted for a multi-year, multi-phase, planning effort related to a master plan for transportation. It is intended that the Transportation Master Plan will be adopted concurrently with an amendment to the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Draft TMP is based upon and supports the City's Land Use Plan as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The source document referred to in the existing Transportation _ Element is the Comprehensive Transportation Plan which was adopted in 1984, prior to the Growth Management Act. The Draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which is currently under review (copies delivered to you and also available online) is a result of almost two years of work with resident and business volunteers who were involved in a task force to update the 1984 plan. The City Council's Strategic Goals and the Task Force's list of Community Values are factored into decisions in the TMP. The essential elements of this TMP will be extracted to create the new Transportation Element which will be presented to you at your next workshop. The TMP is a 20-year plan which will be updated every 5 years. There is an implementation element to this plan (Chapter 10) based on a 3 to 5 year schedule, giving the City an opportunity to make strategic and timely adjustments. Mobility plays a large role in the standard of living for residents and the economic vitality of businesses. A well-balanced, well-maintained transportation system is critical for sustaining Kent's high quality of life, and resources are limited. Trade- offs must be made as we factor in cost of improvements. Staff will talk about these trade-offs at the workshop. There will also be a short presentation at the workshop which will go over the early outreach efforts in more detail and provide an overview of the structure of the document and each modal study. CM,pm S �Permit�Plan\COMP PLAN_AMENDMENTS�2008�CPA-2008-1_TransportationMasterPlan�041408_LUPBWrkshpMemo doc 373 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 111� '00' PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. ' Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP APRIL 28, 2008 7.00 P.M. LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS: CITY STAFF Jon Johnson, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Dana Ralph, Vice Chair Cathy Mooney, Sr.Transportation Planner Steve Dowell Kim Adams Pratt, Assist City Attorney Alan Gray Aleanna Kondelis Jack Ottini Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Workshop on MONDAY, April 28, 2008 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers West at 7:00 p.m. No public testimony is taken at workshops, although the public is welcome to attend. The workshop agenda will include the following item(s): CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan (Charlene Anderson) Discussion of revisions to the Transportation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Master Plan will be incorporated by reference into the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City In Advance for more information. For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing Impaired, call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at (253) 856- 5499 (TDD) or the main line at (253) 856-5454. For further Information or a copy of the staff memorandum contact the Planning Services office at (253) 856-5454. Check the following Website: http://www ci.kent wa.us/plannin _index,asn, for avallable documents. S�Pe—,t�Plz,�LUPB�2008�AGENDAS\042808LUPBWkshp_Agda d— s 375 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director ' PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W AS HI NGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 21, 2008 TO: Chair Jon Johnson and Land Use and Planning Board Members FROM: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner RE: #CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan SUMMARY: In 2005, funds were budgeted for a multi-year, multi-phase, planning effort related to a master plan for transportation. It is intended that the Transportation Master Plan will be adopted concurrently with an amendment to the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Draft TMP is based upon and supports the City's Land Use Plan as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is proposing a revision to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include a summary of the relevant sections of the TMP. BACKGROUND: At the April 14th meeting, staff presented to the Land Use & Planning Board the proposed Transportation Master Plan. At the April 28th meeting, we will discuss the proposed amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In the agenda packet is the proposed amendment, which is generally a summary of the TMP. Also included in the packet is a notated version of the existing goals and policies in the Transportation Element; you will notice that most of the same concepts are in the proposed update. There are also several new goals and policies: TR-1.1, TR-1.6, TR-2.2, TR-2.4, TR-3.2, TR-4.2, TR-4.5, TR- 5.2, TR-6.1, TR-7.8, TR-7.9, TR-8.2, TR-8.4, TR-8.6, TR-9.3, TR-9.8, TR-10.5, TR- a 10.6, TR-11 and subsequent policies related to Environmental Preservation. - Staff also proposes to revise some of the goals and policies in both the Transportation Element and the TMP that were presented to you at the last workshop. These include TR-1.4, TR-2.4, new TR-3.5, TR-5, TR-5.5, TR-6, TR-6.3, TR-7.2, TR-7.3, TR-7.6, TR-7.7, TR-8.7, TR-9.4, TR-9.5 and TR-11.4. A text change also is proposed in both documents to expand the transportation funding options. Staff will be present at the workshop to further discuss the proposed amendments. CM:pm S.�Permit�Plan\COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS�2008�CPA-2008-1_TransportationMasterP/an�LUPB�042808 LUPBWrkshpMemo doc 377 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 4/21/08 Overall Goal: Provide for a balanced multimodal transportation system which will support current and projected land use patterns and provide an adequate level of transportation service. N ------- __ _ w TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City consistent with the Growth Management Act. � Policy TR-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges. Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is suffic-ient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to proceed. Policy TR-1.3: Fund development of the roads necessary for a complete arterial system serving all travel needs in the City and potential annexation area through participation by new residential, commercial, and industrial development. 1;s' ' Policy TR-1.4: Manage access along all principal and minor arterial corridors, and access points to residential, commercial, and industrial development. Consolidate access points during development review, as 1 part of road Improvement projects, or as part of land use redevelopment projects. ' _- - - - - - Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. 1 Transportation Element 9-1 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 371 4/21/08 Policy TR-1.6: Phase implementation of transportation plans concurrently with growth to allow adequate transportation facilities and services to be in place concurrent with development, or, if the transportation network cannot be expanded to accommodate the adopted land use plan and the adopted level-of-service, for financial, geographic, or other reasons, re-examine land use, level-of-service, and economic inputs to establish a balance. ` a� t R--1." � :i Policy TR-1.7: Ensure the transportation system is developed consistent with the anticipated development of the land uses, and acknowledge the influence of provid-ing transportation facilities to accelerate or delay the development of land uses, either by type or area._( ;--:`. I Policy TR-1.8: Promote land use patterns which support public transportation and ensure the development includes transit-friendly features. ;redsee ":` a? ) STREET SYSTEM GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-2: Provide a balanced transportation system that recognizes the need for major road improvements to accommodate multiple travel modes. Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable circulation for all users throughout the City. `R l'#'SeG' see TR-21 and is w e Policy TR-2.1: Assign a functional classification to each street in the City based on factors including travel demand of motorized and non-motorized traffic, access to adjacent land use and connectivity of the transportation network. Policy TR-2.2: Coordinate implementation of street construction standards for each functional classification with policies in the Transportation Element to provide attractive, safe facilities that complement the adjacent land use. TRAFFIC FLOW GOALS & POLICIES Transportation Element 9-2 ' TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 379 4/21/08 1 Goal TR-3: Reduce disruptions which degrade the safety and reasonable functioning of the local transportation system._ . _e-s Policy TR-3.1: Develop strategies to improve smooth traffic flows in areas 1 experiencing extreme congestion by employing strategies that better accommodate various modes of travel including automobiles, transit, trains, pedestrian and bicycle modes. _ � Policy TR-3.2: Develop a system of level-of-service standards which promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing trans-portation system. ��, ,,,=.i ess=:�_ 77D, Policy TR-3.3: Establish a network of heavy commercial freight routes to ensure the mobility of goods and services, as well as of people, and to improve the reliability of freight mobility. J u Policy TR-3.4: Utilize adopted Access Management techniques to preserve the flow of traffic on the road system while providing adequate access to adjacent land uses. These could include: limit the number of driveways (usually one per parcel); locate driveways away from intersections; and connect parking lots and consolidate driveways to create more pedestrian- oriented street design and encourage efficiency of both land uses and the adjacent transportation system. Policy TR-3.5: Work with major institutions, Activity Centers, and employers via Commute Trip Reduction Program and the promotion of alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use to reduce congestion and enhance safety. 4 ,' Policy TR-3.6: Continue to place emphasis on Transportation System Management techniques such as intelligent transportation systems and synchronization of traffic signals to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow on the arterial street system. °=�� ; i r -3,4 Transportation Element 9-3 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 381 4/21/08 Goal TR-4: Balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street system and ensuring neighborhood safety.,Satne, Policy TR-4.1: Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. '_ <��_�? Policy TR-4.2: Where overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts neighborhoods, protect the residential area. a Policy TR-4.3: Enhance the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) to help residents identify and resolve neighborhood traffic concerns. ,41, FACILITY DESIGN GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-5: Design transportation facilities to preserve and to be consistent with the natural and built environments._, `Sa,,i7y Policy TR-5.1: Landscape transportation facilities to complement neighborhood character and amenities, incorporating street trees in planting strips to improve air quality and visual aesthetics as well as implementing traffic calming effects. ? � a , � `,.I I Policy TR-5.2: Maintain and incorporate prominent features of the natural environment into the landscape of transportation facilities. T- Policy TR-5.3: Arterial improvements inside or adjacent to neighborhoods should employ Context Sensitive Design strategies to balance the mobility needs of the community with neighborhood cohesiveness. (2 ? �yL=.,,, Transportation Element 9-4 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 381 4/21/08 Policy TR-5.4: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential developments, neighborhood commercial centers, recreation areas, and to serve as an alternative to automobile use._� °: ° . Policy TR-5.5: Arrange streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods to form a grid network, providing multiple choices as to path and mode. Policy TR-5.6: Foster connectivity of new development with the surrounding neighborhood, allowing cul-de-sacs where appropriate. Policy TR-5.7: When designing signalized intersections, consider acquiring the right of way for potential right turn lanes to meet the future demand. RAIL GOALS & POLICIES 1 Goal TR-6: Maintain existing rail service to commercial and industrial sites. xr,;r ~»�h Policy TR-6.1: Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP Railroad, Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure maximum transportation efficiency on both roads and rails. :r < r .. � Policy TR-6.2: Locate new spur tracks to provide a minimum number of istreet crossings and to serve a maximum number of sites. _ TrR Policy TR-6.3: Minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjoining residential property. w� � Policy TR-6.4: Provide, when feasible, grade-separated railroad crossings on arterial corridors to eliminate conflict between rail and road traffic and to Transportation Element 9-5 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 381 4/21/08 enhance the safety and efficiency of both transportation systems. 3 �a Policy TR-6.5: Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at-grade crossings. Develop traffic signal preemption that is ' activated by crossing signals in order to maintain non-conflicting, auto/truck traffic flow and to facilitate clearing of the grade crossings prior to when crossings are occupied by trains. NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-7: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel, and promote the use of non-motorized transportation. Policy TR-7.1: Provide non-motorized facilities within all areas of the City. and see Policy TR-7.2: Use incentives or regulations to encourage new construction to promote pedestrian and bicycle connections to schools, parks, community centers, public transit services and facilities, and neighborhoods and other services. : :: .1_l � Policy TR-7.3: Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, establish trails to connect neighborhoods when roads cannot practically be constructed due to environmental concerns. � 1 Policy TR-7.4: Establish a network of bicycle routes within the City to connect those land uses likely to produce significant concentrations of bicycle usage. Work with interested parties in the planning of such a network. w( - .f Policy TR-7.5: Provide visibility and promote safe crossings for pedestrians and bicycles where streets intersect with rail facilities, trails, paths and all Transportation Element 9-6 383 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 4/21/08 J areas where pedestrians and/or bicycle movements are encouraged. s Policy TR-7.6: Whenever practical, provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit stops. ----_______ ____ _ ___ ________�__ __ Policy TR-7.7: Sign street intersections of streets with major non-motorized trails for both trail users and street users. = _ �� ;ec- t '' Policy TR-7.8: Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, encourage bicycle storage facilities with adequate lighting at residential development projects, park and rides lots, employment and industrial centers, schools, Activity Centers and retail areas. zy,t,gr; -F Policy TR-7.9: Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, encourage employers to provide clothing change facilities to facilitate bicycle and walking commute alternatives by including appropriate facilities at the worksites. - -` ' Policy TR-7.10: Promote the use of non-motorized travel through bicycle safety programs addressing pedestrian and bicycle travel. -�� :° �" Policy TR-7.11: Implement a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle signage program for directional information, identification of on/off street routes, and a printed non-motorized factltties map. -..,r -- -s�._,z_ ° e Policy TR-7.12: City standards for transportation facilities shall incorporate bicycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly design elements wherever possible. Policy TR-7.13: Ensure that trail systems located in sensitive or conservation areas are compatible with the environment in which the trail is located as well as with the intended uses. flu IUM Transportation Element 9-7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 381 4/21/08 Policy TR-7.14: Create a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the City of Kent to define specific goals and priorities for the non-motorized transportation system. this 1" .. is soccu �irr-1�.�,�.°`�� ',��!an of TRANSIT/HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-8: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. _s ' Policy TR-8.1: Work with regional transit providers to provide frequent, coordinated, and comprehensive public transit services and facilities in all residential and employment areas in the Kent Planning Area. (Public transit services and facilities include train service, bus service, vanpool services, vanshare services, Dial-A-Ride, Access, park and ride lots, car-sharing services, as well as marketing/promotional activities for all the above). Policy TR-8.2: Emphasize transit investments that provide mobility and ' access within the community and make it possible for citizens to access local services and support local businesses while reducing auto-dependent travel._Jt ,?11 sed---.oo ;i - . ) Policy TR-8.3: Provide the non-Central Business District, residential portion of the transit system with parking, via park and ride lots or shared-use parking facilities, and provide convenient walking paths to connect residential development with transit service, _'Revised -- (Lonc ws loccaled ?�_ ,�W- Policy TR-8.4: Develop criteria for a network of park-and-ride lots to serve residential areas which feed into the regional transit system/commuter rail line located downtown. (Revised— cony,=earls ,-,(,ate in TR-- ,, ) _. _ �..__._..__..�_.... .des Transportation Element 9-8 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 385 4/21/08 1 �I Policy TR-8.5: Coordinate park-and-ride facilities located near downtown with downtown parking programs for merchants and shoppers. __x ■ Policy TR-8.6: Work with Washington State Department of Transportation �j and regional transit providers to identify appropriate sites for a network of park and ride lots which feed into the regional transit system. 0 w; :�'r! iPolicy TR-8.7: Support the completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials which give high-occupancy vehicles reliable travel times. Policy TR-8.8: Promote measures to increase the use of high-occupancy vehicles, public transit, and non-motorized travel modes among employers located within the City who are not required to comply with commute trip reduction. s_` _� ,, . ��µ= ��" _� r r � -8,7 6 0 Policy TR-8.9: Promote employer strategies and educational efforts that shift travel demand to off-peak travel periods. _tz t�nf Policy TR-8.10: Support Transportation System Management programs and ser-vices which improve travel time reliability and transit's ability to compete with single-occupant-vehicle travel times. ,` FUNDING GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-9: Pursue funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. �. } Transportation Element 9-9 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS 381 4/21/08 Policy TR-9.1: Allow for funding of growth-related traffic improvements pro- portionately by impact fees or other mechanisms that apportion costs in relation to impact charged to new development. -T '-"�.,`� Policy TR-9.2: Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships, such as Transportation Benefit Zones (TBZ), Transportation Benefits Districts (TBD), and Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) to help pay for transportation improvements or strategies that reduce/manage travel demand._ r3. :use` , T -8 12 an.1 �""" 0 P53' Policy TR-9.3: Pursue federal, state and local sources of funding (e.g., loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. a' , Policy TR-9.4: Establish a mechanism to provide multi jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements, participate in joint ventures and promote them to improve inter jurisdictional transportation systems. Policy TR-9.5: Create a funding mechanism which can be applied across bound-aries to address the impact on the City's transportation system of growth outside the City limits. L (,,� R-,,, Policy TR-9.6: Pursue agreements with surrounding jurisdictions to mitigate transportation impacts that occur beyond the permitting jurisdiction. iRell s> d— see _P,-J.-�' T R--1 .2 and _0 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS & POLICIES Goal TR-10: Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and improvements with the State, the County, neighboring jurisdictions, and all transportation planning agencies to ensure the City's interests are well represented in regional planning strategies, policies and projects. Policy TR-10.1: Emphasize City of Kent representation on planning boards which have authority or effects on the City's transportation system. ff Transportation Element 9-10 387 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS & POLICIES COMPARISONS _ 4/21/08 Policy TR-10.2: Look for opportunities to partner with regional transit agencies and neighboring jurisdictions in order to improve funding opportunities from state, federal or other grant providers._ -'` ' Policy TR-10.3: Work with neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate planning for development which impacts transportation level-of-service across jurisdictional boundaries.-- :,,,,-,,--;--�s 1 ' Policy TR-10.4: Promote joint funding of projects with the State, the County, and neighboring jurisdictions for projects serving multiple interests and supporting regional growth plans. -7, ' Policy TR-10.5: Coordinate with the County and neighboring jurisdictions to im-plement concurrency strategies and provide for mitigation of shared traffic ' impacts through street improvements, signal improvements, intelligent transportation systems improvements, transit system improvements, and/or transportation demand management strategies. S\Permit\Plan\COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS\2008\CPA-2008- 1—Transportation MasterPlan\LUPB\Goals_PoliciesExisting doc 1 Transportation Element 9-11 389 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 100 PLANNING SERVICES KCharlene Anderson, AICP, Manager ENT wASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD HEARING MAY 12, 2008 7:00 P.M. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS: CITY STAFF ' Jon Johnson, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Dana Ralph, Vice Chair Kim Adams Pratt, Asst City Attorney Steve Dowell Cathy Mooney, Sr. Transp Planner Alan Gray Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Aleanna Kondelis Jack Ottini Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing in lieu of their regularly scheduled workshop on MONDAY, May 12, 2008 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 41h Avenue South, Kent at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend and all interested persons may have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this proposed amendment may do so prior to or ' at the meeting. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of Minutes from the September 24, 2007 Meeting 4. Added Items to Agenda 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan Revisions to the Transportation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Master Plan will be incorporated by reference into the Kent Comprehensive Plan. ' Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City In Advance for more information. For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800-833- 6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at(253)856-5499(TDD). For further Information or a copy of ' the staff memorandum contact the PlannIng Services office at (253) 656-5454. Check httpa/wwvv.ci,kent.wa,us/plannrng/laoduseplannrngboard for a variable documents. 5 lPermitIPlan)LUPBJ20081AGENDA51051208LUPSHig Agda doc 391 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 12, 2008 ' BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT/ABSENT: Chair Jon Johnson - Absent/Excused, Vice-Chair Dana Ralph, Steve Dowell, Alan Gray, Aleanna Kondelis, Jack Ottini, Barbara Phillips STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT; Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, William Osborne, Cathy Mooney, Steve Mullen Approval of Minutes Dowell MOVED and Gray SECONDED a Motion to APPROVE the Minutes of ' September 24, 2007 Motion PASSED 6-0. Added Items, Communications, Notice of Upcoming Meetings None #CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Element Planning Manager Charlene Anderson introduced Senior Transportation Planner Cathy Mooney as the lead planner on the update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan including adoption of a Transportation Master Plan. ' Anderson spoke about the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, and five comment letters that she requested be entered in the record. Senior Transportation Planner Cathy Mooney gave a Power Point presentation explaining the process for developing the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the 1 Transportation Element (TE) of the Comprehensive Plan [a condensed version of the TMP]. Mooney stated that the TMP addresses Kent's public outreach efforts, history, background development, future plan implementation trends, the transportation system, public outreach efforts, goals and policies, modal plans which include Streets, Non-Motorized [sidewalks and bicycle systems] and transit plans, demand management, funding strategies and implementation. Mooney stated that the public outreach efforts included interviewing a variety of interest groups, holding stakeholders meetings, producing two newsletters which were mailed to every home and business, establishing a website, and creating a ' task force comprised of community volunteers who represented a variety of age, ethnic, economic, mobility and special interest groups. Mooney stated that a professional firm conducted a scientific survey for Kent. She stated that staff conducted an informal survey through Kent's TMP web site to allow people to express their concerns and priorities. Land Use and Planning Board 1 of 5 Minutes May 12, 2008 39J Mooney stated that a number of the TMP's Goals and Policies are similar to those in the existing Kent Comprehensive Plan, previously discussed with the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) at a workshop. Mooney stated that the street system serves as the backbone for all transportation activities in Kent. She discussed which of Kent's arterial networks carry the highest traffic volumes. Mooney stated that Kent projects the majority of traffic growth on SR-167 and I-5, citing traffic increases on Hwy 99 and Kent-Kangley, 132"d, 2401n, 116th and the Benson. ' Mooney described how Kent's local and regional growth projections will affect Kent's transportation facilities. She described predicted employment growth. Mooney stated that Kent looked at the level of service on several corridors. She described "Level of Service" (LOS) as a grading system using 'A-F. Mooney spoke , about existing and future levels of service, referencing the TMP document. Mooney stated that as the year 2030 approaches, staff has made recommendations which include: street widening, new streets, intersection projects, railroad grade separations and traffic management strategies to improve levels of service. She stated that a LOS-E is an acceptable recommended standard for the future. Mooney stated that the TMP identifies a number of industrial truck routes not included in the previous plan. ' Mooney stated that staff conducted an exercise to prioritize future projects. She stated that staff identified projects that would: likely attract grant dollars from outside funding sources, improve safety, be environmentally sound, and protect neighborhoods. Mooney stated that the cost for street projects is estimated at $500 million dollars; citing 50 percent for street widening projects, 30 percent for railroad grade separations, 20 percent in new streets and intersection improvements. Mooney stated that the high priority pedestrian projects [sidewalk repair or construction} are located near or within the downtown area and along major arterials. She stated that the medium priority pedestrian projects focus on making improved connections between neighborhoods and serving many of the transit routes throughout the City. Mooney stated that through a series of open houses, the community voiced a desire to see more sidewalks and transit facilities in Kent which is doable if spread out ' over a 20 year period. Mooney stated that the Bicycle System Plan looks at three basic types of bicycle facilities: Shared use paths such as the Interurban Trail, the Green River Trail, and the Soos Creek Trail; specially marked bicycle lanes or wider shared lanes that would accommodate both vehicular traffic and bicycles. Land Use and Planning Board 2 of 5 Minutes May 12, 2008 393 Mooney stated that a consultant group, along with the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board, Kent police bicyclists, commuter and recreational bicyclists, worked to develop a network of recommended bicycle facilities that would link most of the neighborhood and business areas within Kent. Mooney stated that bike lanes also will be built as part of street projects with a projected cost of over $36 million dollars. She stated that staff has created the first bicycle facilities plan that completes and connects the entire city. Mooney stated that the cost for new signage, shared-lanes, and an additional six mile extension to the Green River Trail is estimated to cost over 2 million dollars or approximately $111,700 dollars annually over a 20 year period. Mooney stated that Kent is in desperate need of more frequent and reliable transit ' service in order to reduce vehicle trips and make transit a viable alternative. Mooney stated that the TMP offers recommendations to improve Kent's existing transit services and to add new transit services. Mooney stated that Kent already has used the TMP to negotiate with King County Metro and Sound Transit to obtain better service for Kent, specifically all-day service on the East Valley Highway beginning in September. Mooney stated that the financial plan outlined in Chapter 9 of the TMP lays out a path that will maintain the existing transportation system and pay for the transportation needs that have been identified. She stated that the funding program is estimated at almost $600 million dollars. Mooney stated that if City Council has not adopted the recommended new funding sources at the levels that will fund this plan, Kent will have to adjust its level of service standard, level of development, or look for other revenue sources. Mooney stated that staff will ask council to approve an impact fee ordinance, a new concurrency ordinance that will consider accommodating some of our growth with other modes (besides vehicular) and with transportation demand management strategies. ' Mooney stated that Kent hopes to engage the business community in actively participating in transportation finance discussions; through the formation of a committee comprised of business leaders and city staff. Mooney identified new programs within the TMP to include: traffic impact fees, an annual plan monitoring and evaluation program, concurrency status monitoring, traffic counting and analysis, non-motorized system and follow-up implementation studies. Staff will be asking for increased staffing levels as current staffing levels are inadequate to complete these tasks. Mooney stated that the TMP is a long range plan that anticipates the needs and conditions of future transportation systems. She stated that regular updates will Land Use and Planning Board 3 of 5 Minutes May 12, 2008 39' ensure that the plan remains current and relevant. Mooney stated that an annual mobility report card will be developed to document progress towards plan implementation and to monitor the transportation system performance. Mooney stated that travel demand modal updates are important to ensure the City has an accurate understanding of how land use patterns, employment, and other factors impact future transportation conditions. Mooney spoke about the non-motorized plan, the need to create a process to , itemize and rate specific street segments for new sidewalks and repairs such as critical walk to school routes. She stated that staff desires to continue engaging the public, remaining proactive and responsive to stakeholders. Mooney stated that several implementation actions will require additional technical and policy work by City staff; to include modifying the Street Design Standards, , modifying the Operations and Maintenance Cost Analysis, review and restructure the Traffic Control Program, and work on Kent's active Traffic System Management Program. Mooney encourages the Board to approve these projects, policies and strategies and forward this to the next level. Anderson stated that the GMA requires specific elements be incorporated into both the TMP and the update to the Transportation Element. She stated that these documents include estimated impacts to State facilities. She stated that staff has identified and inventoried existing facilities and travel levels and established LOS Standards. Anderson stated that staff has included goals and policies describing actions to bring local facilities into compliance should they not be in compliance with our LOS Standards. Anderson stated that staff has forecast at least ten years of traffic and described what is needed to bring our facilities up to those traffic demands. She stated that staff talked about a multiyear financing plan, funding capacity and a contingency plan if the funding falls short. She stated that funding shortages would require either changing the land use assumptions, finding additional sources of funding, or changing Kent's LOS Standards. Anderson stated that the documents discuss coordination with other government facilities, including adjacent jurisdictions, how to manage travel demand, including pedestrian and bicycle components. Anderson introduced the following comment letters into the record identified as Exhibits 1-5: , 1) Letter from Jack Nixon questioning the need for both the 228th Street corridor project as well as widening of South 212th Street to meet the City's concurrency. Land Use and Planning Board 4 of 5 Minutes May 12, 2008 395 2) Letter from the Department of Transportation related to Highway 99 and how the State calculates LOS standard. 3) Letter from City of Kent Transportation Engineering Manager Steve Mullen, requesting changes to a couple of Goals and Policies and text, related to some additional funding options or Local Improvement District (LID) options. 4) Letter dated April 1, 2008 from the Department of Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED), overseers of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. CTED commends Transportation Staff on the TMP and update to the TE. They offer suggestions related to the State Facilities LOS Standard, the City's investment strategies, Policy TR-1.9, site development design treatments, monitoring the City's progress related to pedestrian and bike facilities, and speak to the City's concurrency system. 5) Letter from Mel Roberts with Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB), with information related to system improvements and additional elements he would like the City to incorporate into the TMP. Anderson asked the Board to adopt the abovementioned exhibits into the record, staff's written response letters to each comment, as well as all material provided to the Board at previous workshops. ' Mooney recounted her response to each comment letter received, defined as Exhibits 1-5, reciting from each of her letters. Ottini MOVED and Kondelis SECONDED a Motion to accept all the documents given to the LUPB members at their previous workshops, comment letters defined as Exhibits 1-5, as well as staff's response letters to Exhibits 1-5. Motion CARRIED. Vice Chair Dana Ralph opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no speakers, Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED. After deliberations, Ottini MOVED and Gray SECONDED a Motion to accept the updates to the Transportation Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Transportation Master Plan as recommended by staff. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Adjournment Vice Chair Dana Ralph adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board 5 1Permrt\Plan�LUPB�2008\MINUTE5�051208_LUPB_Min doc Land Use and Planning Board 5 of 5 ' Minutes May 12, 2008 397 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT wA5H I N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 May 5, 2008 TO: Chair Jon Johnson & Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner RE: #CPA-2008-1 Transportation Master Plan Staff Report for the May 12, 2008 LUPB Hearing SUMMARY: In 2005, funds were budgeted for a multi-year, multi-phase, planning effort related to a master plan for transportation. It is intended that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will be adopted concurrently with an amendment to the Transportation Element (TE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Draft ... TMP is based upon and supports the City's Land Use Plan as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is proposing a revision to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include a summary of the relevant sections of the TMP. Background: At the April 14th meeting, staff presented to the Land Use & Planning Board the proposed Transportation Master Plan. At the April 28th workshop, staff presented the proposed amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and facilitated a discussion of the recommended changes. Particular emphasis was centered on those goals and policies which govern the interaction of land use and transportation, the new policies which emphasize stewardship of the environment, and that portion of the transportation element which outlines the City's financial plan for accomplishing this long-range transportation vision. At previous meetings the Board has received a comment letter from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, and a packet of information from Mr. Mel Roberts of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. You have also received a staff memo suggesting revisions to the TMP. Since then, the City has also received a comment letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation and we are enclosing a copy of that letter in this packet. All four of these will be formally entered into the record and their respective issues will be addressed at the May 12th Public Hearing. CA/CM/pm S �Permit\Plan\COMP PLAN_AMENDMENTS�2008\CPA-2008-1TransportationMasterPlan\LUP8�051208LUPBHrg-Rpt doc Attch Eis Adoption Document EIS Addendum Document April 17, 2008 DOT Ltr CC, Fred Satterstrom,AICP, CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Mgr File 1 399 # 1) Comment Letter from Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development dated April 1, 2008 and reply from Staff. r STATE aF 401 s x STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128- 101h Avenue SW •PO Box 42525.Olympia, Washington 98504-2525•(360)725-4000 iApril 1,2008 RF CEIVED Ms. Charlene Anderson,AICP APR 0 3 2000 Planning Manager Gi ry ®F KENT City of Kent pLA NNIWG SERVICES 400 West Gowe Kent,Washington 98032 Re: Proposed transportation master plan Dear Ms. Anderson: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development(CTED)the City of Kent Transportation Master Plan Draft Report that we received on February 26, 2008. We understand that the goals and policies, and relevant parts of the plan will be ' adopted into the comprehensive plan, and the text of this plan will become an appendix of the comprehensive plan. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources this document represents, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment. We especially like the following: • This plan looks ahead to 2030 and plans for 20 years of bicycle,pedestrian,transit,truck and private automobile transportation. The plan is multimodal, addressing all forms of transportation in Kent including automobile and truck travel on the street network, non-motorized travel, transit, and commute trip reduction efforts in Kent. It includes an impressive Geographic Information System based inventory of pedestrian facilities in Kent. This plan includes a detailed,but easily understandable analysis of the existing system, and a strategy to characterize and prioritize needed improvements. Kent's overall transportation goal is to provide for a balanced multimodal transportation system which will support current and projected land use patterns and provide an adequate level of transportation service. This strategy should allow the city to address its future ' network needs in a comprehensive and balanced manner. • We appreciate that this plan includes an implementation section that discusses what steps are needed in order to implement the plan. This section includes recommendations to update the transportation concurrency plan,to refine non-motorized improvements, and to implement several new ways to monitor and evaluate the plan through time. • The designated transportation level of service (LOS) for downtown Kent is F. This recognizes that the street network is substantially complete, and that any improvements should provide for better service for all modes on the existing street system. Ms. Charlene Anderson 401 April 1,2008 Page 2 We have some suggestions for strengthening your plan that we encourage you to consider either in these or future amendments: • Policy TR 3.1 on page 53 of the plan sets a LOS of F for the Pacific Highway(SR99). Pacific Highway is a highway of statewide significance,and your comprehensive plan should be consistent with the congestion index/LOS of D set by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). You may check with Tom Washington with WSDOT at(206)464-1280 about how to include state-set levels of service while acknowledging how the facility functions at the local level. , • This plan provides a rich policy framework describing priorities for improving the transportation system. Many of these policies focus on the city's commitment to a multimodal transportation system which provides a variety of transportation choices for its residents. The plan notes that the regional policy framework through Vision 2020 and Destination 2030 encourage future growth to be concentrated in urban centers, and actively encourages the use of alternatives to the automobile, Another important policy theme is a focus on maximizing the efficiency of the transportation. We encourage you to pay careful attention to how transportation investments are made, and how spending priorities support a multimodal transportation system. • Policy TR-1.9 includes a number of good design treatments for site development,building construction, and transit access. We encourage you to include these approaches in your implementation chapter and integrate them into your development regulations. We also suggest considering: — Reducing parking requirements and impact fees, especially in areas well served by transit. — Revisiting land uses and densities as ways to affect mode choice and trip generation. — Reviewing local street standards to consider narrower streets which create more space for , bicycles and pedestrians. — Managing driveway access to arterial streets to reduce turning movements to provide a safer environment for bicycles and pedestrians. • This plan includes a great amount of detail about pedestrian facilities including street crossing, transit hoardings, and provides a good inventory as a basis to plan for needed improvements. However,the bicycle system plan does not appear to provide an interconnected network of routes throughout the city. For example, a major east-west bicycle route,240th street,is shown as sharing a travel lane on a designated truck route. This type of facility would be unappealing to all but the most experienced of cyclists, and will likely not contribute to reaching the goal of a more multimodal system. We suggest that a more detailed bicycle plan is developed that, for example, seeks to link lower volume streets to appeal to a wider cross-section of bicycle skills. We appreciate that some of the street widening improvements also include bicycle lanes,but more work appears needed to plan for a comprehensive network of bicycle facilities. This approach is acknowledged in Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy B-4 recommending on-going refinement to projects,particularly to identify specific short and mid- term sidewalk and bicycle priorities. • This plan provides little information about Kent's existing transportation concurrency system. It appears that this system is implemented mainly through the State Environmental Policy Act mitigation methods. One of the recommendations in this plan is that Kent may want to implement a plan-based concurrency system. We suggest that as this system is developed,the city might consider using a , multimodal concurrency system that improves transportation facilities for multiple modes of transportation especially in areas, such as the downtown,where the street network is essentially complete and improvements for other modes are a priority. One useful resource is Options for Making 403 Ms. Charlene Anderson April 1,2008 Page 3 Concurrency More Multimodalf a 2005 study in which the City of Kent participated. This publication comments: "The majority of local concurrency programs focus almost exclusively on auto congestion. Because this approach only counts vehicles and fails to account for people who walk, drive with friends or co-workers,ride transit, or bicycle, it has proven insufficient for denser jurisdictions. As density increases in urban areas, a growing share of travel occurs via alternative modes, and roadway capacity becomes a poor proxy for the transportation system. With roadway-only concurrency measurement systems,these communities can only choose between accepting increasing roadway size and/or congestion or denying development. A second limitation in the current process is a lack of consideration for the regional transportation impacts of new development. Concurrency does not consider regional congestion, except when through-traffic volumes clog locally controlled roads. The project team recommends that regions adopt a two- tiered concurrency system. The objective is to provide a more flexible incentive and disincentive system at the regional level while encouraging application of more multimodal transportation system measures at the local level." We also appreciate that the city expects to use concurrency as a means to better monitor the transportation-land use connection as the transportation master plan is implemented. We also encourage you to consider reciprocal payments with King County as transportation impacts across jurisdictional boundaries are considered. ' Congratulations to you,your consultants, and your staff, for the good work embodied by this plan. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please call me at(360) 725-3064 or Sam Wentz at(360) 725-3063. We extend our continued support to the City of Kent in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Anne Aurelia Fritzel, AICP Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services * AAF:cr CC" The Honorable Suzette Cooke, Mayor of Kent ' Tom Washington,Transportation Planner, WSDOT Leonard Bauer,AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services, CTED David Andersen, AICP, Plan Review and Technical Assistance Manager, Growth Management Services, CTED Sam Wentz, Growth Management Planner, CTED 1 Available on the Internet at http://depts.washington.edu/trac%oncurrency/index.html 405 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Stephen G. Mullen, P.E. Transportation Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax. 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 May 12, 2008 ■ Anne Aurelia Fritzel, AICP Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 RE: Your Letter of April 1, 2008 City of Kent Draft Transportation Master Plan 1 Dear Ms. Fritzel: Thank you for your comments on the City of Kent Transportation Master Plan. We would like to respond on the following bullet points made in your letter: • We have contacted WSDOT and have modified Policy TR-3.1, below, to Include reference to WSDOT's LOS policy: Policy TR-3.1: Maintain level of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Set LOS E as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard for the Pacific Highway (SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while recognizing WSDOT's LOS D for SR 99. The proposed TMP funding program includes a variety of funding sources that can be used for multi-modal projects. The TMP emphasizes the need to invest in all modes of travel. • We will take your suggestions to include the points made in Policy TR-1.9 within the city's development regulations. The implementation chapter includes actions I to update the city's design standards and prioritization of non-motorized facilities. We will consider the actions listed in your sub bullets as part of those activities. The bicycle network was developed through extensive analysis of the city's street system and input from our Task Force and Bicycle Advisory Board. We believe it represents a very integrated network involving a substantial funding commitment on the part of the city to implement in the coming years. We will be working with the Bicycle Advisory Board during 2008 to further prioritize the bicycle projects within the plan. ' City of Kent Public Works Department Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 401 • As part of the city's implementation actions, we are planning to further define , the proposed plan-based concurrency system. To the extent possible, we hope to include multi-modal elements within this system. The city's current ' concurrency system has not been very useful to us as structured—therefore, we did not find it useful to spend time within the TMP discussing a program that we intend to replace. We do plan to use the new concurrency program as an impetus to help monitor the transportation-land use connection. • Regarding your suggestion to consider reciprocal impact fee payments with King County, this option is listed in the TMP within the funding options that the City , Council may consider. We expect that further discussion of this option may occur after the City Council considers and hopefully adopts a GMA-based transportation impact fee program. We look forward to working further with the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development as our TMP is implemented over the next several years. Sincerely, Cathy Mooney, Project Manager , Senior Transportation Planner City of Kent i 1 1 1 1 407 #2) Comment Letter from Washington State Department of Transportation dated April 17, 2008 and reply from City Staff. 1 1 1 ! 409 _ Washington State Strategic Planning$Programming Department of Transportation Urban Planning Office Paula J. Hammond, P.E. 401 Second Avenue South,Suite 300 Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 98104 206-464-1260/Fax 206-464-1286 TTY 1-800-833-6388 _ www wsdot.wa.gov April 17, 2008 Ms. Charlene Anderson City of Kent Planning Department 400 West Gowe Street Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms. Anderson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the city's updated transportation master plan. The document is well done and your coverage of state transportation facilities is ' thorough. Please consider these comments as you move toward the adoption of this update into your comprehensive plan. In section four,page 4-5, Policy TR-3.1, the city proposes to set a Level of Service (LOS) standard of"F" for downtown Kent and the SR 99 corridor. Similar language is seen again in Section 5. Within the city of Kent's boundaries, SR 99 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). RCW 47.06.140 assigns the state the responsibility to set LOS standards for HSS highways. The WSDOT adopted LOS standard for SR 99 is "D"within the city of Kent's boundaries. Please revise the language found in Policy TR-3.1 to reflect WSDOT's role in setting LOS for HSS facilities and the WSDOT LOS standard. jYou have referenced an old state LOS standard for HSS facilities in section five,page 54-8—For-future-reference5—W-SDO-T-no4onger-uses-the-congestion index-for-HSS facilities and is currently defining deficiencies by utilizing a different methodology. WSDOT today"screen lines" for deficiencies along state routes for existing year and future years using 70% of the posted speed,not a V/C ratio. The LOS standard reference in the plan for Non-HSS facilities, or Highways of Regional Significance (HRS), as set by PSRC, is still current and correct. There has been some confusion about the difference between Level of Service standards and measurements used to determine highway deficiencies. While HSS facilities are specifically exempt from local concurrency requirements, and I concurrency requirements for HRS facilities are at the option of the local jurisdiction, all jurisdictions have the responsibility to assess and report on what impacts their plans will have on state transportation facilities. Please note that our screen line for deficiencies is only trying to identify the "most congested" locations. 411 Ms. Charlene Anderson April 17, 2008 Page 2 The target LOS for Comprehensive Plans and Developer impacts along all State Highways is the LOS shown in the attached WSDOT Appendix G:Development Impacts Assessment from the 2007-2026 Highway System Plan(HSP). The entire HSP can be accessed at hq://www.wsdot.wa.goy/planning/HSP. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your updated plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206-464-1280. Sincerely, Tom Washington Senior Transportation Planner,Urban Planning Office Cc: Cathy Y p Mooney/Kent Transportation r Dave Andersen/CTED MS 42525 Ramin Pazooki/WSDOT NB82-240 l i 1 411 Appendix G: Development Impacts Assessment The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)requires local jurisdictions to assess and mitigate, I� when reasonable and proportionate, the impacts of new development projects, including impacts ++ to traffic. Together, local jurisdictions and WSDOT agree on an acceptable level of service (LOS). " A particular development could cause traffic impacts to a highway segment or an intersection to fall below the LOST thresholds. The LOS thresholds are defined as: For Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) including the ramp intersections, the LOS is set by WSDOT (RCW 47.06.140)2: • Urban Areas: LOS"D" • Rural Areas: LOS"C" For Regionally Significant State Highways (non-HSS): •The LOS thresholds adopted by the local MPO/RTPO shall apply. In the absence of an adopted LOS threshold, the LOS for HSS shall apply. Where there is a specific inter-local agreement with WSDOT,the applicable LOS threshold levels are established by the agreement. When a development affects a segment or intersection where the LOS is already below the applicable threshold, the pre-development LOS will be used instead of the otherwise applicable deficiency level. When a development would degrade the facility's LOS below the applicable threshold, the facility would be considered deficient to support the development, and WSDOT and its partners would seek reasonable and proportionate mitigation of traffic impacts. Mitigation can take the form of development constraints (for example, the appropriate placement of highway access points or phasing the development), development constructed transportation improvements, financial contribution or right of way dedication. Details on these and other mitigation strategies are contained in the WSDOT Development Services Manual and the Design Manual. 1 1 1 For specific information about LOS,see Appendix A:Glossary 2 For counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes(Island County),the level of service standards for state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements.In Island County, the LOS has been set at Urban Areas,LOS'E"and Rural Areas:LOS V". This is a GMA based requirement not a SEPA requirement per RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(1ii)(C) 2007-2026 Highway System Plan I G-1 ' 413 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Stephen G. Mullen, P.E. Transportation Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax- 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 April 30, 2008 Mr, Tom Washington, Senior Transportation Planner Urban Planning Office, Strategic Planning & Programming 401 Second Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Your letter of April 17, 2008 - Kent Draft Transportation Master Plan ' Dear Mr. Washington: I Thank you for your comments on the City of Kent Transportation Master Plan. We would like to respond on the following points made in your letter: Chapter 4- Goals and Policies ■ We have modified Policy TR-3.1, below, to include reference to WSDOT's LOS policy: Policy TR-3.1- Maintain level of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system Set LOS E as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard for the Pacific Highway (SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while recognizing WSDOT's LOS D for SR 99. Chapter 5- Street System In the section on "LOS Standard for HSS Facilities", we will revise the description of the HSS LOS methodology and standard. We will need further input from WSDOT to update Table 5-6, which shows the existing HSS LOS for SR 99 and I-5 within the City of Kent's boundaries. We have also cited the State's LOS D standard for SR 99 within the section on Level of Service Standards. The following text was added: " Note that WSDOT has set an LOS D standard for SR 99. The City will work with WSDOT to determine whether this is a realistic standard for the SR 99 corridor." Later in Chapter 5, we have added wording to the Corridor 9 (Pacific Highway South) regarding LOS. We acknowledge that the general traffic conditions will be LOS F In 2030, but indicates that the LOS will be substantially better for transit and carpool users with the HOV lane. We believe that this is consistent with WSDOT's policies to encourage increases In alternative travel modes. We look forward to working with WSDOT to finalize the LOS description of HSS facilities and appreciate the Department's thorough review of the Transportation Master Plan. Sincerely, A Cathy Mooney, Project Manager Senior Transportation Planner City of Kent City of Kent Public Works Department Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 415 #3 Comment Letter from Mr. Mel Roberts of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB) dated March 17, 2008 and reply from City staff. 1 J I s 417 To: City of Kent, Suzette Cooke,Mayor (Paper+E-mail) March 17, 2008 Larry Blanchard,Directory of Public Works (Paper+E-mail) Steve Mullen, Traffic Engineer (E-mail) William Osborne, Planning Services (E-mail) Cathy Mooney, Transportation Planner (E-mail) Charlene Anderson, Planning Services (E-mail) Cc: Members of Kent Bicycle Advisory Board(KBAB) (E-mail) Subject: Kent Transportation Master Plan—dated Jan 2, 2008 The members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB) believe that the public review process for the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)was not followed. A complete copy, including appendixes, of the proposed TMP was not available to the public or KBAB for review before the comment period closed on i December 31, 2007.The first full draft,without appendixes,that KBAB is aware of was assembled on Jan 2, 2008.This draft was presented to the City Council for approval in Jan 2008.Actions are in process to declare that the TMP update be an emergency update to the City Comprehensive Plan (Mar 2008). The Jan 2, 2008 version of the TMP,falls short of providing adequate bicycle facilites, KBAB would like to open at least 1 review cycle, and have discussions with Public Works on the bicycle network contents before the TMP document is approved by the city.This review cycle can be part of the public comment _ period for the incorporation of the TMP into the City Comprehensive Plan. Has the TMP been checked against the City Comprehensive Plan for compliance with its Goals and Policies?A point of reference was that both Seattle and Bellevue involved their Bike Boards in the review cycles of their transportation document(not just the data collection phase) before it went to their City Councils. The Kent Bicycle Advisory Board provided input to the consultant working the non-motorized section of the Transportation Master Plan in a Nov 2006 KBAB meeting. In response to the first draft on the TMP, we provided, in the middle of 2007, a package of very detailed comments. We anticipated seeing a draft of the document so that we could review the resulting plan. We hoped to examine, and would still like to examine,the proposed TMP and engage in discussions with the city staff about what needs to be included, changed or excluded. The draft TMP document that the council was asked to approve contains mistakes in the current facilities.The document belabors how hard it is to do bicycle facilities because of east hill,west hill, green river, SR-167 and 1-5 obstacles.The TMP should identify how these challenges will be overcome so that acceptable facilities will be created. The draft TMP doesn't quantify the need for cycling facilities by estimating the number of riders that will use Kent streets and trails. One estimate of the number of bicycle riders is found by using the Cascade Bicycle Club ride from Seattle to Portland (STP).This ride has 9000 riders going south on Washington Ave in Kent the second Saturday morning in July. This 2 day, 200 mile ride involves 9000 riders.You ask, what does this have to do with Kent?About 1/3 of those riders live In the southern part of the county and their training rides will use the streets and trails in Kent.To be able to ride the STP,these cyclists I will train by riding about 1000 miles.This is 3 million miles of bicycle riding.There is an economic impact from this number of riders. Preparing for the STP,the estimated dollars spent by 1 rider,could easily include$500 for a bicycle(some will buy a$500 bike and use it one year, others will buy a $1500 bike March 17, 2008 KBAB-Markup2Kent-TMP-BicyclePlan-KBABLetter-xpvl.doc Page 1 of 3 411 and use it 3 years),$240 for clothes,$150 for accessories(lights, pumps,tubes, repair tools)and$250 for food (25 rides @$10/ride). This total for one rider(500+240+150+250) is$1140.The economic impact(of 3000 riders times$1140/rider) is 3.42 million dollars. Another estimate of rider volume in Kent is done by dividing Kent in to 4 quadrants, and when you are driving in Kent count the number of riders you see in the typical trip. It has been my experience that you often see 2 riders in 15 minutes in one quadrant.These 2 riders multiplied by 4 quadrants is 8 riders in the city every 15 minutes,this number multiplied by 415 minute segments in a hour gives 32 riders per hour, and multiplying this by about 20 hours per day gives 640 riders per day.This is 1%of a 64000 population. Projecting bicycle use by one percent for a population of 120,000 gives 1,200 riders per day. It is very likely that increases in gas prices, insurance, and parking costs will make the cost of automobile ownership a motivating factor in increased bicycle riding. With health professionals promoting exercise, our environmental concerns, and rising automobile costs it seems like we should project a 5%use of cycling for transportation.A fivefold increase in cycling would give us (5 times 1200 riders) 6000 riders per day in Kent.And if the number of riders went to 10% of the population we would have 12,000 riders per day. There is a value to the reduced health costs for riders that are in better physically shape.There is a value to the reduction in carbon emissions from less automobile use. Recognizing the future number of riders and their needs, KBAB set a goal of having a bicycle facility within 0.5 mi of every address in Kent. Considering that Kent is 7 miles high and 10 miles,the high level view would lead us to conclude that we need 10'north-south routes (each 7 miles long) and 7 east-west routes (each 10 miles long)to fill the goal of a bicycle facility within .5 mi of every address.This is a total (2 x 10 x 7) of 150 miles of bike facilities. Bike facilities in this case are defined as ride-able shoulders or bike lanes,and sidewalks. Bike facilities need to serve both "experienced adults-commuters"who would like to use ride-able shoulders or bike lanes and "pedestrians-children and inexperienced adults" who would like to use the sidewalks or trails. In contrast to the 150 miles that KBAB would like to see in the bicycle network,the city plan has only about 80 miles listed in the TMP-about 30 miles of existing and 50 miles of additional. Listed here are a few major road segments that the TMP is missing,There are more listed in the attached documents: 1) Kent Des Moines Road(SR-516)from I-5 to 4th Ave 2) Frager Road+(south side of Green River)from S200th St to S 277th St 3) 124th Ave from S 248th to southern city limit on the way to GRCC should be bike lanes not shared vehicle lanes.Auburn has this segment as bike lanes. It is reasonable to expect that college age students on East Hill will want to cycle to GRCC. 4) WSDOT coordination is shown for 1 interchange at SR-167 and Meeker St-there are 14 other interchanges with SR-167 and 1-5 that bikes need to use that involve crossing WSDOT highways. 5) The Midway study lists 4 interchanges that the TMP doesn't list. 6) The TMP doesn't provide for a short term improvement for continuous shoulders while we wait for a project to build bike lanes (116th Ave S and 132nd Ave S) Details of the KBAB recommendations will be found, In the attached documents.There are a number of items that were placed in the plan that will provide good facilities for cyclists.There are some mistakes March 17, 2008 KBAB-M a rku p2 Ken t-TM P-B icycl ePla n-KBAB Letter-xpvl.doc Page 2 of 3 r 419 jin the current facilities map.There are some improvments needed in the system map.The area of shared travel lanes stands out as an area of huge loss of cycling facilities.This loss will occur as shoulders are removed and the cyclists given a share of the vehicle lane (a net decrease in bike facilities).The Plan does not provide for converting ride-able shoulders to bike lanes and sidewalks. KBAB comments on the TMP are in the following attachments to this letter: KBAB-Letter2 Kent-TM P-BicyclePlan-KBABMarkup-xpv4. Doc This document contains the "markup" of the Bicycle Plan contained in TMP pages 6-16 to 6-28 (except the map pages). KBAB-Letter2Kent-TMP-BicyclePlan-KBABmap-xp.jpg -� This map shows the bicycle network that KBAB would like to see in the Plan.The map has thought bubbles on it that contain the items numbers used in the spreadsheet below. KBAB-Letter2Kent-TMP-BicyclePlan-KBABroutes-xp.xls This spreadsheet contains the details for each route segment in the Kent Bicycle Network. The spreadsheet has item numbers in Column C that correspond to the item numbers in the thought bubbles on the map above. On the spreadsheet column A is the KBAB recommendation for the road segment and how it contrasts to the TMP. Column A on the spreadsheet is colored coded to emphasis the items. See the Key on the top of the column for a explanation of the colors used. Column B groups together projects/segments that should be worked together. Column D describes the Street location and Coumns E and F describe the to and from locations on the street. Respectifully submitted, Mel Roberts, BSCE Chairman, Kent Bicycle Advisory Board 9421 S 241St St,Kent, Wa 98030, Phone 253-854-0952 March 17, 2008 KBAB-Markup2Kent-TMP-BicyclePlan-KBABLetter-xpvl.doc Page 3 of 3 421 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Stephen G Mullen, P.E. Transportation Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax• 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 IMay 12, 2008 Mr. Mel Roberts, Chairman Kent Bicycle Advisory Board 9421 S 2415t St Kent, WA 98030 Re: Your Memo dated March 17, 2008 iDear Mr. Roberts: This is in response to your memo of March 17, 2008 which is entered into the public record at this Public Hearing today, May 12, 2008. You allege that you and the members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB) have not had adequate time to review and comment on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP has been available electronically for downloading on the City of Kent website and it has been available in hard copy for viewing at the Public Works reception desk since early January 2008. I, personally, prepared and hand-delivered a copy of the TMP to you in January in a three-ring binder. In answer to your question regarding whether or not the Transportation Master Plan has been checked against the City's Comprehensive Plan for consistency, the answer is yes. The Plan has been reviewed by the City's Community Development Department and the Land Use & Planning Board for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It has also been reviewed by the Public Works Committee and will be reviewed by the Planning and Economic _ Development Committee before it moves to the full Council for final review. • The TMP consultant staff and Public Works staff has worked with KBAB throughout the development of the Plan. The KBAB Chair was a member of the TMP Task Force and was an outspoken proponent for his advocacy group within those meetings. Someone from the Public Works staff attends almost every meeting of the KBAB and acts as liaison to TMP staff meetings - to report KBAB concerns and issues. The City hired an award-winning, nationally recognized expert in the field of non-motorized facility planning to lead the effort of designing a non-motorized (bicycle) network for the City of Kent. This consultant used the maps, CDs and written documents that KBAB had supplied the City as the initial starting point for his study. He also spoke with the KBAB Chair on a number of occasions and attended at least one KBAB meeting. He bent over backwards to incorporate the suggestions and corrections to his initial design that KBAB offered. He brought his draft plan back to KBAB in August 2006 for coordination and reaffirmation that he had heard all of your concerns correctly. At that meeting, you did not allow him to make his prepared Power Point Presentation. Instead, you offered a two-and-a-half (2 112) hour presentation of your own with new demands of new ideas that you were bringing forward at that late date. The consultant, and the Public Works staff who were in attendance, took notes of your new list of 61 items and tried to work them into the draft plan. We were able to incorporate 59 of those 61 new issues into a revised draft plan. At that point the consultant City of Kent Public Works Department Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 421 finished up his contract with the City and the non-motorized draft system map was printed. i These are the draft bicycle system maps which are in the Draft TMP and the Draft Transportation Element (TE) today. In your memo you've presented at least three examples of ways that you've thought about measuring bicycle use. Quantifying bicycle use for assessing bicycle needs is very challenging but it can help in determining where to build high-priority bike infrastructure. For the last 8 years or more, Public Works staff has asked the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board to help identify those land uses which would be the greatest generators and/or attractors of bicycle users. This would help us to prioritize which investments should rise to the top of the list. We know it's important to be careful about what we measure and how we measure it. Nationally-accepted, industry proven performance measures should be established and the findings from each performance measure used for evaluating bicycle travel in the City. We should be careful to establish measures that are cost-effective to collect and yet yield data which is meaningful. Until we find a way to quantify and validate such data, there is no meaning in just establishing number goals. However, we applaud your desire to see 150 miles of bicycle lanes in the Draft Bicycle System Recommendations. You represent the interests of your cause driven organization with energy and purpose. This plan will be re-evaluated every five years as part of the update and review of the TMP. There will be many opportunities for adjustments as we see which routes get the most use and how we can make the best use of Kent taxpayers' money. We hope you recognize the responsibility of the City to find a balance between the equally compelling needs of other residents and businesses too. You listed some major roadways that you thought the TMP was missing. (1) Kent Des Moines Road — This is a 55 mph Limited Access State Highway. Many bicyclists ride on the wide shoulder but it is unlikely that the state will add a bicycle lane here. (2) Frager Road — The portion of it that is in Kent has been designated by Council as a Recreational and Scenic Road. It is a very good bikeway and many bicyclists do use this great cycling road. There are very few vehicles on this road. Directly across the river is the Green River Trail. A little bit south of Meeker Street, Frager Road is in King County. (3) On 124th Ave SE our constraint is financial. We decided to make 116th Ave SE and 132nd Ave SE the continuous bicycle facilities. They seemed to make longer and more continuous routes for the East Hill in our City. We are simply being prudent with the taxpayers' money and trying to find the best choice for laying that additional 10 feet of pavement for the bike lanes. (4) You are correct. WSDOT coordination will be required to facilitate provision of bicycle passage at interchanges of City arterials and WSDOT highways. We have made those concerns very clearly known to WSDOT. (5) We will work more closely with the Midway study team in the next year to learn more about their project to see if we can coordinate our planning efforts with theirs. We are not aware that they were adding new bicycle facilities in their project that were not in the TMP but we will certainly coordinate with them. (6) The TMP is a 20 year plan. It's a global view of the overall system and tries to outline a connected citywide network. It does not try to look at individual project details, scheduling, or interim steps. Those facilities will be examined in greater detail in Phase II of the TMP which will begin as soon as the TMP is adopted. 423 There are many improvements that can be made to the Bicycle System Plan once the TMP is adopted and we can start focusing on individual segments. It's hard to gauge how the Non- Motorized System will work before we've given it a chance to get off the ground. Let's give this a chance to get started. After the City has spent another year or so on Phase 2 of the TMP, which is the project prioritization and implementation phase, then perhaps many of your concerns will be resolved. In another two or three years after that, it will be time to draft the next update of the TMP and you will be in a good position to know what is still missing. Sincerely, Cathy Mooney, Project Manager Senior Transportation Planner City of Kent i 1 425 #4 Comment Letter from Mr. Jack Nixon dated May 9 2008 and reply from City Staff i ■ 427 Charlene Anderson, Planning & Land Use and Planning Board Members City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Comments to Transportation Master Plan ('r-NIP) - CPA-2008-1 _ Thank you for the opportunity to continent on the "IMP. Please Include these comments as part ■ of the record during the May 12, 2008 hearing. Included In the TMP Is a project for widening 212th (5-6 lanes) from the valley floor to Benson Htghwav (project W-2 ) at the cost of$10.1 million. .also Is a project (N-3) for putting a new _ road over highway 167 at 218th Street to Benson (224th East Extension) - at a cost of$36 million. I am concemed that one of the main justifications for the 228th East extension (-N-3) was that 212th could NOT be widened. I"he Planning Department stated 212th could not be widened In the Fnvironmental Impact Statement (LIS) for the 224th East Extension (N-3) and In several public hearings before the City Council. In the TMP, not only is it fea,,ible to widen 212th to Benson but it can be widened at less than 1/3 the cost of the 224th Fast extension, saving the taxpayer over S25 million. In addition, an earlier priority matrix in the draft TMP showed widening 212th to Benson would do a betterlob of relieving traffic. Obviously there is a major discrepancy in the facts as the TMP shows 212th can be widened. E'alner the 228th I;IS or the TMP is incorrect Which one" Didn't the Planning Department work with the Board Members on the TMP? If 212"' can be widened, the Clty Council approved the 228`h extension based on erroneous information from planning staff. fines Is unacceptable and needs to he stopped. Jack Nixon 21727 96th Place South Kent, Wa 98031 Cc: State Department of"I ransportation Kent Reporter 429 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Stephen G Mullen, P E. Transportation Engineering Manager 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Fax. 253-856-6500 PHONE: 253-856-5500 May 12, 2008 Mr. Jack Nixon 21727 96th Place South Kent, WA 98031 RE: Comments to Transportation Master Plan (TMP) — CPA-2008-1 Dear Mr. Nixon: Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the City's long range transportation plan. This plan envisions an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that effectively and efficiently improves access to jobs, markets and services by the year 2030. You made reference to two of the projects which are listed in Chapter 5 of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and indicated that the analyses for these projects were in conflict with one another. Project W-2 is a project which suggests that at some time in the future (if the Panther Lake area becomes annexed into Kent) the City may want to add an uphill lane from SR 167 to 108th Ave SE. There has been no site-specific preliminary engineering investigation, and only a planning level cost estimate, of approximately $10,000,000. Project N-3 is a project which was modeled as either a 3-lane or a 5-lane minor arterial connecting East Valley Highway to 108th Avenue SE. The fully engineered estimate on this project is $36,000,000. Since the time that this project was evaluated for the TMP, it has been approved by the City Council as a 3-lane road. The Environmental Analysis for this project stated that the purpose was to maintain consistency with the adopted and proposed transportation and land use plans of City, County and Regional planning agencies; to increase east-west capacity to accommodate growth on the East Hill; and to mitigate existing and future traffic conditions along the parallel corridors. The EIS examined alternatives to the S. 228th East Extension, which included widening of S 2121h Street to 7 lanes, one additional lane in each direction. Given the additional width necessary to accommodate two additional lanes, based on preliminary examination of the existing topography and constraints, the EIS concluded that the option was not feasible. From your comments, it seems that you believe that the choice is either one project or the other. The TMP concludes that BOTH projects are needed. Neither project, by itself, provides sufficient capacity to meet the transportation system needs for the future. Sincerely, Cathy Mooney, Project Manager Senior Transportation Planner City of Kent City of Kent Public Works Department Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director 431 #5 Staff revisions to the Draft Transportation Master ' Plan Policies - suggested on at the April 14, 2008 Land Use and Planning Board Workshop 1 1 433 • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Mancbarct,Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 N T Fax: 253-856-6500 W A s H I N O T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA.98032-5895 DATE: April 14, 2008 TO: Charlene Anderson, Planning Services Manager FROM: Steve Muller'f�Transportation Engineering Manager SUBJECT: Revisions to Draft Transportation Master Plan, Policies TR-1.4, TR-9.4 and TR-9.5 The following revisions are suggested to further clarify the relationship of land use and transportation improvements, providing funding flexibility utilizing a variety of agreements with development property owners: Page 4-3, Policy TR-1.4 Add the following sentence: The City may contract with • owners of real estate for the participation-ln LlUs; assessrn-ent--reirnbursement areas, or other available processes for construction or improvement of transportation projects required for further property development. Page 4-9, Policy TR-9.5 Add the following sentence: The City may contract with owners of real estate for the participation in LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for construction or Improvement of transportation projects required for further property-development. ' Page 9-5 Add the following sentences-at the end of the-first-paragraph under 4. Local Improvement Districts (net of Committed LIDs): The City will also continue to use its authority under law, including-Chapter 35.72 RCW and Chapter 6.05 KKC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the construction or improvement of transportation projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require-the projects-as a prerequisite to further groperty development. Contracts may provide for LIDs, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available programs. 435 SEPA DOCUMENTS i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 437 • KENT W A 9 N I N O T O N ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS #ENV-2008-1 KIVA #RPSA-2080218 Adoption Document(s): EIS Description of current proposal: The action proposed by the City consists of the update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan including adoption of the Transportation Master Plan. Proponent: City of Kent Location of proposal: The proposal is a city-wide action. Title of document(s) being adopted: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement Draft (July 1994) and Final (January 1995) — Prepared by the City of Kent. j Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS is being adopted in total. This document evaluated three different land use alternatives for the city. The analysis evaluated the type and range of impacts to the environment associated with each land use alternative and associated development regulations. If the document has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The document was not challenged. Document availability:This document is available for review at the City of Kent Planning Services office, 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. Along with the addendum, this document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker(s). J Name of agency adopting the document: City of Kent Contact person/Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP (253) 856-5431 Planning Manager City of Kent Community Development Dept. 220 Fourth Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Date: 05/05/08 Signature: CA.jm\\S;\Permit\Plan\Env\2008\2080218tmpadopt.doc L 1 J 439 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager • Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454KENT WASHINGT Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (#ENV-93-51) Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan CPA-2008-1 (#RPP6-2080841) ENV 2008-1 (#RPSA 2080218) Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for an amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including adoption of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP is based upon and supports the City's Land Use Plan Map as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The TMP supports a multi-modal system, addressing streets, non- motorized travel and transit. The proposal uses land use assumptions to estimate travel, inventories the existing transportation system, identifies levels of service standards, determines existing deficiencies, specifies actions and requirements for bringing locally owned transportation facilities into compliance, identifies future _ improvement needs, includes a multi-year financing plan, addresses governmental coordination and includes transportation demand management strategies. The - Transportation Element is a summary of the TMP and proposes a plan-based approach for a multimodal transportation concurrency management system. Overall, the proposed update brings the Transportation Element current. Although extensive, the update does not substantially change the direction, theme, goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995 and updated in 2004. Therefore, it is appropriate to utilize the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was completed for the 1995 Comprehensive Plan to meet the statutory requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act associated with this proposal. The EIS was programmatic in nature and evaluated general characteristics and potential impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed goals and policies of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The impacts and mitigation alternatives that were evaluated at that time are still valid today and also were adequate to address the 2002/2004 Comprehensive Plan update. The proposed Transportation Element and TMP utilize the Land Use Plan Map as the basis for their projected needs. The scope of this addendum adds analysis to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the following areas: air and transportation. ENV-2008-1 441 Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum BACKGROUND The proposed amendment to the Transportation Element and adoption of the TMP is a result of multi-jurisdictional coordination and almost two years of public involvement by residents and business volunteers who were involved in a task force to update the 1984 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The proposal brings the Transportation Element ' and TMP current by providing additional analysis of the existing system and identifies future needs based on the Land Use Plan Map. The proposal uses land use assumptions to estimate travel, inventories the existing transportation system, identifies levels of service, determines existing deficiencies, specifies actions and requirements for bringing locally owned transportation facilities into compliance, identifies future improvement needs, includes a multi-year financing plan, addresses governmental coordination and includes transportation demand management strategies. This environmental analysis provides an addendum to the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS related to this nonproject action. SEPA COMPLIANCE ' In October 1993, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the Comprehensive Plan (ENV-93-51). After a series of public meetings, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on July 18, 1994 for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, issued on the same date. The DEIS was distributed to City Council and Planning Commission members, adjacent jurisdictions, affected agencies and other parties of interest. After comments on the DEIS were solicited and reviewed, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued and distributed on January 30, 1995. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted April 18, 1995. The purpose of the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan was to ' assess the impacts of the Plan on the City and its growth area. The EIS does not analyze the significance of site specific impacts; it analyzes the significance of impacts on a broad area. , This Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS appends that document. The state SEPA statute requires the City to complete environmental analysis for non-project actions such as Comprehensive Plans. Jurisdictions may meet this requirement through the adoption of existing environmental documents and through the use of addenda to provide additional information that does not substantially change the analysis of the prior document (WAC 197-11-600). The update to the Transportation Element including adoption of the TMP provides additional data and analysis but does not necessitate modification of the Comprehensive Plan EIS analysis or mitigation measures since it does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives from the Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY Future project permit applications that may be undertaken to implement the , Transportation Element and TMP will be subject to and shall be consistent with the following: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, the Kent City Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, Public Works Standards and all other applicable laws and ordinances in affect at the time a complete project permit application is filed. Page 2 of 5 ENV-2008-1 441 Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW—SCOPE OF EIS ADDENDUM The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement and amend the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to environmental decisions. Non-project Documents — An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are considered "non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC 197-11-704). These are distinguished from EISs or environmental documents prepared for specific project actions, such as a building permit or a road construction project. The purpose of a non-project EIS is to analyze proposed alternatives and to provide environmental consideration and mitigation prior to adoption of an alternative. It is also a document that discloses the process used in evaluating alternatives to decision-makers and citizens. Phased Review — SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making process, (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower ' documents that incorporate general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal. SEPA rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms, including addenda, adoption and incorporation by reference, to avoid duplication and excess paperwork. Prior Environmental Documents — The City of Kent issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan on July 18, 1994 (#ENV-93-51). The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in preparing comprehensive plan policies. The preferred land use alternative which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was most closely related to Alternative 2 of the DEIS, (the mixed-use alternative). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on January 30, 1995, and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 18, 1995. Therefore, the impacts of the Land Use and Transportation Elements including the TMP as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan are within the range of impacts evaluated in the EIS. Scope of Addendum — As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the land use and zoning designation for the subject property. This analysis builds upon the Comprehensive Plan EIS but does not substantially change the identified impacts and analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in WAC-197-11-600(4)(c). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements were adequately addressed within the parameters of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final. The Comprehensive Plan EIS evaluated the potential impacts associated with the build-out of the city, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The EIS also identified broad measures to mitigate those impacts. The proposed update to the Transportation Element and the Transportation I Page 3 of 5 ENV-2008-1 441 Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum Master Plan (TMP) does not substantially change the scope, goals and/or policies identified in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Generally, the proposal adds analysis from , recent regional and local studies, census information and other city planning documents. Independent environmental review, pursuant to SEPA, was completed for each annexation area at the time those properties were annexed into the City of Kent. Additionally, separate environmental review was completed at the time past Comprehensive Plan updates were adopted. The proposed amendment to the Transportation Element and TMP consolidates the goals and policies from these past reviews and does not merit additional mitigation from that expressed in the Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, to protect the natural environment. Subsequent "project" actions would require the submittal of separate environmental checklists, pursuant to SEPA, which will be analyzed for consistency with the original mitigating conditions and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific conditions. I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Air The proposal includes goals, policies and strategies to improve traffic flow for vehicles and to provide additional opportunities for non-motorized travel. These strategies are listed in the mitigation measures identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIS. ' Transportation The proposal generally clarifies, expands, and includes the concepts, goals and policies of the existing Transportation Element. There also are new goals and policies that relate to sensitivity of the transportation system to the natural environment and to surrounding land use context; expanded coordination with other agencies and municipalities; expansion of funding opportunities; inclusion and clarification of Growth Management Act requirements; monitoring, evaluation and adjustment of the transportation system as appropriate; protection of residential areas; provisions for freight movement; connectivity of the street network; improving the streetscape for pedestrians and bicyclists; promoting safety and healthy communities when utilizing non-motorized means of travel; expanding transit opportunities; managing the City's ' pass-through traffic; and supporting innovative transportation system management strategies. i The proposed Transportation Element and TMP designate levels of service standards, ■ identify deficiencies in the existing system and future needs and a multi-year finance plan based on those needs, include a non-motorized component, and include transportation demand management strategies. Policy TR-1.5 proposes a Comprehensive Plan-based approach as the basis for a multimodal transportation concurrency management system. ' H. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. SUMMARY Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from which the City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. The Page 4 of 5 ENV-2008-1 443 Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Comprehensive Plan EIS-Addendum ' amendment to the Transportation Element including adoption of the TMP have been evaluated in light of those substantive plans and policies as well as within the overall analysis completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS. B. DECISION ' The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, provided extensive analysis with regard to the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The mitigating conditions included anticipated impacts associated with the increased traffic, sensitive areas and storm water runoff, as well as impacts to public services and utilities. The City has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan update and has found it to be generally consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined in the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The update addresses improvements to the transportation system required in order to accommodate the types and intensities of build-out associated with the comprehensive Plan EIS alternatives. ' This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with this proposal. Therefore, this addendum, combined with the Comprehensive Plan EIS adequately evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts and provides appropriate mitigation. Based upon this analysis, a separate threshold determination is not required for this action. This document and corresponding environmental record may be utilized in the future in conjunction with environmental review for future project and non-project land use proposals and plans within the City in accordance with the guidelines provided by WAC 197-11. 1 Dated: May 5, 2008 Signature: &"tP4_49L�_ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Responsible Official CA:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2008\2080218-2008-1tmpaddendum.doc Page 5of5 i REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. MAYOR C. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE D. PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE E. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE F. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE G. PUBLIC WORKS H. ADMINISTRATION _ REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES ' 1 • KEN T WA9 NINaTON I OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 Committee Members Present: Tim Clark, Debbie Raplee, and Les Thomas The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 4:05 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED APRIL 15, 2008 Les Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the April 15, 2008, Operations Committee meeting. Debbie Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED APRIL 15 AND APRIL 30, 2008 Debbie Raplee moved to approve the vouchers dated April 15 and April 30, 2008. Les Thomas seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 3. CONSULTING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR EAST HILL DATA -- CENTER DESIGN — AUTHORIZE. Information Technology Director Mike Carrington explained that in conjunction with the Public Works Department and their East Hill Shops _ capital facilities project, ISMS, Inc., under the direct supervision of IT will design and specify requirements for a data center occupying approximately 2000 square feet of that project's Administrative building footprint. The City's current data center is located in City Hall on the second floor. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, and because the current data center is considered to be in a high risk location within the valley, IT has partnered with Public Works to establish a new location at the proposed East Hill Shops facility. This will enable IT to move the City's critical computer processing and business system infrastructure to a location above the existing valley floor and flood zones. This move also enables Kent to enhance its ability to operate basic life and safety functions during an emergency and/or disaster. Moving equipment and operations to higher ground improves the likelihood of maintaining seamless business continuity and disaster recovery communications 21 Operations Committee Minutes May 6, 2008 Page 2 channels. It also improves the ability for critical business systems to remain , functional or at a minimum be brought back to basic operations in the least amount of time. ISMS, Inc. will provide date center physical design services that are determined by the IT Department to be appropriate for meeting current and future needs. After Carrington answered questions from Councilmembers, Les Thomas moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with ISMS, Inc. for design services rendered in support of the East Hill Data Center, for an amount not to exceed $49,000 plus expenses. Debbie Raplee seconded and the motion carried 3-0. 4. MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT — APPROVE. Information Technology Director Carrington explained that the City has a number of Microsoft software products deployed throughout desktops and servers and that under this proposal, the city would sign a 3-year Enterprise License Agreement with Microsoft to save 6% on software licensing which is already intended and budgeted for in the next three years. The Enterprise License Agreement would also provide the benefit of Microsoft Software Assurance, an upgrade plan that provides customers the ability to move to the next major versions of licensed products at no cost. Software Assurance allows the IT Department to continue to meet its strategic goals of providing current, supported software products at the best possible cost. Carrington explained that the cost would not exceed $650,000 over 3 years and answered questions regarding compatibility. Les Thomas moved to recommend that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase order for a Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement for 3 years not to exceed a total commitment of $#650,000. Debbie Raplee seconded and the motion carried 3-0. AM _ S. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT — AUTHORIZE. Economic Development Director Ben Wolters explained that the proposed agreement with VanNess Feldman, Attorneys at Law, will provide the City of j Kent Federal representation with a particular emphasis on the Washington State Congressional delegation. The contract will not exceed $70,000, and expenses incurred will be split between Economic Development and Public Works Department. VanNess will provide representation for funding for the '' 3 Operations Committee Minutes May 6, 2008 Page 3 next years reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Reauthorization bill and the yearly discretionary appropriations bills for key grade separation and other transportation projects for Kent, continued policy support for replacing the Green River levee system and a reasonable interim flood zone and flood insurance program, as well as Federal funding and regulatory policy support for the Green/Duwamish Rivers Ecosystem Restoration, restoring Human Service and Community Development Block Grant funding, and other Federal — opportunities and issues as they arise. Les Thomas moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Agreement with VanNess Feldman, Attorneys at Law, representing the City of Kent as a Federalist Lobbyist, not to exceed $70,000, subject to the terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Debbie Raplee seconded and the motion carried 3-0. 6. KENT EVENTS CENTER TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN — AUTHORIZE Economic Development Director Ben Wolters explained that a proposed agreement with Heffron Transportation, Inc. is to assist the City with preparation of the traffic and parking management plans for the Kent Events Center project, which is planned to open in late 2008 or early 2009. Any parking or traffic management measures should be ready by November of 2009. Community input is still required for some elements of the plan, such 1 as North Park residential parking permit zones and traffic control measures along Stn Avenue. He noted that other tasks include the review of directional signage for the Events Center, and monitoring opening day traffic and parking and recommending improvements. He added that the agreement will not exceed $26,000. Les Thomas moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Agreement with Heffron Transportation, Inc., to provide consultant services to the City of Kent for preparation of the traffic and parking management plans for the Kent Events Center project, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Debbie Raplee seconded and the motion carried 3-0. I7. PUGET SOUND ENERGY EASEMENT FOR KENT EVENTS CENTER — AUTHORIZE Puget Sound Energy requires easements for their facilities on the Events Center property, between the street and meters, in order to serve the Events 4J Operations Committee Minutes May 6, 2008 Page 4 Center with electrical power and natural gas. These facilities included underground conduits, vaults, above ground transformers, and a natural gas service line. The meters for these facilities are located at the back of the building and the electrical and gas services are in James Street right-of-way. The City will provide PSE with ten foot wide easements along the centerline of these facilities. Susan Jensen noted that when this matter goes to Council, there will be two separate easements, one for natural gas and one for electrical. Les Thomas moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to grant Puget Sound Energy easements for electrical and natural gas facilities on the Events Center property, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney. Debbie Raplee seconded and the motion carried 3-0. S. 1ST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Nachlinger gave a report on the 1st quarter financial results, noting that although revenues are coming in under budget, expenditures are coming in even further under budget, resulting in an increase to the budget ' of $1.9 million. He said he will continue to monitor the budget and come to Council if necessary, and agreed to provide information on recreation fees to Thomas later. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CM City Clerk - 1 KE14T W A 6 HEN o T o H ■ OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 ■ Committee Members Present: Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas and Tim Clark ■ The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 4:02 p.m. ■ 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED MAY 6, 2008 Debbie Raplee moved to approve the minutes of the May 6, 2008, Operation Committee meeting. Les Thomas seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED MAY 15, 2008 ' Finance Director Bob Nachlinger presented the vouchers for May 15, 2008, for approval. Les Thomas moved to approve the vouchers dated May 6, 2008. Debbie Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 3. FLEXPASS PROGRAM AGREEMENT 2008-2009 Benefits Analyst Patrice Gillum and Benefits Manager Becky Fowler presented the 1 Flexpass program Agreement for 2008-2009. They advised that the City contracts with King County, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit for the sale of Flexpasses. The FlexPass Program allows for eligible Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) affected employees to choose from a variety of non-SOV (Single Occupancy Vehicle) commute options provided by King County Metro, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit. The value of a pass is $4.75 of each one-way King County Metro bus, Pierce County Transit or Sounder Rail fare. The pass will also serve as a vanpool pass up to a face value of $75.00 per month. The Committee had questions regarding additional van shares locations to accommodate more staff to which Gillum and Fowler confirmed. Debbie Raplee moved to recommend that the FlexPass Program Agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar for the June 03, 2008, City Council Meeting authorizing the Mayor to sign a one year contract with King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit for the FlexPass Program. Les Thomas seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 1 21 Operations Committee Minutes r. May 20, 2008 , Page: 2 4. KING COUNTY SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY AGREEMENT Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services Jeff Watling presented the King County Special Property Tax Levy Agreement. Watling advised that in November 2006, the County Executive created the Parks Futures Task Force to recommend a funding plan for the current county park system, and to examine what steps, if any, should be taken regarding future park system acquisitions. The Task Force recommended that the county place before the voters a recommendation for a new $0.05, six-year, inflation adjusted property tax lid lift to expand park and recreation opportunities. One cent of the five-cent acquisition levy proceeds would be distributed to cities for acquisition and development of open space and natural lands. It would also fund city trail projects that support connections to the regional trail system, defined to include both county regional i trails and city trails that are regional in nature. This may specifically include local trails ■ in underserved areas linking to city or county trails that connect to regional trails. On August 21, 2007, the voters of King County approved the Special Property Tax Levy. The amount to receive in 2008 is $162,761.37. The Committee had questions regarding the trails and targeting east and west locations, which Watling confirmed. Les Thomas moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the King County special property tax agreement for trail and open space projects, and approve the expenditure of annual funds in the trails budget, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Debbie Raplee seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. The meeting adj ned at 4:15 p.m. �rz Petyol Teri Petrole for Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary 1 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 14, 2008 Committee Members Chair Elizabeth Albertson, Ron Harmon sat in for Bob O'Brien in his absence, and Tim Clark. Chair Albertson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes Clark MOVED and Harmon SECONDED a MOTION to approve the minutes of March 10, 2008. Motion PASSED 3-0. Recognition of Canterbury and Highland Crossing Neighborhood Councils I Neighborhood Program Coordinator Toni Azzola gave a general overview of the neighborhood programs. Azzola introduced the Highland Crossing Neighborhood. She stated that this neighborhood consists of approximately 77 homes and is roughly bounded to the north by SE 242nd, to the east by 120th Avenue SE, to the south by SE 245th Place, and to the west by 117th Avenue SE. Merwin Peters, 11931 SE 2451h Place, Kent, WA spoke on behalf of his Highland Crossing Neighborhood, stating that his community has raised funds for the purpose of cleaning up and landscaping their community in an effort to maintain home values, attract potential buyers and generate more involvement from the Ineighbors. Azzola stated that it is likely that both neighborhood councils will go forward to City +■ Council at their May 6, 2008 meeting. Azzola introduced the Canterbury Neighborhood. She stated that this neighborhood consists of approximately 54 homes and is roughly bounded to the north by SE 244th Street, to the east by 101" Place SE, to the south by SE 2481h Street, and to the west by 98th Avenue South. Rob Dempsey, 10021 SE 245rh Pl, Kent, WA spoke on behalf of his Canterbury Neighborhood. He stated that his community has a neighborhood association, but believes that this new neighborhood council program will provide an opportunity for his neighborhood to get more involved within their community without having them bound by homeowner's association covenants. Dempsey stated that their neighborhood association was successful in obtaining some street improvements by working with various departments and people throughout the City. He cited the benefit of having one contact in the city to work with to resolve neighborhood issues through this city program. Dempsey stated that his neighborhood adapted an amendment to their association by-laws to make them appropriate to the neighborhood program the city has. PEDC Minutes April 14, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Harmon MOVED to recommend that Council adopt the proposed resolutions which recognize the Canterbury and Highland Crossing Neighborhood Councils, support their community building efforts and confer all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. Clark SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 3-0. Historic Preservation Nomination (Berieter House) ! Planner Lydia Moorehead stated that the Berieter House has been nominated for consideration as a historic landmark by the Kent Historical Society. Ms. Moorehead gave a brief history of the Berieter House built in 1908 and located at 855 East Smith Street originally consisted of 3.S acres with a gazebo, carriage house, orchard and pastures, of which only the house and carriage house remain. She stated that the primary interest with designation of this property is the opportunity to receive grant funding to restore, most noticeably, the carriage house which has fallen Into disrepair. Norm Turner, President of the Kent Historical Society, 818 Woodland Way, Kent, WA stated that the primary focus of the Historical Museum is to recognize the historical significance of the house built in 1907 and occupied In 1908. He stated that the house is preserved basically in the state as It was built and noting that this year is the homes centennial year. In celebration of the centennial year, the Historical Museum will be hosting an antique car show along with an ice cream social, hotdog stand and a band, to be held on Saturday, August 9, 2008. Turner stated that both the house and grounds are utilized for special events and group meetings with a limitation of no more then 20 people in the house due to fire ' code regulations. Turner stated that the museum is not completely full. However, the museum houses thousands of pictures as well as newspapers documenting Kent's history along with a good size inventory of items from the houses era. Turner stated that the carriage barn Is currently full but anticipate using the carriage barn as an expedition area in the future. Caitlyn Wright, King County Historic Preservation stated that historic preservation is a King County funded program. She stated that our goal is to provide services to as many incorporated cities around King County as possible. Wright stated that by agreeing to allow King County to operate the city program, we provide technical services, give advice on how to treat historic properties, manage a data base of historic properties within the city as well as provide grant opportunities for landmark buildings in the city. Wright stated that the Berieter House applied for a grant through the King County Landmark Brick and Mortar Program used for physical repairs and maintenance to houses. She stated King County has reviewed the grant application and are looking at granting money to restore the interior of the carriage house. Wright stated that this is a program for landmark properties only. PEDC-Minutes April 14, 2008 Page 2of6 3 Clark MOVED to recommend approval of the nomination of the Bereiter House as a historic landmark and authorize the King County Historic Preservation Officer to process the nomination application pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement for Landmark Services. Harmon SECONDED the Motion which PASSED 3-0. Chair Albertson stated that this will move to the Full Council at their May 6 meeting. Code Enforcement Process Improvements - Ordinance Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom stated that this item is being brought back to the PEDC with some minor housekeeping changes. • Asst City Attorney, Tom Guilfoil stated that the Hearing Examiner has suggested some language changes that would follow other statutes and laws more precisely. He stated that if a violation was challenged, appealed, or went to court; judges are more comfortable if language is as consistent as possible. Guilfoil referenced staff's memorandum in noting the proposed language changes. Guillfoil stated that the current code enforcement process is slow and cumbersome, requiring that every Notice of Violation (NOV) be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner who determines if a violation exists, even minor violations such as junk vehicles in yards. Guilfoil stated that in reviewing the current process, staff has proposed to streamline the process by making it more akin to a traffic violation whereby you have the right to contest the violation, but the city is not required to go before the Hearing Examiner on every single violation if a person chooses not to contest it. Guilfoil stated that code enforcement staff will initially work with folks to give them time to resolve suspected violations, rather than immediately issue a NOV. He stated that if those folks are not responsive, a violation is issued; requiring the violation to be corrected and the fine to be paid. Guilfoil responded to Harmon's inquiry with respect to timelines indicating the use of calendar days versus business days by stating that the default rule in this proposed ordinance is calendar days, but a few sections specifically state business days because we are required to. In response to Harmon's inquiry about the methods used to notify people of _■ violations, Guilfoil stated that mailing notices out via certified mail is counterintuitive, in that a person trying to avoid receiving notice will often refuse to sign the certified mail receipt, and this can create a possible barrier when going before the Hearing Examiner or to Court, as there is no signed return receipt. Guilfoil stated that staff has removed the certified mail requirement to avoid this -� problem and is using US Mail. He stated staff is adding requirements to determine a best address; using the Department of Licensing or Tax Receipt addresses. PEDC-Minutes April 14,2008 Page 3 of 6 In response to Harmon, Satterstrom stated that staff could complete an affidavit of mailing as a means to demonstrate to the Hearing Examiner that a notice of violation was sent. ' Guilfoil clarified that staff will continue to make personal contact in attempts to obtain compliance and in many cases personally hand a violation notice out. In those circumstances where they can not hand deliver the violation, they will be mailed. Swanberg explained that the intent of this new ordinance is to help speed up the process of obtaining compliance, first by attempting voluntary compliance, then by being given the authority to immediately issue a citation that the violator can appeal and if they fail to do so, code enforcement may continue to pursue compliance. Swanberg described the current process which includes the Issuance of an admonishment letter, followed by personal contact, Notice of Violation letter, then on to the Hearing Examiner for determination of violation with the possibility of fines to be issued. Swanberg stated that affidavits of mailing are completed on any letter sent out; the letters are entered into our KIVA System as a tracking tool. Harmon MOVED to recommend Council adopt the proposed ordinance which repeals the existing Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code, and adopts a new Chapter 1.04 in its place, and makes other related housekeeping changes to the Chapters in 13.02 and 14.08 of the Kent City Code. Albertson SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 3-0. Albertson stated that this item will be moved on to Council under Consent. She asked that staff bring this item back to the Committee in six months with updates. Cottage Housing Planner Katie Heinitz described Cottage Housing as an innovative housing choice typically resulting in smaller homes with clustered garages located usually close together in one area with pathways leading from those garages to the homes. Heinitz cited the characteristics of a Cottage Housing development which includes; large common open spaces, a separate community building, private residential gardens, innovative housing plans with porches and creative use of interior space. Heinitz stated that Cottage Housing is favorable for in-fill development and gives developers options to use small land parcels for development, as opposed to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) requiring a five-acre minimum area. She stated that Cottage Housing is cognizant of protecting open space, wetlands, steep slopes and forested areas as well as retaining trees on site. Heinitz stated that staff has explored the feasibility of cottage housing in Kent with other City departments and have visited Cottage Housing developments in Kirkland, Redmond and Shoreline. She stated that staff reviewed Kirkland, Redmond, PEDC-Minutes April 14, 2008 Page 4 of 6 5 Shoreline, Federal Way and Normandy Park's cottage housing ordinances, found Kirkland's cottage housing ordinance to be the most innovative and desirable to adopt for Kent's code. She stated that staff would amend Kirkland's code to _ develop a demonstration ordinance and a cottage housing pilot program to meet the City of Kent's needs. Clark stated that he felt Cottage Housing was most viable for development in those areas considered for redevelopment. Planner Erin Fehringer acknowledged Clark stating that staff has not produced criteria specific to where Kent will allow Cottage Housing to be developed in the City, stating that she sees them working well in standard zoning districts as they _ typically fit in well within the surrounding neighborhood environment, where they are built. Fehringer stated that staff determined that Kent's parking requirements would allow them to require two parking spaces per dwelling unit. She stated that the difference is that those parking spaces would be placed in a clustered area away from the houses. Harmon suggested amending Kent's existing PUD ordinance to reduce lot sizes to _ one acre, adding a subsection to the PUD ordinance to Include for Cottage Housing requirements. Fehringer stated that the City needs a separate Cottage House ordinance that will incorporate a special design review element and flexibility for storm-water systems such as vaults. Albertson and Clark concurred with the need for a specific Cottage Housing ordinance. !_ Fehringer stated that the Cottage Company has expressed an interest in building in Kent and has done a phenomenal job with their developments in Kirkland, Redmond and Shoreline. She stated that Kent would need to Fehringer stated that if the City completes a demonstration ordinance, staff will need to develop a selection process, possibly through soliciting proposals, to determine who would build a select number of pilot projects. Residential Development Standards Planner Matt Gilbert stated that in 2006 Council directed staff to examine the City's residential development standards with the purpose of creating better aesthetics, adding open space and character to neighborhoods, and raising the standard of development for new neighborhoods in Kent. Gilbert stated that Council adopted new standards in 2007, with a request to revisit these standards twelve months hence. He stated that the city has continued to see reasonably strong interest in development since these standards have passed, in light of a currently sagging real estate market. He stated that in this period of correction where staff has heard stories of Kent being overbuilt, the city has continued to receive applications to subdivide land under the new ordinance. PEDC-Minutes April 14, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Gilbert stated that approximately 25 percent of the regulatory changes apply to lot sizes, planned orientation, open space, and parameter landscaping. He stated that about 75 percent of the regulatory changes pertain to buildings design review and implementation of park developments; Whereupon, the new design review regulations have not been applied as those plats are in process. Gilbert stated that staff is not prepared to recommend changes to the ordinance at this time. Gilbert stated that when the time comes to make changes to these regulations staff will produce something that is affective in meeting the goals of the Council, is clear, and not onerous to the development community. Gilbert stated that he would like to return to the Committee with an update in September after the construction season citing that the market dictates the schedule. He stated that he is hopeful that staff can gather enough information to offer some changes to the regulations by April 2009. Gilbert stated that staff has not received active opposition to the new development standards. He stated that the city has received a proposal for a plat from a major home builder and approximately 33 smaller proposals. Gilbert stated that staff is seeing a lot of infill development. Gilbert stated that he believes, the fact that staff has seen continued interest is important to evaluating the effectiveness of the regulations. Adiournment Chair Albertson adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Pamela Mottram Planning Services/PEDC Secretary S\Permit\Plan\PEDC\2008\Minutes\04-14-08_PEDCmin doc , PEDC-Minutes April 14, 2008 Page 6 of 6 KENT WAs , �ro ' CITY OF KENT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2008 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas, and Ron Harmon, Chair • The meeting was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 5:02 PM. • D. Raplee's absence was excused. R. Harmon had her concurrence on action items. • Chair called for additions or changes to the agenda, there were none. 1. Approval of Minutes L. Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2008 meeting. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 2. Recognition of council member Bob O'Brien's service to Kent community - INFO ONLY Chair Harmon mentioned that Bob O'Brien recently passed away from cancer and that he would be missed by council members and the community. He also stated that O'Brien was always passionate about Public Safety issues in the community. 1 3. King County Office of Emergency Management $14,030 grant - ACCEPT and AUTHORIZE Fire Chief Jim Schneider shared that he wanted to publicly thank Bob O'Brien for his service and commitment, especially on behalf of the Fire Department. ' Chief Schneider explained the grant funding would be used for the training and education of emergency responders to incidents of terrorism. L. Thomas moved to recommend placing this item on the Consent Calendar of the May 20, 2008 Council Meeting, accepting the reimbursable grant monies not to exceed $14,030 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with King County Office of Emergency Management to receive the funds. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 4. King County Office of Emergency Management $11,000 grant - ACCEPT and AUTHORIZE Chief Schneider explained the grant funding would be used to deliver two seminars in the Zone 3 response area for Law Enforcement, Fire, Public Works, Communications, and special response teams. L. Thomas moved to recommend placing this item on the Consent Calendar of the May 20, 2008 Council Meeting, accepting the reimbursable grant monies not to exceed $11,000 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with King County Office of Emergency Management to receive the funds. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 5. King County Office of Emergency Management $13,000 grant - ACCEPT and AUTHORIZE Chief Schneider explained the grant funding would be used for an exercise of a controlled event as follow-up to the Zone 3 Unified Command Seminar. L. Thomas moved to recommend placing this item on the Consent Calendar of the May 20, 2008 Council Meeting, accepting the reimbursable grant monies not to exceed $13,000 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with King County Office of Emergency Management to receive the funds. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 6. Washington Traffic Safety Commission $2,700 grant application - AUTHORIZE Police Chief Steve Strachan expressed condolences and acknowledged Bob O'Brien's contribution to the community, in particular, his support of public safety issues. Chie Strachan stated the funds would be used to purchase a LIDAR (laser) speed measurement unit. L. Thomas moved to authorize the Kent Police Department to apply for a grant in an amount up to $2,700 from Washington Traffic Safety Commission. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 7. Graffiti Hurts $2,000 grant application - AUTHORIZE Chief Strachan stated the funds would be used to start a program called "Adopt a Spot", engaging the community to help with graffiti removal in certain areas across the City. L. Thomas moved to authorize the Kent Police Department to apply for the Graffiti Hurts grant in the amount of $2,000. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's t concurrence. S. Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority grant application - AUTHORIZE Chief Strachan explained the purpose of WATPA is to reduce auto theft across the state and that its funding is based on a ten dollar surcharge on traffic infractions. He introduced Lt. Bob Holt and Research and Development Analyst Debra LeRoy who are working with other agencies on a multi-jurisdictional application due June 2nd. L. Thomas moved to approve the Kent Police Department's request to apply for the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority grant. The motion was seconded by R. Harmon and passed 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. 9. Crime States 2007 - INFO ONLY Chief Strachan shared Kent's 2007 crime stats compared to Kent's 2006 stats, and to the 2007 statewide stats, as compiled by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Association. The statewide 2007 crime stats will be released by WASPC in a press release on June 5cn The meeting adjourned at 5:32 PM. ■ Jo Thompson Public Safety Committee Secretary Public Safety Committee Minutes 2 May 13, 2008 2 T PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MAY 5, 2008 Committee Members Present: Committee Chair Deborah Ranniger and Committee Members Harmon and Raplee were present. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. ITEM 1 — Approval of the Minutes Dated April 21, 2008: -- Committee Member Harmon moved to approve the minutes of April 21, 2008. The motion was seconded by Raplee and passed 3-0. ITEM 2 — Transportation Master Plan Phase 2: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner briefly explained that the Transportation Master Plan was authorized by Council in December 2005 as a two- part planning effort. Phase II of the Transportation Master Plan is the Implementation Phase where we put into practice the plans, programs and projects which were identified in Phase I of the TMP. This phase will also include a revision to the City's Concurrency Management System and a revised Concurrency Ordinance as well as examining the condition of the City's roads and consider ways to incorporate preservation and maintenance of the City's enormous investment in infrastructure into the city's financial priorities. Raplee moved to recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Kent and Mirai Associates, Inc. for the Transportation Master Plan — Phase 2, in an amount not to exceed $204,653 upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 3 — 228th Street Corridor BNRR Grade Se aration Pro'ect: Tim LaPorte, Deputy Public Works Director gave an overview of the 228th Corridor ' road project, making special note that it is a $72 million dollar project, which is being built in three major phases. Phase one ($32 million) was opened for traffic over a year ago. Phase two (20.3 million) is the BNRR Grade separation and Phase three will be to grade separate 228th at the Union Pacific tracks. He further explained the funding sources and mentioned that the bid opening for the second phase of the project was held on May 6, 2008, with Rodarte Inc. being the lowest bidder. LaPorte stated that the City has already allocated $2.6 million out of the street fund and the drainage fund toward this project. The City finally secured a $5 million low interest loan (at a pay back rate of one half of one percent) from the Public Works Board for this project. The results of these funding efforts are that we are now within $700,000 of reaching our goal of completing this project in 2009. Staff recommends planning for the inclusion of $700,000 in the 2009 budget which will be the final year of construction for this phase. Page 1 of 4 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MAY Sr 2008 Harmon moved to recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with Rodarte Inc. in the amount of $9,238,945.29 for the 228tn BNRR Grade Separation project. The motion was seconded by Raplee and passed 3-0. Raplee further moved to recommend that a capital line item be included in the 2009 budget in the amount of $700,000 for project construction. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 4 - Consultant Services Agreement w/Parametrix, Inc. for Landfill Gas Probe Restoration: Chad Bieren, Engineering Supervisor and Nick Horn, Project Engineer, stated that during the Pacific Highway South HOV Improvements and the S. 228th Corridor projects, three existing gas monitoring probes, originally installed to monitor possible ground water contamination from the Midway and Highland landfills, were damaged. The contract with Parametrix is for the purpose of restoring the three gas monitors. Raplee moved to recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Consultant Contract Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. for the purpose of restoring three (3) gas monitoring probes associated with the Midway and Kent Highlands Landfills in an amount not to exceed $57,636.41 upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 5 - Harrison Street Parking/Parking Amendment: , Tim LaPorte, Deputy Public Works Director introduced Ken Langholz, Senior Project Engineer, stated that based on the engineering and traffic investigation, Public Works staff recommends, as an interim measure, revising the Parking Code to remove parking prohibition for those portions of W Harrison Street, revising the channelization, and installing signs and pavement markings to allow approximately 26 parking stalls and retaining the Two Hour Parking restriction as designated in KCC 9.38.060. Before the motion was made Harmon asked whether the committee could pursue this item as an Emergency Ordinance and bring it to the Council meeting on Tuesday, May 6. Susan Jensen, Assistant City Attorney said she could put the resolution together in time for it to go to the Council meeting the next day. Harmon moved to recommend City Council adopt an Ordinance to revise the City Parking Code, KCC 9.38.020 No parking zones, to delete sections 130. West Harrison Street: two hundred (200) feet west of 2"d Avenue North to 2"d Avenue North, north side only; and 131. West Harrison Street: Page 2 of 4 4 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MAY 5, 2008 from one hundred seventy (170) feet east of 41h Avenue North to Wh Avenue North. The second part of the motion was to declare an emergency so the striping work could be completed before the end of May 2008. The motion was seconded by Raplee and passed 3-0. The emergency ordinance clause of the motion passed 2-1 with Ranniger voting no. ITEM 6 - Traffic Signal Easement for the West James Street Improvements: Tim LaPorte, Deputy Public Works Director and Ken Langholz, Senior Project Engineer stated that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of West James Street and the Events Center/King County Regional Justice Center driveways. There is insufficient space to install the traffic signal system on the south side of the street within existing right-of-way. Raplee moved to accept the traffic signal easement from King County for the West James Street Improvements, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 7 - Emergency Resolution to the Kent Comprehensive Plan: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager introduced Beth Tan, Environmental Engineer III. Tan explained that the Drainage Master Plan and the Comprehensive Water Plan are being modified out of sequence which necessitates the need for the emergency Resolution, which will allow staff to move them forward due to the critical nature of both plans. Harmon moved to recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Emergency Resolution to amend the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Drainage Master Plan and Comprehensive Water System Plan, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Raplee and passed 3-0. ITEM 8 - Resolution for Application to the Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) for McSorley Creek Wetland Property Acquisition: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager stated that staff is pursuing funding for acquisition for seven (7) parcels totaling 40.58 acres located within the 79-acre McSorley Creek Wetland complex. Staff is requesting authorization to submit the grant application to the RCO Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program to fund purchase of these parcels within the McSorley Creek Wetland complex. Page 3 of 4 5 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MAY 51 2008 Raplee moved to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the application to the Recreation and Conservation Office for funds to aid in financing the acquisition costs of the McSorley Creek Wetland area properties. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. Update/Lake Meridian Outlet Proiect: Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager gave an update on the Lake Meridian Outlet Project. There will be an official re-opening of the Lake Meridian Park boat launch on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Information Only/No Motion Required j Adiourned: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Cheryl Viseth Public Works Committee Secretary Page 4 of 4 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. 1 i i EXECUTIVE SESSION ■ ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION 1