HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/19/2013 CITY OF KENT
����J ii/i iIJ✓/r >/ r rah' l/r % /��//; City Council Meeting
Agenda
�.
February 19, 2013
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Dennis Higgins, Council President
Councilmembers
Elizabeth Albertson
m Bill Boyce
Jamie Perry
x
Dana Ralph
u Deborah Ranniger
we
Les Thomas CIFY CLERK
u �'
KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
KENT February 19, 2013
W>_HI. N Council Chambers
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Dennis Higgins, President
Councilmember Elizabeth Albertson Councilmember Bill Boyce
Councilmember Jamie Perry Councilmember Dana Ralph
Councilmember Deborah Ranniger Councilmember Les Thomas
**********************************************************************
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
5:30 p.m.
Item Description Speaker Time
1. Federal Legislation Ben McMakin 50 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 Arts Commission Community Arts Program Grant Recipients
D. Proclamation of Kiwanis Children's Cancer Month
E. Legislative Report
F. Public Safety Report
G. Intergovernmental Report
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve
B. Payment of Bills - Approve
C. Excused Absence - Council President Dennis Higgins
D. Budget Certification for Annexation Sales Tax Credit - Resolution -
Adopt
E. Oakleigh Division I (aka Singh II) Final Plat - Approve
F. Oakleigh Division II (aka Singh III) Final Plat - Approve
G. King County Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement - Authorize
(Continued)
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED
H. Routine Bacteriological Water Sample Collection Contract w/ AmTest,
Inc. — Authorize
I. Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority Grant — Accept
J. Washington Transportation Safety Committee Grant for DUI Media
Buys — Accept
K. Washington Traffic Safety Equipment Grant — Accept
L. Business Licensing, Amending KCC 5.01.020, Ordinance — Adopt
M. Safe Rental Housing, Amending KCC 5.14.040, Ordinance — Adopt
N. Disorderly Conduct, Amending KCC 9.02.190, Ordinance — Adopt
0. Public Disturbance, Amending KCC 9.02.200, Ordinance — Adopt
P. Inattentive Driving, Amending KCC 9.36.200, Ordinance — Adopt
Q. Countywide Planning Policies, Ratification - Resolution — Adopt
R. Zoning Code Amendment, Landscaping - Ordinance — Adopt
S. Partner with Integra Telecom for City of Kent Telecommunication
Services - Authorize
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Medic One/EMS — Resolution Endorsing Levy — Adopt
8. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Property Acquisition, RCW 42.30.110 (b)
10. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's
Office. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of
Kent web site at www.KentWa.gov
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.
m m
O W W Ot
O T v U C_
- N y O O T C J W i3 Ot
y 10 C m J 0 J V V m m ._ O C m
v i N O a m m �O J V U C m a m W Cyo- m m a'Ci
� VQm miUNm TLC > ` 0w u Otmy TS p
W �n F O O W �n '/� p C L y
O a L Y vwi N E c O u N U W V m 0
a- wC Y , 9 a p w y C V w U J
m W U m W - O O W C = T _
N m V C C i m C m o E w 0 u m m 0 �_
C
OV OI; OI� � JUCw WL LLJwmC mJ0 m ml
C Q m J O C O w i O ` C O J W W
Ti T Ot V L O
0- V L OI O m a T 0 E m O L D `OI ` C J J `N W �n T J Q m
V D'U C Y O L >_ % V y �' w C �n W C W O O a1 y y 3 w '�-� W
• m W /� 10 y m y O T w w C N 10 VJi W v C U T J v Vp V¢I
• a w C d N o c m y y E w y � E o > W w T C D_
wEJu N•L ,� m O pM I us 'm D ' J
cc � a � E � � W -o WE '- J Em v . mm mm
• -o J W r m w =on w m -O E � n � na � L E D
J o - a U L 0 O J a J o = .w, a J m J m O t ,m, '^ £ o
QV Off; 3mav, v, m 3 ._ aaaL ay .. =0190 UE
_ T w
W o V w '^ >
p V' i w
w > W � � w W � Vm iy m � J
y - L V W L O L L O C m
0 m F m y i 0 = 0 w O C C 10 d t
V C W y j 0 9 U
Ot W V E i C C O.y0 O V J a 0 Q m C q a C
W m m W 'U C U m C O O E 'y M U � C O O
J E E °' _ Y O 'C w = v V 3i O m � C N J E YJ E
0 .VOV Cot� JC WC W vwi V -OO m EYm K .G a a t w a
w J V E J T o E `w E , C L E m E aCi 3 W U v v C V E U - M v
-OO V VO m V V w o 0 V1 OV W i w w E m v L f m C T •j m E � O a w O" L C V
m T E C i O L 0 y O y W E 01U N m m a C m 0 O N W Obi N
W y C N N N i U Vp w W w w w O V U O T- V N .0 0 Ifl - M m E S U
O >> y U V y f m O y w C > E L w m C
E
V a F Z v o m o o H '^ 3 y p o 10 '° mFw E C F N J C U o m m m - L N ,� O
V C W L a f w L C w L w v i OV Z w C o A W m ^C v T m F W C
W Y ._ w � O E E -oo 0 w f w one a � ° o� w N J W M o�� � V .G o,� v -o .. W`M
3 0 W Y ?i U W E m y m O E �_ L w m U i W 'O _ C w J U C C
0 ?r W E O T m a U E 01 VVi 0 E C w C W N > C m L O3 L m o N J L C
U y a 3 = C W m 0 J O W i J J W W J m
• m W N y, F W >_ E ,� a U - E - u u V o u M Ydti mL ui� CdLN Vl mN 3 mti
a m w m F w " = a a" a ._ ._
a V V C C O V m C m w ? W V E E v C � o w y. 0 C v O Y1 u m u m
F a 3 o Q F v V m m o OU V ° m n $ $ w V > £ OU O �° � a Q w � W 02: a Q2: a Q2:
v
p O
G` O
> ^ L
•zr
E
L n o ca > i3
V N Q N O
w L
• C C ` aSi a J a O
F O N r� 0, C �r0j (n 3
O p _ C Q
W V = z O Ln = w M O N y W O Ti
N f m U1 b O ,y
W W N m C - O C
i� W OJ - r. r.
N T M ` m rz 0 > M C � V _ M w
U y a� L Q a J i0 C V i0
Z V C t G 1N V V 3 V m 0 `0 W 0
C N m v O C O C M M m
OU Y .ram `mU Q 3 YrvY V N N E
LU W r
U1 C
m O N AO
J W '0 y W Ot V
O Ot E a 0 i O W C y 1 L (j , - M
T C O U
� -o � � M 3 L � 3 .1T ,v`c ww Um scow
a m m T 3 LD wapi U C m J m N v v
0 W J v O O 3 O b W O > v C G y
• U m T U E :u T J a W y) O i 0 U pU W m
LL j T C C 0 w J T w w o Q C w m U V
U O - i T 0 W N C O a 3 K O j U VI
C
0 L O vpi W j W W q 0
IT a 3 U > > m Y w Y 0, C C H m Wm 3 co
E W ° {/1 m 3 a W ° "w °_ w air `or u''9i � `m -mo3 °-o oo � °�' � Mw G C G E wv COOw Z m O1i L m W O Orz Wt W C i a W N � O�O. O V a H j W � m .� m w D r Y Q u N o O L v A E m 0 •Y T 3 m G �. w w w u O ` v 0
O. L N FLU U +' W W '� UZW >- C , u , -
Vl v O a� 6 a K in V m Q V > 4 a QF � m0 Q mU �, l_ ti
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
1) Federal Legislation
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
B) From the Public
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A) Public Recognition
B) Community Events
C) Kent Arts Commission Community Arts Program Grant
Recipients
D) Proclamation of Kiwanis Children's Canter Month
E) Legislative Report
F) Public Safety Report
G) Intergovernmental Report
Kiwanis Children's Cancer Month
Whereas, Kiwani8 International was founded on January 2, 1915; and
Whereas, the men and women of the Pacific Northwest District Kiwanis have
exhibited a deep sense of pride in community by serving the
needs of family and children worldwide; and
Whereas, PNW Kiwanis Division 32 is represented in the communities of
Kent, Auburn, Renton, Covington, Federal Way, Black Diamond/
Maple Valley, and
Whereas, the Pacific Northwest District of Kiwanis has, effective October 1,
2010, initiated the multi-year district wide service project, Kiwanis
Children's Cancer Cure program; and
Whereas, this program will fund the Kiwanis Children's Cancer Fellowships,
allowing physicians to seek cures for currently untreatable forms
of cancer; and
Whereas, the Kiwanis Clubs of Division 32 will collaborate with Seattle
Children's Hospital; and
Whereas, the local Kiwanis Clubs are the epitome of their defining statement
"Kiwanis is a Global Organization of Volunteers Dedicated to
Changing the World One Child and One Community at a Time".
NOW THEREFORE, on behalf of the City of Kent, coinciding with Pacific
Northwest Kiwanis Division 32 and Kiwanis Children's Cancer Program hereby
proclaim February 2013 as
Kiwanis Children's Cancer Month
In the City of Kent and encourage all citizens to celebrate the many
contributions made by the members of Kiwanis Clubs of the Pacific Northwest.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Kent to
be affixed this 19th day of February 2013.
r
Buz tte C oke, Mayor
KENT
WASHINGTON
PUBLIC COMMENT
•
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 6A — 6B
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through S.
Discussion
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 5, 2013.
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through January 15, 2013 and paid on
January 15, 2013 after auditing by the Operations Committee on February 5,
2013.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Document Numbers Amount
01/15/13 Wire Transfers 5338 5354 $1,471,602.20
01/15/13 Regular Checks 669971 670297 $950,039.42
Void Checks $0.00
01/15/13 Use Tax Payable $2,919.70
$2,424,561.32
Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 1, 2013 through January 15,
2013 and paid on January 18, 2013:
Date Document Numbers Amount
1/18/2013 Checks 330334 330482 $100,485.81
Voids and
Reissues
1/18/2013 Advices 308891 309515 $1,396,781.24
$1,497,267.05
Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 16, 2013 through January 31,
2013 and paid on February 5, 2013:
Date Document Numbers Amount
2/5/2013 Checks 330483 330639 $122,624.00
Voids and
Reissues
2/5/2013 Advices 309516 310146 $1,207,553.87
$1,330,177.87
y RCN i Kent City Council Meeting
Was„ „ ,., February 5, 2013
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Cooke.
Councilmembers present: Albertson, Boyce, Higgins, Perry, Ralph, and Ranniger.
Councilmember Thomas was excused from the meeting.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
A. From Council, Administration, Staff. Council President Higgins proposed an
excused absence for Councilmember Thomas be added under Item 7(L). Council-
member Perry proposed removing Consent Calendar Item I and placing it on Other
Business Item C. Council President Higgins also proposed adding Intergovernmental
Reports as Item 4(D).
B. From the Public. No changes were made by the public.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recoanition. Mayor Cooke recognized Reese McGuire for his accomplish-
ments in baseball. Councilmember Perry noted that Cindy Marlowe is appearing on
the television show "Project Runway" and is into the third episode on the show.
B. Community Events. No community events were given.
C. Legislative Report. Communication and Public Affairs Manager Michelle Wilmot
noted that the City is entering the fourth week of the legislative session. She added
that the top items concern the State budget and the City won't know exactly what it
will look like until the April 17. She discussed committee meetings and reported on
bills that are of concern to the cities. She mentioned that Doug Levy is working with
King County Councilmembers to express the City's concerns. She also noted that
residents can go to www.leg.wa.gov is to comment on the bills.
D. Intergovernmental Reports. Council President Higgins gave a brief update on
the Regional Policy Committee meeting regarding the potential renewal of the EMS
Levy that supports Medic One which will be coming up for renewal this year. He noted
another item discussed concerning the extension of the interlocal agreement with
King County Solid Waste Division. . He gave a brief update on the Regional Transit
Committee and the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency board meeting on the 21st.
Councilmember Albertson noted that she was in Olympia and testified on SB5103,
met with Senator Faine, Representative Sullivan, and Representative Maxwell
regarding the City's legislative agenda. She stated that the Regional Water Quality
Committee will meet to set up the yearly work plan. She will be meeting with Debra
Entimen from Senator Adam's office concerning the Briscoe Desimone levy. She has
a Flood Control District Board of Supervisors Executive Committee meeting on
February 7.
1
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
Councilmember Perry noted that she will attend the Public Issues Committee of the
Sound Cities Association meeting on February 7 and they are forming an Economic
Development Committee and she has been asked to sit on the Events Committee.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council President Higgins moved to approve the revised Consent Calendar
Items A through L, excluding Item J, seconded by Councilmember Perry.
Motion carried 6-0 and the following items were approved:
A. Minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of January 15, 2013
B. Payment of the bills received through December 31 and paid on December 31,
2012 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 15, 2013.
Checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/31/12 Wire Transfers 5287-5337 $1,646,517.81
12/31/12 Regular Checks 669544-669970 3,655,157.03
12/31/12 Use Tax Payable 1,738.55
$5,303,413.39
Checks issued for payroll for December 16 through December 31, and paid on
January 4, 2013:
Date Check Numbers Amount
1/4/13 Checks 330195-330333 $ 70,618.70
1/4/13 Advices 308264-308890 1,180,580.62
$1,251,199.32
C. Memorandum of Understanding for Joint Human Services Application/
Grant Management. The Mayor was authorized to sign the Memorandum of
Understanding between the city of Kent and 18 local cities for management of online
grants subscription services, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney and Parks and Human Services Director.
D. Addendum to "Go Grants" Online Subscription Service Agreement. The
Mayor was authorized to sign the addendum to the "Go Grants" Online Subscription
Service Agreement between the city of Kent and Western States Arts Federation,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks and
Human Services Director.
E. Recreation and Conservation Office Grant Agreement. The Mayor was
authorized to accept and sign the grant agreement with the Recreation and
Conservation Office for $125,120.00 to assist in funding land acquisition at Clark
Lake, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks
and Human Services Director.
2
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
F. Green River Flood Protection Sandbaa Removal. The Green River Flood
Protection Sandbag Removal Project was accepted as complete and release of
retainage to AGR Contracting, Inc. upon receipt of standard releases from the state
and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $894,628.03. The final
contract amount was $668,599.95.
G. Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant. The Mayor was
authorized to accept the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant in the
amount of $31,442.22 for 2013 and establish a budget accordingly, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
H. Olympic Environmental Resources Recvclina Contract. The Mayor was
authorized to sign a consultant services agreement with Olympic Environmental
Resources for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and Programs for 2013 in an
amount not to exceed $93,392.25, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to
the City Attorney and the Public Works Director.
I. 64th Ave. S. Channel Improvements Consultant Contract with AMEC. The
Mayor was authorized to sign a consultant contract with AMEC in an amount not to
exceed $19,096.15 to provide geotechnical engineering services for the 64th Avenue
South Channel Improvements Project, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
K. Upper Johnson Creek Restoration, Phase II. The Upper Johnson Creek
Restoration - Phase II Project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to
Restoration Logistics, LLC, upon receipt of standard releases from the State and
release of any liens. The original and final contract amount was $59,903.55.
ADDED ITEM
R. Excused Absence. An excused absence for Councilmember Les Thomas, who was
unable to attend the February 5, 2013, meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Proposed SE 256th Street Local Improvement District 364 - Resolution of
Intent. Design Engineer Manager Mark Howlett gave a brief overview of the proposed
256th Street Local Improvement District 364 and stated that the Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board has made it clear that construction must be
started by July 1 or the $2 million grant will be taken away. He gave an overview of
the project and explained the improvements that would be made.
Councilmember Boyce inquired if the City knew the funds would go away by July 1
and Mr. Howlett confirmed that we did.
Councilmember Albertson moved to adopt Resolution No. 1869 setting a
Public Hearing date for March 5, 2013, regarding the formation of Local
Improvement Disctrict 364, seconded by Council President Higgins.
3
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
Councilmember Albertson discussed the area and stated that this project is a long
time coming. She noted that there are children and significant pedestrian traffic in the
area and it will provide much needed safety to the area.
A vote was taken on the motion on the table which carried 6-0.
B. Human Resources Community Outreach Position. Human Resource Director
Lorraine Patterson gave an overview of the position.
Council President Higgins moved to approve the .60 part-time benefitted
position for the Human Resources Department, seconded by Councilmember
Albertson. Motion carried 6-0.
C. Briscoe Desimone Levee Contract with GEI. Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director
discussed the levee and noted that it would be difficult to accomplish the work if this
item is delayed any longer.
Councilmember Perry inquired if setting the item back two weeks would hurt the
timeline and Mr. LaPorte responded that it would be difficult but could work.
Councilmember Perry moved to postpone the item to the February 19, 2013
Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Albertson.
Councilmember Perry stated that the City should wait to see what the King County
Flood Control District's decision is and that WRIA-9 and Sound Cities Association will
be making recommendations. She feels this item should wait for two weeks.
Council President Higgins noted how the motion was written and said the project
needs to move forward as soon as the King County Flood Control District approves
Kent's plan. He felt it shouldn't be moved back to committee or wait two weeks.
Counclmember Albertson noted that it shouldn't be brought to committee and a
workshop should be held on this very issue and will support waiting.
Councilmember Ralph noted that this item has been discussed several times in
committee and the language has been carefully selected because the City is waiting
on final approval of the King County Flood Control District. She noted she will not be
voting in favor of this motion.
Councilmember Boyce stated that he heard what Councilmember Albertson has said,
but doesn't understand what the Council is waiting for. He stated that he doesn't see
anything that locks the City into anything and doesn't understand why the Council
should wait. He felt moving forward would be proactive.
Councilmember Perry stated Council as a whole hasn't discussed reports from other
agencies and the City needs to work with other agencies and cities to move forward.
4
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
Councilmember Albertson stated that there are questions because the Council hasn't
had the time to consider this item as a whole before moving forward. She said that all
councilmembers don't have all the information.
Councilmember Boyce noted that the purpose of committees is to do the work and
bring the work back to the Council and usually there isn't any issue. He noted that
this is the process the Council has followed since he has been a councilmember.
Councilmember Perry replied that there are a host of players involved that could
jeapordize this in the future. She said there should be a workshop and this deserves
one.
Council President Higgins stated that a workshop is a good idea and that previous
related matters have been approved on consent calendar. He noted that the Public
Works Director has conveyed that this levee is in dire need of repair and that
businesses in the valley are in jeopardy.
Council President Higgins said he will vote no.
Councilmember Ranninger stated that this levee does need repair and regional
consensus building is important. She felt the City needs the good will of the other
entities involved and holding off for 14 days to hear what WRIA-9, King County and
others have to say will not make that much difference. She was in favor of the
motion.
Councilmember Albertson stated that Councilmember Ranniger summed it up and this
is a very important decision. She felt it is critical for everyone to have all the
information before making a decision.
Councilmember Ralph stated that this isn't the City charging forward, it is letting King
County know that the City is in a positon to move forward immediately. She noted
that time is of the essence and the prudent thing to do is address the difficiencies
immediately. This simply says if King County Flood Control District approves the Kent
plan, the City is ready to move forward.
Councilmember Boyce asked how much impact waiting two weeks will have. Public
Works Director LaPorte noted that the City needs to obtain permits and get things in
order and that's why staff recommended that this be brought to Council in January.
He stated that waiting makes it incrementally more difficult to get this done.
Councilmember Boyce then asked if the City doesn't move forward will this offend
other agencies we work with. Councilmember Perry replied that it will offend other
agencies.
Public Works Director LaPorte, answering Councilmember Perry's question, replied it
would be difficult to wait two weeks.
Councilmember Albertson reitered that there may not be a consensus on this because
it hasn't been voted on and that it is prudent to wait.
Council President Higgins took the gavel.
5
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
Mayor Cooke stated that as Chair of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee, she has gone to a lot of meeting and heard many opinions. She gave an
overview of the specifics of the project and stated that this simply allows the
contractor to get ready. She stated that Council doesn't want to lose the opportunity
to move forward on this levee.
Councilmember Boyce said this has been a great conversation and felt that Council
should move forward and will not support the motion.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion, Councilmember Perry,
Councilmember Albertson, and Councilmember Ranniger voted in the
affirmative. Council President Higgins, Councilmember Ralph,
Councilmember Boyce dissented, making the vote a 3-3 tie. Mayor Cooke
utilized her tie-breaking authority, dissented and the motion failed 3-4.
Council President Higgins moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a consultant
services contract with GEI Consultants Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$736,544 to provide structural and geotechnical engineering services for
final design of the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project, subject to approval by
the King County Flood Control District of the City's sheet pile wall proposal,
and approval and release of $7 million grant funds from the District to the
City of Kent, and obtaining an acceptable agreement with the City of Tukwila
for work within Tukwila, and final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney and Public Works Director. Councilmember Ralph seconded.
Councilmember Perry stated that Council should have voted to wait in the last motion
and is concerned about not hearing from all the other agencies.
Councilmember Ralph inquired if the sheet pile wall would provide an immediate
solution until funds are available. Mr. LaPorte said that the sheet pile wall has been
vetted through four consulting firms and a national expert by the County. He added
that the walls can be removed in the future.
Councilmember Ranninger noted this issue should have been at workshop tonight.
She is worried about consensus and said her position stands.
President Higgins communicated that he didn't think it would be contentious and said
it will be scheduled in the future as a workshop. He noted that nothing will transpire
unless the King County Flood District acts in the City's favor. He noted that the
Council's obligation is to the City and should protect the interests of Kent, not King
County or WRIA-9. He noted that the cost of doing business, economic development
is high and when the City staff says if this was a bridge it would be closed the City
should act.
Councilmember Perry noted that more information is needed and two weeks isn't
much to get more information. She felt having more information is in the best interest
of the citizens.
6
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
Councilmember President Higgins stated that a $17 million investment to put a sheet
pile wall in when what the County is proposing will cost millions of dollars is a prudent
expenditure of money to address a need. He noted that the City needs to be able to
protect businesses and roads and let economic development continue.
Councilmember Albertson noted that as information is being uncovered the pile wall
may not be the best decision and expressed concerns. She stated that more
information needs to be uncovered.
Councilmember Perry commented that the City has one plan that would cost $17
million and King County has a long term and short term plan, one is $200-900 million
and the other is $63 million.
Councilmember President Higgins noted that the short term plan wasn't discussed at
all when this first was introduced.
Councilmember Boyce confirmed that the Kent plan is $17 million and if KC decides to
move forward with their $63 million plan the Kent plan won't be adopted. He states
that the City isn't locking itself into anything.
Councilmember Perry agreed with Councilmember Boyce. However, she said if the
King County Flood District says yes, and its partners are suggesting moving to the
higher cost plan, the City is stuck.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion, Council President Higgins,
Councilmember Ralph, Councilmember Boyce voted in the affirmative.
Councilmember Perry, Councilmember Albertson, and Councilmember
Ranniger dissented, making the vote a 3-3 tie. Mayor Cooke utilized her tie-
breaking authority, voted in the affirmative and the motion was carried 4-3.
BIDS
A. Hawley Road Levee Improvements. Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director, gave a
brief description of the project.
Councilmember Albertson moved to award the Hawley Road Levee
Improvements Project to SCI Infrastructure, LLC, in the amount of
$541,925.36 and the Mayor was authorized to sign all necessary documents,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and
Public Works Director, seconded by Councilmember Ralph. Motion carried 6-
0.
REPORTS
A. Council President. None.
B. Mayor. Mayor Cooke noted that Valley Cities Mayors are working on the
prioritization of road projects that have gone before the state as well as other entities.
She went on to explain the road projects and has been asked to sign a letter of
7
Kent City Council Minutes February 5, 2013
support. She mentioned that Mike Moran is a speaker at the Chamber of Commerce
meeting tomorrow and will speak on LEAN. She noted that Michael Shelton who lives
here in Kent has started movement to dedicate a roadway to veterans.
C. Administration. Chief Administration Officer John Hodgson noted that he is
representing South King County Cities which will look at low income fare subsidies. He
noted that the twenty representatives have a mission to formulate options for low
income riders and have a response done by the first of July. He asked for feedback
from the Council. He stated that most low income subsidies are handed out by non-
profit agencies. He also noted there will be no executive session.
D. Economic & Community Development Committee. Councilmember Perry
noted that the next Economic & Community Development Committee meeting is
February 11.
E. Operations Committee. No report was given.
F. Parks and Human Services Committee. No report was given.
G. Public Safety Committee. Councilmember Boyce noted that the next meeting is
February 12.
H. Public Works Committee. Councilmember Albertson noted that the February 18
meeting is cancelled.
I. Regional Fire Authority. No report was given.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:30 p.m., Mayor Cooke declared the regular meeting adjourned.
Ronald F. Moore, MMC
City Clerk
8
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6C
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Excused Absence - Council President Dennis Higgins -
Approve
MOTION: Approve an excused absence for Council President Higgins as he
is unable to attend the February 19, 2013, meeting.
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY:
BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A
KEN_ T
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6D
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Budget Certification for Annexation Sales Tax Credit-
Resolution — Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. approving the certification of $3,751,863
for the Panther Lake annexation sales tax credit for the period July 1, 2013 through
June 30, 2014.
SUMMARY: The City is required to certify to the State of Washington before March 1't
of each year, the amount needed from the annexation sales tax credit to provide
services in the annexed area. The Finance Department has calculated the costs and
revenues within the Panther Lake annexation area and has determined a gap between
revenues generated and expenditures used to provide services of $3,751,863 for July
1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
EXHIBITS: Resolution
RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: The budget for the Panther Lake Annexation area for the State's
fiscal 2012 year is anticipated to be $11,743,932 in expenditures to provide City
services to those residents, while we anticipate revenues of $7,992,069 from property
taxes, sales taxes and other sources. The net of the revenues and costs produces a
deficit of $3,751,863 which is the amount being certified as the amount we are
requesting from the State in the annexation Sales Tax Credit.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, authorizing the City of
Kent to impose a sales and use tax as authorized
by RCW 82.14.415 as a credit against state sales
and use tax, relating to annexations, and
authorizing the city's Finance Director to certify the
threshold amount for the 2013 fiscal year.
RECITALS
A. This is not a new tax, but a reallocation of the sales tax
already collected by the state, which will then be remitted to the City to
assist with funding the costs of the newly annexed area.
B. After providing all appropriate notice and following appropriate
procedure, and following a favorable vote on the annexation proposition,
the Kent City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 3936 on December 8,
2009, approving the Panther Lake Annexation Area effective July 1, 2010.
The population within the annexation area determined at the time of
annexation was 25,458 people.
C. On February 15, 2011, the City adopted Resolution No. 1839
authorizing the City of Kent to impose a sales tax and use tax as
authorized by RCW 82.14.415 as a credit against state sales and use tax,
relating to annexations, and authorizing the city's finance director to certify
the threshold amount for the 2011 fiscal year.
1 Tax Credit Threshold
Panther Lake Annexation
D. On February 7, 2012, with Resolution No. 1853, the City
authorized the imposition of similar annexation sales and use taxes for the
2012 fiscal year.
E. With this Resolution, the City authorizes the imposition of
similar annexation sales and use taxes for the 2013 fiscal year.
F. The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, finds and
determines that the projected cost to provide municipal services to the
annexed area will be at least $11,743,932, and that cost exceeds the
projected general revenue estimated to be $7,992,069 that the City would
otherwise receive from the annexation on a fiscal year basis.
G. Pursuant to RCW 82.14.415, the City of Kent is authorized,
under the circumstances of this annexation, to impose a sales and use tax
for the next state fiscal year, which shall be collected from those persons
who are taxable by the state under Chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW, upon
the occurrence of any taxable event within the city, with that tax being a
credit against the state tax.
H. The rate of tax imposed shall be 0.2 percent, and shall be in
addition to other taxes authorized by law, and the threshold amount for the
next (third) state fiscal year following the annexation and adoption of the
tax is as follows: $3,751,863.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
2 Tax Credit Threshold
Panther Lake Annexation
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, - Rate and Threshold Amount. The city of Kent will
continue the sales and use tax rate to offset municipal services costs to the
city's newly annexed Panther Lake Annexation area at 0.2 percent, which
shall be in addition to other taxes authorized by law. The threshold amount
for the Panther Lake Annexation for the state fiscal year 2013 is
$3,751,863.
SECTION 2, - Implementation and certification. The Mayor of the
City of Kent is authorized to implement administrative procedures as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Resolution. The City's
finance director is authorized to certify the amount for the 2013 fiscal year
to the appropriate agencies within the State of Washington.
SECTION 3, - Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4, - Savings. Resolution No. 1853 shall remain in full
force and effect until the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTIONS. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION 6, - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
3 Tax Credit Threshold
Panther Lake Annexation
codes, rules, or regulations; or resolution numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
SECTION 7, - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage, however the imposition of the
sales and use taxes for the 2013 state fiscal year authorized by this
Resolution shall not take effect until the commencement of that fiscal year.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of 2013.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2013.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRU BAKE R, CITY ATTORNEY
4 Tax Credit Threshold
Panther Lake Annexation
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the
day of 2013.
RONALD MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\I solution\Mnexadon Sales Tax Threshold2013.docx
5 Tax Credit Threshold
Panther Lake Annexation
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6E
TO: City Council
DATE: February 13, 2013
SUBJECT: Singh II (Oakleigh I) Final Plat (SU-2006-13) - Approve
MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Oakleigh Division I and authorize the
Mayor to sign the mylar.
SUMMARY: On November 15, 2006 the Hearing Examiner recommended approval to
subdivide 4.43 acres into 15 single family residential lots and one stormwater tract.
On July 11, 2012 the Planning Manager approved a minor plat alteration (PTA-2010-2)
reducing the number of lots from 15 down to 14, combining the stormwater facility
with the Singh III (Oakleigh II) subdivision (SU-2006-15), reconfiguring the size and
orientation of lots, and modifying private access easements to the lots. The applicant
has complied with the conditions required prior to recordation. The property is located
at the northeast corner of SE 27gth Street and 108th Avenue SE.
EXHIBITS: Map and Conditions
RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development & Public Works
Department
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
OAKLEIGH DIVISION I
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN
CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1i FSAfIA Rm R1_1A71'
I / I
I h
S.E. 277TH
PLACE FAacEI z I"e
KCSF 577otlt
REC, ND, 77121i9O796
0.6k1402'E
dD
R�rt�
�E m
S E 27 TH ST_ ;� 8 E TH kj STREET S.E. 278TH��1 si
,mn 2 a 1= BTREET j �sxy_7Lq 4 i
39 m a,ehi s �` v'rzo: s B e 1 - # 7r a tt 1lw ss 9 v as4i •-'_�
a2 a ¢ md,a t a rl
m' I
TI
TFAOT BBB
31
ae �z2 Ir /
a '
i
rRAcrlaaJ S E 27STH STREET 4rr+acf9ee
[EYIWtl£ Y -s[P �. Ef—L
ad / xc moan mw uc nxn am ,r,sol wXa UNPWTfED
n'ivw[O:mm
SEE SHEET C. FOR =
NEW EASEMENT DETAILS IS I —
Is I
I '-
I� _
N 1.
,orkx lorw xm:,.twxxn fml
LE6ENo:
IEfmµm�s ,
4SumFv.....
s wrzo
n m avr/ art - i -
0
T"�`"""'" Barghausen
S t• Consulting Engineers Inc. s
17
011)" . ro l......
SCALE SEild 02 NVY114 OF SEC 32 T22N-Fl6E,VYM_ _
t 50' 1B A
u-saoa-u Kry�m.�a,na - SHEET 3 OF 5
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF KENT
\1147�,KENT Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
W"5 "I"GT°" FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
I
i
FILE NO: SINGH II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #RPP3-2063083
APPLICANT: Hardeep Singh
21625 4rh Avenue South
Normandy Park, WA 98198
REQUEST: A request to subdivide a 4.43 acre parcel into 15 single
family residential lots.
LOCATION: 27830 106th Avenue SE, Kent, Washington
APPLICATION FILED: June 27, 2006
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: September 29, 2006,
(#ENV-2006-47)
HEARING DATE: November 1, 2006
DECISION ISSUED: November 15, 2006
DECISION: APPROVED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Sharon Clamp, Planner
TESTIMONY: The following testified under oath:
Sharon Clamp, Planner
Mike Gillespie
James Jaeger, P.E.
Carol Henry
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff File with attachments:
A. Staff Report, dated October 25, 2006
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 1 of 20
B. Singh II Preliminary Plat Plan Map, dated
June 21, 2006
C. Preliminary Plat Application, received by the
City dated June 27, 2006
D. City Department Review Memoranda:
a. Kent Fire Prevention, dated August 21, 2006
b. Kent Planning Services, dated July 3, 2006
E. Notice of Public Hearing, given October 20,
2006, and Affidavit of Notice, dated October 25,
2006, with attached list of notified owners of
property within 300 feet of proposed
subdivision
F. Preliminary Plat Vicinity and Site Map
G. Notice of Application, dated August 15, 2006
H. Notice of Application Completeness, dated
August 8, 2006, with attached Notice of
Application Incompleteness, dated July 13,
2006
I. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,
issued September 29, 2006, with attached
Environmental Checklist
The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony
and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:
FINDINGS
1. Hardeep Singh (the Applicant) requests approval of a preliminary plat application to
subdivide one 4.43 acre parcel into 15 single-family residential lots. The parcel subject
to the application is located at 27830 1061h Avenue SE, Kent, Washington, and is
identified by King County tax parcel number 3222059094.1 Exhibit 1, Attachment A,
page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment C.
2. The City of Kent (City) gave notice of the preliminary plat application on August 15,
2006, and gave notice of the public hearing associated with the application on October
20, 2006. The City posted notice of the public hearing on the site of the proposed
subdivision, published notice in the King County Journal, and mailed notice to all owners
of property within 300 feet of the proposed subdivision site. Exhibit 1, Attachment E;
Exhibit 1, Attachment G.
3. The City analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision as required by
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City determined that with mitigation,
the proposed subdivision would not have a probable significant adverse environmental
The legal description of the parcel subject to the application is included within the Applicant's
preliminary plat plan map, dated June 21, 2006. Exhibit 1,AttachmentB.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 2 of 20
impact, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on September
29, 2006. The MDNS includes conditions/mitigating measures addressing traffic impacts
of the proposed subdivision and improvements to pedestrian walkways serving Meadow
Ridge Elementary School. Exhibit 1, Attachment 1.
4. The parcel subject to the application lies between 106th Avenue SE to the west, 1081h
Avenue SE to the east, and SE 279th Street to the south. Property to the north of the
subject parcel contains one, single-family residence. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 2;
Exhibit 1,Attachment F.
S. Property surrounding the subject parcel in all directions is zoned SR-4.5, Single Family
Residential. The SR-4,5 zoning district permits a maximum density of 4.53 dwelling
units per acre. Lots within the SR-4.5 zoning district must have an area of at least
7,600 sq. ft. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 2.
6. City zoning regulations encourage retention of the maximum number of significant trees
(of a six-inch caliper or greater) on the proposed subdivision site where roads, utilities
and site improvements would not be located. Kent City Code (KCC) 15,08,240.
Significant trees are located on the proposed subdivision site, amongst tall grass and
brush that dominates the site. The Applicant would retain significant trees on site where
feasible. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 8; Exhibit 1, Attachment 8; Exhibit 1,
Attachment I.
7. Property surrounding the subject parcel in all directions is designated SF-4.5, Single
Family Residential, by the City Comprehensive Plan. The SF-4.5 designation allows for a
maximum of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 2; City
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page 4-52 (last revised 514106).
8. Goals and policies found in the Land Use, Housing and Transportation Elements of the
City Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the proposed subdivision.' These goals and
policies emphasize creation of a variety of housing types in urban areas close to human
and community services, at a density of at least 4 units per net developable acre, where
appropriate. The goals and policies also emphasize coordinating new residential
development with transportation projects to ensure transportation facility capacity is
sufficient to accommodate new residential development, or ensure that a financial
commitment is in place, prior to development, to meet the adopted standard within six
years. Exhibit 1, Attachment A,pages 5-8.
9. The subject parcel is part of the SR-4.5 zoning district, and is designated SF-4.5 by the
City Comprehensive Plan. None of the 15 single-family residential lots proposed by the
Applicant are less than 7,600 square feet. Development of each of the 15 proposed lots
These goals and policies include Land Use Element Goals LU-1 and LU-10, Land Use Element Policies
LU-1.1, LU-9.1, LU-9.4, and LU-12.2, Housing Element Goals H-2 and H-7, Housing Element Policies H-
2.3, H-2.5, H-5.1, H-5.2, H-5.3, H-7.5, Transportation Element Goal TR-1 and Transportation Element
Policy TR-1.2. Exhibit 1, Attachment A,pages 5-8.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIUA #2063083
Page 3 of 20
i
would result in an overall net development density of approximately 3.39 dwelling units
per acre.' Proposed Lot 13 would contain an existing single-family residence. Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, pages 2, 6 and 10.
10. 'The parcel drains by sheet flow over the property towards the southern-central portion,
where a 0.64-acre Category 3 wetland is located. Slopes within the subject parcel do
not exceed nine percent. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment B;
Exhibit 1, Attachment I.
11. Ms. Carol Henry raised a concern at the public hearing about stormwater drainage from
the proposed subdivision. Proposed subdivision development would result in a net
increase of impervious surface area within the proposed subdivision site. The Applicant
would establish Tract A, a 15,540 sq. ft. stormwater detention tract, for stormwater
drainage on the parcel. Tract A would be located within the parcel to the west of the
wetland area. Tract A would contain a stormwater drainage facility, including a public
detention/retention stormwater pond system. The Applicant's representative stated that
stormwater flow would not negatively impact Ms. Henry's property and would likely
improve the stormwater situation in the area. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 1, 4, 11,
and 13; Exhibit 1, Attachment B; Exhibit 1, Attachment]; Testimony of Ms. Henry.
12. Proposed subdivision development would fill the edge of the wetland for a new public
road that will be constructed along the parcel's south property line, impacting 1,255 sq.
ft. of the 0.64-acre Category 3 wetland. KCC Chapter 11.06 requires mitigation of
wetland impacts. The Applicant would establish a 25-foot buffer around the wetland,
protect the wetland in accordance with KCC Chapter 11.06, and record a sensitive area
easement to protect the wetland. The Applicant would not disturb significant trees
within the wetland area or buffer. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 10; Exhibit 1,
Attachment B; Exhibit 1, Attachment L
13. The Applicant has not dedicated land within the proposed subdivision to open space, j
parks, recreation, or play areas. In lieu of dedicating land within a proposed subdivision
to open space, parks, recreation, or play areas, mitigation fees must be paid pursuant to
KCC Section 12.04.780. The fee applicable to the proposed subdivision, in lieu of
dedicating five percent of the proposed subdivision for open space parkland, is
$15,300.4 Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 10; Exhibit 1, Attachment B.
14. Meadow Ridge Elementary School is located approximately 0.3 miles to the northeast of
the proposed subdivision. Pedestrian facilities surrounding the proposed subdivision are
currently insufficient to provide safe travel for potential student residents walking to and
from the nearest school bus stop for the elementary school. The MDNS for the
The density calculation is 15 planned dwelling units, divided by 4.43 acres, for a density of 3.39 dwelling
units per acre.
'The fee in lieu is based on 2006 King County Assessors office tax assessment records for the subject
parcel. Exhibit 1,Attachment A, page 10.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 4 of20
proposed subdivision includes conditions/mitigating measures to improve pedestrian
walkways serving Meadow Ridge Elementary School, King County METRO provides
mass transit service to the proposed subdivision site, including park and ride facilities
located on 132nd Avenue SE at 272"d Street and at 124th Avenue SE at SE 256d' Street.
Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 4 and 12; Exhibit 1, Attachment 1..
15. The parcel subject to the subdivision application is part of the Kent School District. For
subdivisions, KCC Section 12.13.160 requires payment of a school impact fee per
individual lot at the time of construction permit issuance. The Applicant will be assessed
a school impact fee pursuant to KCC 12.13.160 when construction permits are issued.
Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 11.
16. The subject parcel would be served by City of Kent sanitary sewer service and water
service. The Applicant would construct new 12"sewer mains, connecting to the existing
sewer man hole located within 108th Avenue SE. The Applicant would also construct a
new 10" water main within the proposed subdivision that would connect to the existing
water main in 108th Avenue SE. The Applicant would install power and natural gas lines
serving the lots during subdivision construction. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4;
Exhibit 1, Attachment I.
17. The primary access would be from 108th Avenue SE, east of the proposed subdivision.
To the north, 108th Avenue SE connects to Kent Kangley Road, which contains
commercial development. 108th Avenue SE also connects to SE 279th Street at the
southeast corner of the proposed subdivision. 108th Avenue SE contains an existing 24
foot wide asphalt street within a 60-foot public right-of-way. The existing street
includes two traffic lanes but does not include cement concrete curbs and gutters, a
stormwater drainage system, cement concrete sidewalks, or street lighting. Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, pages 3 and 6; Exhibit 1, Attachment B.
18. Access to individual lots within the proposed subdivision would be facilitated by a 20-
foot wide driveway easement and a 25-foot wide private road easement, each extending
north into the proposed subdivision from SE 279th Street, SE 279th Street to the south of
the proposed subdivision and 106th Avenue SE to the west of the proposed subdivision
would provide secondary access to the proposed subdivision. SE 279th Street extends
between 108th Avenue SE, east of the proposed subdivision, and 106th Avenue SE, a
private community street along the western edge of the proposed subdivision. SE 2791h
Street is currently a private community street serving the subject parcel and other
parcels. The street contains a 16-foot wide asphalt street within an approximately 60-
foot wide easement. The street allows two narrow traffic lanes, but does not include
cement concrete curbs and gutters, a stormwater drainage system, cement concrete
sidewalks, or street lighting. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 3 and 4; Exhibit 1,
Attachment B.
19. At the public hearing, Ms. Henry questioned whether she would be required to relinquish
an access easement she holds, if streets surrounding the proposed subdivision are
converted from private to public. Ms. Sharon Clamp, City Planner, testified that
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh 77 Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 5 of 20
i
eventually SE 279th Street might become a public street, as neighboring properties
develop. Mr. Mike Gillespie, Development Engineering Manager for the City Public
Works Department, testified that Ms. Henry would not have to relinquish her access
easement because she accesses her property from SE 281" Street, not from SE 2791h
Street. Testimony of Ms. Henry; Testimony of Ms. Clamp; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie.
20. Ms. Henry voiced a concern about traffic impacts of the proposed subdivision on
SE 277th Street, a street that lies north of the proposed subdivision and connects with
1081h Avenue SE. Proposed subdivision development would result in an estimated 140
daily and 14 PM peak hour trips by vehicles to the surrounding street system. Mr.
Gillespie testified that the narrowing of SE 2771h from five lanes to two lanes contributes
to traffic on SE 2771h, and that SE 2771h Street and any future improvement of SE 277"'
Street is within the City of Auburn's control. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 13;
Testimony of Ms. Henry; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing on preliminary plat
applications; to consider all evidence presented at the hearing; and, based on that evidence, to
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the preliminary plat. KCC 2,32.090 (A) (1) (d);
KCC 12.04.680; RCW 58,17.100.
Criteria for Review
The Hearing Examiner's decision must be supported by the evidence presented and must be
consistent with the review standards and criteria specified in state statutes and city ordinances.
KCC 2,32.090 (A); KCC 12.04.685; RCW 58,17,030,
The preliminary plat application review standards and criteria are found in KCC ch.12.04 and
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) ch.58.17. The review standards and criteria include the
following:
A. Pursuant to KCC 12.04.635:
No subdivision shall be approved unless the following principles of acceptability are
met; the subdivision shall:
1. Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of KCC Title 15,
Zoning, and health regulations;
2. Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel;
3. Have suitable physical characteristics; a proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation or wetland conditions; slope, soil stability
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 6 of20
and/or capabilities; or the construction of protective improvements may be
required as a condition of approval;
4. If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration
the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction as well as the requirements of
this chapter;
5. Make adequate provision for stormwater detention, drainageways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, and other public utilities and services, as deemed
necessary;
6. Make adequate provision for the connectivity of streets, alleys, pedestrian
accessways and other public ways.
B. Pursuant to KCC 12.04.685 (A):
A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city finds that:
1. Appropriate provisions have been made for:
a. The public health, safety and general welfare of the community;
b. Protection of environmentally sensitive lands and habitat;
c. Open spaces;
d. Community parks and recreation;
e. Neighborhood tot lots and play areas;
f. Schools and school grounds;
g. Drainageways;
h. Stormwater detention;
i. ; Connectivity of sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, traffic calming features
and devices, and other planning features that assure safe walking
conditions within and between subdivisions and neighborhoods for
residents and students who walk to and from schools, parks, transit
stops and other neighborhood services;
j. Connectivity of streets or roads, alleys, pedestrian accessways, and
other public ways within and between subdivisions and neighborhoods;
k. Transit stops;
I. Potable water supplies;
m. Sanitary wastes;
n. Other public utilities and services, as deemed necessary; and
2. The city has considered all other relevant facts; and
3. The public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision
and dedication; and
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh ZI Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 7 of 20
4. The city has considered the physical characteristics of a proposed
subdivision site and may deny a proposed plat because of flood, inundation,
or wetland conditions, slope, or soil stability and/or capabilities.
Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of
approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
These criteria as set forth in the KCC are essentially identical to those in the RCW. The
application must also meet the RCW criteria before a decision of approval may be made. RCW
58.17.110 requires that:
Appropriate provisions must be made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and
all other relevant facts including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking
conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and the public interest must be
served by the subdivision.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the provisions
of KCC chapter 12.04.
A. The proposed development will comply with the standards set forth in KCC
12.04,635. The subdivision will create legal building sites, each with access to
108th Avenue SE via internal subdivision road easements connected to SE 279th
Street and to 106th Avenue SE. Proposed subdivision development will be
consistent with neighboring residential development and existing on-site.
residential development. The site has suitable physical characteristics for
development. There are significant trees on site that will be retained within the
proposed wetland buffer. Significant trees in other areas of the proposed
subdivision will be retained where feasible. Adequate provision will be made for
water and sewer services to serve the proposed subdivision. Adequate provision
will be made for street connectivity. Findings 1, 4 - 6, 9-11, and 16-20.
B. Appropriate provisions will be made for the public health, safety, general welfare
and all other items identified in KCC 12,04,685. The City gave notice of the
preliminary plat application and gave the public an opportunity to comment.
Proposed subdivision development will be consistent with the area's City
Comprehensive Plan land use designation, supporting relevant goals and policies
by providing for single-family home construction in close proximity to services
and commercial development along Kent Kangley Road. The Applicant will pay a
school impact fee pursuant to KCC 12.13.160. The Applicant will protect the on-
site wetland in accordance with KCC Chapter 11.06. The Applicant will establish
a 25-foot buffer around the wetland and record a sensitive area easement to
protect the wetland. Bus stops would be located near the proposed subdivision
site, at 132"d Avenue SE and 272°d Street, and at 124th Avenue SE and SE 256th
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 8 of 20
Street, to transport residents and to transport students to an elementary school
approximately 0.3 miles away. Water service, sanitary sewer service, electric
lines and gas lines would be extended to each of the lots. The physical
characteristics of the site have been considered, and such characteristics would
not prevent development of the site as proposed. Findings 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, and
14 - 16.
C. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that the proposed subdivision
adequately provides for the connectivity of pedestrian accessways, for protection
of the on-site Category 3 wetland and its buffer, for stormwater detention, for
improvements to 108th Avenue SE, 106t" Avenue SE and SE 279`h Street as
necessary to accommodate traffic impacts of the proposed subdivision, and for
safe walking conditions from the proposed subdivision to area schools and transit
stops. Conditions of approval are also necessary to ensure that the Applicant
pays a traffic impact mitigation fee, if the Applicant elects to do so, and pays a
parks fee of $15,300, in lieu of dedication, prior to recording the subdivision.
Findings 3, 8, 11 - 15, 17, 18, and 20.
2. Based on the above conclusions, the requirements of RCW 58.17.110 have been
satisfied.
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a preliminary plat
to subdivide 4.43 acres into 15 single family residential lots is APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:5
A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION:
1. The Owner/Subdivider shall pay all Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or
Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference
and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever comes first.
2. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide Public Works with a digital plat map
prepared with a CAD program. The digital information can be formatted in either
*.DWG (AutoCad) or *.DXF (Drawing Exchange File), but must be based upon
State Plane coordinates: an assumed coordinate system is not
permitted. The State Plane Coordinates shall be on the NAD 83/91 datum and
must relate to at least two City of Kent reference points within one half mile of
the subdivision. In addition, the project shall be tied into at least two City of Kent
NAD 88 vertical benchmarks and two additional permanent benchmarks shall be
established within the project. The locations, descriptions and elevations of these
This decision includes conditions required to reduce project impacts as well as conditions required to
meet City Code standards.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 9 of 20
benchmarks will be reported at the time as-built drawings are submitted along
with field notes sufficient to verify the required precision.
3. All public improvements within the public right-of-way, including underground
and overhead utilities, edges of pavement, sidewalks, paved shoulders,
pavement markings, etc. within 300-feet of the subdivision, shall be located by
survey and shown upon all street improvement plans.
4. The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive City approval for engineering
drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct
or bond for the following:
i. A public gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots.
The closest sanitary sewer manhole is located adjacent to the westerly
margin of the right-of-way for 108`h Avenue Southeast and this manhole
is located about 265-feet north of the proposed subdivision. The public
sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the existing public sanitary
sewer system and shall be designed to serve all off-site properties within
the same service area. In addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be
extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent
properties within the same service area.
The septic system serving the existing home within the proposed
subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health
Department Regulations.
ii. A public water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all
lots.
The City water system shall be extended along the entire property
frontage of 108`h Avenue Southeast from the existing City water main
installed north of the subject subdivision, and shall be sized consistent
with what is reflected in City's Water Comprehensive Plan, or the size
required to serve all off-site properties within the same service area,
which ever requires the largest water pipe diameter. In addition, the
water main extension shall be extended across the entire subdivision as
needed to serve adjacent properties within the same service area. All
residences within this subdivision (both existing and new) shall receive
their respective water service from the City's water system.
Existing wells, if any, shall be decommissioned in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Ecology.
iii. A stormwater system. The Engineering Plans must meet the minimum
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and 2002 City of
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh 11Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 10 of 20
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (I(SWDM). Initial guidance for the
Engineering Plans is given below (See Chapter 2 of KSWDM for detailed
submittal requirements):
(1) The Engineering Plans will include at a minimum: Site
improvement plans which include all plans, details, notes and
specifications necessary to construct road, drainage, and other
related improvements. The engineering plans shall include a
technical information report (TIR) which contains all the technical
information and analysis to develop the site improvement plans.
(2) An erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan shall be included
in the engineering plans. The ESC shall meet the requirements of
the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the 2002 City of Kent
Surface Water Design Manual. These plans must reflect the
Detailed Grading Plan discussed below, and the Planning Services
approved.Detailed Tree Plan.
(3) The retention/detention and release standard that will be met by
the subdivision is Level Two. The water quality menu that will be
met by the subdivision is the Resource Stream Protection
Menu.
(4) The site improvement plans and technical information report will
contain drainage calculations and a drawing of the retention /
detention pond tract at an appropriate engineering scale to show
that the proposed on-site or off-site retention / detention tract is
large enough to contain the required minimum stormwater
storage volume and water quality facility. The site improvement
plans will also show that all required stormwater management
facilities will be outside of delineated wetlands and their buffers,
as well as outside of creeks and rivers and their buffers.
(5) A downstream analysis is required for this development, and it will
include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water
quality. Refer to the requirements of Technical Information
Reports in Section 3: "Offsite Analysis", of the 2002 City of Kent
Surface Water Design Manual for the specific information required
for downstream analyses.
(6) Roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage,
carport, etc.) shall be diverted to a Roof Downspout Infiltration
System meeting the requirements of section 5.4.5, Infiltration
Trenches, of the 1998 Surface Water Design Manual. These roof
downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include
overflow pipes connected to an approved dispersion system. The
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 11 of 20
drainage plans shall include an approved detail for the roof
downspout infiltration system. The face of the recorded plat shall
contain the following restriction:
AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES
CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF
DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PLANS.
(7) If determined necessary by the Public Works Department
following review and approval of the required downstream
analysis, the Owner/Subdivider shall provide public drainage
easements meeting the requirements of the City of Kent
Construction Standards for the specified downstream reach where
adequate public drainage easements do not currently exist.
(8) The Owner/Subdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for within
and surrounding the retention/detention facility to the Planning
Department and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent
review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval
of the Engineering Plans. These Landscape Plans shall meet the
minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards, and the stormwater management landscaping
requirements contained within the 1998 King County Surface
Water Design Manual. Landscape Plans are required to show
adjacent Street Trees so that the City arborist can assess potential
adverse stress upon all types of vegetation.
(9) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute Declaration of Stormwater
Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the
drainage system prepared by the Property Management Section of
the Department of Public Works. See Reference 8-F, Declaration
of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant, to the 2002 City of
Kent Surface Water Design Manual for information on what is
contained within this document.
iv. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits
& Grading Plans. Initial guidance for these plans is given below:
(1) These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways,
retention/ detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a
building footpad for every lot.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 12 of 20
(2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing
several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building
Permits. Phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be
considered.
(3) These plans will use a two-foot maximum contour interval, and
every fifth contour line will be darker, wider and labeled in
conformance to standard drafting practice.
V. A Final Wetland Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of the Kent City
Code Chapter 11.06. These plans shall pursue avoiding or minimizing
impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by analyzing
alternatives that would avoid the impact. If grading is a part of the final
wetland mitigation plan, all grading shall be included on the grading plan
for the entire site, including buffers and appropriate Building Setback
Lines.
vi. Interim Street Improvement Plans for 108th Avenue Southeast, These
Interim Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the CCU
of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8,
Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Residential
Collector Street with Bike Lanes within the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan. Initial guidance for the necessary interim street improvements is
given below:
(1) Combined vertical concrete curbs and gutters, a 5-foot wide
planter strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along the
west side of the street.
(2) A minimum of 22-feet of, Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
measured from face of curb constructed on the west side of the
street to the approved centerline of the street, plus at least 12-
feet of HMA pavement as measured from the approved centerline
of the street to the edge of the traveled lane on the east side of
the street, plus a City approved shoulder on the east side of the
street. The entire HMA pavement width specified above shall be
provided with a.20-year service life as determined by the process
identified in the City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure
#6-2, Private and Public Street Requirements.
(3) The Curb return radius at the northwest corner of the intersection
with Southeast 279th Street will be 30-feet.
(4) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh 77 Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 13 of 20
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision.
(5) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment facilities
as applicable.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement
concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located as approved
by the Public Works Department, and the species shall be selected
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent
Deve%pmentAssistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
vii. Interim Street Improvement Plans for Southeast 279th Street and 1061h
Avenue Southeast (currently classified as Private Streets) along the south
and west boundaries of the subject property. These Interim Street
Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent
Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochures#6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8,
Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Public Residential
Street within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Initial guidance for the
necessary interim street improvements is given below:
(1) Combined vertical concrete curbs and gutters, a 5-foot wide
planter strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along the
north side of Southeast 279th Street and along east side of 106"'
Avenue Southeast.
(2) A minimum of 24-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
measured from face of curb to the edge of the traveled lane on
the other side of the street, plus four feet of HMA pavement for a
shoulder along the far side of the street. The entire HMA
pavement width specified above shall be provided with a 20-year
service life as determined by the process identified in the City of
Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public
Street Requirements.
(3) Curb return radii for the all of the street intersections will be a
minimum of 30-feet.
(4) Provide a radius from the east edge of 106th Avenue SE at the
corner of lots 13 and 14 to the proposed temporary cul-de-sac to
allow fire apparatus to make the return to the avenue.
(5) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 14 of 20
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision.
(6) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment facilities
as applicable.
(7) Street Trees installed within the five-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement
concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located as approved
by the Public Works Department, and the species shall be selected
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
(8) At the time of proposed development, all of the benefiting
property owners currently served by Southeast 279t" Street and
1061h Avenue Southeast, the private community streets, will be
required to extinguish their rights to use this existing private
community street system and easements in order for the City to
accept them as Public Residential Streets. The subject private
streets along this subdivision shall be constructed to City
standards for Residential Streets, but the Home Owner Association
for this subdivision will be responsible for maintenance of this
those private streets until such time as those easements are
extinguished, and the public right-of-way is deeded to the City of
Kent at which time the City will become responsible for
maintenance of the new public streets.
viii. Street Improvement Plans for the new Private Residential Street
connected to Southeast 279th Street, and serving Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10 and
terminating with a permanent turnaround at or near its north terminus.
The Street Improvement Plans for this streets shall be designed in
conformance to the requirements for a Private Residential Street as
required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street
improvements and City ofI(ent DevelopmentAssistance Brochure # 6-8,
Street Improvement Plans for a private street at least 20-feet wide. Initial
guidance for these street improvements is given below:
(1) A minimum of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement,
measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, or 22-
feet of pavement as measured from face of vertical curb to face of
vertical curb, except where the Fire Marshal requires additional
pavement width for emergency vehicle access.
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk is recommended, but not
required, along one side of this private street.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh 77 Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 15 of20
(3) An approved permanent turnaround at its terminus.
(4) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for
conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where applicable.
(5) This private street will connect to Southeast 2791h Street with a
Residential Concrete Driveway Approach conforming to the
minimum requirements of Standard Detail 6-5(c). The minimum
design inside radii for the driveway approach serving for this
private street shall be 30-feet.
(6) This private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal and
vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances requirements
for a public Residential Street.
(7) Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire Marshal
(8) The private streets, including sidewalks, if any, must be centered
within a private roadway tract or easement that is at least 1-foot
wider than the total width of the private street and sidewalk
combination.
ix. Street Improvement Plans for the new Private Residential Street
connected to Southeast 2791h Street, and serving Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7
and terminating with a permanent turnaround at or near its north
terminus. The Street Improvement Plans for this streets shall be designed
in conformance to the requirements for a Private Residential Street as
required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street
Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8,
Street.1mprovement Plans for a private street at least 20-feet wide. Initial
guidance for these street improvements is given below:
(1) A minimum of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement,
measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, or 22-
feet of pavement as measured from face of vertical curb to face of
vertical curb, except where the Fire Marshal requires additional
pavement width for emergency vehicle access.
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk constructed along one
side of this private street.
(3) An approved permanent turnaround at its terminus.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 16 of 20
i
(4) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for
conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where applicable.
(5) This private street will connect to Southeast 279`h Street with a
Residential Concrete Driveway Approach conforming to the
minimum requirements of Standard Detail 6-5(c). The minimum
design inside radii for the driveway approach serving for these
private streets shall be 30-feet.
(6) This private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal and
vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances requirements
for a public Residential Street.
(7) Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire Marshal.
(8) The private streets, including sidewalk, must be centered within a
private roadway tract or easement that is at least 1-foot wider
than the total width of the Private Street and sidewalk
combination.
X. Street Lighting Plans for 108`h Avenue Southeast, Southeast 2791h Street
and 106"' Avenue Southeast meeting the requirements of the City of Kent
Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure #6-1, Street Lighting Requirements.
5. The Owner/Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this
subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision are advised
of their obligation to pay for the energy and maintenance required for the street
lighting system installed in their development. Those sections of the required
document written to govern that association as they relate to any Intol-ight
Division of Puget. Sound Energy street lighting systems, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to the recording these
documents.
6. The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision is also required to provide
street maintenance for SE 279`h Street and for 106'h Avenue SE along their
property frontage until such time as the existing 60-foot wide private easements
for ingress, egress and utilities are extinguished along these two streets, and the
necessary public right-of-way is conveyed to the City of Kent. Those sections of
the required document written to govern that association as they relate to the
subject street improvements, shall be reviewed and approved by the Department
of Public Works, prior to the recording these documents.
7. The Owners/Subdividers shall execute an agreement prepared and approved by
the City of Kent City Attorney that commits the Owners, their successors and
assigns to release the Owner's interest in the private street easements and
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 17 of 20
dedicate the Owners' interest in the private street to the City of Kent for public
right-of-way when requested by the City or its successors in the future.
8. The face of the final plat will clearly identify all private streets, and which lots will
be served by those private streets. The face of the final plat will also specify that
the maintenance of all private streets is the sole responsibility of the property
owners who are served by those private streets.
9. Direct vehicular access to and from lots having frontage along 108`h Avenue
Southeast is prohibited, and the face of the final plat will carry the following
restriction:
DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM LOTS HAVING FRONTAGE ALONG 108TH
AVENUE SOUTHEAST IS RESTRICTED TO THE PRIVATE STREET SHOWN ON THE FACE
OF THE FINAL PLAT.
10. The Owner/Subdivider shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey
all private and public easements necessary for the construction and maintenance
of the required improvements for this subdivision development.
11. The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and preserved,
and/or enhanced, or created sensitive area(s) and the associated buffer(s) by
creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract and deeding the tract in fee simple to
the City, OR by granting a Sensitive Area Easement to the City for the entire
sensitive area, pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06. This Sensitive Area
Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the wetland and wetland buffer map
contained within the approved Wetland Delineation Report and/or approved
Wetland Mitigation Plan as appropriate. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide a
legal description of said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor,
prior to issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract and the
following language shall be included on the face of the recorded plat:
SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS/EASEMENTS
DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC A
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE TRACT. THIS INTEREST INCLUDES
THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION FOR ALL PURPOSES THAT BENEFIT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER
AND EROSION, MAINTENANCE OF SLOPE STABILITY, VISUAL AND AURAL BUFFERING,
AND PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY, PLANT ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE
SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE
OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT/EASEMENT THE
OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC BY THE CITY OF KENT, TO
LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT. THE
VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT MAY NOT BE CUT, PRUNED, COVERED BY FILL,
REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE CITY OF KENT.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh 11 Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 18 of 20
i
THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/EASEMENT AND THE AREA OF
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE FLAGGED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF KENT PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING, BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THE REQUIRED MARKING OR
FLAGGING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT ARE COMPLETED.
NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, STRUCTURES, FILL OR OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO OUTBUILDINGS AND OVERHANGS) ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15
FEET OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT BOUNDARY, UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THE CITY OF KENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL PUBLIC UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES WITHIN THIS SENSITIVE AREA TRACT, AND TO ENTER AND PERFORM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE
SENSITIVE AREAS DISTURBED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION, AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. THE CITY OF KENT
ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENHANCE THE SENSATIVE AREA TRACT OR EASEMENT
VIA PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND REMOVING NON-NATIVE OR INVASIVE
VEGETATION.
12. After construction, the wetland and/or streams and their associated buffer areas
shall be isolated from intrusion by installing a split-rail cedar fence around the
entire buffer edge. In addition, sensitive area information signs (available from
the Department of Public Works for $7.50 each) shall be placed at the buffer
edge to inform and educate owners and nearby residents about the value of
sensitive areas.
13. Prior to release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval of any
Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department of Public Works
must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure #E-1, As-Build Drawings, for: Streets; Street Lighting System; Water;
Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements where the
locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the Department of Public
Works.
14. The owner/subdivider shall construct or bond for mailbox clusters per the
standards and at locations approved by the Public Works Department and the
Kent U.S. Postmaster.
15. The parks fee in lieu of dedication shall be paid in the amount of $15,300 prior to
recording the subdivision.
16. The owner/subdivider shall submit applications to the City of Kent for review and
approval to remove or otherwise relocate the barn.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 19 of20
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS
SUBDIVISION, THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Record the Plat.
2. Construct all of the improvements required in Section A, above, and pay the
respective fees-in-lieu-of including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges.
3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street, Street Lighting,
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Facilities as deemed appropriate by
the Department of Public Works.
i
4. Construct all wetland mitigation plans, wetland and stream buffer plans, install all
required split-rail cedar fences and sensitive area signs, and any other conditions
to protect or enhance critical areas.
DATED this iSt" day of November 2006.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
S:\Permit\Plan\LONGPLATS\2006\2063083-2006-13findings.doci
I
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent
Singh II Subdivision
#SU-2006-13, KIVA #2063083
Page 20 of 20
I
ECONOMIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
® PLANNING SERVICES
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director
T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WASNINOYON
Phone: 253-656-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S•
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DECISION (REVISED)
Singh iI (OAKLEIGH I) PRELIMINARY PLAT
MINOR PLAT ALTERATION (#PTA-2010-2/KIVA #2103108)
APPLICANT: Lisa Cavell
Henley. USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to alter the
previously approved Singh II subdivision by
eliminating the existing residence on the
property, reducing the total number of lots
from 15 to 14, combining the stormwater
facility with the. Singh III subdivision,
reconfiguring the size and orientation of lots,
and modifying private access easements to
the lots.
PLANNER: Sharon Clamp
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The Singh II Preliminary Plat SU-2006-13 was approved by the City of
Kent Hearing Examiner on November 15, 2006. The approval was for
the subdivision of 4.43 acres into 15 residential lots and a stormwater
tract. The Singh II Preliminary Plat SU-2006-13 has not yet been
recorded with the King County Assessor's office,
B. Singh II is located on Kent's east hill at 27830 106 Avenue SE and is
identified as King County tax parcel number 3222059094.
C. The site is zoned SR-4.5, single Family Residential. The City of Kent
Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the site as Single Family
Residential, SF-4.5.
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
D. The proposed alteration seeks to eliminate the existing house, reduce
the number of lots from 15 to 14, reconfigure the size and orientation
of the lots, modify private access easements to the lots, and increase
the size of the stormwater facility to accommodate the stormwater
management requirements of the adjacent Singh III SU-2006-15
(Oakieigh II) subdivision located to the west. The Singh III plat is
dependent on the road network and stormwater pond being designed
and constructed with this Singh II subdivision, and the Singh III plat
(also under review for alteration) will be conditioned as such. The
applicant states that the proposed revision creates better lot
configurations resulting in a viable product for today's market.
E. Reconfigured lots 4 through 8 take access from new private streets
identified as Roads A and B. Reconfigured lots 9, 10 and 11 and the
stormwater tract take access from a private road identified as Road C.
Southeast 279th Street and 106`h Avenue SE provide access to lots 12,
13 and 14.
F. The 15,540 square foot drainage facility (Tract 999) is proposed to be
enlarged to 32,922 square feet in order to accommodate stormwater
management requirements for both the Singh II (SU-2006-13) and
Singh III (SU-2006-15) plats.
G. A conceptual wetland mitigation plan was approved on June 27, 2012,
The site contains a .64 acre Category 3 wetland which will be
protected in accordance with Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, The
proposed development will impact 1,255 square feet of the wetland
and requires mitigation In accordance with Kent City Code 11,06, The
approved conceptual wetland mitigation plan may be found In Wetland
File No, 03.13. A final wetland mitigation plan must be approved
pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06 prior to issuance of any
development permits.
H. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 12.04.227(B), the Planning
Manager has the authority to determine whether a plat alteration
constitutes a minor or major plat alteration. The Planning Manager
has determined that this request constitutes a minor plat alteration.
I. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 12.04.227(D), if a plat alteration is
requested to a preliminary plat prior to final plat approval, a minor
alteration may be approved with consent of the Planning Manager and
the Public Works Director, The Public Works Director has consented to
this minor plat alteration.
J. Infrastructure is available to serve the site as proposed. Requirements
for infrastructure improvements were established for the property
Page 2 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
through preliminary plat approval (SU-2006-13). The required
improvements to the local road, water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater
systems, as well as other required infrastructure improvements, are
adequate to mitigate the impacts of the proposed plat as previously
approved, and as proposed to be altered.
K. The existing private community street system (SE 279th Street and
106th Avenue SE) has only one intersection with a public street (108th
Avenue SE). Unless a new public street connection is provided which
meets International Fire Code (IFC) requirements for secondary
access, the total number of lots that can be created along this
private/public street system will be limited to a total of 30 (including
existing parcels served by the private streets). If secondary access
meeting. IFC requirements cannot be achieved, each residence in the
subdivision will require fire sprinklers unless waived by the Fire
Marshal.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. As this proposal does not seek to increase the number of lots, it is
considered a minor alteration and subject to the provisions of Kent
City Code Section 12.04.227(B). The application has been reviewed
by City staff accordingly.
B. As proposed, the proposed lot reconfiguration is In the interest of the
public and is consistent with the policies and standards of the City of
Kent.
C. The proposal is consistent with the type of land use allowed in the
SR-4.5 zoning district and does not facilitate development of the
property at more than the allowable density of 4.53 dwelling units per
acre. As stated in the Findings, adequate infrastructure is available to
serve the plat as previously conditioned, and the proposal complies
with the applicable City of Kent development standards.
III. DECISION
Based on the- above Findings and Conclusions, City staff approves the Singh
II Preliminary Plat, SU-2006-13, Minor Plat Alteration PTA-2010-2 as shown
on plan revision #9 dated June 5, 2012 and date stamped by the city on
June 5, 2012 with the original conditions of approval revised as follows:
i
A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PLAT FOR THI5 SUBDIVISION:
Page 3 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
1 The Owner/Subdivider shall may all Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or
Latecomer Fees if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference
and/or prior to recording this plat whichever comes first
2 The Owner / Subdivider shall provide , e ado the City with a digital plat
map prepared with a CAD program The digital information can be formatted in
either *.DWG (AutoCad) or * DXF (Drawing Exchange File), but must be
based upon State Plane coordinates: an assumed coordinate system is
not permitted The State Plane Coordinates shall be on the NAD 83/91 datum
and must relate to at least two City of Kent reference points within one half mile
of the subdivision In addition the project shall be tied into at least two City of
Kent NAD 88 vertical benchmarks and two additional permanent benchmarks
shall be established within the project The locations, descriptions and
elevations of these benchmarks will be reported at the time as-built drawings
are submitted along with field notes sufficient to verify the required precision.
3 All public improvements within the public right-of-way, including underground
and overhead utilities edges of pavement sidewalks, paved shoulders,
pavement markings etc within 300-feet of the subdivision shall be located by
survey nd shown upon all street improvement plans
4 The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive Clty approval for engineering
drawings and shall then either construct
or bond for the following:
i A public gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots.
The closest sanitary sewer manhole is located adjacent to the westerly
margin of the right-of-way for 108th Avenue Southeast and this manhole is
located about 265-feet north of the proposed subdivision. The public
sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the existing public sanitary
sewer system and shall be designed to serve all off-site properties within
the same service area In addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be
extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent
properties within the same service area
The septic system serving the existing home within the proposed
subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health
I
Department Regulations.
ii, A public water system meeting_domestic and flre flow requirements for all
lots.
The City water system shall be extended along the entire property
frontage of 108' Avenue Southeast from the existing City water main
installed north of the subject subdivision, and shall be sized consistent
Page 4 of 16
I
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
with what is reflected in City's Water Comprehensive Plan, or the size
required to serve all off-site properties within the same service area
which ever reauires the largest water pipe diameter. In addition, the water
main extension shall be extended across the entire subdivision as needed
to serve adjacent properties within the same service area. All residences
within this subdivision (both existing and new) shall receive their
respective water service from the City's water system.
Existing wells, if any, shall be decommissioned in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Ecology. The existing class B water
system well servin this site along with 7 other structures located on the
Singh III (Oakleigh II) property will be retained aRe 5 "
easemierz Prior to acceptance of the Residential Streets as public ri-q Lit-
of-way, a Franchise Agreement shall be executed to address this private
utlliN crossing the future public right-of-way.
A stormwater system The Engineering Plans must meet the minimum
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and 2002 City of
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (KSWDM) Initial guidance for the
Engineering Plans is given below (See Chapter 2 of KSWDM for detailed
submittal requirements):
The Engineering Plans will include at a minimum: Site improvement
bans which include all plans details notes and specifications
necessary to construct road drainage and other related
improvements The engineering_plans shall include a technical
information report (TIR) which contains all the technical information
and anal�sls to develop the site Improvement plans.
(2) An erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan shall be included in
T the engineering plans The ESC shall meet the requirements of the
CCU of Kent Construction Standards and the 2002 City of Kent
Surface Water Design Manual These plans must reflect the Detailed
Grading Plan discussed below, and the Planning Services approved
Detailed Tree Plan.
The retention/detention and release standard that will be met by the
subdivision is Level Two The water quality menu that will be met
by the subdivision is the Resource Stream Protection Menu,
(4) The site improvement plans and technical information report will
contain drainage calculations and a drawing of the retention/
detention pond tract at an appropriate engineering scale to show
that the proposed on-site or off-site retention/detention tract is large
enough to contain the required minimum stormwater storage volume
and water quality facility, The site improvement plans will also show
i
Page 5 of 16
i,
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
that all required stormwater management facilities will be outside of
delineated wetlands and their buffers as well aS outside of creeks
and rivers and their buffers The pond/storm water facilities must be
sized to accommodate the Singh III(oaklelgh II) 42-lot subdivision
(5) A downstream analysis is required for this development, and it will
include an ana>l�sis for capacity, erosion potential and water quality.
Refer to the requirements of Technical Information Reports in
Section 3• "Offsite Analysis" of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water
Design Manual for the specific information required for downstream
analyses.
Roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage, carport,
etc ) on Lots 1-5 and 9-14 shall be divetted to a Reef BewFispeutj
'~r' a;connected through a perforated tightline connection
system meeting_the requirements
T+'eReheB; C 2 5 of the 1998 KID County Surface Water Design
Manual.
Roof downspouts for each roofed
structure house garage carport, etc ) on lots 6, 7, and 8 shall be
diverted to individual dispersion trenches located north of the
wetland buffer, and allowed to sheet-flow across the buffer to
maintain hydrology to the wetland Dispersion trenches for lots 6 7,
and 8 shall meet the requirements of section C 2.4.3 of the 1998
King Country Surface Water Design Manual. The face of the recorded
Plat shall contain the following restriction:
P
AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES
CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 9 THROUGH 14 OF
THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE RGGF DOWNSP919 F
T"'FmT-irrim-TIvN PERFORATED TIGHTLINE CONNECTIONS SYSTEMS
PER IDETMLS SHOWN 9N THE APPROVED
PLAN 1998 KCSWDM
SECTION U.S.5 LOTS 6 7 AND 8 SHALL DISCHARGE THE ROOF
AND DRIVEWAY RUNOFF TO THE WETLAND BUFFER THROUGH
DOWNSPOUT DISPERSION TRENCHES PER 1998 KCSWDM C.2.4,3.
(7) If determined necessary by the Cb
following review and approval of the required downstream analysis,
the Owner/Subdivlder shall provide public drainage easements
meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards
for the specified downstream reach where adequate public drainage
easements do not currently exist.
Page 6 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
(8) The OwnerlSubdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for within and
surrounding the retention/detention facility to the Bing
Begattflic- t—and to the Departmentof P bi;e � .�, ltv for
concurrent review and approval prior to or in conjunction with the
approval of the Engineering Plans..These Landscape Plans shall meet
the minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards and the stormwater management landscaping
requirements contained within the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual Landscape Plans are required to show ad
iacent
Street Trees so that the C/tlarborlst can assess potential adverse
stress upon all types of vegetation.
The Owner/Subdivider shall execute Declaration of Stormwater
Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the
drainage system prepared by the
the Depa!tFneRt of Pubile C See Reference 8-F, Declaration
of Stormwater Facile Maintenance Covenant to the 2002 City of
Kent Surface Water Design Manual for information on what is
contained within this document.
iv A Detailed Gradina Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #1-3 Excavation and Grading PermitS&
Grading Plans Initial guidance for these plans is given below:
(1) These plans will include provisions for utilities roadways, retention!
detention ponds stormwater treatment facilities, and a building
footpad for every lot.
(2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing
several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building
Permits. Phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be
considered.
(3) These plans will use a two-foot maximum contour interval, and every
fifth contour line will be darker, wider and labeled in conformance to
standard drafting practice.
v A Final Wetland Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of the Kent Citv
Code Chapter 11.06. These plans shall pursue avoiding or minimizing
impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by analyzing
alternatives that would avoid the impact If grading is a part of the final
wetland mitigation plan all grading shall be included on the grading plan
for the entire site including buffers and appropriate Building Setback
Lines.
Page 7 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#210310B
A. interimStreet Improvement Plans for 108th Avenue Southeast. These
P, Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City
of Kent Construction Standards and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochures #6-2 AIVate and Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8,
Street Improvement Plans for a street designated as a Residential
Collector Street with Bike Lanes within the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Initial guidance for the necessary 4*erimstreet improvements is
given below:
(1) Combined vertical concrete curbs & gutters, a 5-foot wide planter
strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along the west side of
the street.
(2) A minimum of 22-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
measured from face of curb constructed on the west side of the
street to the approved centerline of the street, plus at least 12-feet
of HMA pavement as measured from the approved centerline of the
street to the edge of the traveled lane on the east side of the street,
plus a City approved shoulder on the east side of the street. The
entire HMA pavement width specified above shall be provided with a
20-year service life as determined by the process identified in the
City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and
Public Street Requirements,
(3) The Curb return radius at the northwest corner of the intersection
with Southeast 279m Street will be 592-530-feet.
U A street lighting system designed to the City's standards constructed
and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy-
I I .JFnaintenafiee bills shall be pal'. Far by the HeFfl,.
ewnefes Asseelatlen ereated Far this bdi -
U Public stormwater conveyance detention and treatment facilities as
applicable.
Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement
concrete sidewalk These Street Trees will be located as approved by
the Cam, and the species shall be selected
f om the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent
Deve%pment Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
vii_interiff+ Street Improvement Plans for Southeast 279th Street and 106th
Avenue Southeast (currently classified as Private Streets) along the south
and west boundaries of the subject property. These iRteri+nStreet
Imorovement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent
Page 8 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
Construction Standards and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochures #6-2 Private and Public Street Improvements and # 6-8,
Street Imomvement Plans for a street designated as a Public Residential
Street within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Initial guidance for the
necessary ltstreet improvements is given below:
( Combined vertical concrete curbs and gutters a 5 foot wide gianter
strip and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along the north side of
Southeast 2VO Street and along east side of 106" Avenue
Southeast.
(2) A minimum of 24-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
T measured from face of curb to the edge of the traveled lane on the
other side of the street plus 4-feet of HMA pavement for a shoulder
along the far side of the street The entire HMA pavement width
specified above shall be provided with a 20-year service life as
determined by the process identified in the City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #6-2 Private and Public Street Requirements.
(3) Curb return radii for the all of the street intersections will be a
minimum of 382§30-feet.
i CC a }I... .. .
(_4-5) A street lighting s stem designed to the City's standards constructed
and maintained by the Into Light Divlslon of Puget Sound Energy--all
-
e,�eet,e�r-an
(56) Public stormwater conve�ce detention and treatment facilities as 'i
applicable.
(_G7) Street Trees installed within the five-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement
concrete sidewalk These Street Trees will be located as approved by
the and the species shall be selected
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #14 City of Kent Street Trees,
L78)For Southeast 2791" Street and 106`h Avenue Southeast the private
community streets serving multiple parcels all of the benefiting
rroopert/owners will be required to extinguish their rights to use that
existing riyate street easement in order for the City to accept them
as Public Residential Streets In addition, in order for the City to
Page 9 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA #2103108
accept the private streets as Public Residential Streets, the
offsite area which includes roadway and/or utility improvements must
also be dedicated to the cb or a permanent access and utility
easement meeting city standards shall be granted. Otherwise, the
subiect private streets along this subdivision shall be constructed to
CCU standards for a Residential Street, but the Home Owner's
Association for this subdivision will be responsible for maintenance of
those private streets until such time as those easements are
extinguished and offsite areas secured as right-of-way or granted
easements meeting city standards When the private streets are
conveyed to the city, they must be in a condition meeting city
standards as determined by the City Engineer. Atsep,,ed by
th gtrP-�atc`r-onn-ivot�i n.,...,. ,. cam... FI.,...,.. �I...
Brivate eaFnFgun,, scree
te use thisexistifia arivate eerflFquNtv street r ste ffl nd easements
.
subieeprivate streets along this bd r shall be "e"` '�
� `" `"
Git, standards far Residential Streets, but the Heme GwneF
A t' For this
subdivision
diii ill I... ,�MI,. F..r ..�. ..t,...-...this
these i3rivate streets ul sueh t!Fne as the, easements--�
aEdnaulshed,
(8) Traffic calming measures in the form of a traffic calming choker
(2009 KDCS Standard Plan 6-28) shall be installed on Southeast 279`h
Street approximately midway between 108`h Avenue Southeast and
106`h Avenue Southeast.
viii Street Improvement Plans for the new Private Residential Street
connected to Southeast 279`h Street, and serving Lots 6, 8,��, 9 and 1 1
through 8 and terminating with a permanent turnaround at or near its
north terminus The Street Improvement Plans for this streets shall be
designed in conformance to the requirements for a Private Residential
Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street
Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8,
Street Laprovement Plans for a private street at least 20-feet wide Initial
guidance for these street improvements is given below:
(1) A minimum of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement,
measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement or 22-feet of
pavement as measured from face of vertical curb to face of vertical
curb except where the Fire Marshal requires additional pavement
width for emergency vehicle access.
Page 10 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk
required along one side of this private street.
U An approved permanent turnaround at its terminus.
(4) A private stormwater drainage systemr including provisions for
conveyance detention and treatment facilities where applicable.
(5) This private street will connect to Southeast 279`h Street with a
Residential Concrete Driveway Approach conforming to the minimum
requirements of Standard Detail 6-5(c) The minimum design inside
radii for the driveway approach serving far this private street shall be
30 feet In Ileu of this older detail the applicant may elect to use
the 2009 KDCS Standard Plan 6-46,
U This private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal and
vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances requirements for
a1)ublic Residentlal Street.
(7) Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire Marshal.
U The private streets including sidewalks, ! an , must be centered
within a private roadway tract or easement that is at least_ 1-foot
wider than the total width of the private street and sidewalk
combination.
ix Street Improvement Plans for the new Private Residential Street
connected to Southeast 279t" 106th Avenue Southeast and serving Lots
, 3, 1, 5 and 7 9 10 and 11 The Street Improvement Plans for this
streets shall be designed In conformance to the requirements for a Private
Residentlal Street as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and
C/ty of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2; Private and Public
Street Improvements and City of tent Development Assistance Brochure #
6 8 street Improvement Plans for a private street at least 20-feet wide.
Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below:
(1) A minimum of 20 feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement
measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement or 22-feet of
pavement as measured from face of vertical curb to face of vertical
curb except where the Fire Marshal requires additional pavement
width for emergency vehicle access.
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk constructed along one side
of this private street is not required.
Page 11 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
(43) A private stormwater drainage system, Including provisions for
conveyance detention and treatment facilities where applicable,
(34) This private street will connect to Southeast 279th 106th Avenue
Southeast with a Residential Concrete Driveway Approach
conforming to the minimum requirements of Standard Detail 6-5(c).
The minimum design inside radii for the driveway approach serving
fer these this private streets shall be 30-feet. In lieu of this older
detail the applicant may elect to use the 2009 KDCS Standard Plan
6-46.
(65) This private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal and
vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances requirements for
a public Residential Street,
76 Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire Marshal.
(87) The private streets including sidewalk (if any), must be centered
within a private roadway tract or easement that is at least 1-foot
wider than the total width of the Private Street and sidewalk
combination.
x Street Lighting Plans for 108th Avenue Southeast, Southeast 279th Street
and 106' Avenue Southeast meeting the requirements of the City of Kent
Construction Standards and Cites of Kent Development ASSIStance
Brochure #6-1 Street Lighting Requirements.
5 The Owner/Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this
subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision are
advised of their obligation to pay for the energy and maintenance required for
the street lighting system installed in their development. Those sections of the
required document written to govern that association as they relate to any
IntoUght Division of Puget Sound Energy street lighting systems, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department o" Hblie `" OFks City, prior to t+e
recording these documents.
6 The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision is also required to provide
street maintenance for Southeast 279" Street and for 106th Avenue Southeast
along their property frontage until such time as the existing 60-foot wide
private easements for ingress egress and utilities are extinguished along these
two streets and the necessary public right-of-way is conveyed to the Clty of
Kent Those sections of the required document written to govern that
association as they relate to the subject street improvements, shall be reviewed
and approved by the Depa e;i of ubi;c .":prlu City, prior to the recording
Page 12 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
these documents, The CC&R's shall also state those sections cannot be
amended without City of Kent approval
7 The Owners/Subdividers shall execute an agreement or covenant, prepared-and
approved by the City of Kent City Attorney, that commits the Owners, their
successors and assigns to release the Owners's interest in the private street
easements and dedicate the Owners' interest in the private street to the City of
Kent for public right-of-way when requested by the City or its successors in the
future This agreement/covenant shall also stipulate that the HOA board of
directors' designee(s) shall have the authority to execute the dedication on
behalf of the homeowners.
8 The face of the final plat will clearly identify all private streets and which lots
will be served by those private streets The face of the final plat will also specify
that the maintenance of all private streets is the sole responsibility of the
prropetV owners who are served by those private streets.
9 Direct vehicular access to and from lots having frontage along 10e Avenue
Southeast is prohibited and the face of the final plat will carry the following
restriction:
DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM LOTS�H�ATV�ING FRONTAGE ALONG
loe AVENUE SOUTHEAST IS RESTRICTED TO TlTTC THE PRIVATE STREET
SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THE FINAL PLAT.
10 The Owner/Subdlvlder shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey
all private and public easements necessary for the construction and
maintenance of the required improvements for this subdivision development.
11 The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and Preserved
and/or enhanced or created sensitive area(s) and the associated buffer(s) by
creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract and deeding the tract in fee simple to
the City OR by granting a Sensitive Area Easement to the City for the entire
sensitive area pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06. This Sensitive Area
Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the wetland and wetland buffer map
contained within the approved Wetland Delineation Report and/or approved
oved
Wetland Mitigation Plan as appropriate The Owner / Subdivider shall provide a
legal description of said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor,
prior to issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract and the
following language shall be included on the face of the recorded plat:
SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS / EASEMENTS
DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT CONVEYS TO THE
PUBLIC A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE TRACT. THIS
INTEREST INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION FOR ALL
Page 13 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh l) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#2103108
PURPOSES THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE
INCLUDING CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND EROSION, MAINTENANCE OF
SLOPE STABILITY VISUAL AND AURAL BUFFERING, AND PROTECTION OF
WATER QUALITY PLANT ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE SENSITIVE
AREA TRACT/ EASEMENT IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE OWNERS
AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT / EASEMENT THE
OBLIGATION ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC BY THE CITY OF
KENT TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN
THE TRACT THE VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT MAY NOT BE CUT,
PRUNED COVERED BY FILL REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN
WRITING FROM THE CITY OF KENT.
THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/EASEMENT AND THE AREA
OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE FLAGGED TO
THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF KENT PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING,
GRADING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.
THE REQUIRED MARKING OR FLAGGING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINl fY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT
ARE COMPLETED,
NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS STRUCTURES FILL OR OBSTRUCTIONS
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OUTBUILDINGS AND OVERHANGS) ARE
ALLOWED WITHIN 15 FEET" OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT / EASEMENT
BOUNDARY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THE CITY OF KENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL PUBLIC
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THIS SENSITIVE AREA TRACT, AND TO
ENTER AND PERFORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE, BUT IS REQUIRED
TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE SENSITIVE AREAS DISTURBED UPON THE
COMPLETION OF THE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, AND/OR DRAINAGE
SYSTEM MAINTENANCE THE CITY OF KENT ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
ENHANCE THE S€NSATALE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT OR EASEMENT VIA
PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND REMOVING NON-NATIVE OR INVASIVE
VEGETATION.
12 After construction, the wetland and/or streams and their associated buffer areas
shall be isolated from intrusion by installing a split-rail cedar fence around the
entire buffer edge In addition sensitive area information signs (availablefirem
the Depaitment of Publie Works far $7.50 eh) shall be placed at the buffer
edge to inform and educate owners and nearby residents about the value of
sensitive areas,
13 Prior to release of any construction bonds and prior to the approval of any
Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department Of Pubile Werk
CCU must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of
the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Page 14 of 16
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh I) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-2, KIVA#21D3108
Assistance Brochure #E-1 As-Build Drawings. for: Streets; Street Lighting
Svstem� Water; Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site
imi)rovements where the locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the
Depart e te-�WorksC L
14. The owner/subdlvider shall construct or bond for mailbox clusters per the
standards and at locations approved by the Ptib:[e`."efk ^ m...., City and
the Kent U.S. Postmaster.
15, The parks fee In lieu of dedication shall be paid in the amount of $15,300 prior
to recording the subdivision.
16. The owner/subdivider shall submit applications to the City of Kent for review
and approval to remove or otherwise relocate all structures on the site the barn.
17, All lots within this plat shall be required to install fire sprinklers unless a
secondary access meeting the IFC is constructed or the requirement is waived
the Fire Marshal.
I
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS
SUBDIVISION THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Record the Plat.
I
2 -Construct all of the Improvements required in Section A above and pay the
respective fees-in-lieu-of including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges
3 Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street Street Lighting,
Water Sewer, and Stormwater Management Facilities as deemed appropriate
by the C
i
j 4 Construct all wetland mitigation plans wetland and stream buffer plans, install
all required split-rail cedar fences and sensitive area signs, and any other
conditions to protect or enhance critical areas.
I
Approved this --1-911th day of July 2012.
I
I
I
Charlene Anderson, AICP
Planning Manager
Page 16 of 16
I
Administrative Review Decision
Singh II (Oakleigh 1) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-201 D-2, KIVA#2103108
:1SiPer-rr+�t}a7�-` ,.T"T"L� IBNSF28d�423^'���0�-0." ''-i,aee�eeS\Permit\Plan\PLATALTERATION5\2010\2103108
Singh II decision Rev.doc
I
Page 16 of 16
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7F
TO: City Council
DATE: February 13, 2013
SUBJECT: Singh III (Oakleigh II) Final Plat (SU-2006-15) - Approve
MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Oakleigh Division II and authorize the
Mayor to sign the mylar.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2007, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval to
subdivide 11.31 acres into 43 single family residential lots, one stormwater tract, and
one drainage tract. On July 10, 2012 the Planning Manager approved a minor plat
alteration (PTA-2010-3) modifying private access easements and combining the
drainage facility with the Singh (Oakleigh I) subdivision (SU-2006-13). The applicant
has complied with the conditions required prior to recordation. The property is located
at 27727, 27901 and 27919 106th Avenue SE.
EXHIBITS: Map and conditions
RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development and Public Works
Departments
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
OAKLEIGH DIVISION II
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN
CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
N Bi l_ie99'//
4,
7 Ill
'- "a`" x , .:, +. / t_ SE 2I7TH PLAC310
4,
F
—� o
two ��2�Ja] Y tk /�- -x
�Iawl
ld
W ]
I I
1117,
' I I
r f0N �
11 a £ L�
I¢
m lcm k
09TH STflEET
A _
B .! t)u
Fill IF, Ag p AEG 80 IF
IF
} 10I.
I N y m BO vioms /�� 0>6 Pia
— 230TH STREET
mm
H«..
.aw�a.�� �u
_ ..r . ,. -
COL
O
N TICH
ETCH
_ 0 5^J.E 500' 515E
..ow1C 1•ca //
l eae1 uinn,.,es —m ami
Barghausen
I � � consulting Engineers, Inc 5
11 II
BEIFi OF M984 OF KC.32,122N li YIA1. -
SHEET 4 OF 5
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
® Theodore Paul Hunter
KEN^r^ Hearing Examiner
WASH I NOTON FOR THE CITY OF KENT '..
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
FILE NO: SINGH III SUBDIVISION
#SU-2006-15 / KIVA #RPP3-2064492
APPLIICANT: Hardeep Singh
21625 4th Avenue S
Normandy Park, WA 98198
REQUEST: Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide
approximately 11.31 acres into 42 single-family residential
lots with a drainage tract and private road tract.
LOCATION: 27817 106th Avenue SE, Kent, Washington
APPLICATION FILED: September 21, 2006
MITIGATED DETERMINATION
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: January 19, 2007
HEARING DATE: February 21, 2007
DECISION ISSUED: March 7, 2007
DECISION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Sharon Clamp, City Planner
TESTIMONY: The following people presented testimony under oath at
the open record hearing:
Sharon Clamp, City Planner
Mike Gillespie, Public Works Department
James Jaeger, P.E., for the Applicant
Carol Henry
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Ilearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-I5, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page I of 24
EXHIBITS: 1. Staff File with attachments:
A. Staff Report, dated February 14, 2007
B. Preliminary Plat Application, received
September 21, 2006
C. Public Comment Letters
i. Letter from Carole Henry, received
November 21, 2006
ii. Letter from Fonda R. Zimmerman,
including 18 attachments, received
November 21, 2006
iii. Letter to Sharon Clamp from James
Jaeger, P.E., dated November 20,
2006
iv. Letter from Beth Tan, City Public Works,
to James Jaeger, P.E., dated
November 8, 2006
D. Department Routing documents
E. Public Notice Documents, including
affidavits of notice, publication notice, and
mailing list
F. Notice of Completeness, Notice of
Application
G. Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance, issued January 19, 2007, and
SEPA Environmental Checklist
H. Wetland Evaluation and Conceptual
Mitigation Plan, dated November 16, 2006
and letter from the City, dated November
17, 2006
I. Technical Information Report, dated
September 18, 2006
J. Geotechnical Report, dated September 20,
2006
K. Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated
September 20, 2006
L. Preliminary Plat Plan Map, dated September
15, 2006
2. Aerial Photograph with Diagram Overlay of
Singh II and Singh III Subdivision
Development Sites, Wetland Areas, 30 foot-
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminmy Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 2 of 24
I
wide Right-of-Way, and surrounding
development sites, dated February 21, 2007
I
The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the
testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:
FINDINGS
1. Hardeep Singh (the Applicant) requested approval of a preliminary plat to
subdivide 11.31 acres into 42 single-family residential lots, a drainage tract, and
a road tract. The property subject to the preliminary plat application is located
at 27817 106th Avenue SE, in Kent, Washington.' Exhibit 1, Attachment B.
2. The City of Kent (City) determined the preliminary plat application was complete
on October 26, 2006, and on November 7, 2006 gave public notice of the j
application by posting notice on the subject property, publishing notice in the
King County Journal and mailing notice to agencies and parties of record. On
November 30, 2006, the City gave notice of an extended period to offer public
comment on the application by posting notice on the subject property.2 On
February 12, 2007, the City gave public notice of the hearing associated with the
application by posting notice on the subject property, publishing notice in the
Kent Reporter, and mailing notice to all owners of property within 300 feet of the
subject property. The City held a tentative subdivision meeting on August 29,
2006. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment E; Exhibit 1,
Attachment F.
I
3. The City analyzed the environmental impact of the preliminary plat proposal as
required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City determined that
with conditions, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse
Impact on the environment and issued a Mitigated Determination of
NDnsignificance (MDNS) on January 19, 2007. The MDNS contains five
conditions that address the proposal's traffic impacts, pedestrian walkway
improvements, use of low impact development techniques in construction,
sensitivity to the proposed development site's topography, and minimizing
grading on the proposed development site. Mike Gillespie, Public Works
Department, testified for the City that the MDNS condition addressing traffic
`The property is identified by King County tax parcel numbers 3222059089, 3222059095, 3222059122,
and 3222059137. A legal description of the property can be found on the Preliminary Plat Plan Map.
Exhibit 1, Attachment B; Exhibit 1, Attachment L.
2 The City extended the public comment period on the application from November 7, 2006 through
November 21, 2006 to November 30, 2006 through December 14, 2006. Exhibit 1, Attachment F.
Findings, Conchtsions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminaey Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 3 of 24
i
i
I
impacts would require either payment of a fee or construction of traffic
improvements, with the goal of moving traffic to existing arterial streets. In
response to a public comment letter from neighboring property owner Carol
Henry, Mr. Gillespie testified that the fee would fund improvements allowing
greater traffic volumes in east-west traffic corridors. Exhibit 1, Attachment C;
Exhibit 1, Attachment G; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie.
4. The subject property is currently developed with four single family residences
and associated outbuildings. Three existing homes would remain following site
development on proposed Lots 21, 28, and 35, One existing house would be
removed to make way for a proposed roadway running north-south through the
center of the subject property. A proposed condition of preliminary plat approval
would require City review and approval of the proposal to remove the existing
house. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 1 —2 and 27; Exhibit 1, Attachment L.
5. The subject property slopes down to the east property line with an average six
percent grade, except for the western edge of the property. That edge of the
property slopes down to the Green River with slopes of up to 50 percent. The
steep slopes and steep slope buffers contain significant trees, which would be
left undisturbed throughout site development. Kent City Code (KCC) Section
15.08.240 requires maximum possible preservation of all trees on site over six-
inch caliper. At the public hearing, Sharon Clamp, City Planner, proposed a
condition of preliminary plat approval that would require implementation of a
City-approved tree retention plan during site development. KCC 15.08,240;
Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 2 — 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment L; Exhibit 2;
Testimony of Ms Clamp.
6. Steep slopes along the western edge of the property would be protected within a
sensitive area tract containing a 15 foot-wide Boundary Setback Line and a 25
foot-wide buffer from the top of the slope. At the public hearing, Ms. Clamp
proposed a condition of preliminary plat approval that would require steep slope
setbacks on the subject property. James Jaeger testified for the Applicant that
the proposed condition of preliminary plat approval requiring permanent
protection of a sensitive area tract refers to protection of the steep slopes on
site. Mr. Gillespie agreed that the proposed condition Mr. Jaeger spoke about
refers to steep slopes, and testified that the proposed condition also refers the
protection of an off-site wetland. Exhibit 1, Attachment L; Testimony of Ms.
Clamp; Testimony of Mr, Jaeger; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie.
Findings, Concleaians and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh IIIPreliminavy Plat
A U-2006-15, KIVA #PPP3-2064492
Page 4 of 24
7. Ms. Clamp testified at the public hearing that a Category III wetland exists off-
site, to the south of the subject property, but that there is no on-site wetland'3
The wetland is located at the south edge of the SE 280th Street right-of-way.
According to KCC Section 11,06.600, a Category III wetland must be protected
by a buffer at least 60 feet-wide, depending on the wetland's habitat score from
the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. At the
public hearing, neighboring property owner Ms. Henry inquired about the status
of the wetland after development of the subject property. Mr. Jaeger responded
that the wetland is currently 80 square feet in size and is located south of an
access road to the proposed development. Mr. Jaeger testified that mitigation
for any development impacts to the buffer surrounding the off-site wetland
would occur within the Valley View IV short plat to the east of the proposed
development. KCC 11.06.600; Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 1; Exhibit 1,
Attachment L; Testimony of Ms. Clamp; Testimony of Ms. Henry; Testimony of
Mr. Jaeger.
8. Properties to the north and east of the proposed development contain large lot
single-family residential development and are located within the City's SR-4.5
zoning district. The area to the east of the subject property contains the 13-lot
Singh II subdivision and the 9-lot Valley View IV short plat. Property to the west
is zoned SR-1 Residential Agricultural. The site abuts the Kent city limit boundary
along the southern edge of the site. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 2; Exhibit 1,
Attachment L.
9. The subject property is located in the City's SR-4.5 Single-Family Residential
zoning district. The district's purpose is to stabilize and preserve single-family
residential neighborhoods, as designated in the comprehensive plan. The district
permits one single-family dwelling per lot, with a 7,600 square foot minimum lot
size and a 4,53 dwelling unit per acre maximum development density. Lots
within the district must beat least 50 feet wide. KCC15.03.010; KCC15/04.020;
KCC 15,04,170; Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 2.
10. The proposed development would contain 42 lots, none smaller than 7,600
square feet. Ms. Clamp testified that after subtracting areas within the subject
property planned for roadways, proposed lots would be developed at a net
density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre. The Staff Report states that the proposed
development "appears to be in general conformance with the Kent City Code
with respect to the required minimum lot area, minimum lot width and access to
a public right-of-way." A proposed condition of subdivision approval would
KCC Section 11.06.580.A provides that wetlands are classified as Category I, II, III, or IV based on the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Washington State Department of
Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025, published August 2004. KCC11.06.580.A.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2 0 6449 2
Page 5 of 24
require revision of the width of proposed Lot 21 to comply with KCC Section
15.04.170 and KCC Section 15.02.245. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 14 and
27; Exhibit 1, Attachment L; Testimony of Ms. Clamp.
11. The subject property is designated Single Family/4.5 dwelling units per acre
under the City Comprehensive Plan. The designation permits development of 4.5
dwelling units per acre. Properties to the north and east of the subject property
are designated Single Family/4.5 dwelling units per acre under the City
Comprehensive Plan. Property to the west is designated Urban Separator under
the City Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 6— 7 and 13 — 14.
12. Primary access to the proposed development would be from 108th Avenue SE, a
public street, through SE 279th Street, 106th Avenue SE and SE 280th Street.
108th Avenue SE is located to the east of the proposed subdivision. 106th Avenue
SE connects to 108th Avenue SE through SE 279th Street. SE 280th Street
connects to 108th Avenue SE. SE 279th Street runs west-east to the east of the
proposed development and 106th Avenue SE runs north-south to the east of the
proposed development, adjacent to the neighboring Singh II preliminary plat. SE
280th Street would form the southern boundary of the proposed development.
Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 3 — 4; Exhibit 1, Attachment L,
13. SE 279th Street and 106th Avenue SE are private community streets not
constructed to current City street standards. The streets have an existing
easement width of 60 feet and an existing pavement width of 16 feet. Both
streets currently provide for two narrow traffic lanes but do not contain
additional improvements. Ms. Clamp testified that the adjacent Singh II
preliminary plat is in common ownership with the proposed development, and
improvements would be made to the north half of SE 279" Street and the east
side of 106th Avenue SE as part of the Singh II preliminary plat. Ms. Clamp
testified that proposed conditions of the Singh III preliminary plat approval
would address improvements to the remaining portions of 106th Avenue SE,
address the timing of street improvements between the Singh II development
and the proposed development, and address the transfer of streets from private
to public (City) ownership. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 3 - 4; Testimony of
Ms. Clamp.
14. Ms. Clamp testified that SE 279th Street and 106th Avenue SE would be
transferred to the City upon completion of street improvements but maintained
by the proposed development's Homeowners' Association until transfer of
ownership to the City. Mr. Jaeger testified that he is drawing plans for the Singh
II development, the Valley View IV development and the proposed development
to ensure street improvements within the developments are coordinated. Mr.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preluninary Plat
#SU-2006-I5, KIVA #PPP3-2064492
Page 6 of 24
Jaeger stated that the private easements currently held for access to SE 279"
Street and 106th Avenue SE would likely be extinguished. Mr. Jaeger added that
extinguishing the easements would provide for further development of property
along these streets and would eliminate the need for property owners to pay
street maintenance fees. Improvements would include sidewalks and other
walkways to provide safe travel for students to and from the transit stop for the
nearby Meadow Ridge Elementary School, located. to the northeast of the
proposed development. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4; Exhibit 1, Attachment
L; Testimony of Ms. Clamp, Testimony of Mr. Jaeger.
15. Ms. Clamp testified that a proposed condition of preliminary plat approval would
require half-street right-of-way improvements to the northern half of SE 280t"
Street. Mr. Gillespie testified that the proposed condition applies only to the
proposed development. At the public hearing, Ms. Henry inquired about the
design of the west terminus of SE 280th Street. Mr. Gillespie responded that the
final location of the terminus would "line up" with the proposed subdivision's
south entry point to avoid multiple intersections and entry points to collection
roads. Exhibit 1, Attachment L; Testimony of Ms. Clamp; Testimony of Mr.
Gillespie; Testimony of Ms. Henry.
16. A new internal public street running approximately north-south would serve
proposed lots. The proposed street would connect 106t" Avenue SE and SE 280t"
Street. Mr. Gillespie testified that fire access, including gutter, would require a
20 foot pavement width and a total of 30.5 feet of right-of-way width, including
a 0.5 foot-wide gutter and 5 foot-wide sidewalks. Mr. Gillespie testified that the
City currently owns 30 feet of the right-of-way, so in this case, the City would
allow a 1 foot-wide sidewalk easement so that proposed lot sizes would not
change. The easement would meet the right-of-way requirement. Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, page 12; Exhibit 1, Attachment L; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie.
17. Sidewalks would be required along both sides of the proposed subdivision's new
internal public street, along the new public half-street improvements to be
constructed on the north side of SE 280t" Street, and along the new public half-
street improvements to be constructed on the west side of 106t" Avenue SE.
The sidewalks would connect to sidewalks constructed along SE 279t Street
within the Singh II and Valley View IV developments. Exhibit 1, Attachment A,
page 12; Exhibit 1, Attachment L.
18. At the public hearing, Ms. Henry expressed her concern about proposed
Drainage Tract A. Fonda Zimmerman also submitted a written comment stating
the proposed stormwater detention/retention facility for the proposed
development would be inadequate for site conditions. The Staff Report states
Findings, Conclatsions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh 111 Preliminary Plat
9SU-2006-15, KIVA ##RPP3-2064492
Page 7 of 24
that the City Public Works Department "has reviewed the incremental increase in
impervious area and determined the proposed stormwater system to be
accurate." Drainage Tract A would be located in the southwest corner of the
proposed development. The Drainage Tract would contain an on-site public
detention/retention stormwater pond system. Mr. Gillespie responded that the
rate of drainage flow from the pond would not increase over existing drainage
from the site; however, stormwater may flow out of the pond for a longer
duration. Mr. Jaeger testified that the pond would not drain to the Henry
property because pond drainage would be routed to Olsen Creek, 1800 feet to
the south of the proposed development. Each individual residence would be
required to provide on-site infiltration and an overflow connection to a City-
approved stormwater conveyance system. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 11 -
12; Exhibit 1, Attachment C; Testimony of Ms. Henry; Testimony of Mr. Gillespie;
Testimony of Mr. Jaeger.
19. Ms. Henry also testified to her concern about a decommissioned well on-site.
Mr. Gillespie responded that the well would be capped and sealed so that it
cannot be used and cannot be a hazard, according to Washington Department of
Ecology regulations. Mr. Jaeger added that the well would be filled with grout if
necessary to avoid surface water intrusion. Testimony of Ms. Henry; Testimony
of Mr. Gillespie; Testimony of Mr. Jaeger.
20. All proposed lots would be served by City water and sewer services. Power and
natural gas lines would be installed during construction and garbage service
would be established by individual residents. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 4
and 13.
21. King County METRO would provide mass transit service to the proposed
development with park and ride facilities located on 132"d Avenue SE at 272nd
Street and on 124th Avenue SE at SE 256th Street. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page
12.
22. The Applicant would pay a fee in-lieu-of dedicating open space and providing
parks, neighborhood tot lots and play areas on site. Exhibit 1, Attachment A,
page 11.
23, The Applicant would pay a school impact fee when construction permits are
issued for each lot to mitigate .the proposed development's impact on area
schools. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 11.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City ofKent Heating Examiner
Singh 111 Prelintinatp Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 8 of 24
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a hearing on preliminary plat
applications; to consider all evidence presented at the hearing; and, based on that
evidence, to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the preliminary plat. KCC
2.32; KCC 12,04; RCW 58,17.
Criteria for Review
The decision of the Hearing Examiner must be supported by the evidence presented
and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for review specified in state
statutes and city ordinances.
The standards and criteria for review of preliminary plat applications are found in
Chapter 12,04, KCC and Chapter 58,17, Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The
review criteria include the following:
A. Under KCC 12,04.635:
No subdivision shall be approved unless the following principles of
acceptability are met; the subdivision shall:
1. Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of KCC Title
15, Zoning, and health regulations;
2. Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel;
3. Have suitable physical characteristics; a proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation or wetland conditions; slope, soil stability
and/or capabilities; or the construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval;
4. If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into
consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction as well as the
requirements of this chapter;
5. Make adequate provision for stormwater detention, drainageways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, and other public utilities and services, as
deemed necessary;
6. Make adequate provision for the connectivity of streets, alleys,
pedestrian accessways and other public ways.
B. Under KCC 12.04.685(A), a proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be
approved unless the city finds that:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City ofKent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-I5, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 9 of 24
1. Appropriate provisions have been made for:
a. The public health, safety and general welfare of the community;
b. Protection of environmentally sensitive lands and habitat;
c. Open spaces;
d. Community parks and recreation;
e. Neighborhood tot lots and play areas;
f. Schools and school grounds;
g. Drainageways;
h. Stormwater detention;
i. Connectivity of sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, traffic calming
features and devices, and other planning features that assure safe
walking conditions within and between subdivisions and
neighborhoods for residents and students who walk to and from
schools, parks, transit stops and other neighborhood services;
j. Connectivity of streets or roads, alleys, pedestrian accessways, and
other public ways within and between subdivisions and
neighborhoods;
k. Transit stops;
I. Potable water supplies;
m. Sanitary wastes;
n. Other public utilities and services, as deemed necessary; and
2. The city has considered all other relevant facts; and
I The public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision and dedication; and
4. The city has considered the physical characteristics of a proposed
subdivision site and may deny a proposed plat because of flood,
inundation, or wetland conditions, slope, or soil stability and/or
capabilities. Construction of protective improvements may be required as
a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the
final plat.
These criteria as set forth in the Kent City Code are essentially identical to those in
the Revised Code of Washington. These criteria must also be met by the
application before a decision of approval can be made. RCW 58.17,110 requires
that:
Appropriate provisions must be made for the public health, safety and
general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys,
other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all
other relevant facts including sidewalks and other planning features that
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City,of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminary Plat
9SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 10 of 24
assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from
school; and the public interest must be served by the subdivision.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the
provisions of KCC Chapter 12.04.
A. Development of the proposed preliminary plat will provide single-family
housing opportunities within the City of Kent on lots that comply with
development standards for the City's SR-4.5 zoning district and the City's
Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property. Each lot within
the proposed subdivision will have access to a public street, 108th Avenue
SE, through a new internal subdivision street that connects SE 279th Street
and 106th Avenue SE. SE 279th Street and 106th Avenue SE will be
transferred from private to public ownership. The City will allow a 1 foot-
wide easement along the internal street of the proposed development to
meet City right-of-way requirements. The proposed subdivision will
connect to surrounding streets through coordination of proposed
subdivision development with construction of surrounding residential
developments. The proposed subdivision will make adequate provision for
stormwater detention within the subdivision by construction of a
stormwater retention/detention pond draining to an off-site creek and an
on-site stormwater collection system within the subdivision, The City has
determined that the proposed stormwater detention/retention pond will be
adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed
development will be served by City water and sewer services. Power and
natural gas lines will be installed during subdivision construction. The
subject property has suitable physical characteristics for development with
protection of steep slopes on the western edge of the subject property.
B. Single-family residential development on the subject property will be
consistent with surrounding single-family residential land use. The City
provided adequate notice of the preliminary plat application and adequate
opportunity for public comment. The City analyzed the environmental
impact of the proposed development and determined that with conditions,
the development will not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment. MDNS conditions address the proposal's traffic impacts,
pedestrian walkway improvements, use of low impact development
techniques in construction, sensitivity to the proposed development site's
topography, and minimizing grading on the proposed development site.
Traffic impacts of proposed subdivision development will be mitigated
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh IIIAelinzinaq Plat
#SU-2006-I5, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page I I of 24
through payment of a traffic impact fee or construction of street
improvements, according to the MDNS condition on the proposed
subdivision. An MDNS condition on the proposed subdivision will require
the Applicant to make sidewalk improvements or payment of a fee to
support sidewalks serving nearby Meadow Ridge Elementary School. The
Applicant will pay a fee-in-lieu of dedicating open space, tot lots, or play
areas within the proposed subdivision. The Applicant will pay a school
impact fee to mitigate for the impact of proposed subdivision development
on the Kent School District. Stormwater runoff from the proposed
subdivision will not drain to neighboring residential properties. Each lot
within the proposed subdivision will have access to a public street,
108th Avenue SE, through a new internal subdivision street that connects
SE 279th Street and 106th Avenue SE. SE 279th Street and 106th Avenue SE
will be transferred from private to public ownership. The proposed
subdivision's street and sidewalks will connect to surrounding streets and
sidewalks through coordination of proposed subdivision development with
construction of surrounding residential developments. The west terminus
of SE 280th Street will be located at the proposed subdivision's south entry
point. Public transit services will be provided to the proposed subdivision
by METRO transit.
C. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that the width of Lot 21 is
revised to comply with Kent City Code Sections 15.04.170 and 15.02.245;
that sidewalks and other street improvements are constructed along 106th
Avenue SE, SE 280th Street, SE 279th Street and the proposed internal
subdivision street according to City standards; and that 106th Avenue SE
and SE 279th Street are transferred to public ownership. Conditions of
approval are also necessary to ensure that significant trees, steep slopes
and off-site wetlands are protected according to Kent City Code
requirements; that any impacts to the off-site wetland are adequately
mitigated; that existing wells are decommissioned according to
Department of Ecology standards; that a stormwater system and on-site
infiltration system is constructed for the proposed subdivision that
complies with City standards; and that the Applicant obtains City approval
to remove one existing single-family residence currently on site. Findings
1 —23.
2. Based on the above conclusions, the requirements of RCW 58.17.110
have been satisfied.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
singly III Prelinvin07,Plat
#sU-2006-I5, KIYA #RPP3-2064492
Page 12 of 24
I
i
DECESION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a
preliminary plat to subdivide 11.31 acres into 42 single family residential lots is
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:4
A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION:
1. The Owner/Subdivider shall pay all Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or
Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference
and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever comes first.
2. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide Public Works with a digital plat map
prepared with a CAD program. The digital information can be formatted in either
*.DWG (AutoCad) or *.DXF (Drawing Exchange File), but must be based upon
State Plane coordinates: an assumed coordinate system is not
permitted. The State Plane Coordinates shall be on the NAD 83/91 datum and
must relate to at least two City of Kent reference points within one half mile of
the subdivision. In addition, the project shall be tied into at least two City of Kent
NAD 88 vertical benchmarks and two additional permanent benchmarks shall be
established within the project. The locations, descriptions and elevations of these
benchmarks will be reported at the time as-built drawings are submitted along
with field notes sufficient to verify the required precision.
3. The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive City approval for engineering
drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct
or bond for the following:
a. A public gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots.
The closest sanitary sewer manhole is located adjacent to the westerly
margin of the right-of-way for 108t" Avenue Southeast and this manhole
is located about 580-feet north of the intersection with Southeast 279th
Street. The public sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the
existing public sanitary sewer system and shall be designed to serve all
off-site properties within the same service area and shall be extended
across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent properties
within the same service area.
The septic system serving the existing homes within the proposed
subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health
Department Regulations.
4 This decision includes conditions required to meet City Code standards as well as conditions required to
reduce unique project impacts.
Findings, Coaclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh HI Preliminmy Plat
##SU-2006-15,KIVA 4RPP3-2064492
Page 13 of 24
b. A public water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all
lots.
The City water system shall be extended along 108th Avenue Southeast
from the existing City water main installed north of the subject
subdivision to the intersection with Southeast 279th Street, and then
along Southeast 279th Street to the intersection with 1061h Avenue
Southeast, and then north and south along 1061h Avenue Southeast to the
margins of the subdivision. This water main shall be sized consistent with
what is reflected in City's Water Comprehensive Plan, or that size
required to serve all off-site properties within the same service area,
which ever requires the largest water pipe diameter. All residences within
this subdivision (both existing and new) shall receive their respective
water service from the City's water system.
Existing wells, if any, shall be decommissioned in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Ecology.
C. A stormwater system. The Engineering Plans must meet the minimum
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and 2002 City of
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (KSWDM). Initial guidance for the
Engineering Plans is given below (See Chapter 2 of KSWDM for detailed
submittal requirements):
(1) The Engineering Plans will include at a minimum: Site
improvement plans which include all plans, details, notes and
specifications necessary to construct road, drainage, and other
related improvements. The engineering plans shall include a
technical information report (TIR) which contains all the technical
information and analysis to develop the site improvement plans.
(2) An erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan shall be included
in the engineering plans. The ESC shall meet the requirements of
the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the 2002 City of Kent
Surface Water Design Manual. These plans must reflect the
Detailed Grading Plan discussed below, and the Planning Services
approved Detailed Tree Plan.
(3) The retention/detention and release standard that will be met by
the subdivision is Level Two. The water quality menu that will be
met by the subdivision is the Resource Stream Protection
Menu.
(4) The site improvement plans and technical information report will
contain drainage calculations and a drawing of the retention/
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
00,of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singly III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-I5, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 14 of 24
detention pond tract at an appropriate engineering scale to show
that the proposed on-site or off-site retention/detention tract is
large enough to contain the required minimum stormwater
storage volume and water quality facility. The site improvement
plans will also show that all required stormwater management
facilities will be outside of delineated wetlands and their buffers,
as well as outside of creeks and rivers and their buffers.
(5) A downstream analysis is required for this development, and it will
include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water
quality. Refer to the requirements of Technical Information
Reports in Section 3: "Offsite Analysis", of the 2002 City of Kent
Surface Water Design Manual for the specific information required
for downstream analyses.
(6) Roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage,
carport, etc.) shall be diverted to a Roof Downspout Infiltration
System meeting the requirements of section 5.4.5, Infiltration
Trenches, of the 1998 Surface Water Design Manual. These roof
downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include
overflow pipes connected to an approved dispersion system. The
drainage plans shall include an approved detail for the roof
downspout infiltration system. The face of the recorded plat shall
contain the following restriction:
AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES
CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF
DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PLANS.
(7) If determined necessary by the Public Works Department
following review and approval of the required downstream
analysis, the Owner/Subdivider shall provide public drainage
easements meeting the requirements of the City of Kent
Construction Standards for the specified downstream reach where
adequate public drainage easements do not currently exist.
(8) The Owner/Subdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for within
and surrounding the retention/detention facility to the Planning
Department and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent
review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval
of the Engineering Plans, These Landscape Plans shall meet the
minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards, and the stormwater management landscaping
requirements contained within the 1998 King County Surface
Water Design Manual. Landscape Plans are required to show
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singe III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 15 of 24
adjacent Street Trees so that the City arborist can assess potential
adverse stress upon all types of vegetation.
(9) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute a Declaration of Stormwater
Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the
drainage system prepared by the Property Management Section of
the Department of Public Works. See Reference 8-F, Declaration
of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant, to the 2002 City of
Kent Surface Water Design Manual for information on what is
contained within this document.
d. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits
& Grading Plans Initial guidance for these plans is given below:
(1) These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways,
retention/ detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a
building footpad for every lot.
(2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing
several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building
Permits: phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be
considered.
(3) These plans will use a 2-foot maximum contour interval, and
every fifth contour line will be darker, wider and labeled in
conformance to standard drafting practice.
e. A Final Wetland Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of Kent City
Code Chapter 11.06. These plans shall pursue avoiding or minimizing
impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent possible by analyzing
alternatives that would avoid the impact. If grading is a part of the final
wetland mitigation plan, all grading shall be included on the grading plan
for the entire site, including buffers and appropriate Building Setback
Lines.
f. Interim Street Improvement Plans for the intersection of 108th Avenue
Southeast with Southeast 279`h Street. These Interim Street Improvement
Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards. and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2,
Private and Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement
Plans, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Street with Bike
Lanes within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. If the street
improvements required for the Singh II plat, SU-2006-13, have not been
Findings, Conchrsions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singly III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 16 of'24
constructed at the time construction begins for this development, then
the necessary interim street improvements are as follows:
(1) The inside radii for the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement at the
intersection with Southeast 279th Street shall be 30-feet.
(2) At least one new street light will be required for the intersection of
108th Street and Southeast 279th Street if the street lighting
system required for Singh II, SU 2006-13, has not been installed
at the time construction begins for this development. This minimal
street lighting system will be designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the Intol-ight Division of Puget
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision.
g. Interim Street Improvement Plans for the off-site portions of SE 279th
Street and SE 280th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 106th Avenue SE or
106th's extension to the south. These Interim Street Improvement Plans
shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards,
and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and
Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a
street designated as a Residential Collector Street with Bike Lanes within
the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. If the street improvements required
for the Singh II plat, SU-2006-13, and Valley View IV plat, SU-2006-31,
have not been constructed at the time construction begins for this
development, then the necessary interim street improvements are as
follows:
(1) A minimum of 26-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
measured between the edges of pavement; 20 feet for traffic and
6 feet for pedestrian walkway,
h. Interim Street Improvement Plans for 106th Avenue Southeast classified
as a Residential Street along the east boundary of the subject property.
These Interim Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of
the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and
#6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Residential
Street within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Initial guidance for the
necessary interim street improvements is given below:
(1) Combined vertical concrete curbs and gutter, a 5-foot wide planter
strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along the west side
of 106th Avenue Southeast.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing E,eandner
Singh III Prelin¢incny Plat
#SU-2006-15,KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 17 of'24
(2) A minimum of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement as
measured from face of curb to the edge of the HMA on the east
side of the street or 28 feet to the new curb on the east side if the
Singh II Plat is constructed first. The entire HMA pavement width
specified above shall be provided with a 20-year service life as
determined by the process identified in the City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street
Requirements.
(3) Curb return radii for the intersections shall be 30-feet and the
outside curb return radii at the intersection with SE 2791h Street
shall be 60 feet.
(4) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision.
(5) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment facilities
as applicable.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement
concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located as approved
by the Public Works Department, and the species shall be selected
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
(7) All of the benefiting property owners currently served by
Southeast 2791h Street and 106`h Avenue Southeast, currently
private community streets, will be required to extinguish their
easement rights to these streets in order for the City to accept
them as Public Residential Streets. The subject private streets
along this subdivision shall be constructed to City standards for
Residential Streets, but the Home Owner Association for this
subdivision will be responsible for maintenance of the private
streets until such time as the easements are extinguished, and the
public right-of-way is deeded to the City of Kent at which time the
City will become responsible for maintenance of the new public
streets.
i. Interim Street Improvement Plans for SE 2801h Street along the south
side of the subject subdivision terminating with an approved cul-de-sac or
turn around at its westerly termini. The location of the west termini shall
be based on the potential access requirements for development to the
south. The Street Improvement Plans for this street shall be designed in
Findingv, Conclusions and Decision
City of Ken t Hearing Examiner
Singh III Prel inrtnm y Plat
#SU-2006-15,KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 18 of24
conformance to the requirements for a Residential Street as required by
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and
City of /Cent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street
Improvement Plans for a street 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these
street improvements is given below:
(1) Combined vertical curb and gutter, a 5-foot wide planting strip
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the
sidewalk, and then a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk along
the north side of the street.
(2) A minimum of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement, as
measured from face of vertical curb to edge of HMA pavement on
the south side of the street across the project frontage.
(3) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the Into Light Division of Puget
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision,
(4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions for
collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities.
(5) Curb return radii of 20-feet at the intersection of this residential
street and the new Public Residential Street serving the subject
subdivision and a 45-foot radius to the face of vertical curb for the
permanent cul-de-sac bulb, if required.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips. These
Street Trees will be located as approved by the Public Works
Department, and the species shall be selected from the Approved
Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
j. Street Improvement Plans for the new Public Residential Street connected
to SE 2801h Street and proceeding north and then east to an intersection
with 106th Avenue SE approximately 420 feet north of SE 2791" Street.
The Street Improvement Plans for this street shall be designed in
conformance to the requirements for a Residential Street as required by
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and
City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-6, Street
Improvement Plans for a street 28-feet wide. Initial guidance for these
street improvements is given below:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Cio�ofKent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Prehininmy Plat
#SU-2006-15,KIVA #RPP3-2 0 64492
Page 19 of 24
(1) Combined vertical curb and gutter, a 5-foot wide planting strip
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the
sidewalk, and then a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk along
both sides of the street.
(2) A minimum of 28-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement, as
measured from face of vertical curb to face of vertical curb.
(3) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget
Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for
by the Home Owner's Association created for this subdivision.
(4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions for
collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities.
(5) Curb return radii of 20-feet at the intersection of the subdivision
street and 1061h Avenue SE, and a 45-foot radius to the face of
vertical curb for the permanent cul-de-sac bulb.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips. These
Street Trees will be located as approved by the Public Works
Department, and the species shall be selected from the Approved
Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
k. Street Improvement Plans for any new Private Residential Streets
connected to the new Public Residential Streets and terminating with
approved permanent turnaround at their termini. The Street
Improvement Plans for these streets shall be designed in conformance to
the requirements for a Private Residential Street as required by City of
Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a
private street at least 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street
improvements is given below:
(1) Private streets serving four or more lots, where no parking will be
permitted along either side of the street: A minimum of 20-feet of
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement, measured from edge of
pavement to edge of pavement except where the Fire Marshal
requires additional pavement width for emergency vehicle access.
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk constructed along one
side of the street for all private streets serving more than four
lots.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
00 ofKew Hearing Examiner
Singh 111 Preliminary Plat
4SO-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 20 of 24
(3) An approved permanent turnaround at its terminus, unless these
additional street improvements are not required by the City Fire
Marshal.
(4) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for
conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where applicable.
(5) These private streets will connect to the new Residential Street
with a Residential Concrete Driveway Approach conforming to the
minimum requirements of Standard Detail 6-5(c). The minimum
design inside radii for the driveway approaches serving all private
streets shall be 30-feet.
(6) All private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal and
vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances requirements
for a public Residential Street.
(7) Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire Marshal.
(8) The private streets, including sidewalks, must be centered within
a private roadway tract or easement that is at least 1-foot wider
than the total width of the Private Street and sidewalk
combination.
I. Street Lighting Plans for 108th Avenue Southeast, Southeast 279th Street,
Southeast 280th Street and IW' Avenue Southeast meeting the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-1, Street Lighting Requirements.
4. The Owner/Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this
subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision are advised
of their obligation to pay for the energy and maintenance required for the street
lighting system installed in their development. Those sections of the required
document written to govern that association as they relate to any Intol-ight
Division of Puget Sound Energy street lighting systems, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to the recording these
documents.
5. The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision is also required to provide
street maintenance for SE 279th Street and for 106th Avenue SE along their
property frontage until such time as the existing 60-foot wide private easements
for ingress, egress and utilities are extinguished along these two streets, and the
necessary public right-of-way is conveyed to the City of Kent. Those sections of
the required document written to govern that association as they relate to the
subject street improvements, shall be reviewed and approved by the Department
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Prel iminary Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 21 of 24
of Public Works and the City Attorney, prior to the recording these documents.
6. The Owners/Subdividers shall execute an agreement prepared and approved by
the City of Kent City Attorney that commits the Owners, their successors and
assigns to release the Owner's interest in the private street easements and
dedicate the Owners' interest in the private street to the City of Kent for public
right-of-way when requested by the City or its successors in the future.
7. The face of the final plat will clearly identify all private streets, and which lots will
be served by those private streets. The face of the final plat will also specify that
the maintenance of all private streets is the sole responsibility of the property
owners who are served by those private streets.
8. The Owner/Subdivider shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey
all private and public easements necessary for the construction and maintenance
of the required improvements for this subdivision development.
9. The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and preserved,
and/or enhanced, or created sensitive area(s) and the associated buffer(s) by
creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract and deeding the tract in fee simple to.
the City, OR by granting a Sensitive Area Easement to the City for the entire
sensitive area, pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11,06. This Sensitive Area
Tract or Easement shall include steep slope areas and wetland areas. The
Sensitive Area Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the top of slope, steep
slope setbacks and buffers delineated and marked in the field prior to any
clearing or grading on site, and with the wetland and wetland buffer map
contained within the approved Wetland Delineation Report and/or approved
Wetland Mitigation Plan as appropriate. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide a
legal description of said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor,
prior to issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract and the
following language shall be included on the face of the recorded plat:
SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS/EASEMENTS
DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC A
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE TRACT. THIS INTEREST INCLUDES
THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION FOR ALL PURPOSES THAT BENEFIT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER
AND EROSION, MAINTENANCE OF SLOPE STABILITY, VISUAL AND AURAL BUFFERING,
AND PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY, PLANT ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE
SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE
OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT/EASEMENT THE
OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC BY THE CITY OF KENT, TO
LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT, THE
VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT MAY NOT BE CUT, PRUNED, COVERED BY FILL,
REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE CITY OF KENT.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Ci y of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh IIIPrelinninary Plat
#SU-2006-15,KIVA 4,RPP3-2064492
Page 22 of 24
THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/EASEMENT AND THE AREA OF
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE FLAGGED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF KENT PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING, BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THE REQUIRED MARKING OR
FLAGGING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT ARE COMPLETED.
NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, STRUCTURES, FILL OR OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO OUTBUILDINGS AND OVERHANGS) ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15
FEET OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT BOUNDARY, UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THE CITY OF KENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL PUBLIC UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES WITHIN THIS SENSITIVE AREA TRACT, AND TO ENTER AND PERFORM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE
SENSITIVE AREAS DISTURBED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION, AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. THE CITY OF KENT
ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENHANCE THE SENSATIVE AREA TRACT OR EASEMENT
VIA PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND REMOVING NON-NATIVE OR INVASIVE
VEGETATION.
10. Prior to release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval of any
Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department of Public Works
must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure #E-1, As-Build Drawings, for: Streets; Street Lighting System; Water;
Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements where the
locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the Department of Public
Works.
11. Prior to any grading or clearing on site, the owner/subdivider shall submit and
receive City approval of a Tree Retention Plan for the project site, for the
retention of trees pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.08.240.
12. The owner/subdivider shall construct or bond for mailbox clusters per the
standards and at locations approved by the Public Works Department and the
Kent U.S. Postmaster.
13. The applicant shall revise the lot width of lot 21 shall to comply with Kent City
Code 15,04.170 and 15.02,245 and show compliance on both the civil
construction permit plans and the final short plat plan.
14. The parks fee in lieu of dedication shall be paid in the amount of$54,825 prior to
recording the subdivision.
15. The owner/subdivider shall submit applications to the City of Kent for review and
approval to remove or otherwise relocate the single family residence currently
Findings. Conclusions and Decision
City of Kent Hearing Examiner
Singh III Preliininay Plat
#SU-2006-15,KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 23 of 24
located at 27817 106 Ave SE and all residential accessory buildings identified to
be removed from the site in conjunction with the proposed development.
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS
SUBDIVISION, THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Record the Plat.
2. Construct all of the improvements required in Section A, above, and pay the
respective fees-in-lieu-of including any mitigation (EMA or EMF) charges.
3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street, Street Lighting,
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Facilities as deemed appropriate by
the Department of Public Works.
4. Construct all wetland mitigation plans, wetland and stream buffer plans, install all
required split-rail cedar fences and sensitive area signs, and any other conditions
to protect or enhance critical areas.
DATED this day 71h of March 2007.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
S:\Permit\Plan\LONGPLATS\2006\2064492-2006-LSFind i ngs.doc
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City ofKent Rearing Examiner
Singh III Preliminary Plat
#SU-2006-15, KIVA #RPP3-2064492
Page 24 of 24
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
® _ PLANNING SERVICES
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director
T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WAS HI H.TON
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ADMINISTRATIVE R.EVXEW DECISION
Singh III (OAKLEIGH II) PRELIMINARY PLAT
MINOR PLAT ALTERATION (#PTA-2010-3/KIVA #2103109)
APPLICANT: Lisa Cavell
Henley USA, LLC
11100 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to alter the
previously approved 42-lot Singh III
subdivision by eliminating the four existing
houses, modifying private access easements,
and combining drainage facilities with the
Singh II subdivision (SU-2006-13).
PLANNER: Sharon Clamp
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The Singh III Preliminary Plat SU-2006-15 was approved by the City of
Kent Hearing Examiner on March 7, 2007. This approval is for the
subdivision of 11.31 acres into 42 residential lots, three private roads
and one open space tract. The Singh III Preliminary Plat SU-2006-15
has not yet been recorded with the King County Assessor's office.
B. Singh III is located on Kent's east hill at 27727, 27817, 27901 and
27919 106 Avenue SE and is identified as King County tax parcel
numbers 3222059137, 3222059095, 3222059122 and 3222059089.
C. The site is zoned SR-4.5, single Family Residential. The City of Kent
Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the site as Single Family
Residential, SF-4.5.
D. The proposed alteration seeks to eliminate the existing four homes,
eliminate the stormwater facility and combine it with the Singh II
(Oakleigh I) subdivision, SU-2006-13, reconfigure lot lines, and modify
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
private roads serving some of the lots. The applicant states that the
proposed revision creates better lot configurations resulting in a viable
product for today's market.
E. Reconfigured lots 32 through 35 take access from a new private road
identified as Road Z. A portion of the 30-foot wide panhandle of city-
owned property located adjacent to the south property line will be
improved as a private road to serve as access to lots 18 through 22
and to meet fire department requirements. Reconfigured lots 18 to 20
take access from private road Y.
F. The previously approved 23,168 square foot stormwater pond will be
eliminated and stormwater management for the 42 lots combined with
the stormwater pond located on the adjacent Singh II plat, SU-2006-
13. The owner/developer has indicated that the Singh II and Singh III
plats will be constructed and recorded concurrently.
I
G. A conceptual wetland mitigation plan was approved on June 27, 2012.
There . are no wetlands on the site; however, a 90 square-foot
Category IV wetland, as defined by Kent City Code Section 11.06, is
located off-site to the south. The proposed development will impact
the entire 90 square feet of wetland due to the construction of the
private road identified as SE 280th Street. Mitigation for wetland
impacts is required in accordance with Kent City Code 11.06. The
approved conceptual wetland mitigation plan may be found in Wetland
File No. 06-53. A final Wetland Mitigation Plan must be approved
pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 11.06 prior to issuance of any
development permits.
H. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 12.04.227(B), the Planning
Manager has the authority to determine whether a plat alteration
constitutes a minor or major plat alteration. The Planning Manager
,has determined that this request constitutes a minor plat alteration.
I. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 12.04.227(D), if a plat alteration is
requested to a preliminary plat prior to final plat approval, a minor
alteration may be approved with consent of the Planning Manager and
the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director has consented to
this minor plat alteration.
J. Infrastructure is available to serve the site as proposed. Requirements
for infrastructure improvements were established for the property
through preliminary plat approval (SU-2006-15). The required
improvements to the local road, water, sanitary sewer and stormwater
systems, as well as other required infrastructure improvements, are
Page 2 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh fll (Oakleigh fl) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
adequate to mitigate the impacts of the proposed plat as previously
approved, and as proposed to be altered.
K. The existing private community street system (SE 279th Street and
106th Avenue SE) has only one intersection with a public street (108th
Avenue SE). Unless a new public street connection is provided which
meets International Fire Code (IFC) requirements for a secondary
access, the total number of lots that can be created along this
private/public street system will be limited to a total of 30 (including
existing parcels served by the private streets). If secondary access
meeting IFC requirements cannot be achieved, each residence in the
subdivision will require fire sprinklers unless waived by the Fire
Marshal.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. As this proposal does not seek to increase the number of lots, it is
considered a minor alteration and subject to the provisions of Kent
City Code Section 12.04.227(B). The application has been reviewed
by City staff accordingly.
B. As proposed, the proposed lot reconfiguration and stormwater tract
consolidation with the Singh II plat (SU-2006-13) is in the interest of
the public and as conditioned is consistent with the policies and
standards of the City of Kent.
C. The proposal is consistent with the type of land use allowed in the
SR-4.5 zoning district and does not facilitate development of the
property at more than the allowable density of 4.53 dwelling units per
acre. As stated in the Findings, adequate infrastructure is available to
serve the short plat as previously conditioned, and the proposal
complies with the applicable City of Kent development standards.
IZZ. DECISION
Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, City staff approves the Singh
III Preliminary Plat, SU-2006-15, Minor Plat Alteration PTA-2010-3 as shown
on plan revision #9 dated June 5, 2012 and date stamped by the city on
June 5, 2012 with the original conditions of approval revised as follows:
A. Prior to Recording the plat for this subdivision:
1. The Owner/Subdivider shall pay all Charges in Lieu of Assessments
and/or Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-
Construction Conference and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever
comes first.
Page 3 of 18
Administrative Review
Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
2. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide P-i 1i Works the City with a
digital plat map prepared with a CAD program. The digital information
can be formatted in either *.DWG (AutoCad) or *.DXF (Drawing
Exchange File), but must be based upon State Plane coordinates:
an assumed coordinate system is not permitted. The State Plane
Coordinates shall be on the NAD 83/91 datum and must relate to at
least two City of Kent reference points within one half mile of the
subdivision. In addition, the project shall be tied into at least two City
of Kent NAD 88 vertical benchmarks and two additional permanent
benchmarks shall be established within the project. The locations,
descriptions and elevations of these benchmarks will be reported at
the time as-built drawings are submitted along with field notes
sufficient to verify the required precision.
3. The Owner/Subdivider shall submit and receive City approval for
engineering drawings Erne the ^,,partffie t of Publie `" eFks and shall
then either construct or bond for the following:
a. A public gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots.
The closest sanitary sewer manhole is located adjacent to the
westerly margin of the right-of-way for 108th Avenue Southeast
and this manhole is located about 580-feet north of the
intersection with Southeast 279th Street. The public sanitary
sewer system shall be extended from the existing public sanitary
sewer system and shall be designed to serve all off-site
properties within the same service area and shall be extended
across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent
properties within the same service area.
The septic system serving the existing homes within the
proposed subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King
County Health Department Regulations.
b. A public water system meeting domestic and fire flow
requirements for all lots.
The City water system shall be extended along 108th Avenue
Southeast from the existing City water main installed north of
the subject subdivision to the intersection with Southeast 279th
Street, and then along Southeast 279th Street to the intersection
with 106th Avenue Southeast, and then north and south along
106th Avenue Southeast to the margins of the subdivision. This
water main shall be sized consistent with what is reflected in
City's Water Comprehensive Plan, or that size required to serve
Page 4 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh il) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
all off-site properties within the same service area - which ever
requires the largest water pipe diameter. All residences within
this subdivision (both existing and new) shall receive their
respective water service from the City's water system.
Existing wells, if any, shall be decommissioned in accordance
with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. The
existing class B water system well serving this site along with
others is allowed to remain and shall be placed in an easement.
Prior to acceptance of the Residential Streets as public right-of-
way a Franchise Agreement shall be executed to address this
private utility crossing the future right-of-way.
C. A stormwater system. The Engineering Plans must meet the
minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards and 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual
(KSWDM). Initial guidance for the Engineering Plans is given
below (See Chapter 2 of KSWDM for detailed submittal
requirements):
(1) The Engineering Plans will include at a minimum: Site
improvement plans which include all plans, details, notes
and specifications necessary to construct road, drainage,
and other related improvements. The engineering plans
shall include a technical information report (TIR) which
contains all the technical information and analysis to
develop the site improvement plans.
(2) An erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan shall be
included in the engineering plans. The ESC shall meet the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards,
and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual
These plans must reflect the Detailed Grading Plan
discussed below, and the Planning Services approved
Detailed Tree Plan.
(3) The retention/detention and release standard that will be
met by the subdivision is Level Two. The water quality
menu that will be met by the subdivision is the Resource
Stream Protection Menu.
(4) The site improvement plans and technical information report
will contain drainage calculations and a drawing of the
retention/detention pond tract at an appropriate engineering
scale to show that the proposed on-site or off-site retention/
detention tract is large enough to contain the required
Page 5 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
minimum stormwater storage volume and water quality
facility. The site improvement plans will also show that all
required stormwater management facilities will be outside of
delineated wetlands and their buffers, as well as outside of
creeks and rivers and their buffers. The stormwater facility
being designed for this project will be located on the Singh
II (Oakleigh I) subdivision in a combined facility. The Singh
II (Oakleigh I) subdivision stormwater facility must be
completed inspected approved and operational prior to
building permits being issued for this subdivision. If for any
reason the Singh II (Oakleigh I) subdivision is not
completed, this proposed subdivision will require a plat
alteration and stormwater redesign to accommodate the
stormwater runoff onsite.
(5) A downstream analysis is required for this development, and
it will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and
water quality. Refer to the requirements of Technical
Information Reports in Section 3: "Offsite Analysis", of the
2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual for the
specific information required for downstream analyses.
Minimally, the Owner/Subdivider shall provide a fifteen foot
wide easement along the proposed drainage pipe which will
convey drainage from upstream properties through this
subdivision to the on-site wetland. In addition, flows from
the stormwater pond will be required to discharge -to the
wetland area with an appropriate flow dispersal system or
energy dissipater.
(6) Roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage,
carport, etc.) shall be diverted ref—Dewn.SP a
Tnfi'r ,trat;en connected through a perforated tightline
connection Ssystem meeting the requirements of section
5.4.5, T filtr.t:...-. —...-fiches, C.2.5 of the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual.
The
drainage plans shall include an approved detail for the roof
downspout infiltration system. The face of the recorded plat
shall contain the following restriction:
AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE,
RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS
SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE
TnTlrn LTR TI ON PERFORATED TIGHTLINE CONNECTION
Page 6 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
SYSTEMS PER DET,",ILS SHGWN 9N THE nnnnnt ED ni nNS-
1998 KCSWDM SECTION C.2.5.
(7) If determined necessary by the
Ut following review and approval of the required
downstream analysis, the Owner/Subdivider shall provide
public drainage easements meeting the requirements of the
City of Kent Construction Standards for the specified
downstream reach where adequate public drainage
easements do not currently exist.
(8) The Owner/Subdivider shall submit Landscape Plans for
within and surrounding the retention/detention facility to the
City for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in
conjunction with, the approval of the Engineering Plans.
These Landscape Plans shall meet the minimum
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards,
and the stormwater management landscaping requirements
contained within the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. Landscape Plans are required to show
adjacent Street Trees so that the City arborist can assess
potential adverse stress upon all types of vegetation.
(9) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute a Declaration of
Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private
portions of the drainage system prepared by the greperty
C ty. See Reference 8-F, Declaration of Stormwater Facility
Maintenance Covenant, to the 2002 City of Kent Surface
Water Design Manual for information on what is contained
within this document.
d. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the
requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and
City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation
and Grading Permits & Grading Plans. Initial guidance for these
plans is given below:
(1) These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways,
retention / detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities,
and a building footpad for every lot.
(2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for
processing several individual Grading Permits upon
Page 7 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
application for Building Permits- Pphasing of grading on a
lot-by-lot basis will not be considered.
(3) These plans will use a 2-foot maximum contour interval, and
every fifth contour line will be darker, wider and labeled in
conformance to standard drafting practice.
e. A Final Wetland Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of Kent
City Code Chapter 11.06. These plans shall pursue avoiding or
minimizing impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent possible
by analyzing alternatives that would avoid the impact. If grading
is a part of the final wetland mitigation plan, all grading shall be
included on the grading plan for the entire site, including buffers
and appropriate Building Setback Lines,
f. interiFn Street Improvement Plans for the intersection of 108th
Avenue Southeast with Southeast 279th Street. These interiFa
Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public
Street Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for
a street designated as a Residential Collector Street with Bike
Lanes within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. if the stFee
net beeH eenstrueted at the t6te eenstruetlen begins for this
are as fellews: Initial guidance for the necessary interim street
improvements is given below:
(1) The inside radii for the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement at
the intersection with Southeast 279th Street shall be -3925-
feet.
(2) At least one new street light will be required for the
intersection of 108th Street and Southeast 279th Street if the
street lighting system required for Singh II (Oakleigh I), SU
2006-13/PTA-2010-02 has not been installed at the time
construction begins for this development. This minimal
street lighting system will be designed to the City's
standards, constructed and maintained by the Intol-ight
Division of Puget Sound Energy; all elect eal and
maintenanee-7b4lls shall be paid far by the Henge C)wFieF�s
Asseelatien created feF this subdivision.
g. interim Street Improvement Plans for the off-site portions of SE
279th Street -R F= 2se street t ...,. 1 no -Ay e c c�wt1
Page 8 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakieigh If) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA##2103109
nyeigue SE eF tine's extension te the south. These !RteFim
Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the
City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public
Street Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for
a street designated as a Public Residential Gelleete Street with
Bike Lanes within the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. if the
,
and this Valley View III si plat, Sd 2096 31, have fiat
tr ... ,.eted at the t' t.. len begins feF this. de . l ,
rsacvcrvpiiiii.�t�,
h..t then
LTICi�I�TR-1-G33a
Initial guidance for the necessary lntef�ffi street improvements is
given below:
(1) A minimum of 2628-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
pavement as measured between the edges of pavement, 20
feet for traffic, 2 feet for a shoulder on one side. and 6 feet
for a pedestrian walkway on the other side. The edge of
travel lanes shall be delineated with a white edge stripe.
(2) It is understood that these improvements will be
constructed only if the Singh II (Oakieigh 1) subdivision
(SU-2006-13 / PTA-2010-02) is not constructed. Full build-
out improvement requirements for Southeast 279th Street
are contained within the Singh II Oakleigh I) plat alteration
decision.
h. interim Street Improvement Plans for 106th Avenue Southeast
classified as a Residential Street along a portion of the west east
boundary of the subject. property. These inter+nn Street
Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of
Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street
Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a
street designated as a Residential Street within the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan. Initial guidance for the necessary interim
street improvements is given below:
(1) Combined vertical concrete curbs & gutter, a 5-foot wide
planter strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk along
the west side of 106th Avenue Southeast.
(2) A minimum of 2B24-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
pavement as measured from face of curb to the edge of the
HMA on the eastwest side of the street plus 4-feet of HMA
pavement for a shoulder along the east side of the street.
Page 9 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh 11) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
In conjunction with the Singh II (Oakleigh I) subdivision, the
street may be constructed with of 28 feet to the new curb
on the east side of the street if the Singh II Plat is
constructed first. The entire HMA pavement width specified
above shall be provided with a 20-year service life as
determined by the process identified in the City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public
Street Requirements.
(3) Curb return radii for the intersections shall be W25-feet and
the outside curb return radii at the intersection with SE
279th Street shall be 60-feet.
(4) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of
Puget Sound Energy; all eleek"^a and ntenanee- bills
for this ,.. bdi islen
(5) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment
facilities as applicable.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the
cement concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located
as approved by the Publie Works Department Cam, and the
species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List
contained within City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure #14, City of Kent Street Trees.
(i) For Southeast 279th Street and 106th Avenue Southeast, the
private community streets serving multiple parcels, all of the
benefiting property owners will be required to extinguish their
rights to use that existing private street easement in order for
the city to accept them as Public Residential Streets. In addition,
the offsite area which includes roadway and/or utility
improvements must also be dedicated to the city or a permanent
access and utility easement meeting city standards shall be
granted. Otherwise, the subject private streets along this
subdivision shall be constructed to city standards for a
Residential Street, but the Home Owner's Association for this
subdivision will be responsible for maintenance of these private
streets until such time as those easements are extinguished and
offsite areas secured as right-of-way or granted easements
meeting city standards. When the private streets are conveyed
Page 10 of 18 .
i
Administrative Review Decision
Singh ill (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
to the cif they must be in a condition meeting city standards as
determined by the City Engineer.
Sn"tTlL-C131ZT9 I
e-asernent Fights to these str
D }' 1 StFeets, but the uange (1...neF A......elatio for this '
tsaIImvramn will be respensible for mai a-Bee of the Private
stFeets until sHeh time as the easements are extinguished, and
the pubije Fight ef way is deeded te the 1��w 1 I ll.l 1
time the G Tn/}. will em"1- TI bepGT. �
j}, interim Street Improvement Plans for SE 280th Street along the
south side of the subject subdivision terminating with an
approved cul-de-sac or hammer-head turn around at its westerly
termini. The location of the west termini shall be based on the
potential access requirements for development to the south. The
Street Improvement Plans for this street shall be designed in
conformance to the requirements for a Residential Street as
required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public
Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a street 20-feet
wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given
below-
(1) .Combined vertical curb & gutter, a 5-foot wide planting strip
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the
sidewalk, and then a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk
along the north side of the street.
(2) A minimum of 20-Feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement,
as measured from face of vertical curb to edge of HMA
pavement on the south side of the street across the project
frontage.
(3) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of
Puget Sound Energy, 11 + s 1 hill..
Page 11 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh Ili (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
(4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions
for collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment
facilities.
(5) Curb return radii of -Z025-feet at the intersection of this
residential street and the new Publie Residential Street
identified as 105th Avenue SE serving the subject subdivision
and a 45-foot radius to the face of vertical curb for the
permanent cul-de-sac bulb, if required.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips.
These Street Trees will be located as approved by the Public
Works Departmen City, and the species shall be selected
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of
Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent
Street Trees.
kj. Street Improvement Plans for the new Publie Residential Street
connected to SE 280th Street and proceeding north and then east
to an intersection with 106th Avenue SE approximately 420 feet
north of SE 279th Street (Also shown as 105th Avenue Southeast
and Southeast 278th Street). The Street Improvement Plans for
this street shall be designed in conformance to the requirements
for a Residential Street as required by City of Kent Construction
Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure
#6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent
Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement
Plans for a street 28-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street
improvements is given below:
(1) Combined vertical curb & gutter, a 5-foot wide planting strip
constructed between the back of curb and the front of the
sidewalk, and then a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk
along both sides of the street.
(2) A minimum of 28-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement,
as measured from face of vertical curb to face of vertical
curb.
(3) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards,
constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of
Puget Sound Energy; all ,.', ctr eal i � rtaneee kills
I
Page 12 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
(4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions
for collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment
facilities.
(5) Curb return radii of 2925-feet at the intersection of the
subdivision street and 106th Avenue SE,-R o-a-4S4ee t-„adios
to 4h faEe F "deal euFb far the permanent esl de see
b-ub.
(6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips.
These Street Trees will be located as approved by the PubI+e
City, and the species shall be selected.
from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of
Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, City of Kent
Street Trees.
(7) Traffic calming measures in the form of a traffic calming
choker (2009 KDCS Standard Plan 6-28) shall be installed
on 105th Avenue Southeast approximately midway between
Southeast 278th Street and Southeast 280th Street.
Ik-. Street Improvement Plans for any new Private Residential
Streets Road Tracts connected to the new Publi Residential
Streets and terminating with approved permanent turnaround at
their termini, if necessary. The Street Improvement Plans for
these streets shall be designed in conformance to the
requirements for a Private Residential Street as required by Oty
of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street
Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance
Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a private street at
least 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street
improvements is given below:
(1) Private streets serving four or more lots, where no parking
will be permitted along either side of the street: A minimum
of 20-feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement, measured
from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, or 22-feet of
HMA pavement as measured from face of vertical curb to
face of vertical curb, except where the Fire Marsha[ requires
additional pavement width for emergency vehicle access.
(2) A 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk constructed along
one side of the street for all private streets serving more
than four lots.
Page 13 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
(3) An approved permanent turnaround at its terminus, unless
these additional street improvements are not required by
the City Fire Marshal.
(4) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions
for conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where
applicable.
(5) These private streets will connect to the new Residential
Street with a Residential Concrete Driveway Approach
conforming to the minimum requirements of Standard Detail
6-5(c). The minimum design inside radii for the driveway
approaches serving all private streets shall be 30-feet. In
lieu of this older detail, the applicant may elect to use the
2009 KDCS Standard Plan 6-46.
(6) All private streets will conform to the minimum horizontal
and vertical alignment and safe stopping sight distances
requirements for a public Residential Street.
(7) Fire Lanes, if any, shall be marked as directed by the Fire
Marshal.
(8) The private streets, including sidewalks if an must be
centered within a private roadway tract or easement that is
at least 1-foot wider than the total width of the Private
Street and sidewalk combination.
mt. Street Lighting Plans for 108th Avenue Southeast, Southeast
279th Street, Southeast 280th Street and 106th Avenue Southeast
meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure
#6-1, Street Lighting Requirements.
4. The Owner/Subdivider shall create a Homeowner's Association for this
subdivision to ensure that the property owners within this subdivision
are advised of their obligation to pay for the energy and maintenance
required for the street lighting system installed in their development.
Those sections of the required document written to govern that
association as they relate to any IntoUght Division of Puget Sound
Energy street lighting systems, shall be reviewed and approved by
the DepaFtment of Publie Werks Cu, prior to, the recording these
documents.
5. The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision is also required to
provide street maintenance for Southeast 279th Street and for 106th
Page 14 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh ]I[ (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
Avenue Southeast along their property frontage until such time as the
existing 60-foot wide private easements for ingress, egress and
utilities are extinguished along these two streets, and the necessary
public right-of-way is conveyed to the City of Kent. Those sections of
the required document written to govern that association as they
relate to the subject street improvements, shall be reviewed and
approved by the BepaFtmen t ef� Public Werkand the Gity "tt%rney
Cam, prior to t-kfie recording these documents. The CC&R's shall also
state those sections cannot be amended without City of Kent
approval.
6. The Owners/Subdividers shall execute an agreement or covenant,
prepares -and approved by the City of Kent City Attorney, that
commits the Owners, their successors and assigns to release the
Owners's interest in the private street easements and dedicate the
Owners' interest in the private street to the City of Kent for public
right-of-way when requested by the City or its successors in the
future. This agreement/covenant shall also stipulate that the HOA
board of directors' designee(s) shall have the authority to execute the
dedication on behalf of the homeowners.
7. The face of the final plat will clearly identify all private streets, and
which lots will be served by those private streets. The face of the final
plat will also specify that the maintenance of all private streets is the
sole responsibility of the property owners who are served by those
private streets.
8. The Owner/Subdivider shall deed all public rights-of-way, and
otherwise convey all private and public easements necessary for the
construction and maintenance of the required improvements for this
subdivision development,
9. The Owner/Subdivider shall permanently protect the approved and
preserved, and/or enhanced, or created sensitive area(s) and the
associated buffer(s) by creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract and
deeding the tract in fee simple to the City, OR by granting a Sensitive
Area Easement to the City for the entire sensitive area, pursuant to
Kent City Code Chapter 11.06. This Sensitive Area Tract or Easement
shall include steep slope areas and wetland areas. The Sensitive Area
Tract or Easement shall be consistent with the tep of slope,step
slope setbaeks and buffers delineated and marked lig thef4ekh)f�
any elearifig er grading on site, and with the wetic���
steed slope survey as
appropriate. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide a legal description of
said easement or tract prepared by a licensed land surveyor, prior to
Page 16 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
issuance of any Construction Permits. The Sensitive Area Tract and
the following language shall be included on the face of the recorded
plat:
SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS/EASEMENTS
DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT CONVEYS TO
THE PUBLIC A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE
TRACT. THIS INTEREST INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE
VEGETATION FOR ALL PURPOSES THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING CONTROL OF SURFACE
WATER AND EROSION, MAINTENANCE OF SLOPE STABILITY, VISUAL
AND AURAL BUFFERING, AND PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY,
PLANT ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE SENSITIVE AREA
TRACT/EASEMENT IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE
OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT/
EASEMENT THE OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE
PUBLIC BY THE CITY OF KENT, TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES
AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT. THE VEGETATION
WITHIN THE TRACT MAY NOT BE CUT, PRUNED, COVERED BY FILL,
REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE
CITY OF KENT.
THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/EASEMENT AND THE
AREA OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE
FLAGGED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF KENT PRIOR TO
ANY CLEARING, GRADING, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THE REQUIRED MARKING OR FLAGGING
SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN
THE VICINITY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT ARE COMPLETED.
NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, STRUCTURES, FILL OR
OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OUTBUILDINGS
AND OVERHANGS) ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE
SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/EASEMENT BOUNDARY, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THE CITY OF KENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL PUBLIC
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THIS SENSITIVE AREA TRACT,
AND TO ENTER AND PERFORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE,
BUT IS REQUIRED TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE SENSITIVE AREAS
DISTURBED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION, AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. THE
CITY OF KENT ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENHANCE THE
SENSATIVE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT OR EASEMENT VIA PLANTING
Page 16 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
NATIVE VEGETATION AND REMOVING NON-NATIVE OR INVASIVE
VEGETATION.
10. Prior to release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval
of any Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the
LLty must receive and approve As-Built
Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction
Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E-1,
As-Build Drawings, for: Streets; Street Lighting System; Water;
Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements
where the locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the
Cam.
11. Prior to any grading or clearing on site, the owner/subdivider shall
submit and receive City approval of a Tree Retention Plan for the
project site, for the retention of trees pursuant to Kent City Code
Section 15.08,240.
12. The owner/subdivider shall construct or bond for mailbox clusters per
the standards and at locations approved by the Publie Works
Bepat#-a3en Oty and the Kent U.S. Postmaster.
13.—The applicant shall revise the let kvidth ef let 21 te eamply with Kent
ram• /`. d-e .1 nn 1.170 and 15 92 245 and show ieiNuI'aiee vi bt , the
Civil GOnStMetien pei=Fnit plans and the final short plat plan7
1314. A parks fee in lieu of dedication shall be paid in the amount of
$54,825 prior to recording the subdivision.
14375. The owner/subdivider shall submit applications to the City of Kent for
review and approval to remove or otherwise relocate the single family
residences currently leeated at 27.817 196 Ave SE and all residential
accessory buildings identified to be removed from the site in
conjunction with the proposed development.
15. All lots within this plat shall be required to install fire sprinklers unless
a secondary access meeting the IFC is constructed or the requirement
Is waived by the Fire Marshal.
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN
THIS SUBDIVISION, THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Record the Plat.
2. Construct all of the improvements required in Section A 1B, above, and
pay the respective fees-in-lieu-of including any mitigation (EMA or
Page 17 of 18
Administrative Review Decision
Singh III (Oakleigh II) Minor Plat Alteration
PTA-2010-3, KIVA#2103109
EMF) charges.
3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Street, Street
Lighting, Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Management Facilities as
deemed appropriate by the City.
4. Construct all wetland mitigation plans, wetland and stream buffer
plans, install all required split-rail cedar fences and sensitive area
signs, and any other conditions to protect or enhance critical areas.
5. Obtain final acceptance of the stormwater system designed and
constructed on the Singh II (Oakleigh 1) subdivision, or construct a
separate stormwater detention and water quality facility on the
project site.
Approved this 10th day of 3uly 2012.
Charlene Anderson, AICP
Planning Manager
:\S:\Permit\Plan\PIATALTERATIONS\2010\2103109_Singh III_decislon.doc ,
I
Page 18 of 18
KEN_ T
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6G
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: King County Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement to extend the original Agreement between King County and
the City of Kent, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was
the product of a two-year joint effort of approximately 37 cities advising the
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and King
County.
With the existing ILA to expire in 2028, MSWMAC's goal in extending the ILA was to
provide the best service to residents and businesses at the lowest cost. The twelve
year extension facilitates use of 20 year bonds to finance the reconstruction of
transfer stations the county and cities committed to in the 2007 Solid Waste Transfer
System Plan and will help keep rates lower than they otherwise would be if financing
had to be obtained based on shorter term bonds.
Additional revisions in the ILA reflect changes in environmental laws, expand the
participating cities' role in system planning through MSWMAC, mitigate liability risks to
all parties, address governance issues, and provide for a process to address the future
closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill closes (projected to occur in 2025).
EXHIBITS: Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: No budget impact
AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement("Agreement') is entered
into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington and the City of
, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred
to as "County" and "City" respectively. Collectively,the County and the City are referred to as
the "Parties." This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Ordinance No.
City:
PREAMBLE
A. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of
extending, restating and amending the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement between the
Parties originally entered into in (the "Original Agreement'). The Original
Agreement provided for the cooperative management of Solid Waste in King County for
a term of forty(40) years, through June 30, 2028. The Original Agreement is superseded
by this Amended and Restated Agreement, as of the effective date of this Agreement.
This Amended and Restated Agreement is effective for an additional twelve (12) years
through December 31, 2040.
B. The Parties intend to continue to cooperatively manage Solid Waste and to work
collaboratively to maintain and periodically update the existing King County
- 1 -
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) adopted pursuant
to chapter 70.95 RCW.
C. The Parties continue to supportthe established goals of Waste Prevention and Recycling
as incorporated in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and to meet or
surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the Solid Waste System.
D. The County and the Cities agree that System-related costs, including environmental
liabilities, should be funded by System revenues which include but are not limited to
insurance proceeds, grants and rates;
E. The County, as the service provider, is in the best position to steward funds System
revenues that the County and the Cities intend to be available to pay for environmental
liabilities; and
F. The County and the Cities recognize that at the time this Agreement goes into effect, it is
impossible to know what the ultimate environmental liabilities could be; nevertheless, the
County and the Cities wish to designate in this Agreement a protocol for the designation
and distribution of funding for potential future environmental liabilities in order to protect
the general funds of the County and the Cities.
G. The County began renting the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State of Washington in 1960
and began using it for Disposal of Solid Waste in 1964. The County acquired ownership
of the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State in 1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an
asset owned by the County.
H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfill will be at capacity and closed at some
date during the term of this Agreement, after which time all Solid Waste under this
Agreement will need to be disposed of through alternate means, as determined by the
- 2 -
Cities and the County through amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. The County currently estimates the useful life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill will extend through 2025. It is possible that this useful life could be extended, or
shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties.
L The County intends to charge rent for the use of the Cedar Hills Landfill for so long as
the System uses this general fund asset and the Parties seek to clarify terms relative to the
calculation of the associated rent.
J. The County and Cities participating in the System have worked collaboratively for
several years to develop a plan for the replacement or upgrading of a series of transfer
stations. The Parties acknowledge that these transfer station improvements, as they may
be modified from time-to-time, will benefit Cities that are part of the System and the
County. The Parties have determined that the extension of the term of the Original
Agreement by twelve (12)years as accomplished by this Agreement is appropriate in
order to facilitate the long-term financing of transfer station improvements and to
mitigate rate impacts of such financing.
K. The Parties have further determined that in order to equitably allocate the benefit to all
System Users from the transfer station improvements, different customer classes may be
established by the County to ensure System Users do not pay a disproportionate share of
the cost of these improvements as a result of a decision by a city not to extend the term of
the Original Agreement.
L. The Parties have further determined it is appropriate to strengthen and formalize the
advisory role of the Cities regarding System operations.
- 3 -
The Parties agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
"Cedar Hills Landfill" means the landfill owned and operated by the County located in
southeast King County.
"Cities"refers to all Cities that have signed an Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement in substantially identical form to this Agreement.
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" or "Comprehensive Plan"means the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as approved and amended from time to time, for
the System, as required by chapter 70.95.080 RCW.
"County"means King County, a Charter County and political subdivision of the State of
Washington.
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or incineration
of Solid Waste but shall not include Waste Prevention or Recycling as defined herein.
- 4 -
"Disposal Rates"means the fee charged by the County to System Users to cover all costs
of the System consistent with this Agreement, all state, federal and local laws governing solid
waste and the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
"Divert" means to direct or permit the directing of Solid Waste to Disposal sites other
than the Disposal site(s) designated by King County.
"Energy/Resource Recovery" means the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass
burning or refuse-derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of
combustion of Solid Waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200 degrees F) processing.
(chapter 173.350.100 WAC).
"Landfill" means a Disposal facility or part of a facility at which Solid Waste is placed in
or on land and which is not a land treatment facility.
"Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or"MSWAC"means the advisory
committee composed of city representatives, established pursuant to Section IX of this
Agreement.
"Moderate Risk Waste" means waste that is limited to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste and household hazardous waste as those terms are defined in chapter
173-350 WAC, as amended.
- s -
"Original Agreement"means the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement first entered into by
and between the Parties, which is amended and restated by this Agreement. "Original
Agreements"means collectively all such agreements between Cities and the County in
substantially the same form as the Original Agreement.
"Parties"means collectively the County and the City or Cities.
"Recycling" as defined in chapter 70.95.030 RCW, as amended, means transforming or
remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill
Disposal or incineration.
"Regional Policy Committee"means the Regional Policy Committee created pursuant to
approval of the County voters in 1993, the composition and responsibilities of which are
prescribed in King County Charter Section 270 and chapter 1.24 King County Code, as they now
exist or hereafter may be amended.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, commercial waste,
sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged materials, discarded commodities and recyclable
materials, but shall not include dangerous, hazardous, or extremely hazardous waste as those
terms are defined in chapter 173-303 WAC, as amended; and shall further not include those
- 6 -
wastes excluded from the regulations established in chapter 173-350 WAC, more specifically
identified in Section 173-350-020 WAC.
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "SWAG' means the inter-disciplinary advisory
forum or its successor created by the King County Code pursuant to chapter 70.95.165 RCW.
"System" includes King County's Solid Waste facilities used to manage Solid Wastes
which includes but is not limited to transfer stations, drop boxes, landfills, recycling systems and
facilities, energy and resource recovery facilities and processing facilities as authorized by
chapter 36.58.040 RCW and as established pursuant to the approved King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
"System User" or "System Users"means Cities and any person utilizing the County's
System for Solid Waste handling, Recycling or Disposal.
"Waste Prevention" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. Waste
Prevention shall not include reduction of already-generated waste through energy recovery,
incineration, or otherwise.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to foster transparency and cooperation between the
Parties and to establish the respective responsibilities of the Parties in a Solid Waste management
System, including but not limited to, planning, Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Disposal. .
- 7 -
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective as of and shall remain in effect
through December 31, 2040.
IV. APPROVAL
This Agreement will be approved and filed in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW.
V. RENEGOTIATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1 The Parties recognize that System Users benefit from long-term Disposal
arrangements, both in terms of predictability of System costs and operations, and the likelihood
that more cost competitive rates can be achieved with longer-term Disposal contracts as
compared to shorter-term contracts. To that end, at least seven (7) years before the date that the
County projects that the Cedar Hills Landfill will close, or prior to the end of this Agreement,
whichever is sooner, the County will engage with MSWAC and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, among others,to seek their advice and input on the Disposal alternatives to be used
after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, associated changes to the System, estimated costs
associated with the recommended Disposal alternatives, and amendments to the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan necessary to support these changes. Concurrently, the Parties will
meet to negotiate an extension of the term of the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the
long-term Disposal of Solid Waste after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Nothing in this
Agreement shall require the Parties to reach agreement on an extension of the term of this
Agreement. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section XIII do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged.
- 8 -
5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Parties may, pursuant to mutual written agreement, modify or amend any provision of this
Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
6.1 King County
6.La Management. The County agrees to provide Solid Waste management
services, as specified in this Section, for Solid Waste generated and collected within the City,
except waste eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste recycling activities. The County
agrees to dispose of or designate Disposal sites for all Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste
generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the
System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules, or regulations, as those laws are described in Subsection 8.5.a. The County shall maintain
records as necessary to fulfill obligations under this Agreement.
6.Lb Planning. The County shall serve as the planning authority for Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste under this Agreement but shall not be responsible for planning for any
other waste or have any other planning responsibility under this Agreement.
6.Lc Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and Disposal facilities, including public landfills and
other facilities, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as closure and post-
closure responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by the County.
- 9 -
6.1.d Collection Service. The County shall not provide Solid Waste collection
services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and agreed to by both
Parties.
6.1.e Support and Assistance. The County shall provide support and technical
assistance to the City consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for a
Waste Prevention and Recycling program. Such support may include the award of grants to
support programs with System benefits. The County shall develop educational materials related
to Waste Prevention and Recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the
educational materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although the County
will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund any City activities related to
Waste Prevention and Recycling, the County intends to move forward aggressively to promote
Waste Prevention and Recycling.
6.1.f Forecast. The County shall develop Solid Waste stream forecasts in
connection with System operations as part of the comprehensive planning process in accordance
with Article XI.
6.1.g Facilities and Services. The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Transfer and
Waste Management plan as adopted and County Solid Waste stream forecasts.
6.11 Financial Policies. The County will maintain financial policies to guide
the System's operations and investments. The policies shall be consistent with this Agreement
and shall address debt issuance, rate stabilization, cost containment, reserves, asset ownership
and use, and other financial issues. The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer System improvements. The policies shall be developed and/or revised through
- io -
discussion with MS WAC, the Regional Policy Committee, the County Executive and the County
Council. Such policies shall be codified at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan updates,
but may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the Comprehensive Plan process.
6.2 City
6.2.a Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity
as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for Solid Waste collection services
provided within the City's corporate limits.
6.2.b Disposal. The City shall cause to be delivered to the County's System for
Disposal all such Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste which is authorized to be delivered to
the System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules or regulations and is generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City and
shall authorize the County to designate Disposal sites for the Disposal of all such Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except
for Solid Waste which is eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste Recycling activities
consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No Solid Waste generated or
collected within the City may be Diverted from the designated Disposal sites without County
approval.
6.3 JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES.
6.3.a Consistent with the Parties' overall commitment to ongoing
communication and coordination, the Parties will endeavor to notify and coordinate with each
other on the development of any City or County plan,facility, contract, dispute, or other Solid
Waste issue that could have potential significant impacts on the County, the System, or the
City or Cities.
- 11 -
6.3.b The Parties,together with other Cities, will coordinate on the development
of emergency plans related to Solid Waste, including but not limited to debris management.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES
AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL; USE OF SYSTEM REVENUES
7.1 In establishing Disposal Rates for System Users,the County shall consult with
MSWAC consistent with Section IN. The County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates
necessary to recover all costs of the System including but not limited to operations and
maintenance, costs for handling, processing and Disposal of Solid Waste, siting, design and
construction of facility upgrades or new facilities, Recycling, education and mitigation, planning,
Waste Prevention, reserve funds, financing, defense and payment of claims, insurance, System
liabilities including environmental releases, monitoring and closure of landfills which are or
were operated by the County, property acquisition, grants to cities, and administrative functions
necessary to support the System and Solid Waste handling services during emergencies as
established by local, state and federal agencies or for any other lawful solid waste purpose, and
in accordance with chapter 43.09.210 RCW. Revenues from Disposal rates shall be used only for
such purposes. The County shall establish classes of customers for Solid Waste management
services and by ordinance shall establish rates for classes of customers.
7.2. It is understood and agreed that System costs include payments to the County
general fund for Disposal of Solid Waste at the Cedar Hills Landfill calculated in accordance
with this Section 7.2, and that such rental payments shall be established based on use valuations
provided to the County by an independent-third party Member, Appraisal Institute (MAI)
certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MS WAC.
- 12 -
7.2.a A use valuation shall be prepared consistent with MAI accepted principles
for the purpose of quantifying the value to the System of the use of Cedar Hills Landfill for
Disposal of Solid Waste over a specified period of time (the valuation period). The County shall
establish a schedule of annual use charges for the System's use of the Cedar Hills Landfill which
shall not exceed the most recent use valuation. Prior to establishing the schedule of annual use
charges, the County shall seek review and comment as to both the use valuation and the
proposed payment schedule from MSWAC. Upon request, the County will share with and
explain to MSWAC the information the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the
appraiser's recommendation.
7.2.b Use valuations and the underlying schedule of use charges shall be
updated if there are significant changes in Cedar Hills Landfill capacity as a result of opening
new Disposal areas and as determined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be performed in compliance with
MAI accepted principles. Otherwise, a reappraisal will not occur. Assuming a revision in the
schedule of use charges occurs based on a revised appraisal, the resulting use charges shall be
applied beginning in the subsequent rate period.
7.2.c The County general fund shall not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the System for the System's use of any transfer station property in use as of
the effective date of this Agreement. The County further agrees that the County general fund
may not receive payments from the System for use of assets to the extent those assets are
acquired with System revenues. As required by chapter 43.09.210 RCW, the System's use of
assets acquired with the use of other separate County funds (e.g.,the Roads Fund, or other funds)
- 13 -
will be subject to use charges; similarly,the System will charge other County funds for use of
System property.
VIIL LIABILITY
8.1 Non-Environmental Liability Arising Out-of-County Operations. Except as
provided in this Section, Sections 8.5 and 8.6, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the County's attorneys against
any and all claims arising out of the County's operations during the term of this Agreement and
settle such claims, provided that all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the County thereby are
System costs which may be satisfied from Disposal Rates as provided in Section VII herein. hi
providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or
settlement so as to protect the City's interest. For purposes of this Section "claims arising out of
the County's operations" shall mean claims arising out of the ownership, control, or maintenance
of the System, but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in
connection with the System or other activities under the control of the City which may be
incidental to the County's operation. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to claims
arising out of the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City. The provisions of this Section
shall survive for claims brought within three (3) years past the term of this Agreement
established under Section III.
8.2 Cooperation. In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim under
Section 8.1, the City shall cooperate with the County.
8.3 Officers, Agents, and Employees. For purposes of this Section VIII, references to
City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either Party,
- 14 -
acting within the scope of their authority. Transporters or generators of waste who are not
officers or employees of the City or County are not included as agents of the City or County for
purposes of this Section.
8.4 Each Party by mutual negotiation hereby waives, with respect to the other Party
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial
Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
8.5 Unacceptable Waste
8.5.a All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the
City which is delivered to the System for Disposal shall be in compliance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act(42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) (RCRA), chapters 70.95 and 70.105
RCW, King County Code Title 10, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, the
Solid Waste Division operating rules, and all other Federal, State and local environmental health
laws, rules or regulations that impose restrictions or requirements on the type of waste that may
be delivered to the System, as they now exist or are hereafter adopted or amended.
8.5.b For purposes of this Agreement,the City shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of Subsection 8.5.a if it has adopted an ordinance requiring
waste delivered to the System for Disposal to meet the laws, rules, or regulations specified in
Subsection 8.5.a. However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve the City from any
obligation or liability it may have under the laws mentioned in Subsection 8.5.a arising out of the
City's actions other than adopting, enforcing, or requiring compliance with said ordinance, such
as liability, if any exists, of the City as a transporter or generator for improper transport or
Disposal of regulated dangerous waste. Any environmental liability the City may have for
- 15 -
releases of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes to the environment is dealt
with under Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
8.5.c The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any
property damages or personal injury caused solely by the City's failure to adopt an ordinance
under Subsection 8.5.b. In the event the City acts to defend the County under this Subsection, the
County shall cooperate with the City.
8.5.d The City shall make best efforts to include language in its contracts,
franchise agreements, or licenses for the collection of Solid Waste within the City that allow for
enforcement by the City against the collection contractor,franchisee or licensee for violations of
the laws, rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a. The requirements of this Subsection 8.5.d shall
apply to the City's first collection contract,franchise, or license that becomes effective or is
amended after the effective date of this Agreement.
8.5.d.i If waste is delivered to the System in violation of the laws,
rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a, before requiring the City to take any action under
Subsection 8.5.d.ii, the County will make reasonable efforts to determine the parties' responsible
for the violation and will work with those parties to correct the violation, consistent with
applicable waste clearance and acceptance rules, permit obligations, and any other legal
requirements.
8.5.d.ii If the violation is not corrected under Subsection 8.5.d.i and
waste is determined by the County to have been generated or collected from within the corporate
limits of the City, the County shall provide the City with written notice of the violation. Upon
such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the violation and prevent similar
future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of the County which may include but not be
- 16 -
limited to removing the waste and disposing of it in an approved facility; provided that nothing
in this Subsection 8.5.d.ii shall obligate the City to handle regulated dangerous waste, as defined
in WAC 173-351-200(1)(b)(i), and nothing in this Subsection shall relieve the City of any
obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to handle regulated dangerous waste. If, in
good faith,the City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be
resolved between the Parties using the Dispute Resolution process in Section XII or, if
immediate action is required to avoid an imminent threat to public health, safety or the
environment, in King County Superior Court. Each Party shall be responsible for its own
attorneys'fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the steps requested by the County pending
Superior Court resolution shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement; provided, however,
that this shall not release the City for damages or loss to the County arising out of the failure to
take such steps if the Court finds a City violation of the requirements to comply with applicable
laws set forth in Subsection 8.5.a.
8.6 Environmental Liabilitv.
8.6.a Neither the County nor the City holds harmless or indemnifies the other
with regard to any liability arising under 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or
pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW (MTCA) or as hereafter amended and any state legislation
imposing liability for System-related cleanup of contaminated property from the release of
pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances and/or damages resulting from property
contaminated from the release of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances
("Environmental Liabilities").
17 -
8.6.b Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create new Environmental
Liability nor release any third-party from Environmental Liability. Rather, the intent is to protect
the general funds of the Parties to this Agreement by ensuring that, consistent with best business
practices, an adequate portion of Disposal Rates being collected from the System Users are set
aside and accessible in a fair and equitable manner to pay the respective County and City's
Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.c The purpose of this Subsection is to establish a protocol for the setting
aside, and subsequent distribution of, Disposal Rates intended to pay for Environmental
Liabilities of the Parties, if and when such liabilities should arise, in order to safeguard the
Parties' general funds. To do so, the County shall:
8.6.c.i Use Disposal Rates to obtain and maintain,to the extent
commercially available under reasonable terms, insurance coverage for System-related
Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional Insured. The County shall establish
the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any
insurance policy in effect on the termination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past
the termination date shall be maintained until the end of the policy term.
8.6.c.ii Use Disposal Rates to establish and maintain a reserve fund to
help pay the Parties' Environmental Liabilities not already covered by System rates or insurance
maintained under Subsection 8.6.c.i above ("Environmental Reserve Fund"). The County shall
establish the adequacy of the Environmental Reserve Fund in consultation with MSWAC and
consistent with the financial policies described in Article VI. The County shall retain the
Environmental Reserve Fund for a minimum of 30 years following the closure of the Cedar Hills
Landfill (the "Retention Period"). During the Retention Period,the Environmental Reserve Fund
- 18 -
shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless
otherwise required by law, at the end of the Retention Period, the County and Cities shall agree
as to the disbursement of any amounts remaining in the Environmental Reserve Fund. If unable
to agree, the County and City agree to submit disbursement to mediation and if unsuccessful to
binding arbitration in a manner similar to Section 39.34.180 RCW to the extent permitted by law.
8.6.c.iii Pursue state or federal grant funds, such as grants from the
Local Model Toxics Control Account under chapter 70.105D.070(3) RCW and chapter 173-322
WAC, or other state or federal funds as may be available and appropriate to pay for or remediate
such Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.d If the funds available under Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii are not adequate to
completely satisfy the Environmental Liabilities of the Parties to this Agreement then to the
extent feasible and permitted by law, the County will establish a financial plan including a rate
schedule to help pay for the County and City's remaining Environmental Liabilities in
consultation with MSWAC.
8.6.e The County and the City shall act reasonably and quickly to utilize funds
collected or set aside through the means specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii and 8.6.d to conduct
or finance response or clean-up activities in order to limit the County and City's exposure, or in
order to comply with a consent decree, administrative or other legal order. The County shall
notify the City within 30 days of any use of the reserve fund established in 8.6.c.iii.
8.6.17 In any federal or state regulatory proceeding, and in any action for
contribution, money expended by the County from the funds established in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d. to pay the costs of remedial investigation, cleanup, response or other action required
19 -
pursuant to a state or federal laws or regulations shall be considered by the Parties to have been
expended on behalf and for the benefit of the County and the Cities.
8.6.g In the event that the funds established as specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d are insufficient to cover the entirety of the County and Cities' collective Environmental
Liabilities,the funds described therein shall be equitably allocated between the County and
Cities to satisfy their Environmental Liabilities. Factors to be considered in determining
"equitably allocated"may include the size of each Party's System User base and the amount of
rates paid by that System User base into the funds, and the amount of the Solid Waste generated
by the Parties' respective System Users. Neither the County nor the Cities shall receive a benefit
exceeding their Environmental Liabilities.
8.7 The County shall not charge or seek to recover from the City any costs or
expenses for which the County indemnified the State of Washington in Exhibit A to the
Quitclaim Deed from the State to the County for the Cedar Hills Landfill, dated February 24,
1993, to the extent such costs are not included in System costs.
IX. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
9.1 There is hereby created an advisory committee comprised of representatives from
cities, which shall be known as the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee ("MSWAC").
The City may designate a representative and alternate(s)to serve on MSWAC. MSWAC shall
elect a chair and vice-chair and shall adopt bylaws to guide its deliberations. The members of
MSWAC shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing bodies and shall receive no compensation
from the County.
- 20 -
9.2 MSWAC is the forum through which the Parties together with other cities
participating in the System intend to discuss and seek to resolve System issues and concerns.
MSWAC shall assume the following advisory responsibilities:
9.2.a Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive, Solid Waste
Advisory Committee, and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of Solid Waste
management and planning;
9.2.b Consult with and advise the County on technical issues related to Solid
Waste management and planning;
9.2.c Assist in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
System, and facilitate a review and/or approval of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan by each jurisdiction;
9.2.d Assist in the development of proposed interlocal Agreements between
King County and cities for planning, Waste Prevention and Recycling, and waste stream control;
9.2.e Review and comment on Disposal Rate proposals and County financial
policies;
9.2.17 Review and comment on status reports on Waste Prevention, Recycling,
energy/resources recovery, and System operations with inter-jurisdictional impact;
9.2.g Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
cities, recyclers, and the County with respect to its planned and operated Disposal Systems;
9.2.h Provide coordination opportunities among the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, the Regional Policy Committee,the County, cities, private waste haulers, and
recyclers;
- 21 -
9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities,
including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and
9.2.j Provide input on such disputes as MSWAC deems appropriate.
9.3 The County shall assume the following responsibilities with respect to MSWAC;
9.3.a The County shall provide staff support to MSWAC;
9.3.b In consultation with the chair of MSWAC,the County shall notify all
cities and their designated MSWAC representatives and alternates of the MSWAC meeting
times, locations and meeting agendas. Notification by electronic mail or regular mail shall meet
the requirements of this Subsection;
9.3.c The County will consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and
issues posed by MSWAC regarding the System, and will seek to resolve those issues in
collaboration with the Cities. Such issues shall include but are not limited to development of
efficient and accountable billing practices; and
9.3.d. The County shall provide all information and supporting documentation
and analyses as reasonably requested by MSWAC for MSWAC to perform the duties and
functions described in Section 9.2.
X. FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
10.1 As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Forum Interlocal Agreement and
Addendum to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement by and
between the City and County continue through June 30, 2028. After 2028 responsibilities
assigned to the Forum shall be assigned to the Regional Policy Committee. The Parties agree that
Solid Waste System policies and plans shall continue to be deemed regional countywide policies
- 22 -
and plans that shall be referred to the Regional Policy Committee for review consistent with
King County Charter Section 270.30 and chapter 1.24 King County Code.
XI. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.1 King County is designated to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste
Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to chapter 70.95.080(3) RCW.
11.2 The Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and any necessary revisions
proposed. The County shall consult with MSWAC to determine when revisions are necessary.
King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
11.3 The Comprehensive Plans will promote Waste Prevention and Recycling in
accordance with Washington State Solid Waste management priorities pursuant to chapter 70.95
RCW, at a minimum.
11.4 The Comprehensive Plans will be prepared in accordance with chapter 70.95
RCW and Solid Waste planning guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to:
11.4.a Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all waste types;
11.4.b Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
11.4.c Policies concerning waste reduction, Recycling, Energy and Resource
Recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport, Disposal, enforcement and administration;
and
- 23 -
11.4.d Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above.
11.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will be
considered a cost of the System and financed out of the rate base.
11.6 The Comprehensive Plans will be "adopted"within the meaning of this
Agreement when the following has occurred:
11.6.a The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and
11.6.b The Comprehensive Plan is approved by cities representing three-quarters
of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to the Forum
Interlocal Agreement. hi calculating the three-quarters, the calculations shall consider only those
incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the Comprehensive Plan
within 120 days of receipt of the Plan. The 120-day time period shall begin to run from receipt
by an incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan, or,
if the Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive Plan from
the Forum without recommendation.
11.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but not
receive approval of three-quarters of the cities acting on the Comprehensive Plan, and should
King County and the cities be unable to resolve their disagreement,then the Comprehensive Plan
shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Ecology will
resolve any disputes regarding Comprehensive Plan adoption and adequacy by approving or
disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof.
11.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the
City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such
- 24 -
determination shall be made by a two-thirds majority vote of all representative members of the
Forum.
11.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be referred to the
Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such amendments.
11.10 Should there be any impasse between the Parties regarding Comprehensive Plan
adoption, adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits or programs adopted
or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Department of Ecology shall
resolve said disputes.
XII. MITIGATION
12.1 The County will design, construct and operate Solid Waste facilities in a manner
to mitigate their impact on host Cities and neighboring communities pursuant to applicable law
and regulations.
12.2 The Parties recognize that Solid Waste facilities are regional facilities. The
County further recognizes that host Cities and neighboring communities may sustain impacts
which can include but are not limited to local infrastructure, odor, traffic into and out of Solid
Waste facilities, noise and litter.
12.3 Collaboration in Environmental Review. In the event the County is the sole or co-
Lead Agency, then prior to making a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act(SEPA), the County will provide a copy of the SEPA environmental checklist, if any,
and proposed SEPA threshold determination to any identifiable Host City(as defined below) and
adjacent or neighboring city that is signatory to the Agreement and that may be affected by the
- 25 -
project("Neighboring City") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares
an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), the County will meet with any identified potential
Host City(as defined below) and any Neighboring City to seek input on the scope of the EIS and
appropriate methodologies and assumptions in preparing the analyses supporting the EIS.
However, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the
environmental review process.
12.4 Collaboration in Project Permitting. If a new or reconstructed Solid Waste facility
is proposed to be built within the boundaries of the City("Host City") and the project requires
one or more "project permits" as defined in chapter 36.70B.020(4) RCW from the Host City,
before submitting its first application for any of the project permits,the County will meet with
the Host City and any Neighboring City, to seek input. However, nothing in this Section shall
limit or impair the County's ability to timely submit applications for or receive permits, nor
waive any permit processing or appeal timelines.
12.5 Separately, the County and the City recognize that in accordance with 36.58.080
RCW, a city is authorized to charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a
County-owned Solid Waste facility. The County acknowledges that such direct costs include
wear and tear on infrastructure including roads. To the extent that the City establishes that such
charges are reasonably necessary to mitigate such impacts, payments to cover such impacts may
only be expended only to mitigate such impacts and are System costs. If the City believes that it
is entitled to mitigation under this Agreement, the City may request that the County undertake a
technical analysis regarding the extent of impacts authorized for mitigation. Upon receiving_such
a request,the County, in coordination with the City and any necessary technical consultants, will
develop any analysis that is reasonable and appropriate to identify impacts. The cost for such
- 26 -
analysis is a System cost. The City and County will work cooperatively to determine the
appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement in a Memorandum of
Agreement. If the City and the County cannot agree on mitigation payments,the dispute
resolution process under chapter 36.58.080 RCW will apply rather than the dispute resolution
process under Section XII of the Agreement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section XIII shall apply to
disputes arising under this Agreement.
13.2 Initial Meeting.
13.2.a Either Party shall give notice to the other in writing of a dispute involving
this Agreement.
13.2.b Within ten (10) business days of receiving or issuing such notice,the
County shall send an email notice to all Cities.
13.2.c Within ten (10) business days of receiving the County's notice under
Subsection 13.2.b, a City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to participate in
the Dispute Resolution process.
13.2.d Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the initial notice of dispute issued under Subsection 13.2.a, the County shall
schedule a time for staff from the County and any City requesting to participate in the dispute
resolution process ("Participating City") to meet(the "initial meeting"). The County shall
endeavor to set such initial meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities and to
the County.
- 27 -
13.3 Executives' Meeting.
13.3.a If the dispute is not resolved within sixty(60) days of the initial meeting,
then within seven (7) days of expiration of the sixty (60)-day period,the County shall send an
email notice to all Participating Cities that the dispute was not resolved and that a meeting of the
County Executive, or his/her designee and the chief executive officer(s) of each Participating
City, or the designees of each Participating City(an "executives' meeting") shall be scheduled to
attempt to resolve the dispute. It is provided, however, that the County and the Participating
Cities may mutually agree to extend the sixty(60)-day period for an additional fifteen (15) days
if they believe further progress may be made in resolving the dispute, in which case,the
County's obligation to send its email notice to the Participating Cities under this Subsection that
the dispute was not resolved shall be within seven (7) days of the end of the extension. Likewise,
the County and the Participating Cities may mutually conclude prior to the expiration of the sixty
(60)-day period that further progress is not likely in resolving the dispute at this level, in which
case, the County shall send its email notice that the dispute was not resolved within seven (7)
days of the date that the County and the Participating Cities mutually concluded that further
progress is not likely in resolving the dispute.
13.3.b Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
13.3.a each Participating City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to
participate in the executives' meeting.
13.3.c Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the notice of the executives' meeting issued under Subsection 13.3.a,the County
shall schedule a time for the executives' meeting. The County shall endeavor to set such
- 28 -
executives' meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities that provided notice
under Subsection 13.3.b and to the County.
13.4. Non-Binding Mediation.
13.4.a If the dispute is not resolved within thirty(30) days of the executives'
meeting, then any Participating City that was Party to the executives' meeting or the County may
refer the matter to non-binding meditation by sending written notice within thirty-five (35) days
of the initial executives' meeting to all Parties to such meeting.
13.4.b Within seven (7) days of receiving or issuing notice that a matter will be
referred to non-binding mediation,the County shall send an email notice to all Participating
Cities that provided notice under Subsection 13.3.b informing them of the referral.
13.4.c Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
13.4.b, each Participating City shall notify the County in writing if it wishes to participate in the
non-binding mediation.
13.4.d The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)
electing to participate in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a
mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person,the two mediators shall select a
third mediator who shall mediate the dispute. Alternately,the City(ies) participating in the
mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through a mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties. The Parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by
the mediator or mediation service. For purposes of allocating costs of the mediator or mediation
service, all Cities participating in the mediation will be considered one Party.
13.5 Superior Court. Any Party, after participating in the non-binding mediation, may
commence an action in King County Superior Court after one hundred eighty(180) days from
- 29 -
the commencement of the mediation, in order to resolve an issue that has not by then been
resolved through non-binding mediation, unless all Parties to the mediation agree to an earlier
date for ending the mediation.
13.6 Unless this Section XIII does not apply to a dispute, then the Parties agree that
they may not seek relief under this Agreement in a court of law or equity unless and until each of
the procedural steps set forth in this Section XIII have been exhausted, provided,that if any
applicable statute of limitations will or may run during the time that may be required to exhaust
the procedural steps in this Section XIII, a Party may file suit to preserve a cause of action while
the Dispute Resolution process continues. The Parties agree that, if necessary and if allowed by
the court, they will seek a stay of any such suit while the Dispute Resolution process is
completed. If the dispute is resolved through the Dispute Resolution process, the Parties agree to
dismiss the lawsuit, including all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims, with prejudice and
without costs to any Party.
XIV. FORCE MAJEURE
The Parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement
when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of either Party
("force majeure'). The term "force majeure" shall include, without limitation by the following
enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military authorities,terrorism,fire, accidents,
shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial, civil or public disturbances, or labor
disputes, causing the inability to perform the requirements of this Agreement, if either Party is
rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event to perform or comply with any
obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and reasonably full particulars to
- 30 -
the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent practicable to restore normal operations.
XV. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation and/or
agreements between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes
the entire contract between the Parties [except with regard to the provisions of the Forum
Interlocal Agreement]; provided that nothing in Section XV supersedes or amends any
indemnification obligation that may be in effect pursuant to a contract between the Parties other
than the Original Agreement; and further provided that nothing in this Agreement supersedes,
amends or modifies in any way any permit or approval applicable to the System or the County's
operation of the System within the jurisdiction of the City.
XVL WAIVER
No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or
construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach
whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
XVIL THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or
person except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be
entitled to be treated as a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.
- 31 -
XVIIL SURVIVABILITY
Except as provided in Section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, Section 8.6.c, except 8.6.ciii and Section 8.6d,
no obligations in this Agreement survive past the expiration date as established in Section III.
XIX. NOTICE
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a notice required to be provided under
the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person:
For the City:
- 32 -
For the County:
Director
King County Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, Washington 98104
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each Party on the date
set forth below:
CITY of KING COUNTY
(Mayor/City Manager) King County Executive
Date Date
Clerk-Attest Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
- 33 -
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6H
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Routine Bacteriological Water Sample Collection Contract
w/AmTest, Inc. - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Goods and Services Agreement with
AmTest, Inc. for routine bacteriological water sample collection in an amount not to
exceed $23,865.00 subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to WAC 246-290-300 the City routinely collects and analyzes
seventy-two bacteriological water samples per month at predetermined monitoring
locations in the distribution system. Sampling and analysis ensures the drinking water
is free of coliform bacteria to protect public health.
EXHIBITS: Goods and Services Agreement with AmTest, Inc.
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: This is an annual cost which is budgeted out of the Water Utility
operating budget.
e
ENT
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT
between the City of Kent and
ArnTest, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and AmTest, Inc. organized under the laws of the State of
Washington, located and doing business at 13600 NE 1261h Place, Suite C, Kirkland, WA 98034,
Phone: (425) 885-1664/Fax: (425) 820-0245, Contact: Aaron Young (hereinafter the
"Vendor").
AGREEMENT
I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
Vendor shall provide the following goods and materials and/or perform the following
services for the City:
The Vendor shall collect and analyze the City's state mandated routine coliform
bacteria samples. For a description, see the attached Scope of Work and Vendor's
December 19, 2012 quote which is attached as Exhibits A and B and incorporated
by this reference.
Vendor acknowledges and understands that it is not the City's exclusive provider of these
goods, materials, or services and that the City maintains its unqualified right to obtain these
goods, materials, and services through other sources.
II. TIME OF COMPLETION. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, Vendor shall
complete the work and provide all goods, materials, and services by 3/1/14.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Vendor an amount not to exceed Twenty
Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Five Dollars ($23,865.00), including applicable Washington
State Sales Tax, for the goods, materials, and services contemplated in this Agreement. The
City shall pay the Vendor the following amounts according to the following schedule:
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1
(Over$10,000,00, including WSST)
Sampling shall occur on the first four (4) Tuesdays of every month for twelve
months. Vendor shall be paid after submittal of invoice.
i
If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify Vendor and reserves
the option to only pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will
immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion.
A. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment
from Vendor for any defective or unauthorized goods, materials or services. If
Vendor is unable, for any reason, to complete any part of this Agreement, the City
may obtain the goods, materials or services from other sources, and Vendor shall
be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional costs"
shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by
the City beyond the maximum Agreement price specified above. The City further
reserves its right to deduct these additional costs incurred to complete this
Agreement with other sources, from any and all amounts due or to become due the
Vendor.
B. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. VENDOR'S ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PAYMENT
SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND
PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY VENDOR AS UNSETTLED AT THE TIME
REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS MADE.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent
Contractor-Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this
Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following
representations:
i
A. The Vendor has the ability to control and direct the performance and details
of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this
Agreement.
B. The Vendor maintains and pays for its own place of business from which
Vendor's services under this Agreement will be performed.
C. The Vendor has an established and independent business that is eligible for a
business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before the
City retained Vendor's services, or the Vendor is engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the
same nature as that involved under this Agreement.
D. The Vendor is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax
documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal
Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue.
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2
(Over$10,000.00, including WSST)
E. The Vendor has registered its business and established an account with the
state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be required
by Vendor's business, and has obtained a Unified Business Identifier (UBI)
number from the State of Washington.
F. The Vendor maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and earnings
of its business.
V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without
cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on
the signature block of this Agreement.
VI. CHANGES. The City may issue a written amendment for any change in the goods,
materials or services to be provided during the performance of this Agreement. If the Vendor
determines, for any reason, that an amendment is necessary, Vendor must submit a written
amendment request to the person listed in the notice provision section of this Agreement,
section XIV(D), within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date Vendor knew or should have
known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the City determines that
the change increases or decreases the Vendor's costs or time for performance, the City will
make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement with the
Vendor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable to agree, the City will
determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Vendor shall proceed with the
amended work upon receiving either a written amendment from the City or an oral order from
the City before actually receiving the written amendment. If the Vendor fails to require an
amendment within the time allowed, the Vendor waives its right to make any claim or submit
subsequent amendment requests for that portion of the contract work. If the Vendor disagrees
with the equitable adjustment, the Vendor must complete the amended work; however, the
Vendor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided in subsections A through E of Section
VII, Claims, below.
The Vendor accepts all requirements of an amendment by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a
separate acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. An amendment that
is accepted by Vendor as provided in this section shall constitute full payment and final
settlement of all claims for contract time and for direct, indirect and consequential costs,
including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change.
VII. CLAIMS. If the Vendor disagrees with anything required by an amendment,
another written order, or an oral order from the City, including any direction, instruction,
interpretation, or determination by the City, the Vendor may file a claim as provided in this
section. The Vendor shall give written notice to the City of all claims within fourteen (14)
calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims, or within fourteen (14)
calendar days of the date the Vendor knew or should have known of the facts or events giving
rise to the claim, whichever occurs first . Any claim for damages, additional payment for any
reason, or extension of time, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively
deemed to have been waived by the Vendor unless a timely written claim is made in strict
accordance with the applicable provisions of this Agreement.
At a minimum, a Vendor's written claim shall include the information set forth in
subsections A, items 1 through 5 below.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3
(Over$10,000.00, including WSST)
i
i
CLAIMS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS
SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY.
A. Notice of Claim. Provide a signed written notice of claim that provides the following
information:
1. The date of the Vendor's claim;
2. The nature and circumstances that caused the claim;
3. The provisions in this Agreement that support the claim;
4. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the claimed work and how that
estimate was determined; and
5. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change or
disruption if the Vendor is asserting a schedule change or disruption.
B. Records. The Vendor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time incurred
as a result of the asserted events giving rise to the claim. The City shall have
access to any of the Vendor's records needed for evaluating the protest.
The City will evaluate all claims, provided the procedures in this section are
followed. If the City determines that a claim is valid, the City will adjust payment
for work or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an
invalid protest.
C. Vendor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any claim, the Vendor shall
proceed promptly to provide the goods, materials and services required by the City
under this Agreement.
D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides,
the Vendor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any
written or oral order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and
determination).
E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the procedures
of this section, the Vendor completely waives any claims for protested work and
accepts from the City any written or oral order (including directions, instructions,
interpretations, and determination).
VIII. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. VENDOR MUST, IN ANY EVENT, FILE ANY LAWSUIT
ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN 120 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
THE DATE THE CONTRACT WORK IS COMPLETE OR VENDOR'S ABILITY TO FILE THAT SUIT
SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED. THIS SECTION FURTHER LIMITS ANY APPLICABLE STATUTORY
LIMITATIONS PERIOD.
IX. WARRANTY. This Agreement is subject to all warranty provisions established
under the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 62A, Revised Code of Washington. Vendor warrants
goods are merchantable, are fit for the particular purpose for which they were obtained, and will
perform in accordance with their specifications and Vendor's representations to City. The Vendor
shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within one (1) year from the date of the
City's acceptance of the Contract work. In the event any part of the goods are repaired, only
original replacement parts shall be used—rebuilt or used parts will not be acceptable. When
defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one (1) year
from the date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Vendor shall begin to
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4
(Over$10,000.00, including WSST)
correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the
defect. If the Vendor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time as
determined by the City, the City may complete the corrections and the Vendor shall pay all costs
incurred by the City in order to accomplish the correction.
X. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under
this Agreement or any sub-contract, the Vendor, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on
behalf of the Vendor or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age,
sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability,
discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the
employment relates.
Vendor shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract
work, file the attached Compliance Statement.
XI. INDEMNIFICATION. Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in
connection with the Vendor's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the
injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence.
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Vendor's work when completed shall not be
grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE VENDOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY
NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
In the event Vendor refuses tender of defense in any suit or any claim, if that tender was
made pursuant to this indemnification clause, and if that refusal is subsequently determined by a
court having jurisdiction (or other agreed tribunal) to have been a wrongful refusal on the
Vendor's part, then Vendor shall pay all the City's costs for defense, including all reasonable
expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees, plus the City's legal costs and fees incurred
because there was a wrongful refusal on the Vendor's part,
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
XII. INSURANCE, The Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit C attached and
incorporated by this reference.
XIII. WORK PERFORMED AT VENDOR'S RISK. Vendor shall take all necessary
precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors
in the performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that
purpose. All work shall be done at Vendor's own risk, and Vendor shall be responsible for any
loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the
work.
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 5
(Over$I0,000,00, including WSST)
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City
requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever
practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product.
B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option
conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or
relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable
to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this
Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by
filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court,
King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution
process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this
Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or
bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award
provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the
City's right to indemnification under Section XI of this Agreement.
D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this. Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the
contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the
date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to
the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be
hereafter specified in writing.
E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written
consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to
any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no
further assignment shall be made without additional written consent.
F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of
the City and Vendor.
G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together
with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or
other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as
entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above
documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement, However, should any language in any of
the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms
of this Agreement shall prevail.
H. Compliance with Laws. The Vendor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and
municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable
to Vendor's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this
Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations.
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT - 6
(Over$10,000,00, including WSST)
I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one
Agreement.
IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become
effective on the last date entered below.
VENDOR: CITY OF KENT:
By: By:
(signature) (signature)
Print Name: Print Name: Suzette Cooke
Its Its Mayor
(title)
DATE: DATE:
NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO:
VENDOR: CITY OF KENT:
Aaron Young Timothy ]. LaPorte, P.E.
AmTest, Inc. City of Kent
13600 NE 1261h Place, Suite C 220 Fourth Avenue South
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kent, WA 98032
(425) 885-1664 (telephone) (253) 856-5500 (telephone)
(425) 820-0245 (facsimile) (253) 856-6500 (facsimile)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
Kent Law Department
AmT.IL-Sampling/Bauer
GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT 7
(Over$10,000.00, including WSST)
DECLARATION
CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity.
As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this
Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity
policies.
The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any
contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative
response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding.
If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the
directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole
determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement;
The questions are as follows:
1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2.
2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of
sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical
disability.
3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to
all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity
employer.
4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and
promotion of women and minorities.
5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the
Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth
above.
By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above.
Dated this day of 20 .
By:
I
For:
Title:
Date:
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 1 of 3
CITY OF KENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998
SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996
CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor
POLICY:
Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and
state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee
equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City
amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps:
1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating
commitment as an equal opportunity employer.
2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women.
Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract
and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement.
Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public
Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments.
1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these
regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity
policy.
2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines.
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 2 of 3
CITY OF KENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the
Agreement.
I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of
Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime
contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on
the (date), between the firm I represent and the City of
Kent.
I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City
of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity
Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement.
Dated this day of 20 •
By:
For:
Title:
Date:
i
I
i
EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 3 of 3
1
I
i
EXHIBIT A
Scope of work:
AmTest, Inc. will collect and analyze the City of Kent's state mandated routine
collform bacteria samples. Sampling consists of eighteen (18) coliform and free
chlorine residual samples per week, at City designated sampling locations, the first
four (4) Tuesdays of every month, for twelve (12) months. AmTest; Inc. will also
submit all necessary sample result paperwork to the Washington State Department
of Health Office of Drinking Water as required by the City in chapter 246.290.300
WAC, as well as copies to the City of Kent Water Department.
i
I
EXHIBIT$
December 19, 2012
To: Sean Bauer
City of Dent
Public Works/Water Section
220 Fourth Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Price Quote for Laboratory Analysis and Sampling
I
Sean
Here are two separate price quotes. One for AmTest to pick up the samples at your
facility and perform the purity analyses, and one for AmTest to perform the sampling and
analyses. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments,
1. AmTest will pick up the samples at your facility and bring them to our laboratory for
analysis at a rate of$14 per sample. Considering 18 samples per Tuesday four times per
month the total for this would be: $12,096 per year (18 samples per week, four times per
month, 12 months per year= 864 samples per year), Any additional samples would be
charged at$14 per sample as well,
2. AmTest will perform all sampling at designated City of Kent sampling stations and/or
city facilities at the same quantity as #1 for an additional$200 per week, All mileage,
gas and hourly wage for our employee would be included in the flat rate of$200,
This works out to an additional $9600 per year for a total of$21,696,
If you have any question or comments please feel free to contact me at 425-885-1664 or
by email at aarony@amtestlab.com
Sincerely,
Aaron W. Young
Lab Manager
I
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
SERVICE CONTRACTS
Insurance
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
i
Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned,
hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance
Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing
equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be
endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO
occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from
premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed
operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability
assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General
Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per
Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 11 85. The City shall be
named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General
Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the
City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 11 85 or a
substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial
Insurance laws of the State of Washington.
S. Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single
limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per
accident,
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits
no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate and a $2,000,000 products-completed operations
aggregate limit.
EXHIBIT C (Continued)
C. Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability
insurance:
1. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool
coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
2. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage
shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has
been given to the City,
3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all
policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed
by or on behalf of the contractor and a copy of the endorsement
naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the
Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a
certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's
Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause
stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the
limits of the insurer's liability.
D. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not
less than A:VII.
E. Verification of Coverage
I
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the
amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the
additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of
the Contractor before commencement of the work.
F. subcontractors
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or
shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance
requirements as stated herein for the Contractor.
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6I
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority Grant - Accept
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the Washington Auto Theft Prevention
Authority Grant in an amount of $15,500, authorize amending the budget and
authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable
to the police chief and city attorney
SUMMARY: The Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority (WATPA) Grant is
awarded to the City of Federal Way for the PATROL task force. The city of Kent is the
fiscal agent and manages the grant awards for the task force.
This funding will supplement the Fiscal Year 2011 WATPA grant awards in the amounts
of $1.6M and $55,000. Those grants and this new one all expire on June 30, 2013.
This grant funding will support the items listed on page two of the award letter. These
items help leverage the limited task force staffing and ensure officer safety.
EXHIBITS: WATPA award letter to the city of Federal Way and Agreement between
the City of Federal Way Police Department and the Washington Auto Theft Prevention
Authority.
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: Funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis.
W A'ItnVIVG'f 671'd A2i40F,`1A f I4)PJ t}I'`r'IaI S,It I&P,rUVl7(yQ➢V,IC@:cn#dIFpS
36G0 Wil1.iYneitet>IIve IV 6',5'uitc lUl --l.ncery W/7�15516--Phone.(360)2927900—hayc',(360)292-7269 .websrte ➢5ttp 1/Wat7rti..was�x..orE
'Trevrnting, and n,€Jxucrn,g mwor vehuln thrfr an M n"rnde of Washingfran"
Wx4iraµpxRitto YM1ury Rwexn';m.N)imlry
. MmbMwnMWNhmtl.
December 20, 2012
C."hiep'Briaan Wilson
Federal Way police Depart€neat
33325 p`r Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
'o
Dear Chi tu> f' ilson: p
i am pr eased to inform your the; Washington Auto 'Fheft Prevention Authority has approved a
public service and innovative technology grant award rn the amount of 15,500 for the
PATROL Task Force.
The grant award is effective January 1, 2013 and empires on June 30, 2013. Nease sign the award
agreement and return it to WATFA.. No funds wipl be reirhbuxrsed auntie the signed agreement is
received. Fsxpcndituures prior to the award e li,,r.tive date, or after the grant expiration date, are not
authorized and willl not be reh ubunrsed. in aaldption, the grant award is sr.rbgect to apt Grant Policies
and Procedures of the 1riraSh'➢s'rpzton Auto Thwfl Prevention Aruthority. Grant recipients are
required to submit quarterly reports on the resullts,� and ellectiveness of items (landed in your
proposal to WAI PA.by April 15, July p 5, Octobesr 15 in 20113 and by JanUary 15, 2014,
Costs will be paid on a reirnbwrserrnernt basis. You weld be reiraabrursed for actuuat expenses on'py up
to the limit of the award. Please Publish the WATPA logo on all Public Awareness documents.
Quarterly reporting and finanen d related forrn, will frbplow in an email. If- youu choose to not
accept this award., please notify us arrnrraediatepy,
If you have any questions, please contact. C:;ynthna Jordaia at 360-292-7939 or via ernarl at
ojotc9anl�wg5 7c.or, or nnyseif at 360-292-79 59 or via a-rxtaiil but trip titrt r(i�waspc.a�� .
Best raids,
Miehaei Painter, Executive Director
Washington Auto Thett Prevention Authority
... . _ ....................... _ ...
dv e u„ num rl
,:alr:a.rti
'OPIN RAI IS H; EM 0.1)APoME1 IIAR%121(49 ESDAL KEN III)HENVIERG .RMNLOMK
(h,<7 KAS,,, Pa<rcd SI,/7—IMieIIlai( 1, (I,e/—Keunewlck Sh f/'-Smhaarnh(ann(y
MERAfi PF1&MR )U I'a:It BARKER IISAN 4A tl kRM RG ROB LEE VMANII
(' rralfGlio L me1)rrcar-H1VP( Hme ,A ,.... M1 ,,(ono (1 .f AGvr'rr 4I , I'd, Ih"I"
AGREEMENTBETWEE,N CITY OF FEDERAL WAY POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND
THE WASHINCITON ALJT0 THEFTPREVENTION AUTHORIT,Y
A UTO IYII,.TTPREV1,.N770)V(Y'RANT13ROGRAM A WARDSHEY"T
I. Award Recipncnt Name and Address: I Contact: Brian Wilson
Federal Way Police Department Tide: Chief
33325 8th Ave S Telq)hone: (253) 835-6701
Federal Way, WA 98003
3. Project Tifle 4, Award den io&
PSA arad survefllance cameras 01/01/2013 — 6/30/2013
5. GrarO No: 6. Funding Authority:
2013 WATPA.-IMINI-002 WASHINGTON AUTO THEFT
PREVENTION A UTHORury
T Amount Approve& 8. Service Area:
$15,500 King/flierce County
.....................-111111-1.1.1.............................................................................................................. ............................. ..................................................
9, Requasts Ir)r rehnbursernent under this agreement are subject to the f6flowing Budget:
.................................. ---,AJi5C—y — --------
Descript5on WATPA Funds TOTAL WATPA
..............
Axdhodty
Funds if any) Approved
- " ---4---------------------
FiA 8,000�4)0 8,000.00 SIOW-00
.......... ----- ---------------- -..........................
B, SurvpMance camera 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000m
C, VeNc�e tracker .. 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000�00
..................... ........ ..........
D. p.JC recorcHng te6ephartc. 1 '20,000 1 25000 1,250 00
. .... ......
25
------------- �6
...........1a 500W0 () 00 lr�,500.00 15,500,00"TOTAL GRAmr REQUEST I 04—J......... ....................... ------ ..........--..........
lTq WN'NESS WHI the WA TPA and RFX'IlIF NT acknowledge and accept the terms o IL'
this AGREEME'N'T I and attachawnts her to, and to witness whereof have executed this
AGREEMENT as of the daPe and year last w6tten be low. r Fhe rights and obligations of both
partics to this AGREEMFNI' are governed by flw inkm-nation on this Award Sheet and other
documents incorporated herein by reference. Agreement specrdcrenns and Conditions, and
Agreeinent Geneia] TenrB and Condftiuns.
WATPA RECIPIEN r[,
Name/ Michael Painter N,,3rn(.-,/
'TitleVVATPA, Executive Director Tide
....... ........-- --........ --------------
Date: 07 /02/20 3 Date:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
40 Ken Thomas, Chief of Police
Phone: 253-856-5888
ZKENT Fax: 253-856-6802
WASHINGTON Add ress: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA. 98032-5895
DATE: February 12, 2013
TO: Public Safety Committee
SUBJECT: Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority Grant - Accept
MOTION: Recommend that Council accept the Washington Auto Theft
Prevention Authority Grant in an amount of $15,500, authorize amending the
budget and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant
terms acceptable to the police chief and city attorney.
SUMMARY: The Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority (WATPA) Grant is awarded
to the City of Federal Way for the PATROL task force. The City of Kent is the fiscal agent
and manages the grand awards for the task force.
This funding will supplement the Fiscal Year 2011 WATPA grant awards in the amounts of
$1.6M and $55,000. Those grants and this new one all expire on June 30, 2013. This
grant funding will support the items listed on page two of the award letter. These items
help leverage the limited task force staffing and ensure office safety.
EXHIBITS: WATPA award letter to the City of Federal Way and Agreement between the
City of Federal Way Police Department and the Washington Auto Theft Prevention
Authority.
BUDGET IMPACT: The funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis
KENT
Agenda Item: ConsentCalendar - 63
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission DUI Media Grant -
Accept
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission
DUI media grant in an amount of $5,000, authorize amending the budget and
authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to
the Police Chief and City Attorney.
SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department's Community Education Unit applied for and
was awarded a $5,000 grant from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to be
used to purchase media messages regarding Driving Under the Influence.
The funding will be used to create a Puget Sound - specific message to complement
the summer kick-off Target Zero Mobilization Patrols. Sara Wood, as the South King
County Target Zero manager, will work with Target Zero managers from Pierce, North
King, and Snohomish Counties to convene a steering committee to come up with a
new impaired driving prevention message for radio advertisements.
The $5,000 will go towards the development of the creative and the media buys for
promotion of the message.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: Unanticipated revenue and expenditure of the grant funds
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6K
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Equipment Grant - Accept
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the Washington Association of Sheriffs
and Police Chiefs Traffic Safety Equipment Grant in an amount of $7,930, authorize
amending the budget and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with
the grant terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney.
SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department applied for and received a grant from the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for the following Traffic Safety
Equipment:
1. Lidar $3,000
2. Radar $1,000
3. Sector Scanners $1,530
4. Sector Printers $2,400
The grant funds must be expended by May 1, 2013.
EXHIBITS: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Traffic Safety
Equipment Grant letter
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
I
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS
3060 Willamette Drive NE Lacey,WA 98516—Phone:(360)486-2380—Fax:(360)486-2381—Website:w\vw.waspo.or9
ervirre the Lmv Enf c—onent Connnunihv and the Citizens ofWasld tort
i
---j avlwvsap
February 6, 2013
Chief Thomas
Kent Police Department
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Chief Thomas,
Thank you for applying for a WASPC Traffic Safety Equipment Grant. We are pleased to
inform you that your agency has been approved to receive$7,930.00 to purchase the following
equipment:
(1)Lidar$3,000.00
(1)Radar$1,000.00
(6) Sector Scanners $1,530.00
(6) Sector Printers $2,400.00
The Federal Identification number for this grant is CFDAff 20.600. Invoices must be submitted
to WASPC no later than May 1,2013. Any invoices not received by the deadline will not be
reimbursed and the award money will be forfeited. Please note; WASPC is responsible for the
amount of your grant award only. Any expense in excess of the grant award mast be paid by
your agency.
A report is required for the Traffic Safety Equipment Grant funds awarded to your department.
The 2012-2013 Traffic Safety Equipment Grant reports are due by October 15, 2013. Failure to
report will result in denial of 2013—2014 grant funds.For your convenience,the report form
is enclosed with this letter. Your agency is responsible for subscribing to the following
commitments:
o Support statewide/national traffic safety initiatives,projects, and programs
® Report grant results to WASPC in a timely manner
® Subscribe and commit to aggressive traffic enforcement
Also attached is a revised Equipment Grant Agreement form. (You may have already submitted
one,but the form attached to the web site was outdated). Please sign and return the form to
Nancy Morris.
Thank you for your dedication to traffic safety in the State of Washington. If you have any
questions please contact NancyMorris at(360)486-2387, If you would like more information
PreOIAI Prei dear Eiea ERI PreLSEN Pan IRNYIm hea YE
ED HOIDfES OZZIEKot."CIW Emf-KolN K-IWwN PAUL AYERS
Clrlef-Alercer!arM SFary-Spotmx Canny Chtel-KrrSlrvM Sharp-IhFlnin Cumry CdfeJ-lcwquo/r
E< .fli.Board
TOM ROBBINS TOM SCHLICKER KEN HOUNHERG STEYEHOYER JORN SNAZA
Chr,f-J*r.kh, Chkf-Sd 11111 Chtel-Kemrnrtrk Shay-KlhpCawrN Shng-1hUrsrwr Cevl.N
RICHARD LATUM RANDY STEGAIMER JORN➢ATISTE LAURA LAUGHLIN MITCH DARKER
Sbzry-F}ankin Cornnp Chlel-IYerlom IVA urhemily aleJ-IYA Sol.Pmrol SAC-FBI,&atlre 6Yernfha Dinetw
I
regarding state or federal traffic safety grant funding,please contact the Washington Traffic
Safety Commission at(360)725-9896.
Sincerely,
Mitch Barker
Executive Director
I
I
I
I
WASPC EQUIPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT FORM
IN ACCEPTING A WASPC EQUIPMENT GRANT,THE
(Department Nmne)
AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING GRANT CONDITIONS:
1. The equipment received as a result of this grant will be used as part of a department safety program.
2. The equipment received as a result of this project will be distributed as part of an agency's commitment to traffic
safety and active traffic enforcement. Agencies receiving grants are required(when possible)to support statewide
traffic safety initiatives to include:
0 Three Flags Enforcement Blitzes(10 days in February,July,and October)
Holiday Safety Emphasis Patrols(_Memorial Day,Labor Day,and Christmas/New Year's)
Statewide activities will focus on hnpaired Driving, Seatbelt/Child Car Seat Enforcement,and Speed Enforcement.
Results of Blitz/Emphasis activity will be reported on quarterly activity reports.
3. Equipment purchases must comply with the provisions of the Bay America Act(49 U.S.C. 53230))which contains
the following requirements: Only steel,iron and manufactured products produced in the United States may be
purchased with Federal funds unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases would
be inconsistent with fire public interest;that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality;
or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.
Clear justification for the purchase of non-domestic items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of Transportation
4. Reports describing the use of the equipment and related enforcement activity will be submitted to WASPC. Reports
are due no later than:
® October 15,2013
Reports will contain the following information:
A) Recap of current traffic safety enforcement and educational activities
B) Identified traffic safety issue addressed with this particular grant
C) Identified target audience
D) Equipment acquired with WASPC Equipment Grant
E) Enforcement activities conducted
F) Program success/Outcome(Final Report)
G) Problems Encountered
H) Department contact for program Phone.
SIGNED: DATE:
(Chief or S1 erifl)
�
f
� v
SIGNED: 1 " � DATE:
Mitch Barker, Executive Director
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS
3060 Willamette Dr.NE Lacey,WA 98516 PHONE(360)486-2380 FAX(360)486-2381
Serving the LaTvSnforcement Community&the Citizens of[Vasdington i'Mt5NE4rffSB
EQUIPMENT-GRANT REPORT FORMk ���yy
Department:
Person Filing Report:
Months covered: to
NOTE: Reporting Period February 1, 2013—September30, 2013, due October 15, 2013 based on the federal itscal year.
A. List equipment purchased and recap the current traffic safety enforcement activities:
B. Identify the traffic safety issue(s) addressed with this particular grant:
C. Please list the following statistics for the reporting year:
Injuries: Fatalities: Crashes: Property
,Damage:
D. Future plans and or goals:
E. Rate the success of this grant and it's usefulness to your department and explain your rating below:
(Please rate 1-10, 1 being unsuccessful 10 being extremely successful)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SIGNED: DATE:
(Chief or Sheriff)
NOTE: This Report Is required ONLY for the current grant period,ending, September 30, 2013
I
i
i
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6L
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Business License, Ordinance amending KCC 5.01.020 —
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Section 5.01.020 of the
Kent City Code, entitled, "Definitions," to make the definition of "business"
consistent with the definition of"rental property" in Chapter 5.14.
SUMMARY: The City's business license code, found in Ch. 5.01 KCC, defines the term
"business" to include apartment and residential rental properties of three or more
units. The City's Rental Housing Safety code, found in Ch. 5.14 KCC, defines rental
properties as rental housing facilities of two or more dwelling units.
The Rental Housing Safety code has always required a business license to operate
rental housing facilities of two or more dwelling units. An amendment to the Business
License code is required to eliminate any potential confusion regarding whether two or
three rental units triggers the business license requirement.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Section
5.01.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled
"Definitions," to make the definition of "business"
consistent with the definition of "rental property"
in Chapter. 5.14 of the Kent City Code.
RECITALS
A. The City's business license code, found in Ch. 5.01 KCC,
defines the term "business" to include apartment and residential rental
properties of three or more units. The City's Rental Housing Safety code,
found in Ch. 5.14 KCC, defines rental properties as rental housing facilities
of two or more dwelling units.
B. The Rental Housing Safety code has always required a
business license to operate rental housing facilities of two or more dwelling
units. An amendment to the Business Licensing code is required to
eliminate any potential confusion regarding whether two or three rental
units triggers the business license requirement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
1 Amend KCC 5.01
Business Licensing
Ordinance
SECTION 1, - Amendment. Section 5.01.020 of the Kent City Code
is amended as follows:
Sec. 5.01.020 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires
otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
A. Business means all activities, occupations, trades, pursuits,
professions, and matters located within the city, whether operated with the
object of gain, benefit, advantage, or profit, or operated not for profit, to
the business or to another person, directly or indirectly. The term business
shall also mean apartment and residential rental properties of th- two-3}
or more units, as well as rental housing and rental property as those terms
are defined in Ch. 5.14 KCC, but shall not mean governmental agencies.
B. Business enterprise means each location at which business is
conducted within the city. A business may have more than one (1)
business enterprise within the city.
C. Director means the finance director of the city or his or her
designee.
D. Department means the finance department of the city.
E. Licensee means any business or business enterprise that applies for
or is granted a business license. The term licensee shall also mean the
person who submits a business license for approval, the owner or operator
of a business or business enterprise, and any corporation, partnership,
nonprofit, or organization which owns or operates the business or business
enterprise.
2 Amend KCC 5.01
Business Licensing
Ordinance
SECTION 2, - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 3, - SeverabilitY. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and
effect.
SECTION 4, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
3 Amend KCC 5.01
Business Licensing
Ordinance
PASSED: day of 2013.
APPROVED: day of 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of 2013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civi1\0rdinance\5.01 Business License.Wcx
4 Amend KCC 5.01
Business Licensing
Ordinance
�� KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6M
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Safety, Ordinance amending KCC 5.14 —
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Chapter 5.14 of the Kent
City Code, entitled "Rental Housing Safety," to simplify the STAR program, and to
clarify that the business license requirements and fees set forth in Chapter 5.01
apply to rental properties.
SUMMARY: On September 18, 2007, the city of Kent adopted Ordinance No. 3860,
which implemented the City's Rental Housing Safety Program which is administered by
the Kent Police Department. This ordinance is codified at Ch. 5.14 KCC. The purpose
of the program is to assist landlords of rental properties of two units or more in
reducing the occurrence of criminal conduct on rental properties, and providing
tenants with safe rental housing options.
The program provides the opportunity for landlords to voluntarily enter the City's
STAR program, which requires compliance with certain safe housing practices, such as
background checks for managers and lease addendums that allow the landlord to evict
tenants for repeat criminal conduct. Landlords who participate in the STAR program
can advertise that their property is STAR compliant, and they receive a waiver of their
annual business licensing fee. The chapter also increases licensing fees for landlords
who take no action to curtail criminal conduct on the rental properties or who allow for
code violations such as nuisances to occur on the property.
This ordinance will amend the Rental Housing Safety chapter to specify that the
general business license code and fees apply to businesses such as rental properties of
two units or more, and simplifies the STAR program so that it is more efficient for the
Police Department to administer.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 5.14
of the Kent City Code entitled "Rental Housing
Safety" to simplify the STAR program, and to
clarify that the business license requirements and
fees set forth in Chapter 5.01 KCC apply to rental
properties.
RECITALS
A. On September 18, 2007, the city of Kent adopted Ordinance
No. 3860, which implemented the City's Rental Housing Safety Program
which is administered by the Kent Police Department. This ordinance is
codified at Ch. 5.14 KCC. The purpose of the program is to assist
landlords of rental properties of two units or more in reducing the
occurrence of criminal conduct on rental properties, and providing tenants
with safe rental housing options.
B. The program provides the opportunity for landlords to
voluntarily enter the City's STAR program, which requires compliance with
certain safe housing practices, such as background checks for managers
and lease addendums that allow the landlord to evict tenants for repeat
criminal conduct. Landlords who participate in the STAR program can
advertise that their property is STAR compliant, and they receive a waiver
of their annual business licensing fee. The chapter also increases licensing
1 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
fees for landlords who take no action to curtail criminal conduct on the
rental properties or who allow for code violations such as nuisances to
occur on the property.
C. This ordinance will amend the Rental Housing Safety chapter
to specify that the general business license code and fees apply to
businesses such as rental properties of two units or more, and simplifies
the STAR program so that it is more efficient for the Police Department to
administer.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — Amendment. Chapter 5.14 of the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
Sec. 5.14.010 Findings. The council declares that the citizens of
the city of Kent have a right to safe rental housing and that the city should
assist rental property owners and managers in order to reduce the
occurrence of criminal conduct on rental properties. The council finds that
it is a reasonable exercise of its police powers to require rental property
owners to take reasonable steps to prevent the use of rental property for
criminal purposes, and that rental property owners should be penalized in
the event they take no action to discourage crime from reoccurring on
their rental properties. The council further finds that a program that
provides incentives to property owners who take proactive steps to prevent
criminal conduct on rental property will serve the public health, safety, and
welfare.
2 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
Sec. 5.14.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the
context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the words or phrases
defined in this section shall have the indicated meanings.
A. Code enforcement officer shall have the same meaning as provided
in Ch. 1.04 KCC.
B. Criminal conduct shall mean any criminal act that is defined by the
city of Kent, the state of Washington, or the United States as a
misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony, or a crime, or is otherwise
punishable by a sentence in a correctional facility, jail, or prison, that
substantially affects the health and safety of the tenant or other tenants.
Gang or gang-related activity, as those terms are defined by RCW
59.18.030, shall also be considered criminal conduct. The term shall also
include drug-related activity, the seizure of illegal drugs, and the
requirement that a tenant register as a sex offender.
C. Dwelling unit shall mean a unit within rental property further defined
as:
1. A structure or that part of a structure which is used as a
home, residence, or sleeping place by one person or by two or more
persons maintaining a common household, including but not limited to
units of rental property, mobile homes as that term is defined in RCW
59.20.030, and manufactured homes as that term is defined in RCW
59.20.030;
2. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation; or
3 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
3. One (1) room, or rooms connected together, constituting a
separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy,
or rental or lease on a weekly, monthly, or longer basis, and physically
separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the
same structure or on the same property, and containing independent
cooking and sleeping facilities.
D. Landlord shall mean the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the dwelling
unit or the property of which it is a part and any person designated as a
representative of the landlord; any person or business entity such as a
corporation, limited liability corporation, partnership, or agency that owns,
operates, or manages rental housing or rental property; and in addition
means any person designated by the landlord who has authority to sign a
lease or rental agreement.
E. Police officer shall mean any general authority, limited authority, or
specially commissioned Washington peace officer, or any federal peace
officer, as those terms are defined by Chapter 10.93 RCW, as now enacted
or hereafter amended.
F. The phrase reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood that criminal
conduct will reoccur on the property requires the landlord to report
criminal conduct that occurs on the property whenever the commission of
criminal conduct on the rental property is suspected, and further requires
the landlord to take other steps to prevent the recurrence of crime, which
may include, but are not limited to, one of the following:
1. The landlord and onsite managers of the rental property
attend and complete the city's landlord training program or an equivalent
training program approved by the city within ninety (90) days from the
date the notice pursuant to KCC 5.14.080(B) is issued; or
4 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
2. The landlord pursues eviction to judgment of the tenant who
is the subject of a notice issued pursuant to KCC 5.14.080(B), and begins
the eviction process within thirty (30) days from the date such notice is
issued; or
3. In the event the landlord has not previously utilized a crime-
free housing addendum, the landlord utilizes a crime-free housing
addendum for the tenant who is the subject of a notice issued pursuant to
KCC 5.14.080(B) within sixty (60) days from the date the notice pursuant
to KCC 5.14.080(B) is issued; or
4. In the event the rental property, through its landlord, is not a
participant in the STAR program, the rental property participates in the
STAR program within ninety (90) days from the date the notice is issued
pursuant to KCC 5.14.080(B); or
5. The landlord requests the city's assistance pursuant to KCC
5.14.140.
G. Rental agreement or lease shall have the same meaning as the term
"rental agreement" defined in RCW 59.18.030, as now enacted or
hereafter amended or recodified.
H. Rental housing or rental property shall mean a rental housing facility
of two (2) or more dwelling units that are rented or intended to be rented,
are located on a single parcel or lot, and for which a postal address exists
or may exist for each individual unit, and the common areas and
appurtenances to the rental housing facility, provided, these terms shall
also include any mobile home park or manufactured housing community as
those terms are defined by RCW 59.20.030 as now enacted or hereafter
amended. The terms shall not include the following:
-21. A retail, commercial, or industrial rental;
5 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
32. A properly registered and licensed nursing home; or
43. A properly registered and licensed assisted living facility.
I. STAR shall mean the safe tenants and rentals program as
established in KCC 5.14.110.
J. Tenant shall have the same meaning as the term "tenant" set forth
in RCW 59.18.030 and 59.20.030, as those sections are now enacted or
hereafter amended or recodified.
K. Third party background check shall mean a check of a person's
criminal conviction records that is conducted by the Washington State
Patrol or another lawfully licensed agency or entity in the business of
conducting checks of a person's criminal conviction records, and which
produces for the requesting party a report of the person's criminal
conviction records. The third party background check shall report
convictions for state charges from any of the states in the United States
and convictions for federal offenses.
Sec. 5.14.025 Chapter 5.01 applicable - Conflicts. Ch. 5.01
KCC relating to business licensing shall apply to rental housing and rental
Property; provided, that in the event there is a conflict between this
chapter and Ch. 5.01 KCC, this chapter shall control.
Sec. 5.14.030 Business license required — Penalty.
A. License required. As a condition of operation, each and every rental
property within the city limits shall, in accordance with Ch. 5.01 KCC,
obtain and maintain a business license as FequiFed by this Ehapte~ The
issuance of a license shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute
6 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
right of the landlord, and the possession of such license shall not entitle
the landlord to an automatic renewal of a business license.
B. Penalty for not obtaining license. In addition to the penalties set
forth in Ch. 5.01 KCC, Tthere shall be assessed a penalty of one hundred
dollars ($100) per day for each day that a rental property operates without
a valid and current business license for the first ten (10) days of
noncompliance with this section, and up to four hundred dollars ($400) per
day for each day in excess of ten (10) days of noncompliance with this
section.
Sec. 5.14.040 Business license period — Application and
renewal - Fee--Gendkiefte-ef4ssutmee. A. Business ;;een:se
peried.The business licensing period shall run from January 1st through
December 31st of each year.
B. Fees. _Any application for a license required by this chapter
shall be accompanied by a fee as established in Ch. 5.01 KCC and any
resolution established in accordance with that chapter, as well as any fee
required in accordance withset fE)Fth in this . eEtien and KCC 5.14.060, if
applicable. Business licensing applications shall comply with the
requirements of KCC 5.01.090 and 5.01.110.
fees shall be due PFOOF tO the beginning of the business IiEense peFied.
business afteF ganuaFy ist, the fee shall be due at the tinge the EeFtifiEate
of eEEupanEy is issued, OF if -. eFtifi.ate of .. is net ed the
fee sha" be due en the date EenStFUEtien is Eengpleted, and shall be
_...__ OF __..__. ___._.. was not __...p.____. The business. ..__..__ .__ ___ ._.
7 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
de++aFS ($180}
Fenewal. in the event any FequiFed on the app"Eatien feFng
new fOFng to the Eity of Kent within ten (10) days of the Ehang-e-.
Sec. 5.14.060 Business license fee — Increase for code
violations.
A. Rental property shall be maintained in accordance with applicable
building codes pursuant to Ch. 14.01 KCC, and shall be free of nuisances,
graffiti, litter, rodents, weeds, and junk vehicles in conformance with Chs.
8.01, 8.04, 8.06, 8.07, and 8.08 KCC as now enacted or hereafter
amended. The rental property shall be maintained in accordance with all
other codes applicable to rental property.
B. If, at the time a landlord applies for a business license renewal, it is
determined that a notice of violation pursuant to Ch. 1.04 KCC was issued
relating to the condition of the rental property, and the notice of violation
was issued within the calendar year preceding the year for which the new
license is required, the rental property shall be assessed an additional
business license fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000), which shall be
8 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
added to the fee required by--Ch. 5.01 KCC`.�S; provided, this
additional fee shall not be assessed in the event that, prior to the date of
application for the business license, either a hearing examiner or a court
with jurisdiction has determined that the violation was not committed
the City has determined that ; and PFOVided fUFtheF, that the additional fee
shall net be FeqUiFed on the event the code violation was voluntarily
corrected
C. The additional fee established in subsection (B) of this section shall
also apply to the issuance of a new license if there is good cause to believe
that the landlord who owned the property transferred the property to a
new landlord in order to avoid the provisions of subsection (B) of this
section.
Sec. 5.14.070 Denial or revocation of business license -
Appeal.
A. Denial or revocation of license. A license issued under this chapter
may be denied or revoked for the following reasons:
1. it is deteffigined that the applicant failed te ffevide
misleading Any reason set forth in KCC 5.01.130.
2. The rental property is subject to an order of abatement for a
code violation pursuant to Ch. 1.04 KCC or violation of the Revised Code of
Washington, and such order of abatement was issued by the city's hearing
examiner or a court with jurisdiction.
B. Process - Appeal. The denial or revocation of a business license
required by this chapter shall comply with the business license revocation
9 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
procedures set forth in Ch. 5.01 KCC. The denial or revocation of a
business license required by this chapter may be appealed in conformance
with the requirements of Ch. 5.01 KCC.
Sec. 5.14.080 Tenant violations — Criminal conduct on
property — Notification to property owner — Property owner
responsibilities — Civil infraction.
A. Landlord responsible. It shall be the responsibility of the landlord to
take precautionary measures to reduce the likelihood that the rental
property will be used for criminal conduct. In the event a landlord is
notified that criminal conduct has occurred on the property, the landlord
shall take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood that criminal conduct
will reoccur on the property. Repeated criminal conduct committed by
tenants or guests shall result in a civil infraction chargeable to the
landlord.
B. Notice of criminal conduct. Upon the occurrence of criminal conduct
on the rental property, the police department may cause notice to be sent
to the landlord setting forth the date of the occurrence, the location of the
occurrence, the nature of the occurrence, and the name of the person who
engaged in the occurrence. Notice may be sent whenever the police
department has reasonable grounds to believe that criminal conduct has
occurred on the rental property. Notice shall be deemed properly delivered
when it is either served upon the landlord or a property manager of the
rental property, or is delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, or by
certified mail, to the last known address of the landlord or business license
applicant as listed in the most recent business license application on file
with the city. The issuance of the notice set forth in this subsection shall be
a prerequisite to the issuance of a notice of infraction under subsection (C)
10 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
of this section; provided, the issuance of the civil infraction under
subsection (C) of this section shall constitute the notice of the third
instance of criminal conduct.
C. Civil infraction. Three (3) instances of criminal conduct committed in
the same unit or anywhere on the rental property by the same tenant or
any guest of the tenant within any twelve (12) month period shall be
deemed a civil infraction chargeable to the landlord; provided, that when
the conduct is committed by guests of the tenant, the city need not
establish that the criminal conduct was committed by the same guest.
Each instance of criminal conduct committed in the same unit or anywhere
on the rental property by the same tenant or any guest of the tenant in
excess of three (3) instances of criminal conduct in a twelve (12) month
period shall be considered an additional infraction chargeable to the
landlord.
D. Penalties. The following penalties shall apply:
1. Three (3) instances of criminal conduct committed in the
same unit or anywhere on the rental property by the same tenant or any
guest of the tenant:
STAR Participant Level P $2-58500�8
STAR PaFticipant Level B_ G
STAR PaFtm Empant Level el G
Non-STAR Participant $1,000
2. For every instance of criminal conduct committed in the same
unit or anywhere on the rental property by the same tenant or any guest
of the tenant in excess of three (3) instances of criminal conduct within the
same twelve (12) month period:
STAR Participant Level $5GGI 000-.G8
STAR PaFtm Empant Level el R
11 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
STAR PaFtiCipant Level 3 eee
Non-STAR Participant $-I-T25G 000-.G8
Sec. 5.14.090 Civil infractions — Kent municipal court.
A. Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Chapter 3.50 RCW, as now enacted or
hereafter amended or recodified, the Kent municipal court shall have
jurisdiction to hear violations of KCC 5.14.080.
E. Filing. A civil infraction may be filed when there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a violation of KCC 5.14.080 has occurred.
C. Rules of procedure. Except as set forth in this chapter and except as
other rules apply, the Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(IRLJ) and all local rules and policies as promulgated by the Kent municipal
court shall govern infraction proceedings and appeals of infractions filed
pursuant to a violation of KCC 5.14.080.
D. Burden of proof. The city shall have the burden of establishing an
instance of criminal conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. The entry
of a certified order of judgment and sentence, or other certified court
document that establishes a conviction or the entry of a deferred
prosecution or sentence, or any certified document maintained by the
court that contains an entry of a finding of guilt, an admission to the
commission of the criminal conduct, and admission to the facts that would
establish the commission of the criminal conduct, or an acknowledgement
that there are sufficient facts to prove the instance of criminal conduct,
shall be sufficient proof of the occurrence of the criminal conduct;
provided, that an absence of such court document(s) shall not prohibit the
city from establishing that an instance of criminal conduct occurred. Police
12 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
reports and other documentary evidence shall be admissible as evidence of
criminal conduct; provided, that such reports are certified pursuant to RCW
9A.72.085.
E. Costs and assessments. Any costs and assessments as required or
permitted by law shall be in addition to any fine or fees owing pursuant to
this chapter.
Sec. 5.14.100 Civil infractions — Reasonable steps to reduce
the likelihood that criminal conduct will reoccur on the property —
Defense. It shall be a defense to an infraction filed pursuant to KCC
5.14.080 that, subsequent to an act of criminal conduct, but prior to the
issuance of a civil infraction, the landlord took reasonable steps to reduce
the likelihood that criminal conduct will reoccur on the property; provided,
this defense shall be available on one occasion and shall not be available
for repeat violations of KCC 5.14.080.
Sec. 5.14.110 Safe tenants and rentals program —
Establishment — Purpose. The city hereby establishes the safe tenants
and rentals program, hereinafter "STAR." The purpose of STAR is to
encourage landlords to establish the foundation for the provision of safe
rental properties to tenants, to avoid the rental of units to those who
engage in criminal conduct, to improve the quality of available rental
housing in the city, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Sec. —5.14.120 Safe tenants and rentals program —
Requirements.
13 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
A. The STAR program shall be voluntary, and fethe issuance of a
business license shall not be conditioned upon a rental property's status as
a STAR participant.
B. As a condition of participating in tThe STAR program, landlords shall
be required to .
� crno Le., e� G. in
x. �inrc �cvci c. xii Order t9 aE ieve STAR Level E status,
the paFtidpant shall:
al. -Utilize a crime-free housing addendum for the lease of each unit of
the rental property as set forth in KCC 5.14.150, which makes criminal
conduct on the property a material breach of a covenant of the lease or
rental agreement, and enforce the terms of the crime-free housing
addendum.
2d. As a condition of any rental agreement, reserve the right to
expel any person not specified on the rental agreement from the rental
property.
3e. Perform a third party background check of any manager or
other onsite employee.
4d. Perform a third party background check of any person who
will be employed by the property owner or landlord and who will work on
the premises, and provide details of the third party background check
procedures to the Kent police department.
5e. Perform a third party background check of any tenants, and
provide details of the third party background check procedures to the Kent
police department.
6€. Maintain the property in accordance with applicable building
codes pursuant to Chapter 14.01 KCC, and free of nuisances, graffiti, litter,
rodents, weeds, and junk vehicles in conformance with Chapters 8.01,
8.04, 8.06, 8.07, and 8.08 KCC as now enacted or hereafter amended.
14 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
7. Ensure compliance with RCW 59.18.060 relating to the
Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, or RCW 59.20.130 relating to the
Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act, as those sections are now
enacted or hereafter amended or recodified.
i. Srnrc t=cvci B. in eFdeF co achieve STAB Level B status, the
paFtidpant shall:
a Fleet a" of the . qUi. _nts of STAR Level_I G status.
WeF'( en the PFepeFty feF n9eFe than twenty (20) heLIFS peF week shall
3 CT4O I .. ei A in FdeF to Ehoeye STAR Level el A status the
paFticipant shall:
a. Meet a" of the qUi. ..._,.a-_ of STAR Levels_I_ B and G.
b. The PFOpeFty ewneF shall obtain fFeng the Kent peliEe
Sec. 5.14.130 Safe tenants and rentals program — Benefits.
STAR certified properties will be provided with the following benefits:
A. An annual certificate signifying the attainment of STAR
statusAdyeFti__w._nt of STAR status on the _ity's • _M_ite
15 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
B. A plaque and,10F etheF sign(s) to display on the Fental PFOpeFty that
displays the PFOpeFty'S STAR status.
GB. The authority of the rental property to utilize its STAR status in any
advertising.
CD. All business license fees as required by tWs-eCh.apter 5.01 KCC shall
be waived.
Sec. 5.14.140 City assistance to landlords.
A. When criminal conduct occurs on rental property, or the occurrence
of criminal conduct on the rental property is suspected by the landlord, the
landlord may request the assistance of the city in taking steps to reduce
the likelihood that criminal conduct will reoccur on the property. The city
shall assist landlords when such a request is made, and such assistance
may include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Providing the landlord with disclosable information relating to
the criminal conduct which has occurred on the property.
2. Having a police officer communicate with the tenant
suspected of engaging in the criminal conduct regarding the ramifications
of continued criminal conduct.
3. Providing advice to the landlord regarding methods of
preventing the reoccurrence of criminal conduct.
4. Providing the landlord with resources available to assist the
landlord in pursuing eviction of the tenant.
B. -A request for the assistance of the city pursuant to this section shall
be considered a "reasonable step to reduce the likelihood that criminal
16 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
conduct will reoccur on the property" under KCC 5.14.020(F)f5}; provided,
the following shall apply:
1. The landlord shall cooperate with the city's assistance and
take reasonable measures to implement the suggested methods of the city
to reduce the reoccurrence of criminal conduct on the property.
2. A request for assistance shall in no way relieve the landlord of
the duty to comply with any section of this chapter.
Sec. 5.14.150 Rental agreement — Crime-free housing
addendum. In order to obtain STAR level status, the landlord shall, as a
condition of any rental agreement, require the tenant to sign a crime-free
housing addendum, which shall make it a material term and covenant of
the lease or rental agreement that the tenant will not engage in criminal
conduct on the property. The crime-free housing addendum shall become a
material part of the rental agreement. In the event the crime-free housing
addendum is violated by the tenant, the landlord shall take all lawful action
to evict the tenant from the rental housing. The crime-free rental housing
addendum shall be in substantially the following form:
Crime-Free Housing Addendum
In consideration of the original execution or continuation of the lease or
rental agreement relating to the below signed Tenant's lease or rental of
the unit, the Tenant hereby agrees to the following material terms,
conditions, and covenants:
1. A Tenant, any member of the Tenant's household, or a guest or
other person affiliated with the Tenant shall not engage in criminal conduct
on the property, including any unit rented or leased or the common areas
of the property. Criminal conduct shall be defined as any act that is defined
by the city of Kent, the state of Washington, or the United States as a
misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony, or a crime. Gang or gang-
17 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
related activity, as those terms are defined by RCW 59.18.030, shall also
be considered criminal conduct.
2. The Landlord or property owner, or his or her designee, shall have
the right and authority to bar or prohibit any person not specified on the
rental agreement from the property, including from the unit, for good
cause. Good cause shall include conduct that is, at the sole discretion of
the Landlord or his or her designee, criminal conduct, disruptive to tenants
of the property or neighboring properties, or destructive to the rental
property or neighboring properties.
3. When a person has been barred or prohibited from the property by
the Landlord or his or her designee, any attempt by the Tenant to license,
allow, invite, fail to exclude, or otherwise permit the person to enter any
portion of the property, including the unit rented by the Tenant or the
common areas of the property, shall be considered a material violation and
breach of the rental agreement or lease, and shall be grounds for
termination of the rental agreement or lease.
4. The Tenant shall comply with the terms and conditions of RCW
59.18.130 (residential tenants) or RCW 59.20.080 (manufactured/mobile
home tenants), which is incorporated herein by this reference.
5. The Tenant shall not park any inoperable vehicle on the rental
property and agrees that the Landlord or his or her designee shall have the
right to remove the inoperable vehicle from the property at the Tenant's
expense.
ANY VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND
IRREPARABLE VIOLATION OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OR LEASE AND
SHALL BE GOOD CAUSE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE TENANT'S
RESIDENCY AND SHALL RESULT IN EVICTION; PROVIDED, IF EVICTION
WOULD, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BE APPROPRIATE AS A
RESULT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT BEING COMMITTED ON THE PROPERTY,
THEN, THE TENANT MAY NOT BE EVICTED IF THE TENANT WAS A VICTIM
18 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
OR DEPENDENT OF THE VICTIM OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT WHICH
OCCURRED ON THE RENTAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT
THIS ADDENDUM SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED CONTRARY TO
THE RIGHTS PROVIDED IN RCW 59.18.580.
By signing below, Tenant agrees that this addendum is a reasonable
obligation or restriction pursuant to RCW 59.18.140, and that Tenant has a
duty to comply with its terms.
In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other
provisions of the rental agreement or lease, the provisions of this
addendum shall govern.
This addendum is hereby incorporated into the rental agreement or lease
executed or renewed either this day or on a prior occasion between the
Landlord and Tenant.
Landlord Tenant
Sec. 5.14.160 Other remedies not waived. The city may use
any means available at law or equity to enforce any provision of this
chapter, and may, in addition to any other available remedy, seek
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, execution of any judgment, or
abatement. The city may, at its discretion, refer any fines owing to a
collection agency for collection. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted
to prohibit the city from enforcing any applicable regulation, ordinance or
statute applicable to rental property or landlords.
SECTION 2. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
19 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 3, — SeverabilitY. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and
effect.
SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2013.
APPROVED: day of 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of 2013.
20 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civi1\0rdinance\5 14 STAR.docx
21 Rental Housing Safety
Amend KCC 5.14
Ordinance
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 6N
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Disorderly Conduct, Ordinance amending KCC 9.01.190 —
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Section 9.01.190 of the Kent
City Code, entitled "Disorderly Conduct."
SUMMARY: Among other things, the City's Disorderly Conduct ordinance prohibits an
individual from intentionally obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic without lawful
authority. However, when a person's actions are "authorized as an exercise of one's
constitutional right to picket or legally protest," the code provides that the acts do not
constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic and are therefore lawful. The
code is silent regarding what type of authorization is required.
This section of the code has presented significant problems for Kent's Police Officers.
It creates a defense to the crime of disorderly conduct without any consideration of
the hazards that the conduct creates. The Police Department has been unable to
enforce this code when protesters and picketers have chosen to intentionally block
entrances to businesses. These circumstances have resulted in unsafe traffic
conditions and unsafe conditions for the protesters and picketers, as impatient drivers
have been required to stop in the middle of the roadway for periods of time resulting
in traffic congestion, and often drive unreasonably close to unyielding protesters.
In cases dealing with the rights of protesters, courts have determined that a city has a
strong interest in ensuring public safety and order, in promoting the free flow of traffic
on public streets and sidewalks, and in protecting the property rights of all its citizens.
Traffic and pedestrian safety is a significant public interest, and appropriately tailored
regulations that ensure public safety, while allowing a person to exercise his or her
constitutional rights, are appropriate and lawful.
The amendments herein will allow the Police Department to better balance the
interests in vehicular and pedestrian safety through the enforcement of the Disorderly
Conduct ordinance, while ensuring that picketers and protesters have the ability to
exercise their rights in a reasonable manner.
The amendments provide that it is unlawful for a picketer or protester to intentionally
block an entrance to public or private property, unless they receive court permission
to do so.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending KCC 9.02.190,
"Disorderly Conduct," to clarify that it is unlawful
to intentionally block entrance to public or private
property without prior court order.
RECITALS
A. The City's Disorderly Conduct ordinance, among other things,
prohibits an individual from intentionally obstructing pedestrian or
vehicular traffic without lawful authority. However, when a person's
actions are "authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to
picket or legally protest," the code provides that the acts do not constitute
obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic and are therefore lawful. The
code is silent regarding what type of "authorization" is required to exercise
a right to picket or protest.
B. This code section has presented significant problems for
Kent's Police Officers. It creates a defense to the crime of disorderly
conduct without any consideration of the hazards that the conduct creates.
The Police Department has been unable to enforce this code when
protesters and picketers have chosen to intentionally block entrances to
businesses. These circumstances have resulted in unsafe traffic conditions
and unsafe conditions for the protesters and picketers, as impatient
1 Disorderly Conduct
Amend KCC 9.02.190
Ordinance
drivers trying to turn into driveway entrances have been required to stop
in the middle of the roadway for periods of time resulting in traffic
congestion, and often drive unreasonably close to unyielding protesters.
C. In cases dealing with the rights of protesters, courts have
determined that a city has a strong interest in ensuring public safety and
order, in promoting the free flow of traffic on public streets and sidewalks,
and in protecting the property rights of all its citizens. Traffic and
pedestrian safety is a significant public interest, and appropriately tailored
regulations that ensure public safety, while allowing a person to exercise
his or her constitutional rights, are appropriate and lawful.
D. These amendments will allow the Police Department to better
balance City's the interest in vehicular and pedestrian safety through the
enforcement of the Disorderly Conduct ordinance, while ensuring that
picketers and protesters have the ability to exercise their rights in a
reasonable manner.
E. The amendments provide that it is unlawful for a picketer or
protester to intentionally block an entrance to public or private property,
unless they receive court permission to do so.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1, — Amendment. Section 9.02.190 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Disorderly Conduct," is amended as follows:
2 Disorderly Conduct
Amend KCC 9.02.190
Ordinance
Sec. 9.02.190. Disorderly conduct.
A. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he or she:
1. Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a
risk of assault;
2. Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of
persons without lawful authority;
3. Intentionally obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic without
lawful authority; or
4. Aggressively begs in a public place.
B. The following definitions shall apply in this section:
1. Aggressively begs means to beg and engage in conduct that
would likely intimidate a reasonable person, including touching, following,
persistently begging after being refused, using violent or threatening
language or gestures, or taking similar actions for the purpose of inducing
another person into giving money or goods.
2. Beg means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether
by words, bodily gestures, signs, or other means.
3. Lawful authority includes but is not limited to oral permission,
or a permit or license when issued by a person or entity with authority to
issue the permission, permit, or license, or a court order or authorization
issued by a court of proper iurisdiction.
34. Obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic means to walk, stand,
sit, lie, grasp a person, or place an object in such a manner as to block
passage by another person or a vehicle, or to require another person or a
driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid physical contact, and
shall also include action which is intended to prohibit or delay vehicular or
pedestrian traffic from entering a public or private place; provided, that an
act which is specifically authorized by a state or federal court with
3 Disorderly Conduct
Amend KCC 9.02.190
Ordinance
jurisdiction, and which has been determined by the court to be a valid..
t thOFized as an exercise of one's Eenstotutmenal right to picket or
legally protest shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular
traffic.
45. Public place means an area generally visible to public view
and includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks,
plazas, sidewalks, and streets open to the general public, including places
that serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and
entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.
C. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.
SECTION 2, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 3, — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and
effect.
SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as
provided by law.
4 Disorderly Conduct
Amend KCC 9.02.190
Ordinance
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 12013.
APPROVED: day of 12013.
PUBLISHED: day of 12013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civi1\0rdinance\9.02.190 Disorderly.docx
5 Disorderly Conduct
Amend KCC 9.02.190
Ordinance
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 60
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Public Disturbance, Ordinance amending KCC 9.02.200 —
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Section 9.02.200 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Public Disturbance," in light of recent case law.
SUMMARY: The city of Kent's existing public disturbance ordinance is codified at Kent
City Code 9.02.200.
In light of a recent appellate court case, it is appropriate to revise the ordinance
slightly to clarify that a public disturbance is created by those sounds that
unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of a reasonable
person. This ordinance makes those revisions. In addition, the ordinance changes the
time in which excessive noise, made by people in the street, becomes unreasonable,
from 11:00 pm to 10:00 pm, to be more consistent with neighboring jurisdictions.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Section
9.02.200 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Public
Disturbance," to make text clarifications in light of
recent case law.
RECITALS
A. The City of Kent's existing public disturbance ordinance is
codified at KCC 9.02.200. This ordinance has not been amended in 11
yea rs.
B. In light of recent case law, the City of Kent believes it is
appropriate to revise its code slightly to clarify that a public disturbance is
created by those sounds that unreasonable disturb or interfere with the
peace, comfort, and repose of a reasonable person. This ordinance makes
those clarifications.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1 KCC 9.02.200
Public Disturbance
Ordinance
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 9.02.200 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Public Disturbance," is amended as follows:
Sec. 9.02.200. Public Disturbance.
A. A person is guilty of public disturbance if he or she:
1. Causes a public ~_.-a-Ee disturbance or is in possession
ardor control of property on which a public nuisanEe disturbance occurs. A
public disturbance includes tThe following sounds that unreasonably
disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of a reasonable
person of ordinary sensitivities~: deteffigined to be rubliE
..........
diSt UFban.es:
cam.
a. The frequent, repetitive, or continuous sounding of any
horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except when used as a warning
of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law.
b. The creation of frequent, repetitive, or continuous
sounds in connection with the starting, operatiennn , repairing, rebuilding,
or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle, or
internal combustion engine within a residential district,, so as to
..f Fe-.I .. ..~t..
C. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, or singing on or
near the public streets, paFtiEUlaFly between the hours of 1-10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m., OF at any tinge and plaEe so as to unFeasenably diStUFb 0
2 KCC 9.02.200
Public Disturbance
Ordinance
Feal PF0peFtY--
d. The creation of frequent, repetitive, or continuous
sounds which emanate from any building, structure, apartment,
condominium, or yard adjacent thereto
, that unFeasenably inteFfeFe wit*
such as sounds from musical instruments, audio sound systems, band
sessions, or social gatherings.
e. The creating of frequent, repetitive, or continuous
sounds made by any animal, such as barking or howling, except that such
sounds made in animal shelters, commercial kennels, veterinary hospitals,
pet shops, or pet kennels licensed under and in compliance with Chapter
8.03 KCC shall be exempt from this provision.
f. Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape
players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to
be audible greater than fifty (50) feet from the source, and if not operated
upon the real property of the operator. This provision shall not apply to
such sounds emitted from scheduled events or activities at parks and
recreational facilities such as public address systems for park or game
events or concerts or similar park or recreation activities.
g. The creation of frequent, repetitive, or continuous
sounds made in connection with outdoor construction or the movement of
construction related materials, including noise made by devices capable of
producing sound by either striking or cutting objects, such as hammers,
saws, or other equipment with internal combustion engines; provided,
3 KCC 9.02.200
Public Disturbance
Ordinance
however, such sounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this code
under the following circumstances:
i. During the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 8:00
p.m., Monday through Sunday; or
ii. In commercial areas not adjacent to residential
areas.
B. The foregoing enumeration of acts and noises shall not be construed
as excluding other acts and noises which offend the public peace.
C. Public disturbance is a misdemeanor.
SECTION 2, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 3, — SeverabilitY. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and
effect.
SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days after its passage and publication, as provided
by law.
4 KCC 9.02.200
Public Disturbance
Ordinance
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 12013.
APPROVED: day of 12013.
PUBLISHED: day of 12013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
S:\PUBLIC\POLICE\Public Safety Committee\February 2013\Public Disturbance 9.02.200 Ordinance.Docx
5 KCC 9.02.200
Public Disturbance
Ordinance
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6P
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Inattentive Driving, Ordinance amending KCC 9.36.020 -
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. amending Section 9.36.020 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Inattentive Driving," that permits citing violations occurring in areas
open to the public, but which are privately maintained in addition to increasing the
penalty making it more consistent with penalties in neighboring jurisdictions.
SUMMARY: Currently, section 9.36.020 of the Kent City Code limits citation of the
infraction of Inattentive Driving only to offenses that occur on public highways.
For poor driving that occurs in or upon areas open to the public, but which are
privately maintained, e.g. parking lots or alleys, the Kent Police Department cannot
cite for this infraction although the facts may fit within the definition of"inattentive
driving."
While officers may cite a person with Negligent Driving 2nd degree for poor driving that
occurs in or upon areas open to the public but which are privately maintained, the
driving often does not rise to the level of negligence.
These amendments will permit the Kent Police Department to cite for Inattentive
Driving for those violators falling within the definition provided in the code when the
driving occurs in or upon areas open to the public, but which are privately maintained.
The penalty is also increased from $100 to $150, plus costs and assessments to be
more consistent with the penalties in neighboring jurisdictions.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Section
9.36.020, entitled, "Inattentive Driving," allowing
the City to enforce the Section when a violation
occurs on private property open to the public, and
increasing the penalty.
RECITALS
A. Currently, section 9.36.020 of the Kent City Code limits
citation of the infraction of Inattentive Driving only to offenses that occur
on public highways.
B. For poor driving that occurs in or upon areas open to the
public, but which are privately maintained, e.g. parking lots or alleys, the
Kent Police Department cannot cite for this infraction although the facts
may fit within the definition of"inattentive driving."
C. While officers may cite a person with Negligent Driving in the
Second Degree for poor driving that occurs in or upon areas open to the
public but which are privately maintained, the driving often does not rise
to the level of negligence.
1 Amend KCC 9.36.020 —
Inattentive Driving
Ordinance
D. These amendments to the code will permit the Kent Police
Department to cite for Inattentive Driving for those violations falling within
the definition provided in the code when the driving occurs in or upon
areas open to the public, but which are privately maintained.
E. The penalty is also increased from $100 to $150, plus costs
and assessments to be more consistent with the penalties in neighboring
jurisdictions.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 9.36.020 is amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 9.36.020. Inattentive driving.
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in an
inattentive manner upon any highway within the City, or way open to the
public within the City that is maintained primarily for public use and is
adiacent to any highway.eveF the highways of the Eity.
B. For the purpose of this section, "inattentive" means the operation of
a vehicle in a lax or slack mannerupon the publiE highways of the Eity On a
C. For the purposes of this section, the term "highway" is defined as
set forth in RCW 46.04.197 and the term "way open to the public" is
2 Amend KCC 9.36.020 -
Inattentive Driving
Ordinance
defined as set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 200-200-
0158 .
GD. The offense of operating a vehicle in an inattentive manner shall be
considered to be a lesser offense than, but included in the offense of,
Negligent maerDriving in the Second Degree.
DE. A violation of this section shall be a traffic infraction punishable by a
monetary penalty of one hundred fifth, dollars ($3$8150), plus all
mandatory state costs, fees, and assessments.
SECTION 3, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4, — SeverabilitY. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and
effect.
SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
3 Amend KCC 9.36.020 —
Inattentive Driving
Ordinance
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 12013.
APPROVED: day of 12013.
PUBLISHED: day of 12013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Ordinance\Inattentive Driving 9 36.Docx
4 Amend KCC 9.36.020 —
Inattentive Driving
Ordinance
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar -60
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Countywide Planning Policies, Ratification - Resolution - Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. ratifying the King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs) approved under Growth Management Planning Council
(GMPC) Motions No. 11-1 and 12-1 through 12-5 adopting a comprehensive update
of the CPPs, policies related to school siting and housing, and amendments to
potential annexation areas and the Urban Growth Area.
SUMMARY: The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent to
conduct planning under the requirements of the State Growth Management Act,
ensuring that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. On December 12,
2012 the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified a comprehensive
update of the CPPs that had been approved by the GMPC. Also approved were
amendments to potential annexation areas of Seattle and Black Diamond, and
additional amendments to the Urban Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area Map.
The amendments represent the first major update of the CPPs since they were first
adopted in 1992. They 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.
Generally, the CPPs establish environmental sustainability as a foundational principle;
promote economic growth and job creation; integrate public health with land use;
foster social equity and environmental justice; focus on a centers-based approach to
growth while protecting rural and resource lands; support jurisdiction-appropriate
strategies for housing affordability; provide for monitoring and benchmarking; and
promote countywide collaboration.
EXHIBITS: Resolution; ECDC packet for 2/11/13 meeting, consisting of staff memo
dated 2/6/13, Letter dated 12/22/12 from Metropolitan King County Council,
Ordinances 17486 and 17487, two (2) King County staff reports dated 11/26/12 and
associated maps
RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the King County
Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the
Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to
the Growth Management Act.
RECITALS
A. 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 December 3, 2012, the Metropolitan King County
Council approved and ratified a comprehensive amendment to the CPPs
approved by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). The
County Council also approved amendments to policies related to school
siting and housing, as well as amendments to potential annexation areas of
Seattle and Black Diamond, and additional amendments to the Urban
Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area Map. Now the amendments
are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification.
B. On December 3, 2012, the following GMPC motions to amend
the CPPs were approved and ratified by the full County Council:
Countywide Planning
Resolution
1. GMPC Motion No. 11-1: Approves the 2011 King
County Countywide Planning Policies representing the first comprehensive
update of the CPPs since they were originally adopted in 1992.
2. GMPC Motion No. 12-1: Adds lands on the west bank of
the Duwamish River to the city of Seattle Potential Annexation Area.
3. GMPC Motion No. 12-2: Implements the
recommendations of the school siting task force by adding new policies and
the Report of the School Siting Task Force as Appendix 5 to the CPPs.
4. GMPC Motion No. 12-3: Adds a new housing chapter
and revised housing appendix to the CPPs.
5. GMPC Motion No. 12-4: Adds land on the west side of
216th Ave SE to the city of Black Diamond Potential Annexation Area.
6. GMPC Motion No. 12-5: Amends the Urban Growth
Area of King County and modifies the Potential Annexation Area Map in the
CPPs. The amendments are supported by the affected cities.
C. The King County Council approved and ratified these
amendments on behalf of King County pursuant to King County Ordinance
Nos. 17486 and 17487_ The Kent Economic & Community Development
Committee reviewed these amendments at its meeting on February 11,
2013.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendments to
the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King
County Council in King County Ordinance Nos. 17486 and 17487, attached
and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
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 section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION S. — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this _ day of 2013.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2013.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRU BAKE R, CITY ATTORNEY
P:\Civil\I solution\Cou ntywidepla n ni ng pol iciesmtify.2013.Docx
5
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KENT Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
February 6, 2013
TO: Chair Jamie Perry and Economic & Community Development Committee
Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: Countywide Planning Policies
King County Council Ordinances No. 17486 and 17487
For the Meeting of February 11, 2013
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend to the full Council
ratification of the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
approved under Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motions
No. 11-1 and 12-1 through 12-5 adopting a comprehensive update of the
CPPs, policies related to school siting and housing, and amendments to
potential annexation areas and the Urban Growth Area.
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 December 3,
2012, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified a comprehensive
update of the CPPs that had been approved by the Growth Management Planning
Council (GMPC). The Council also approved amendments to policies related to
school siting and housing, as well as amendments to potential annexation areas of
Seattle and Black Diamond, and additional amendments to the Urban Growth Area
and Potential Annexation Area Map. Now the amendments are 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
6
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 March 4, 2013.
The following GMPC motions to amend the CPPs were approved and ratified by the
full County Council on December 3, 2012. Motions 11-1, 12-1 through 12-4 are
incorporated into the 54-page Countywide Planning Policies provided in the packet
for Ordinance 17486 and will not be provided as distinct documents. Motion 12-5 is
included in the packet for Ordinance 17487.
GMPC Motion No. 11-1: Approves the 2011 King County Countywide Planning
Policies representing the first comprehensive update of the CPPs since they were
originally adopted in 1992.
GMPC Motion No. 12-1: Adds land on the west bank of the Duwamish River to the
city of Seattle Potential Annexation Area.
GMPC Motion No. 12-2: Implements the recommendations of the school siting task
force by adding new policies and the Report of the School Siting Task Force as
Appendix 5 to the CPPs.
GMPC Motion No. 12-3: Adds a new housing chapter and revised housing appendix
to the CPPs.
GMPC Motion No. 12-4: Adds land on the west side of 216th Ave SE to the city of
Black Diamond Potential Annexation Area.
GMPC Motion No. 12-5: Amends the Urban Growth Area of King County and
modifies the Potential Annexation Area Map in the CPPs. The amendments are
supported by the affected cities.
The Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with the briefing to the Economic &
Community Development Committee on June 11, 2012. Generally, they establish
environmental sustainability as a foundational principle; promote economic growth
and job creation; integrate public health with land use; foster social equity and
environmental justice; focus on a centers-based approach to growth while
protecting rural and resource lands; support jurisdiction-appropriate strategies for
housing affordability; provide for monitoring and benchmarking; and promote
countywide collaboration.
Staff will be available at the February 11th meeting to further discuss these
amendments.
CA\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\COM P_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2013\Countywide_Planning_Policies\CPP_Update_ECDC_2-11-13.doc
Enc: 12/22/12 letter from Metropolitan King County Council, Ordinances 17486 and 17487,Two(2) King County staff reports
dated 11/26/12 and associated maps
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic&Community Development Director
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
Project File"Misc."
7
A
9
King County
December 22, 2012
E
J, CEIVED
The Honorable Suzette Cooke
City of Kent JAN 0 12092'
220-4th Avenue South (;i'1-y OF g.-,E -1
Kent, WA 98032-5895 _"?
Dear Mayor Cooke:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP).
On December 3, 2012, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and
ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. The two
ordinances will become effective December 23, 2012. Copies of the King County
Council staff reports, ordinances and Growth Management Planning Council
motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
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 CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of
li adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for this amendment is
Monday, March 4, 2013.
If you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Monday, March 4, 2013, to Anne Noris, Clerk
of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98104.
i
8
If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Paul Reitenbach, Project/Program Manager IV, King County Department
of Permitting and Environmental Review, at 206-477-0345, or Rick Bautista,
Metropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206-296-0329.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
JA7
Larry Gossett, Chair Dow Constantine
Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: King County City Planning Directors
Suburban Cities Association
John Starbard, Director, Department of Permitting and Environment Review.
(DPER)
Paul Reitenbach, Project/Program Manager IV, DPER
Rick Bautista, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
9
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
wM 516 Third Avenue
LU Seattle,WA 98104
Signature Report
King County
December 4, 2012
Ordinance 17486
Proposed No. 2012-0282.3 Sponsors Phillips
1 AN ORDINANCE relating to adoption and ratification of
2 the King County Countywide Planning Policies; adding a
3 new section to K.C.C. chapter 20.10, decodifying K.C.C.
4 20.10.010, K.C.C. 20.10.020, K.C.C. 20.10.030, K.C.C.
5 20.10.040, K.C.C. 20.10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.065, K.C.C.
6 20.10.075 and K.C.C. 20.10.076 and repealing Ordinance
7 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060.
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS:
9 1. The Countywide Planning Policies ("CPPs") are adopted in accordance
10 with the state Growth Management Act, under 36.70A.210 RCW.
11 2. The Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC") was formed in
12 1992 to guide the development of the CPPs. The GMPC is a
13 representative body of elected officials from King County, the city of
14 Seattle, the city of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities Association.
15 Representatives of the special districts serve as ex officio members.
16 3. The CPPs establish a framework for guiding development in all King
17 County jurisdictions.
1
10
Ordinance 17486
18 4. The CPPs are deemed adopted when ratified by King County and the
19 requisite number of cities and satisfying the required population
20 percentage.
21 5. The GMPC recommends CPP amendments to the King County council
22 for consideration, possible revision and ratification.
23 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
24 SECTION L Findings:
25 A. On September 21, 2011, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted
26 Motion 11-1 approving the 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
27 B. On March 31, 2012, the school siting task force issued a final report.
28 C. On April 4, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
29 12-1 adding land on the west bank of the Duwamish river to the city of Seattle Potential
30 Annexation Area.
31 D. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
32 12-2 implementing the recommendations of the school siting task force by adding new
33 policies and the Report of the School Siting Task Force as Appendix 5 to the Countywide
34 Planning Policies.
35 E. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
36 12-3 adding a new housing chapter and revised housing appendix to the Countywide
37 Planning Policies.
38 F. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
39 12-4 adding land on the west side of 216th Ave SE to the city of Black Diamond
40 Potential Annexation Area.
2
11
Ordinance 17486
41 G. Attachment A to this ordinance incorporates Motions 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, 12-3
42 and 12-4 into the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
43 SECTION 2. The amendments to the King County Countywide Planning
44 Policies, and renamed the 2012 King County Planning Policies, as shown in Attachment
45 A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted and ratified on behalf of the population of
46 unincorporated King County.
47 NEW SECTION. SECTION 3. There is hereby added to K.C.C. chapter 20.10 a
48 new section to read as follows:
49 A. After the Growth Management Planning Council approves or amends the
50 Countywide Planning Policies,the executive, as its chair, shall timely transmit to the
51 King County council an ordinance adopting the Countywide Planning Policies or
52 amendments thereto.
53 B. The King County council shall refer the proposed ordinance transmitted by the
54 executive under subsection A. of this section to the committee on transportation,
55 economy and environment or its successor for review and consideration. If the King
56 County council recommends substantive revisions to the Countywide Planning Policies
57 or amendments approved by the Growth Management Planning Council, the King County
58 council may refer the proposed revisions to the Growth Management Planning Council
59 for its consideration and response.
60 C. Within ten days after the ordinance transmitted by the executive under
61 subsection A. of this section, as amended by the council, is effective, the clerk of the
62 King County council shall send the notice of enactment and the Countywide Planning
63 Policies and amendments to each city and town in King County for ratification as
3
12
Ordinance 17486
64 provided for in the Countywide Planning Policies. Each city and town must take action
65 to ratify or reject the proposed Countywide Planning Policies or amendments as approved
66 by the King County council within ninety days after the date the ordinance approving the
67 Countywide Planning Policies or amendments was enacted. Failure of a city or town to
68 take action and notify the clerk of the King County council within ninety days shall be
69 deemed to be approval by that city or town. The notice shall include the date by which
70 each city or town must respond with its response to ratify or reject the proposed
71 Countywide Planning Policies or amendments and where the response should be directed.
72 D. Countywide Planning Policies or amendments are ratified if approved by the
73 county, cities and towns representing at least seventy percent of the county's population
74 and thirty percent of the jurisdictions. For ratification purposes, King County is the
75 jurisdiction representing the population in the unincorporated areas of the county.
76 E. Within ten days after the date for response established by the clerk of the King
77 County council under subsection C. of this section, the clerk of the King County council
78 shall notify the executive, as chair of the Growth Management Planning Council, of the
79 decision to ratify or not to ratify the Countywide Planning Policies or amendments.
80 SECTION 4. K.C.C. 20.10.010, K.C.C. 20.10.020, K.C.C. 20.10.030, K.C.C.
81 20.10.040, K.C.C. 20.10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.065, K.C.C. 20.10.075 and K.C.C. 20.10.076
82 are each hereby decodified.
4
13
Ordinance 17486
83 SECTION 5. Ordinance 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060 are
84 each hereby repealed.
85
Ordinance 17486 was introduced on 8/20/2012 and passed as amended by the
Metropolitan King County Council on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
Yes: 9 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dunn and Mr.
McDermott
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
e7f
/LarryGossett,Chair
ATTEST: �¢
.1
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day of C�M1a� 2012.
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: A. 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies, dated December 3, 2012
5
14
174B6
ATTACHMENT A
2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies
... .......
November, 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
15
-1W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
CONTENTS............................................................... ...................................................................................................2
VISION2040 STATEMENT........................................................... ...............................................................................4
VISION & FRAMEWORK............................................................................................... ......................._............._.....5
Visionfor King County 2030........................................................................................_.................._...................�... s
Framework........ ......................................... .......... .. .. .. .. .. . . .. ................7
FrameworkPolicies........................................................................................................._..............____............9
ENVIRONMENTT........................................................................................................................................................I 1
EnvironmentalSustainability............................................................................................................................... .....I I
Earthand Habitat.......................................................................................................................................................12
FloodHazards........................,.......,.,.................................................,...................................................................13
WaterResources...................................................................................................... ........................................,13
Air Quality and Climate Change.............................................................................................. .............,____.........14
DEVELOPMENTPATTERNS...................................................................................................................................16
UrbanGrowth Area.....................___........................................................ ........................ .. ....,.....,.......................16
UrbanLands.............. ..........................................................................._.......,..................................... 17
GrowthTargets..........................................____............................................................................._....,._...._....18
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area............................................................................................................21.
Review and Evaluation Program...........................................................................................................................22
Joint Planning and Annexation.............. ..._..,...,....,....,..,.................................___.___.................................. ..23
Centers............. ..........._.............................,....,................................,........................................................................24
UrbanCenters................................................................................................................................. ...............24
Manufacturing/industrial Centers......................................................................................... ...,........................,.,..25
LocalCenters............................................................................................____.................................................26
Urban Design and Historic Preservation ..................................................................................................................27
Rural Area and Resource Lands...................................................................................................................................27
RuralArea.................... ...............................___......................,........................,.............................................28
Resource Lands—.. ......... .... ... .. .. .. .. .. ..... . ..... ..... ..... ......,..........29
HOUSING...................................................................................................................................................................31
Housing Inventory and Needs Analysis....................................................................................................................32
Strategies to Meet Housing Needs.....................................................................,.,............. ....................................32
RegionalCooperation.................... .... ............................................... ................_............,,.34
MeasuringResults..................................................._,.,..........,..,......,..,......................,........_...................................34 W
ECONOMY....................................................................................................................................................................36 Z,
BusinessDevelopment................................................................................................................................................37
People........................._.............................................................,..................................................................,..........
.,..33
Places........... .. ................. .... .. .. .. .. ... . .... . ......... ......... . .._...........3 8
U
2
16
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................................40
Supporting Growth—, .................................. ................40
Mobility,._.......................................... 42
SystemOperations.........................................................._....................................,..........................., 43
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.,............. .. ............... ... . ...... ......... .....----45
Urbanand Rural Levels of Service......................................................................... ................................�..................45
Collaboration Among Jurisdictions...................................................................................._.....................................45
Utilities.........................._..........................................................................................__.....................„..................,,...46
WaterSupply.................----. .. .. ..... .. .. .. . .. .. ... . . .... .. . .. ............ .46
SewageTreatment and Disposal........................................................................................................................_47
SolidWaste......................................................................................................................................... ..................47
Energy..................................................................................................................................................................48
Teleconmuni cations....................................................................................................................................................48
Humanand Community Services......----..........................................................._...____......,. ..,......................48
SitingPublic Capital Facilities .........................................................................................,.....,..............................49
APPENDIXI: LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS MAP......._... ............... . .................. ..... ....._ _.........51
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS.,.............. ... ...... ............... .. . ................ .........52
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX ........................................................................._........._.,........55
APPENDIX 5: ICING COUNTY SCHOOL SITING TASK FORCE REPORT........................................................-59
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................61
rn
F
z
w
N
z
0
U
v
U
3
17
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
VISION 2040 STATEMENT
The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies were prepared to address changes to the
Growth Management Act, take into account the passage of 20 years since their initial adoption,
and to specifically reflect the regional direction established in VISION 2040.
Vision 2040 is the product of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), an association of cities,
towns, counties, ports, tribes, and state agencies that serves as a forum for developing policies
and making decisions about regional growth management, environmental, economic, and
transportation issues in the four-county central Puget Sound region of Washington state (King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties). Vision 2040's Regional Growth Strategy outlines how
the four-county Puget Sound region should plan for additional population and employment
growth.
As made clear in the Regional Growth Strategy, all jurisdictions in King County have a role in
accommodating growth, using sustainable and environmentally responsible development
practices. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies support this strategy and
provide direction at the county and jurisdiction level with appropriate specificity and detail
needed to guide consistent and useable local comprehensive plans and regulations.
While VISION 2040 is consistent with the overall growth management strategy of the 1992 King
County Countywide Planning Policies, restructuring the Countywide Planning Policies—into the
six chapters of Environment, Development Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and
Public Facilities and Services—was done to match the structure of VISION 2040.
E~
z
w
a�
F
v?
0
0
N
z
0
;r
L
4
18
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
VISION & FRAMEWORK
Vision for King County 2030
It is the year 2030 and our county has changed significantly in the roughly 40 years that have
elapsed since the first Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992. In many ways this is
a result of the successful public-private partnership that has supported a diversified,
sustainable regional economy and has managed and accommodated growth while maintaining
the quality of life and the natural environment throughout King County.
King County in 2030 is characterized by:
• Protected Critical Areas. Effective stewardship of the environment has preserved
and protected the critical areas in the County, including wetlands,aquifer recharge
areas, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.
These critical areas continue to provide beneficial functions and values for
reducing flooding, protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity, and
enriching our quality of life for future generations as the as the region's
population continues to grow.
• Viable Rural Area. The Rural Area, established in 1992, is permanently protected
with a clear boundary between Rural and Urban Areas.
The successful protection of these lands is due in large part to continued
innovation within the Urban Growth Area to create new ways to use land
efficiently and sustainably. In this way, there is minimal pressure to convert rural
lands. The Rural Area is a viable option for those seeking a lifestyle contrast to
the Urban Growth Area. The pressure to urbanize the Rural Area has also been
lessened by market pressures to use the land for agriculture.
• Bountiful Agricultural Areas and Productive Forest Lands.
More people are farming and a greater number of residents are benefiting from
King County agricultural products, which can be purchased through a network of w
farmers markets and farm stands throughout the county. Since 2010, the
increase in productive farming in the Agricultural Production District and in the
Rural Area has accelerated as more residents seek locally grown food. Thriving
markets now exist throughout the county for these products. The forests of the
z
Pacific Northwest remain as some of the most productive in the world with large
scale commercial forestry prevalent in the eastern half of the county.
• Vibrant,diverse and compact urban communities. II
Within the Urban Growth Area little undeveloped land now exists and urban
infrastructure has been extended to fully serve the entire Urban Growth Area.
5
19
e King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Development activity is focused on redevelopment to create vibrant
neighborhoods where residents can walk, bicycle or use public transit for most of
their needs. Improvements to the infrastructure now focus on maintaining
existing capacity as opposed to extending the infrastructure into previously
unserved areas. Because of the innovations developed in public and private
partnerships, there is still ample capacity to accommodate the planned
population and employment growth targets within the Urban Growth Area.
Much of the growth in employment and new housing occurs in the Urban Centers. These
centers successfully provide a mixture of living, working, cultural, and recreational activities for
all members of the community. All the centers are linked together by a high-capacity transit
system, including light rail and high capacity bus transit. Transit stations and hubs are within
walking distance to all parts of the center and the high capacity transit system facilitates people
moving easily from one center to another. Within the collection of Urban Centers there is
balance between jobs and housing. Each center has developed its own successful urban
character and all are noted for their livability, vibrancy, healthy environment, design, and
pedestrian focus.
Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the Urban Growth Area to
provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. Most residents are within walking
distance of commercial areas, fostering a healthy community through physical exercise and a
sense of neighborhood. Local transit systems provide convenient connections to the Urban
Centers and elsewhere within the Urban Growth Area,
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers continue to thrive and function as important hubs of the
regional economy. These areas too are well served by transportation systems that emphasize
the efficient movement of people, goods and information to and within Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers as well as connecting to other regions.
The entire Urban Growth Area is characterized by superior urban design with an open space
network that defines and separates, yet links, the various jurisdictions and central places.
Countywide and regional facilities have been equitably dispersed—located where needed, sited
unobtrusively—and have provided appropriate incentives and amenities to the surrounding p
neighborhoods. w
Rural Cities have created unique urban environments within the Rural Area and provide
commercial services and employment opportunities for their residents. These include retail, u
business, educational and social services for residents both of cities and the surrounding Rural
Area while protecting and supporting the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands. O
Federal, state and regional funds have been used to further this land use plan and to fund >
needed regional facilities while local resources focus on funding local and neighborhood
facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional
plan can succeed and all can benefit.
6
20
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
The economy is vibrant, vital, and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of goods
and information produced and the services provided. Regional cooperation has focused on
economic development activities that have retained and expanded key industries such as
aerospace, software, and biotechnology while using the resources of the region to attract new
business clusters such as in renewable energy. Businesses continue to locate in our county
because of the high quality of life; the preservation of the natural environment; the emphasis
on providing a superior education; the predictability brought about by the management of
growth and the effectiveness of public-private partnerships supporting these attributes.
Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county and with the
balanced transportation system access to employment is convenient and reliable. Innovation in
the development of a diverse range of housing types has been fundamental in accommodating
population growth. The diversity of housing types has allowed residents to stay within their
community as their housing needs change.
King County communities are extraordinarily diverse culturally and this has been embraced and
celebrated by the residents of King County. The needs of residents are attended to by a social
service system that emphasizes prevention but stands ready to respond to direct needs as well.
There is a sense of social equity within our communities and all share equitably in the
distribution of and access to parks, open space, and vibrant neighborhood centers.
The Urban Growth Area is completely located within cities, which are the primary providers of
urban services. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortia have been created for certain
services, and King County government is recognized as a significant provider of regional services
as well as the coordinator of local services to the Rural Area and Resource Lands.
Residents and businesses have recognized that, over time, through clear and reasonable
timelines and financing commitments, issues will be addressed. Residents and businesses trust
in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth starting in
1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the
locally adopted and embraced growth management plans.
O
3
w
Framework
a
The year 1991 was one of tremendous change for the management of growth in King County
and this environment of change gave rise to the distinctive character of the 1992 Countywide Z
Planning Policies. While the Countywide Planning Policies have been amended periodically to O
address specific issues or revisions required by the Growth Management Act, the first thorough
update of the Countywide Planning Policies was completed in 2012 to ensure that the
Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with VISION 2040, the Growth Management Act y
and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. In addition for
the 2012 update, the Growth Management Planning Council directed that the revised policies U
7
21
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
include countywide direction on three new policy areas: climate change, healthy communities
and social equity. Understanding the history of the 1992 policies is important in order to
establish the context for the revised policies.
In 1991 five major conditions gave rise to the first Countywide Planning Policies and the process
used in their development and adoption:
1, In 1985,the King County Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan that for the
first time established a clear boundary between Urban and Rural Areas and set
forth standards to delineate a clear development character for each.
2. In 1991,the adoption of the Growth Management Act transformed the way
that local jurisdictions looked at land use planning as well as how they
interacted with neighboring jurisdictions.
A fundamental requirement of the Growth Management Act was
coordination between a shared countywide vision on how growth would be
planned for and accommodated and how this would be implemented by local
jurisdictions. In 1991, the Growth Management Act was amended to include
the requirement that Countywide Planning Policies be adopted to describe
this vision and how these relationships would be created. These provisions
gave rise to the creation of the Growth Management Planning Council—an
advisory group of elected officials from jurisdictions throughout the county
charged with overseeing the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies.
Since the Growth Management Act was new and many jurisdictions had not
created a comprehensive plan before, the Countywide Planning Policies
became a guide for jurisdictions to follow in complying with the Growth
Management Act in areas as diverse as critical area regulation to local growth
targets.
3. In 1991,the Puget Sound Council of Governments was dissolved and replaced
with the Puget Sound Regional Council that initially had significantly reduced
responsibilities for regional land use planning and coordination.
Without an effective regional body for land use planning, it was necessary for
the Puget Sound counties to identify their own process and organization for W
developing the Countywide Planning Policies. In the case of King County, this
was the Growth Management Planning Council. Subsequently, as its
responsibilities were expanded over time, the Puget Sound Regional Council w
developed VISION 2040, the multi-county vision and planning policies that set Z
the structure for these revised Countywide Planning Policies. O
cn
4. By 1991, the Suburban Cities Association had changed from a loose coalition of >
cities outside of Seattle to a formal organization with the ability to represent
constituent jurisdictions in regional forums.
U
8
22
�'W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
5„ Prior to the development of the Countywide Planning Policies, King County and
METRO attempted and failed to win electoral support for merger.
This defeat left jurisdictions with concerns about the relationship between
city and county governments, and further confusion about the roles of
governments in the Urban Growth Area.
Because of these conditions and the environment they fostered, jurisdictions in King County
decided to go further than just meeting the specific statutory requirements for such policies.
The 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies provided direction for many issues related
to growth management and established a policy structure for subsequent issue resolution.
Since their adoption, many of the initial Countywide Planning Policies have been codified into
local regulations or carried out in regional or statewide arenas and no longer need to be
included in them.Through amendments to the King County Charter and interlocal agreements,
the relationship between county and city governments has been clearly defined and
annexations and incorporations have brought most of the unincorporated urban area into the
cities.
Other key actions that were required by the 1992 Countywide Planning Policies along with their
current status are described below:
• Complete a fiscal and environmental review of the 1992 Countywide Planning
Policies—completed and adopted in 1994;
• Establish housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction —completed in 1994
and periodically updated pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies;
• Adopt local comprehensive plans pursuant to the Growth Management Act and
Countywide Planning Policies—each jurisdiction within King County has an adopted
plan that is periodically updated;
• Develop land use capacity and urban density evaluation program—developed and
then superseded by the King County Buildable Lands Program as required by the
Growth Management Act;
• Develop a growth management monitoring program —King County Benchmarks
program established in 1994 and annually updated as described in policy G-2; and
• Evaluate the need to change the Urban Growth Boundary and work to maintain a �
permanent Rural Area —established in 1994 and periodically reviewed as described
in the Development Patterns chapter.
w
z
General Policies
Unless otherwise noted, the Countywide Planning Policies apply to the Growth Management
Planning Council, King County, and all of the cities within King County.
x
U
9
23
W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments. While much has been accomplished, the Countywide Planning Policies were
never intended to be static and will require amendment over time to reflect changed
conditions. While the formal policy development is done by the Growth Management Planning
Council, ideas for new policies begin in a variety of areas including individual jurisdictions. Policy
G-1 below describes the process for amending the Countywide Planning Policies:
G--1 Maintain the currency of the Countywide Planning Policies through periodic review and
amendment. Initiate and review all amendments at the Growth Management Planning Council
through the process described below:
a) Only the Growth Management Planning Council may propose amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies except for amendments to the Urban Growth Area
that may also be proposed by King County in accordance with policies DP-15 and DP-
16;
b) Growth Management Planning Council recommends amendments to the King
County Council for consideration, possible revision, and approval; proposed
revisions by the King County Council that are of a substantive nature may be sent to
the Growth Management Planning Council for their consideration and revised
recommendation based on the proposed revision;
c) A majority vote of the King County Council both constitutes approval of the
amendments and ratification on behalf of the residents of Unincorporated King
County.;
d) After approval and ratification by the King County Council, amendments are
forwarded to each city and town for ratification. Amendments cannot be modified
during the city ratification process; and
e) Amendments must be ratified within 90 days of King County approval and require
affirmation by the county and cities and towns representing at least 70 percent of
the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions. Ratification is either by
an affirmative vote of the city's or town's council or by no action being taken within
the ratification period.
Monitoring. Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is key
to continuing their value to the region and local jurisdictions. In 1994 King County and cities
'a
established the current Benchmarks program to monitor and evaluate key regional indicators. w
G-2 Monitor and benchmark the progress of the Countywide Planning Policies towards
achieving the Regional Growth Strategy inclusive of the environment, development patterns,
housing, the economy, transportation and the provision of public services. Identify corrective
actions to be taken if progress toward benchmarks is not being achieved.
Investment. Key to ensuring the success of the Countywide Planning Policies is investment in
regional infrastructure and programs. Balancing the use of limited available funds between
regional and local needs is extremely complex. v
1
Q
24
4W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
G-3 Work collaboratively to identify and seek regional, state, and federal funding sources to
invest in infrastructure, strategies, and programs to enable the full implementation of the
Countywide Planning Policies. Balance needed regional investments with local needs when
making funding determinations.
Consistency. The Countywide Planning Policies provide a common framework for local planning
and each jurisdiction is required to update its comprehensive plans to be consistent with the
Countywide Planning Policies. The full body of the Countywide Planning Policies is to be
considered for decision-making.
G-4 Adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as
required by the Growth Management Act.
ENVIRONMENT
Overarching Goal: The quality of the natural environment in King County is restored and
protected for future generations.
Environmental Sustainability
Local governments have a key role in shaping sustainable communities by integrating
sustainable development and business practices with ecological, social, and economic concerns,
Local governments also play a pivotal role in ensuring environmental justice by addressing
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations and by pursuing fairness in the
application of policies and regulations.
EN-1 Incorporate environmental protection and restoration efforts into local comprehensive
plans to ensure that the quality of the natural environment and its contributions to human
health and vitality are sustained now and for future generations.
EN-2 Encourage low impact development approaches for managing stormwater, protecting Z
water quality, minimizing flooding and erosion, protecting habitat, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
EN-3 Encourage the transition to a sustainable energy future by reducing demand through j
planning for efficiency and conservation and by meeting reduced needs from sustainable w
sources.
a
EN-4 Identify and preserve regionally significant open space networks in both Urban and U
Rural Areas. Develop strategies and funding to protect lands that provide the following valuable
functions:
1
1
25
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
• Physical or visual separation delineating growth boundaries or providing buffers
between incompatible uses;
• Active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities;
• Wildlife habitat and migration corridors that preserve and enhance ecosystem
resiliency in the face of urbanization and climate change;
• Preservation of ecologically sensitive, scenic or cultural resources;
• Urban green space, habitats, and ecosystems;
• Forest resources; and
• Food production potential.
EN-5 Identify and mitigate unavoidable negative impacts of public actions that
disproportionately affect people of color and low-income populations.
Earth and Habitat
Healthy ecosystems and environments are vital to the sustainability of all plant and animal life,
including humans. Protection of biodiversity in all its forms and across all landscapes is critical
to continued prosperity and high quality of life in King County. The value of biodiversity to
sustaining long-term productivity and both economic and ecological benefits is evident in
fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. For ecosystems to be healthy and provide healthful benefits
to people, local governments must prevent negative human impacts and work to ensure that
this ecosystem remain diverse and productive over time. With the impending effects of climate
change, maintaining biodiversity becomes even more critical to the preservation and resilience
of resource-based activities and to many social and ecological systems. Protection of individual
species, including Chinook salmon, also plays an important role in sustaining biodiversity and
quality of life within the county. Since 2000, local governments, citizens,tribes, conservation
districts, non-profit groups, and federal and state fisheries managers have cooperated to
develop and implement watershed-based salmon conservation plans, known as Water
Resource Inventory Area plans, to conserve and restore habitat for Chinook salmon today and
for future generations.
EN-6 Coordinate approaches and standards for defining and protecting critical areas
especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional boundaries. w
z
EN-7 Encourage basin-wide approaches to wetland protection, emphasizing preservation and
enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems.
z
EN-8 Develop an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife W
habitat conservation, especially protecting endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.
ro
x
EN-9 Implement salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities in approved Water U.......
Resource Inventory Area plans.
1
2
26
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Flood Hazards
Flooding is a natural process that affects human communities and natural environments in King
County. Managing floodplain development and conserving aquatic habitats are the main
challenges for areas affected by flooding. The King County Flood Control District exists to
protect public health and safety, regional economic centers, public and private property and
transportation corridors. Local governments also have responsibility for flood control within
their boundaries.
EN-10 Coordinate and fund flood hazard management efforts through the King County Flood
Control District.
EN-11 Work cooperatively to meet regulatory standards for floodplain development as these
standards are updated for consistency with relevant federal requirements including those
related to the Endangered Species Act.
EN-12 Work cooperatively with the federal, state, and regional agencies and forums to develop
regional levee maintenance standards that ensure public safety and protect habitat.
Water Resources
The flow and quality of water is impacted by water withdrawals, land development, stormwater
management, and climate change. Since surface and ground waters do not respect political
boundaries, cross-jurisdictional coordination of water is required to ensure its functions and
uses are protected and sustained. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the
Washington State Legislature as the state agency with the responsibility for assuring the
preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound.
King County plays a key role in these efforts because of its large population and its location in
Central Puget Sound.
EN-13 Collaborate with the Puget Sound Partnership to implement the Puget Sound Action zj
Agenda and to coordinate land use and transportation plans and actions for the benefit of z
Puget Sound and its watersheds. 0
EN-14 Manage natural drainage systems to improve water quality and habitat functions,
minimize erosion and sedimentation, protect public health, reduce flood risks, and moderate
w
peak storm water runoff rates. Work cooperatively among local, regional, state, national and
tribal jurisdictions to establish, monitor and enforce consistent standards for managing streams s
and wetlands throughout drainage basins.
1
3
27
aWj? King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
EN-15 Establish a multi-jurisdictional approach for funding and monitoring water quality,
quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of monitoring efforts.
Air Quality and Climate Change
Greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in a changing and increasingly variable climate. King
County's snow-fed water supply is especially vulnerable to a changing climate. Additionally, the
patterns of storm events and river and stream flow patterns are changing and our shorelines
are susceptible to rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater and reduces the
water's pH, threatening the food web in Puget Sound. While local governments can individually
work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more significant emission reductions can only be
accomplished through countywide coordination of land use patterns and promotion of
transportation systems that provide practical alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Efficient energy consumption is both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Local
governments can improve energy efficiency through the development of new infrastructure as
well as the maintenance and updating of existing infrastructure.
EN-16 Plan for land use patterns and transportation systems that minimize air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, including:
• Maintaining or exceeding existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and
particulates;
• Directing growth to Urban Centers and other mixed use/ high density locations that
support mass transit, encourage non-motorized modes of travel and reduce trip
lengths;
• Facilitating modes of travel other than single occupancy vehicles including transit,
walking, bicycling, and carpooling;
• Incorporating energy-saving strategies in infrastructure planning and design;
• Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or
zero net lifetime energy requirements and "green" building techniques; and
• Increasing the use of low emission vehicles, such as efficient electric-powered
vehicles. Z
EN-17 Establish a countywide greenhouse gas reduction target that meets or exceeds the
statewide reduction requirement that is stated as the 2050 goal of a 50 percent reduction O
below 1990levels. j
z
w
EN-18 Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use
by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward
countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN-17.
U
1
4
28
j King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EN-19 Promote energy efficiency, conservation methods and sustainable energy sources to
support climate change reduction goals.
EN-20 Plan and implement land use, transportation, and building practices that will greatly
reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
EN-21 Formulate and implement climate change adaptation strategies that address the
impacts of climate change to public health and safety, the economy, public and private
infrastructure, water resources, and habitat.
H
z
w
z
0
z
w
U
1
5
29
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
The policies in this chapter address the location, types, design and intensity of land uses that
are desired in King County and its cities. They guide implementation of the vision for physical
development within the county. The policies also provide a framework for how to focus
improvements to transportation, public services, the environment, and affordable housing, as
well as how to incorporate concerns about climate change and public health into planning for
new growth. Development patterns policies are at the core of growth management efforts in
King County; they further the goals of VISION 2040, and recognize the variety of local
communities that will be taking action to achieve those goals.
Overarching Goal: Growth in King County occurs in a compact, centers focused pattern that
uses land and infrastructure efficiently and that protects Rural and Resource Lands.
The Countywide Planning Policies designate land as Urban, Rural, or Resource. The Land Use
Map in Appendix 1 shows the Urban Growth Area boundary and Urban, Rural, and Resource
Lands within King County. Further sections of this chapter provide more detailed descriptions
and guidance for planning within each of the three designations.
DP-1 All lands within King County are designated as:
• Urban land within the Urban Growth Area, where new growth is focused and
accommodated;
• Rural land, where farming, forestry, and other resource uses are protected, and very
low-density residential uses, and small-scale non-residential uses are allowed; or
• Resource land, where permanent regionally significant agricultural, forestry, and
mining lands are preserved.
un
z
Urban Growth Area
The Urban Growth Area encompasses all of the urban designated lands within King County. H
These lands include all cities as well as a portion of unincorporated King County. Consistent w
with the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040, urban lands are intended to be the focus
of future growth that is compact, includes a mix of uses, and is well-served by public p
infrastructure. Urban lands also include a network of open space where ongoing maintenance is j
a local as well as a regional concern. w
O
The pattern of growth within the Urban Growth Area implements the Regional Growth Strategy
through allocation of targets to local jurisdictions.The targets create an obligation to plan and
provide zoning for future potential growth, but do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee that C�
a given number of housing units will he built or jobs added during the planning period.
1
6
30
4-1f4e King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Several additional elements in the Development Patterns chapter reinforce the vision and
targeted growth pattern for the Urban Growth Area. Procedures and criteria for amending the
Urban Growth Area boundary address a range of objectives and ensure that changes balance
the needs for land to accommodate growth with the overarching goal of preventing sprawl
within the county. A review and evaluation program provides feedback for the county and cities
on the effectiveness of their efforts to accommodate and achieve the desired land use pattern.
Joint planning facilitates the transition of governance of the Urban Growth Area from the
county to cities, consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Urban form and development within the Urban Growth Area are important settings to provide
people with choices to engage in more physical activity, eat healthy food, and minimize
exposure to harmful environments and substances. In particular, the quality and safety of
walking and biking routes children use to reach school is known to affect their health.
Goal Statement: The Urban Growth Area accommodates growth consistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy and growth targets through land use patterns and practices that create
vibrant, healthy, and sustainable communities.
Urban Lands
DP-2 Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes
housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban
facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and parks and
open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and
support public transportation in order to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel for
most daily activities.
DP-3 Efficiently develop and use residential, commercial, and manufacturing land in the Urban v
Growth Area to create healthy and vibrant urban communities with a full range of urban Z
services, and to protect the long-term viability of the Rural Area and Resource Lands. Promote N
the efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Area by using methods such as:
• Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to designated centers; a
• Encouraging compact development with a mix of compatible residential, Hz
commercial, and community activities;
• Maximizing the use of the existing capacity for housing and employment; and p
O
• Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, capital facilities and services. w
7
w
DP-4 Concentrate housing and employment growth within the designated Urban Growth Area. G
Focus housing growth within countywide designated Urban Centers and locally designated local
centers. Focus employment growth within countywide designated Urban and
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers and within locally designated local centers. CJ
1
7
31
�faW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
DP-5 Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of
housing, employment, and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit,
and other alternatives to auto travel.
DP-6 Plan for development patterns that promote public health by providing all residents with
opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, social connectivity, and protection
from exposure to harmful substances and environments.
DP-7 Plan for development patterns that promote safe and healthy routes to and from public
schools.
1313-8 Increase access to healthy food in communities throughout the Urban Growth Area by
encouraging the location of healthy food purveyors, such as grocery stores and farmers
markets, and community food gardens in proximity to residential uses and transit facilities.
DP-9 Designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated and unincorporated
areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Resource Lands,
the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife
corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental,
visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the
Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy G-1. Designated Urban
Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in
Appendix 3.
DP 10 Discourage incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to general aviation airports
throughout the county.
Growth Targets v
DP-11 GMPC shall allocate residential and employment growth to each city and
unincorporated urban area in the county. This allocation is predicated on: F
• Accommodating the most recent 20-year population projection from the state Office a-
of Financial Management and the most recent 20-year regional employment Z
forecast from the Puget Sound Regional Council;
• Planning for a pattern of growth that is consistent with the Regional Growth °
O
Strategy including focused growth within cities with countywide designated centers W
and within other larger cities, limited development in the Rural Area, and protection w
of designated Resource Lands;
• Efficiently using existing zoned and future planned development capacity as well as
the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure, including sewer and water
systems; U
1
8
32
j? King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
• Promoting a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public
transportation services and facilities and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
amenities;
• Improving the jobs/housing balance within the region and the county;
• Promoting sufficient opportunities for housing and employment development
throughout the Urban Growth Area;
• Allocating growth to individual Potential Annexation Areas within the urban
unincorporated area proportionate to its share of unincorporated capacity for
housing and employment growth.
DP-12 GMPC shall:
• Update housing and employment targets periodically to provide jurisdictions with
up-to-date growth allocations to be incorporated in state-mandated comprehensive
plan updates;
• Adopt housing and employment growth targets in the Countywide Planning Policies
pursuant to the procedure described in policy G-1; and
• Adjust targets administratively upon annexation of unincorporated Potential
Annexation Areas by cities. Growth targets for the 2006-2031 planning period are
shown in table DP-1.
DP-13 All jurisdictions shall plan to accommodate housing and employment targets. This
includes:
• Adopting comprehensive plans and zoning regulations that provide capacity for
residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20-year growth
needs and is consistent with the desired growth pattern described in VISION 2040;
• Coordinating water, sewer, transportation and other infrastructure plans and
investments among agencies, including special purpose districts; and
• Transferring and accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment
targets as annexations occur.
H
4
a
F
7-
W
a
O
a
W
W
p
v
a
U7
1
9
33
e King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December3, 2012
TAMP!fl P-1 King Couryty Jurisd rtinn ,rnurth TarPPte 7006 2031
Net New Units 2006 2031 Net N wJobs 2006 2031
,.:«xal....:.^.r2.,— ..Eanwlra,V,,,a4S—.�.r,
Metro lan C',t..... __
Metro l r. ,.fi _lna nnn._ 199,71111
_^,440
Fi�dcral o ,nn ),a�7Cl 2,Bn.0 _ 790
YcIt___. ..... _°,27n n0 .. 1;280
u KjrR! ,..J .8,871) 2.0,8c�0 .........
Redmond rn"1 fv40 3 nnn
*,. ,W _ ,u11.n
Pe".i0n _... ,14.,335 3'89.S 20,C00 _ 470
onn Qnn
c
A Rons0 - 51Bfk _7 f7;I1
Core C{ c..6.. aj _ h°,E:.W 16u,zan _.. .
De..^,^.C...., ,000 r nnn
..... rw W..
ISsaaiwtah c IcILIn 290 20,000___.
.,.
3,.500
2,000
° .m5.:,.x.ma_.a.h ........ ... ..i1,non ... 350 1,800
Rd1AIlA14:' 3 riffl nnn
Larger ncn a� unn .... ......
_1,990 i ncn
^oval!. ....1,14LD .°.O
735.
v ° a
H,......... ...__— ..
°0 ... .._
a
t.N
�. Ij
... ..m. ....
naod,� as ;
90
..�• 1,2nn 735
285
14 C ..........
y ....
.........._ x int—_......_... _... __..........._... ....... _
Small Ifles a..M...i ....... anovv _. ercn .... ..... _.....
2,170
Bear Creek UPD 910 3,580 03
mm Unclaimed Urban Un'mc. 650 90
.Urltanirttol'gaxaLrarkSuhtvtal............----12AZ1L....._...._ g n6a —.. ...-
Urban Growth Area Total 233,077 428,068
2
O
34
eW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area
The following policies guide the decision-making process by both the GMPC and King County
regarding proposals to expand the Urban Growth Area.
DP-14 Review the Urban Growth Area at least every ten years. In this review consider
monitoring reports and other available data. As a result of this review, and based on the criteria
established in policies DP-15 and DP-16, King County may propose and then the Growth
Management Planning Council may recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning
Policies and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the Urban Growth Area
boundary.
DP-15 Allow amendment of the Urban Growth Area only when the following steps have been
satisfied:
a) The proposed expansion is under review by the County as part of an amendment
process of the King County Comprehensive Plan;
b) King County submits the proposal to the Growth Management Planning Council for
the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the
proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area;
c) The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; and
d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the
cities following the procedures set forth in policy G-1.
DP-16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria
is met:
a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient
in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment
growth targets, including institutional and other non-residential uses, and there are
no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban 7�
land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; or
b) A proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of
permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of a
the proposed open space Z
1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the Urban Growth Area;
2) is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the w
dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area
expansion; and w
3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that M
contribute to the band of permanent open space along the edge of the Urban
Growth Area; or C
c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained U
as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and
is less than thirty acres in size. 2
1
35
aeW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-17 If expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP-16(a) or
DP-16(b), add land to the Urban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area and is no larger than necessary to
promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs;
b) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive
facilities located in the Rural Area;
c) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and
ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that
impede the provision of urban services;
d) Is not currently designated as Resource Land;
e) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban
development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is
designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between King County and
the annexing city; and
f) Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to
the area that the area will be added to the city's Potential Annexation Area. Upon
ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the
Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change.
DP-18 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the Urban Growth Area to Rural land
outside of the Urban Growth Area if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban
growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and:
a) Is not characterized by urban development;
b) Is currently developed with a low density lot pattern that cannot be realistically
redeveloped at an urban density; or
c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inappropriate for
higher density development.
z
w
Review and Evaluation Program F,
The following policies guide the decision-buildable lands program conducted by the GMPC and a
F�
King County. w
DP-19 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation a.
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program w
are: >
• To collect and analyze data on development activity, land supply, and capacity for p
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; y
• To evaluate the consistency of actual development densities with current
comprehensive plans; and
• To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the
remainder of the planning period. 2
2
36
jXWe King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-20 If necessary based on the findings of a periodic buildable lands evaluation report, adopt
reasonable measures, other than expansion of the Urban Growth Area, to increase land
capacity for housing and employment growth within the Urban Growth Area by making more
efficient use of urban land consistent with current plans and targets.
Joint Planning and Annexation
DP-21 Coordinate the preparation of comprehensive plans among adjacent and other affected
jurisdictions as a means to avoid or mitigate the potential cross-border impacts of urban
development.
DP-22 Designate Potential Annexation Areas in city comprehensive plans and adopt them in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Ensure that Potential Annexation Areas do not overlap or
leave unincorporated urban islands between cities.
DP-23 Facilitate the annexation of unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area that
are already urbanized and are within a city's Potential Annexation Area in order to provide
urban services to those areas. Annexation is preferred over incorporation.
DP-24 Allow cities to annex territory only within their designated Potential Annexation Area as
shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2. Phase annexations to coincide
with the ability of cities to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to
be annexed.
DP-25 Within the North Highline unincorporated area, where Potential Annexation Areas
overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, strive to establish alternative non-overlapping Potential
Annexation Area boundaries through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution,
a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for 7�
territory within its designated portion of a Potential Annexation Area overlap as shown in the
Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2 and detailed in the city's comprehensive plan
after the following steps have been taken: a
a) The city proposing annexation has, at least 30 days prior to filing a Notice of Intent Z
to annex with the Boundary Review Board, contacted in writing the cities with the
PAA overlap and the county to provide notification of the city's intent to annex and
to request a meeting or formal mediation to discuss boundary alternatives, and; W
b) The cities with the Potential Annexation Area overlap and the county have either: w
i) Agreed to meet but failed to develop a negotiated settlement to the overlap q
within 60 days of receipt of the notice, or v
ii) Declined to meet or failed to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the a
z
notice. U
2
3
37
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-26 Develop agreements between King County and cities with Potential Annexation Areas to
apply city-compatible development standards that will guide land development prior to
annexation.
DP-27 Evaluate proposals to annex or incorporate unincorporated land based on the following
criteria:
a) Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies including the Urban Growth Area
boundary;
b) The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to provide urban services at
standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and
c) Annexation or incorporation in a manner that will avoid creating unincorporated
islands of development.
DP-28 Resolve the issue of unincorporated road islands within or between cities. Roadways
and shared streets within or between cities, but still under King County jurisdiction, should be
annexed by adjacent cities.
Centers
A centers strategy is the linchpin for King County to achieve the Regional Growth Strategy as
well as a range of other objectives, particularly providing a land use framework for an efficient
and effective regional transit system. Countywide designation of Urban Centers and local
designation of local centers provide for locations of mixed-use zoning, infrastructure, and
concentrations of services and amenities to accommodate both housing and employment
growth. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers preserve lands for family-wage jobs in basic
industries and trade and provide areas where that employment may grow in the future.
Goal Statement: King County grows in a manner that reinforces and expands upon a system of v)
existing and planned central places within which concentrated residential communities and 7�
economic activities can flourish.
Q
a
F-
Urban Centers W
DP-29 Concentrate housing and employment growth within designated Urban Centers.
O
W
W
DP-30 Designate Urban Centers in the Countywide Planning Policies where city-nominated W
locations meet the criteria in policies DP-31 and DP-32 and where the city's commitments will M
help ensure the success of the center. Urban Centers will be limited in number and located on v
existing or planned high capacity transit corridors to provide a framework for targeted private
and public investments that support regional land use and transportation goals. The Land Use U
Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the designated Urban Centers.
2
4
38
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-31 Allow designation of new Urban Centers where the proposed Center:
a) Encompasses an area up to one and a half square miles; and
b) Has adopted zoning regulations and infrastructure plans that are adequate to
accommodate:
i) A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of an existing or planned
high-capacity transit station;
ii) At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre within the Urban
Center; and
iii) At a minimum, an average of 15 housing units per gross acre within the
Urban Center.
DP-32 Adopt a map and housing and employment growth targets in city comprehensive plans
for each Urban Center, and adopt policies to promote and maintain quality of life in the Center
through:
• A broad mix of land uses that foster both daytime and nighttime activities and
opportunities for social interaction;
• A range of affordable and healthy housing choices;
• Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places;
• Parks and public open spaces that are accessible and beneficial to all residents in the
Urban Center;
• Strategies to increase tree canopy within the Urban Center and incorporate low-
impact development measures to minimize stormwater runoff;
• Facilities to meet human service needs;
• Superior urban design which reflects the local community vision for compact urban
development;
• Pedestrian and bicycle mobility, transit use, and linkages between these modes;
• Planning for complete streets to provide safe and inviting access to multiple travel
modes, especially bicycle and pedestrian travel; and
• Parking management and other strategies that minimize trips made by single- zz",
occupant vehicle, especially during peak commute periods. w
F-�
E°-
DP-33 Form the land use foundation for a regional high-capacity transit system through the a¢
designation of a system of Urban Centers, Urban Centers should receive high priority for the H
location of transit service. w
a
O
a
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
w
DP-34 Concentrate manufacturing and industrial employment within countywide designated O
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers. The Land Use Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the
a
designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
U
2
5
39
x'Wj? King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-35 Adopt in city comprehensive plans a map and employment growth targets for each
Manufacturing/ Industrial Center and adopt policies and regulations for the Center to:
• Provide zoning and infrastructure adequate to accommodate a minimum of 10,000
jobs;
• Preserve and enhance sites that are appropriate for manufacturing or other
industrial uses;
• Strictly limit residential uses and discourage land uses that are not compatible with
manufacturing and industrial uses, such as by imposing low maximum size limits on
offices and retail uses that are not accessory to an industrial use;
• Facilitate the mobility of employees by transit and the movement of goods by truck,
rail, air or waterway, as appropriate;
• Provide for capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of
goods and manufacturing/industrial operations;
• Ensure that utilities are available to serve the center;
• Avoid conflicts with adjacent land uses to ensure the continued viability of the land
in the Manufacturing/ Industrial Center for manufacturing and industrial activities;
and
• Attract and retain the types of businesses that will ensure economic growth and
stability.
DP-36 Minimize or mitigate potential health impacts of the activities in Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers on residential communities, schools, open space, and other public facilities.
DP-37 Designate additional Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers in the Countywide Planning
Policies pursuant to the procedures described in policy G-1 based on nominations from cities
and after determining that:
a) the nominated locations meet the criteria set forth in policy DP-35 and the criteria
established by the Puget Sound Regional Council for Regional Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers;
b) the proposed center's location will promote a countywide system of Manufacturing/ W�
Industrial Centers with the total number of centers representing a realistic growth d
strategy for the county; and
F
c) the city's commitments will help ensure the success of the center. W
a
O
Local Centers
DP-38 Identify in comprehensive plans local centers, such as city or neighborhood centers, p
transit station areas, or other activity nodes, where housing, employment, and services are
accommodated in a compact form and at sufficient densities to support transit service and to
make efficient use of urban land. U
2
6
40
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Urban Design and Historic Preservation
The countywide vision includes elements of urban design and form intended to integrate urban
development into existing built and natural environments in ways that enhance both the urban
and natural settings. These elements include high quality design, context sensitive infill and
redevelopment, historic preservation, and the interdependence of urban and rural and
agricultural lands and uses.
Goal statement: The built environment in both urban and rural settings achieves a high degree
of high quality design that recognizes and enhances, where appropriate, existing natural and
urban settings.
DP-39 Develop neighborhood planning and design processes that encourage infill
development, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings and that, where appropriate
based on local plans, enhance the existing community character and mix of uses.
DP-40 Promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly-funded and private
development throughout the Urban Growth Area.
DP-41 Preserve significant historic, archeological, cultural, architectural, artistic, and
environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Where
appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage
land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic
community character.
DP-42 Design new development to create and protect systems of green infrastructure, such as
urban forests, parks, green roofs, and natural drainage systems, in order to reduce climate-
altering pollution and increase resilience of communities to climate change impacts.
DP-43 Design communities, neighborhoods, and individual developments using techniques that
reduce heat absorption, particularly in Urban Centers. H
d
DP-44 Adopt design standards or guidelines that foster infill development that is compatible
with the existing or desired urban character. w
a
O
Rural Area and Resource Lands w
w
The Rural Area and Resource Lands encompass all areas outside of the Urban Growth Area and Q
include Vashon Island in Puget Sound and the area just east of the Urban Growth Area all the
way to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The Rural Area is characterized by low density
development with a focus on activities that are dependent on the land such as small scale
farming and forestry. The Rural Area also provides important environmental and habitat
2
7
41
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
functions and is critical for salmon recovery. The location of the Rural Area, between the Urban
Growth Area and designated Resource Lands, helps to protect commercial agriculture and
timber from incompatible uses. The Rural Area, outside of the Rural Cities, is to remain in
unincorporated King County and is to be provided with a rural level of service.
Rural Area
Goal Statement: The Rural Area provides a variety of landscapes, maintains diverse low density
communities, and supports rural economic activities based on sustainable stewardship of the
land.
DP-45 Limit growth in the Rural Area to prevent sprawl and the overburdening of rural
services, reduce the need for new rural infrastructure, maintain rural character, and protect the
natural environment.
DP-46 Limit residential development in the Rural Area to housing at low densities that are
compatible with rural character and comply with the following density guidelines:
a) One home per 20 acres where a pattern of large lots exists and to buffer Forest
Protection Districts and Agricultural Districts;
b) One home per 10 acres where the predominant lot size is less than 20 acres; or
c) One home per five acres where the predominant lot size is less than 10 acres.
d) Allow limited clustering within development sites to avoid development on
environmentally critical lands or on productive forest or agricultural lands, but not to
exceed the density guidelines cited in (a)through (c).
DP-47 Limit the extension of urban infrastructure improvements through the Rural Area to
only cases where it is necessary to serve the Urban Growth Area and where there are no other
feasible alignments. Such limited extensions may be considered only if land use controls are in
place to restrict uses appropriate for the Rural Area and only if access management controls are 7�
in place to prohibit tie-ins to the extended facilities. w
H
H
Q
DP-48 Establish rural development standards to protect the natural environment by using
seasonal and maximum clearing limits for vegetation, limits on the amount of impervious z
surface, surface water management standards that preserve natural drainage systems, water w
quality and groundwater recharge, and best management practices for resource-based
activities. a
w
DP-49 Prevent or, if necessary, mitigate negative impacts of urban development to the M
adjacent Rural Area.
a
DP-50 Except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report), limit u
new nonresidential uses located in the Rural Area to those that are demonstrated to serve the - --
2
8
42
IW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Rural Area, unless the use is dependent upon a rural location. Such uses shall be of a size, scale,
and nature that is consistent with rural character.
DP-51 Allow cities that own property in the Rural Area to enter into interlocal agreements with
King County to allow the cities to provide services to the properties they own as long as the
cities agree to not annex the property or serve it with sewers or any infrastructure at an urban
level of service. The use of the property must be consistent with the rural land use policies in
the Countywide Planning Policies and the King County Comprehensive Plan.
Resource Lands
The Resource Lands are designated areas with long term commercial significance for
agriculture, forestry, and mining, and are depicted in the Land Use Map in Appendix 1 as Forest
Product Districts, Agricultural Production Districts, and Mineral Resource Lands. The use and
designation of these lands are to be permanent, in accordance with the Growth Management
Act, King County has maintained this base of agriculture and forest lands despite the rapid
growth of the previous decades. The Resource Lands are to remain in unincorporated King
County but their benefit and significance is felt throughout the county into the cities. Within
cities, farmers markets are becoming important and sought after neighborhood amenities.
The forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most productive in the world and King
County has retained two-thirds of the county in forest cover. Large scale forestry is a
traditional land use in the eastern half of King County and remains a significant contributor to
the rural economy. In addition, forests provide exceptional recreational opportunities,
including downhill and cross-country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking.
Goa!Statement: Resource Lands are valuable assets of King County and are renowned for their
productivity and sustainable management.
DP-52 Promote and support forestry, agriculture, mining and other resource-based industries
outside of the Urban Growth Area as part of a diverse and sustainable regional economy. F
Q
a-
DP-53 Conserve commercial agricultural and forestry resource lands primarily for their long- Z
term productive resource value and for the open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and w
critical area protection they provide. Limit the subdivision of land so that parcels remain large
enough for commercial resource production. w
DP-54 Encourage best practices in agriculture and forestry operations for long-term protection p
of the natural resources.
a
ro
DP-55 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts or within
Forest Production Districts by cities.
2
9
43
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-56 Retain the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District as a regionally designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
DP-57 Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to designated Resource Lands to prevent
interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural, mining, or forest
prod u cts.
DP-58 Support local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long distance
transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and
infrastructure, such as farmers markets, farm worker housing and agricultural processing
facilities, that benefit both cities and farms by improving access to locally grown agricultural
products.
DP-59 Support institutional procurement policies that encourage purchases of locally grown
food products.
DP-60 Ensure that extractive industries maintain environmental quality and minimize negative
impacts on adjacent lands.
DP-61 Use a range of tools, including land use designations, development regulations, level-of-
service standards, and transfer or purchase of development rights to preserve Rural and
Resource Lands and focus urban development within the Urban Growth Area.
DP-62 Use transfer of development rights to shift potential development from the Rural Area
and Resource Lands into the Urban Growth Area, especially cities. Implement transfer of
development rights within King County through a partnership between the county and cities
that is designed to:
• Identify rural and resource sending sites that satisfy countywide conservation goals
and are consistent with regionally coordinated transfer of development rights z
efforts; n
• Preserve rural and resource lands of compelling interest countywide and to FTj
participating cities; d
• Identify appropriate transfer of development rights receiving areas within cities; a
E�
• Identify incentives for city participation in regional transfer of development rights W
(i.e. county-to-city transfer of development rights); w
• Develop interlocal agreements that allow rural and resource land development
rights to be used in city receiving areas; w
• Identify and secure opportunities to fund or finance infrastructure within city W
transfer of development rights receiving areas; and. Ca
• Be compatible with existing within-city transfer of development rights programs.
L
U
3
0
44
e King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
HOUSING
The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for all jurisdictions to plan for and
promote a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future
residents. Within King County, there is an unmet need for housing that is affordable for
households earning less than 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Households within this
category include low-wage workers in services and other industries; persons on fixed incomes
including many disabled and elderly residents; and homeless individuals and families. A high
proportion of these households spend a greater percentage of their income on housing than is
typically considered appropriate. This is especially true for low and very low income
households earning 50 percent or less (low) and 30 percent or less (very-low) of area median
income. The county and all cities share in the responsibility to increase the supply of housing
that is affordable to these households.
While neither the county nor the cities can guarantee that a given number of units at a given
price level will exist, be preserved, or be produced during the planning period, establishing the
countywide need clarifies the scope of the effort for each jurisdiction. The type of policies and
strategies that are appropriate for a jurisdiction to consider will vary and will be based on its
analysis of housing. Some jurisdictions where the overall supply of affordable housing is
significantly less than their proportional share of the countywide need may need to undertake a
range of strategies addressing needs at multiple income levels, including strategies to create
new affordable housing. Other jurisdictions that currently have housing stock that is already
generally affordable may focus their efforts on preserving existing affordable housing through
efforts such as maintenance and repair, and ensuring long-term affordability. It may also be
appropriate to focus efforts on the needs of specific demographic segments of the population.
The policies below recognize the significant countywide need for affordable housing to focus on
the strategies that can be taken both individually and in collaboration to meet the countywide
need. These policies envision cities and the county following a four step process
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respond to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
z
The provision of housing affordable to very-low income households, those earning less than
30% of AMI, is the most challenging problem and one faced by all communities in the county.
Housing for these very-low income households cannot be met solely through the private
market. Meeting this need will require interjurisdictional cooperation and support from public
agencies, including the cities and the county.
U
3
1
45
a'Ajj King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Overarching Goal: The housing needs of oil economic and demographic groups are met within
all jurisdictions.
H-1 Address the countywide need for housing affordable to households with moderate, low
and very-low incomes, including those with special needs. The countywide need for housing by
percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) is:
50-80% of AMI (moderate) 16% of total housing supply
30-50% of AMI (low) 12%of total housing supply
30% and below AMI (very-low) 12% of total housing supply
H-2 Address the need for housing affordable to households at less than 30%AMI (very low
income), recognizing that this is where the greatest need exists, and addressing this need will
require funding, policies and collaborative actions by all jurisdictions working individually and
collectively.
Housing Inventory and Needs Analysis
The Growth Management Act requires an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs as part of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan housing element. Assessing
local housing needs provides jurisdictions with information about the local housing supply, the
cost of housing, and the demographic and income levels of the community's households. This
information on current and future housing conditions provides the basis for the development of
effective housing policies and programs. While some cities may find that they meet the current
need for housing for some populations groups, the inventory and needs analysis will help
identify those income levels and demographic segments of the population where there is the
greatest need. Further guidance on conducting a housing inventory and analysis is provided in
Appendix 4.
H-3 Conduct an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of all economic
and demographic segments of the population in each jurisdiction. The analysis and inventory
shall include:
a. Characteristics of the existing housing stock, including supply, affordability and
diversity of housing types;
b. Characteristics of populations, including projected growth and demographic change;
c. The housing needs of very-low, low, and moderate-income households; and
d. The housing needs of special needs populations.
z_
Strategies to Meet Housing Needs
VISION 2040 encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best housing practices and innovative O
techniques to advance the provision of affordable, healthy, sustainable, and safe housing for all x
residents. Meeting the county's affordable housing needs will require actions by a wide range
of private for profit, non-profit and government entities, including substantial resources from
federal, state, and local levels. No single tool will be sufficient to meet the full range of needs in U
a given jurisdiction. The county and cities are encouraged to employ a range of housing tools to
3
2
46
e King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
ensure the countywide need is addressed and to respond to local conditions. Further detail on
the range of strategies for promoting housing supply and affordability is contained in Appendix
4.
Jobs-housing balance, addressed in H-9, is a concept that advocates an appropriate match
between the number of existing jobs and available housing supply within a geographic area.
Improving balance means adding more housing to job-rich areas and more jobs to housing-rich
areas.
H-4 Provide zoning capacity within each jurisdiction in the Urban Growth Area for a range of
housing types and densities, sufficient to accommodate each jurisdiction's overall housing
targets and, where applicable, housing growth targets in designated Urban Centers.
H-5 Adopt policies, strategies, actions and regulations at the local and countywide levels that
promote housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including those that address a significant
share of the countywide need for housing affordable to very-low, low, and moderate income
households.These strategies should address the following:
a. Overall supply and diversity of housing, including both rental and ownership;
b. Housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes;
c. Affordability to very-low, low, and moderate income households;
d. Housing suitable and affordable for households with special needs;
e. Universal design and sustainable development of housing; and
f. Housing supply, including affordable housing and special needs housing, within
Urban Centers and in other areas planned for concentrations of mixed land uses.
H-6 Preserve existing affordable housing units, where appropriate, including acquisition and
rehabilitation of housing for long-term affordability.
H-7 Identify barriers to housing affordability and implement strategies to overcome them..
H-8 Tailor housing policies and strategies to local needs, conditions and opportunities,
recognizing the unique strengths and challenges of different cities and sub-regions.
H-9 Plan for housing that is accessible to major employment centers and affordable to the
workforce in them so people of all incomes can live near or within reasonable commuting
distance of their places of work. Encourage housing production at a level that improves the Z
balance of housing to employment throughout the county. Z
O
H-10 Promote housing affordability in coordination with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans x
and investments and in proximity to transit hubs and corridors, such as through transit oriented
development and planning for mixed uses in transit station areas.
v
H-11 Encourage the maintenance of existing housing stock in order to ensure that the
condition and quality of the housing is safe and livable. 3
J
47
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
H-12 Plan for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well-being of
residents by supporting active living and healthy eating and by reducing exposure to harmful
environments.
H-13 Promote fair housing and plan for communities that include residents with a range of
abilities, ages, races, incomes, and other diverse characteristics of the population of the county.
Regional Cooperation
Housing affordability is important to regional economic vitality and sustainability. Housing
markets do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. For these reasons, multijurisdictional efforts
for planning and adopting strategies to meet regional housing needs are an additional tool for
identifying and meeting the housing needs of households with moderate, low, and very-low
incomes. Collaborative efforts, supported by the work of Puget Sound Regional Council and
other agencies, contribute to producing and preserving affordable housing and coordinating
equitable, sustainable development in the county and region. Where individual cities lack
sufficient resources, collective efforts to fund or provide technical assistance for affordable
housing development and preservation, and for the creation of strategies and programs, can
help to meet the housing needs identified in comprehensive plans. Cities with similar housing
characteristics tend to be clustered geographically. Therefore,there are opportunities for
efficiencies and greater impact through interjurisdictional cooperation. Such efforts are
encouraged and can be a way to meet a jurisdiction's share of the countywide affordable
housing need.
H-14 Work cooperatively among jurisdictions to provide mutual support in meeting countywide
housing growth targets and affordable housing needs.
H-15 Collaborate in developing sub-regional and countywide housing resources and programs,
including funding, to provide affordable housing for very-low, low-, and moderate-income
households.
H-16 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council and other agencies to identify
ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdictions in developing, implementing and
monitoring the success of strategies that promote affordable housing that meets changing
demographic needs. Collaborate in developing and implementing a housing strategy for the
four-county central Puget Sound region. Z
Flo
Measuring Results
Maintaining timely and relevant data on housing markets and residential development allows
the county and cities to evaluate the effectiveness of their housing strategies and to make
appropriate changes to those strategies when and where needed. In assessing efforts to meet
their share of the countywide need for affordable housing,jurisdictions need to consider public U
actions taken to encourage development and preservatioh of housing affordable to households
with very low-, low- and moderate-incomes, such as local funding, development code changes, 3
4
48
j? King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December3, 2012
and creation of new programs, as well as market and other factors that are beyond local
government control. Further detail on monitoring procedures is contained in Appendix 4.
H-17 Monitor housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including progress toward meeting a
significant share of the countywide need for affordable housing for very-low, low, and
moderate income households. Monitoring should encompass:
a. Number and type of new housing units;
b. Number of units lost to demolition, redevelopment, or conversion to non-residential
use;
c. Number of new units that are affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income
households;
d. Number of affordable units newly preserved and units acquired and rehabilitated
with a regulatory agreement for long-term affordability for very-low, low-, and
moderate-income households;
e. Housing market trends including affordability of overall housing stock;
f. Changes in zoned capacity for housing, including housing densities and types;
g. The number and nature of fair housing complaints and violations; and
In. Housing development and market trends in Urban Centers.
H-18 Review and amend, a minimum every five years, the countywide and local housing
policies and strategies, especially where monitoring indicates that adopted strategies are not
resulting in adequate affordable housing to meet the jurisdiction's share of the countywide
need.
z
0
Y
V
3
5
49
W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
ECONOMY
Overarching Goal: People throughout King County have opportunities to prosper and enjoy a
high quality of life through economic growth and job creation.
The Countywide Planning Policies in the Economy Chapter support the economic growth and
sustainability of King County's economy. A strong and healthy economy results in business
development,job creation, and investment in our communities. The Economy Chapter reflects
and supports the Regional Economic Strategy and VISION 2040's economic policies, which
emphasize the economic value of business, people, and place.
The Regional Economic Strategy is the region's comprehensive economic development strategy
and serves as the VISION 2040 economic functional plan. VISION 2040 integrates the Regional
Economic Strategy with growth management, transportation, and environmental objectives to:
• support critical economic foundations, such as education, infrastructure, technology,
and quality of life; and
• promote the region's specific industry clusters: aerospace, clean technology,
information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
Each local community will have an individual focus on economic development, while the
region's prosperity will benefit from coordination between local plans and the regional vision
that take into account the county's and the region's overall plan for growth.
EC-1 Coordinate local and countywide economic policies and strategies with VISION 2040 and
the Regional Economic Strategy.
EC-2 Support economic growth that accommodates employment growth targets {see table )P-
1) through local land use plans, infrastructure development, and implementation of economic
development strategies.
EC-3 Identify and support industry clusters and subclusters within King County that are
components of the Regional Economic Strategy or that may otherwise emerge as having
significance to King County's economy.
O
z
EC-4 Evaluate the performance of economic development policies and strategies in business 0
development and job creation. Identify and track key economic metrics to help jurisdictions W
and the county as a whole evaluate the effectiveness of local and regional economic strategies. v
u
U
3
6
50
a'Wa King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Business Development
Business creation, retention, expansion, and recruitment are the foundations of a strong
economy.The success of the economy in the county depends on opportunities for business
growth. Our communities play a significant role through local government actions, such as by
making regulations more predictable, by engaging in public-private partnerships, and by
nurturing a business-supportive culture.
These policies also seek to integrate the concept of healthy communities as part of the county's
economic objectives, by calling for support of the regional food economy, including production,
processing, wholesaling and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products.
EC-5 Help businesses thrive through:
• Transparency, efficiency, and predictability of local regulations and policies;
• Communication and partnerships between businesses, government, schools, and
research institutions; and
• Government contracts with local businesses.
EC-6 Foster the retention and development of those businesses and industries that export their
goods and services outside the region.
EC-7 Promote an economic climate that is supportive of business formation, expansion, and
retention and emphasizes the importance of small businesses in creating jobs.
EC-8 Foster a broad range of public-private partnerships to implement economic development
policies, programs and projects.
EC-9 Identify and support the retention of key regional and local assets to the economy, such
as major educational facilities, research institutions, health care facilities, manufacturing
facilities, and port facilities.
EC-10 Support the regional food economy including the production, processing, wholesaling,
and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products to all King County y.
communities. Emphasize increasing access to those communities with limited presence of
healthy food options. o
U
w
i
N
P
Sy
U
3
7
51
174BB
People
People, through their training, knowledge, skills, and cultural background, add value to the
region's economy. Additionally, creating an economy that provides opportunities for all helps
alleviate problems of poverty and income disparity.
EC-11 Work with schools and other institutions to increase graduation rates and sustain a
highly-educated and skilled local workforce. This includes aligning job training and education
offerings that are consistent with the skill needs of the region's industry clusters. Identify
partnership and funding opportunities where appropriate.
EC-12 Celebrate the cultural diversity of local communities as a means to enhance the county's
global relationships.
EC-13 Address the historic disparity in income and employment opportunities for economically
disadvantaged populations, including minorities and women, by committing resources to
human services; community development; housing; economic development; and public
infrastructure.
Places
Economic activity in the county predominantly occurs within the Urban Growth Area, including
Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers. Continuing to guide local investments to
these centers will help provide the support needed to sustain the economy and provide greater
predictability to businesses about where capital improvements will be located. In addition to
making productive use of urban land, economic activity adds to the culture and vitality of our
local communities. Businesses create active, attractive places to live and visit, and make
significant contributions to the arts. The Rural Area and Resource Lands are important for their
contribution to the regional food network, mining, timber and craft industries, while Rural
Cities are important for providing services to and being the economic centers for the
surrounding Rural Area.
EC-14 Foster economic and employment growth in designated Urban Centers and
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers through local investments, planning, and financial policies.
EC-15 Make local investments to maintain and expand infrastructure and services that support
local and regional economic development strategies. Focus investment where it encourages
growth in designated centers and helps achieve employment targets.
52
ifWO King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EC-16 Add to the vibrancy and sustainability of our communities and the health and well-being
of all people through safe and convenient access to local services, neighborhood-oriented
retail, purveyors of healthy food (e.g. grocery stores and farmers markets), and transportation
choices.
EC-17 Promote the natural environment as a key economic asset. Work cooperatively with
local businesses to protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that is efficient
and predictable and minimizes impacts on businesses.
EC-18 Maintain an adequate supply of land within the Urban Growth Area to support economic
development. Inventory, plan for, and monitor the land supply and development capacity for,
manufacturing/ industrial, commercial and other employment uses that can accommodate the
amount and types of economic activity anticipated during the planning period.
EC-19 Support Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers by adopting industrial siting policies that limit
the loss of industrial lands, maintain the region's economic diversity, and support family-wage
jobs. Prohibit or strictly limit non-supporting or incompatible activities that can interfere with
the retention or operation of industrial businesses, especially in Manufacturing/ Industrial
Centers.
EC-20 Facilitate redevelopment of contaminated sites through local, county and state financing
and other strategies that assist with funding environmental remediation.
EC-21 Encourage economic activity within Rural Cities that does not create adverse impacts to
the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands and will not create the need to provide urban
services and facilities to those areas.
0
z
0
u
w
L
a
v
3
9
53
W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATION
The Regional Growth Strategy identifies a network of walkable, compact, and transit-oriented
communities that are the focus of urban development, as well as industrial areas with major
employment concentrations. In the Countywide Planning Policies, these communities include
countywide designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers, and locally
designated local centers. An essential component of the Regional Growth Strategy is an
efficient transportation system that provides multiple options for moving people and goods
into and among the various centers. Transportation system, in the context of this chapter, is
defined as a comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes, automobiles,
bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, trails,
streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people and
goods on a local, regional, national and global scale.
Goals and policies in this chapter build on the 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies
and the Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2040. Policies are organized into three
sections:
• Supporting Growth —focusing on serving the region with a transportation system
that furthers the Regional Growth Strategy;
• Mobility—addressing the full range of travel modes necessary to move people and
goods efficiently within the region and beyond; and
• System Operations—encompassing the design, maintenance and operation of the
transportation system to provide for safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
Overarching Goal: The region is well served by an integrated, multi-modal transportation
system that supports the regional vision for growth, efficiently moves people and goods, and is
environmentally and functionally sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Growth
H
An effective transportation system is critical to achieving the Regional Growth Strategy and
ensuring that centers are functional and appealing to the residents and businesses they are
designed to attract. The policies in this section reinforce the critical relationship between
development patterns and transportation and they are intended to guide transportation z
investments from all levels of government that effectively support local, county and regional
plans to accommodate growth. Policies in this section take a multi-modal approach to serving
growth, with additional emphasis on transit and non-motorized modes to support planned Q
development in centers.
4
0
54
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Goal Statement:Local and regional development of the transportation system is consistent with
and furthers realization of the Regional Growth Strategy.
T-1 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the state, and other relevant
agencies to finance and develop a multi-modal transportation system that enhances regional
mobility and reinforces the countywide vision for managing growth. Use VISION 2040 and
Transportation 2040 as the policy and funding framework for creating a system of Urban
Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers linked by high-capacity transit, bus transit and
an interconnected system of freeways and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
T-2 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in the Rural
Area and Resource Lands. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and
efficient travel through the Rural Area, appropriate rural development regulations and effective
access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to
make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity and prevent unplanned growth in the
Rural Area.
T-3 Increase the share of trips made countywide by modes other than driving alone through
coordinated land use planning, public and private investment, and programs focused on centers
and connecting corridors, consistent with locally adopted mode split goals.
T-4 Develop station area plans for high capacity transit stations and transit hubs. Plans should
reflect the unique characteristics and local vision for each station area including transit
supportive land uses, transit rights-of-way, stations and related facilities, multi-modal linkages,
and place-making elements.
T-5 Support countywide growth management objectives by prioritizing transit service to areas
where existing housing and employment densities support transit ridership and to Urban
Centers and other areas planned for housing and employment densities that will support transit
ridership. Address the mobility needs of transit-dependent populations in allocating transit
service and provide at least a basic level of service throughout the Urban Growth Area.
z
T-6 Foster transit ridership by designing transit facilities and services as well as non-motorized O
infrastructure so that they are integrated with public spaces and private developments to F
d
create an inviting public realm.
C7
a,
T-7 Ensure state capital improvement policies and actions are consistent with the Regional Z
Growth Strategy and support VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies. d
F�
T-8 Prioritize regional and local funding to transportation investments that support adopted
growth targets.
U
4
1
55
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Mobility
Mobility is necessary to sustain personal quality of life and the regional economy. For
individuals, mobility requires an effective transportation system that provides safe, reliable,
and affordable travel options for people of all ages, incomes and abilities. While the majority of
people continue to travel by personal automobile, there are growing segments of the
population (e.g. urban, elderly, teens, low income, minorities, and persons with disabilities) that
rely on other modes of travel such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation to access
employment, education and training, goods and services. According to the 2009American
Community Survey, about 8.7 percent of all households in King County had no vehicle available.
For many minority populations, more than 20 percent had no vehicle available to them.
The movement of goods is also of vital importance to the local and regional economy.
International trade is a significant source of employment and economic activity in terms of
transporting freight, local consumption, and exporting of goods. The policies in this section are
intended to address use and integration of the multiple modes necessary to move people and
goods within and beyond the region. The importance of the roadway network, implicit in the
policies of this section, is addressed more specifically in the System Operations section of this
chapter.
Goal Statement:A well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system transports people and
goods effectively and efficiently to destinations within the region and beyond.
T-9 Promote the mobility of people and goods through a multi-modal transportation system
based on regional priorities consistent with VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans.
T-10 Support effective management of existing air, marine and rail transportation capacity and
address future capacity needs in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities,
and users.
T-11 Develop and implement freight mobility strategies that strengthen King County's role as a
major regional freight distribution hub, an international trade gateway, and a manufacturing 0
area.
T-12 Address the needs of non-driving populations in the development and management of A�
local and regional transportation systems. z
T-13 Site and design transit stations and transit hubs to promote connectivity and access for
pedestrian and bicycle patrons.
a
U
4
2
56
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
System Operations
The design, management and operation of the transportation system are major factors that
influence the region's growth and mobility. Policies in this section stress the need to make
efficient use of the existing infrastructure, serve the broad needs of the users, address safety
and public health issues, and design facilities that are a good fit for the surroundings.
Implementation of the policies will require the use of a wide range of tools including, but not
limited to:
• technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and alternative fuels;
• demand management programs for parking, commute trip reduction and
congestion; and
• incentives, pricing systems and other strategies to encourage choices that increase
mobility while improving public health and environmental sustainability.
Goal Statement: The regional transportation system is well-designed and managed to protect
public investments, promote public health and safety, and achieve optimum efficiency.
T-14 Prioritize essential maintenance, preservation, and safety improvements of the existing
transportation system to protect mobility and avoid more costly replacement projects.
T-15 Design and operate transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with and
integrated into the natural and built environments in which they are located. Incorporate
features such as natural drainage, native plantings, and local design themes that facilitate
integration and compatibility.
T-16 Protect the transportation system (e.g. roadway, rail, transit, air, and marine) against
major disruptions by developing prevention and recovery strategies and by coordinating
disaster response plans.
T-17 Promote the use of tolling and other pricing strategies to effectively manage the
transportation system, provide a stable and sustainable transportation funding source, and
improve mobility. F¢
c4
O
T-18 Develop a countywide monitoring system to determine how transportation investments p,
are performing over time consistent with Transportation 2040 recommendations. Z
T-19 Design roads and streets, including retrofit projects, to accommodate a range of
motorized and non-motorized travel modes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities and to
a
encourage non-motorized travel. The design should include well-defined, safe and appealing
spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists. v
4
3
57
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
T-20 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health,
including exposure to environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions.
T-21 Provide opportunities for an active, healthy lifestyle by integrating the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists in the local and regional transportation plans and systems.
T-22 Plan and develop a countywide transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by advancing strategies that shorten trip length or replace vehicle trips to decrease
vehicle miles traveled.
T-23 Apply technologies, programs and other strategies that optimize the use of existing
infrastructure in order to improve mobility, reduce congestion, increase energy-efficiency, and
reduce the need for new infrastructure.
T-24 Promote the expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles by the general public with
measures such as converting public and private fleets, applying incentive programs, and
providing for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the Urban Growth Area.
z
0
H
a
0
a
CIO
U
4
4
58
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3,2012
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Overarching Goal: County residents in both Urban and Rural Areas have access to the public
services needed in order to advance public health and safety, protect the environment, and
carry out the Regional Growth Strategy.
Urban and Rural Levels of Service
The Growth Management Act directs jurisdictions and special purpose districts to provide
public facilities and services to support development. The Growth Management Act
distinguishes between urban and rural services and states that land within the Urban Growth
Area should be provided with a full range of services necessary to sustain urban communities
while land within the Rural Area should receive services to support a rural lifestyle. Certain
services, such as sanitary sewers, are allowed only in the Urban Growth Area, except as
otherwise authorized. The Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to determine
which facilities are necessary to serve the desired growth pattern and how they will be
financed, in order to ensure timely provision of adequate services and facilities.
PF-1 Provide a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional
Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets and limit the availability of services in the Rural
Area consistent with VISION 2040.
Collaboration Among Jurisdictions U
More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire, w
school and other districts, provide essential services to the residents of King County. While Q
cities are the primary providers of services in the Urban Growth Area, in many parts of the
county special purpose districts also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration W
among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key
to providing efficient, high-quality and reliable services to support the Regional Growth
Strategy.
Q
w
PF-2 Coordinate among jurisdictions and service providers to provide reliable and cost- U
.a
effective services to the public. ma
a
PF-3 Cities are the appropriate providers of services to the Urban Growth Area, either directly
or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are
CIS
agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is proposed. Within U
the Urban Growth Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services
provided by special service districts.
4
5
59
�(F King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Utilities
Utilities include infrastructure and services that provide water supply, sewage treatment and
disposal, solid waste disposal, energy, and telecommunications. Providing these utilities in a
cost-effective way is essential to maintaining the health and safety of King County residents and
to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
Water Supply
Conservation and efficient use of water resources are vital to ensuring the reliability of the
region's water supply, the availability of sufficient water supplies for future generations, and
the environmental sustainability of the water supply system.
PF-4 Develop plans for long-term water provision to support growth and to address the
potential impacts of climate change on regional water resources.
PF-S Support efforts to ensure that all consumers have access to a safe, reliably maintained,
and sustainable drinking water source that meets present and future needs.
PF-6 Coordinate water supply among local jurisdictions,tribal governments, and water
purveyors to provide reliable and cost-effective sources of water for all users, including
residents, businesses, fire districts, and aquatic species.
v7
w
PF-7 Plan and locate water systems in the Rural Area that are appropriate for rural uses and
densities and do not increase the development potential of the Rural Area.
w
PF-8 Recognize and support agreements with water purveyors in adjacent cities and counties
to promote effective conveyance of water supplies and to secure adequate supplies for Q
emergencies. w
H
PF-9 Implement water conservation and efficiency efforts to protect natural resources, reduce
environmental impacts, and support a sustainable long-term water supply to serve the growing
w
population. U
PF-10 Encourage water reuse and reclamation, especially for high-volume non-potable water
users such as parks, schools, and golf courses, a-
y
a
U
4
6
60
aA4j? King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Within the Urban Growth Area, connection to sanitary sewers is necessary to support the
Regional Growth Strategy and to accommodate urban densities. Alternatives to the sanitary
sewer system and the typical septic system are becoming more cost effective and therefore,
more available. Alternative technology may be appropriate when it can perform as well or
better than sewers in the Urban Growth Area. Septic systems are not considered to be
alternative technology within the Urban Growth Area.
In the Rural Area and Resource Lands, which are characterized by low-density development,
sewer service is not typically provided. In cases where public health is threatened, sewers can
be provided in the Rural Area but only if connections are strictly limited. Alternative
technology may be necessary to substitute for septic systems in the Rural Area.
PF-11 Require all development in the Urban Growth Area to be served by a public sewer
system except:
a) single-family residences on existing individual lots that have no feasible access to
sewers may utilize individual septic systems on an interim basis; or
b) development served by alternative technology other than septic systems that:
• provide equivalent performance to sewers;
• provide the capacity to achieve planned densities; and
• will not create a barrier to the extension of sewer service within the Urban
Growth Area.
PF-12 Prohibit sewer service in the Rural Area and on Resource Lands except: W
a) where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing
structures; or
b) as allowed by Countywide Planning Policy DP-47; or
c) as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report).
Sewer service authorized consistent with this policy shall be provided in a manner that does not d
increase development potential in the Rural Area. w
F-
�a
U
Solid Waste <
w
u
King County and the entire Puget Sound region are recognized for successful efforts to collect �a
recyclable waste. Continuing to reduce and reuse waste will require concerted and coordinated D
efforts well into the future. It is important to reduce the waste stream going into area landfills
to extend the usable life of existing facilities and reduce the need for additional capacity.
PF-13 Reduce the solid waste stream and encourage reuse and recycling. U
4
7
61
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Energy
While King County consumers have access to electrical energy derived from hydropower,there
are challenges for securing long-term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient.
PF-14 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency and conservation as a means
to lower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy
supplies.
PF-15 Promote the use of renewable and alternative energy resources to help meet the
county's long-term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional
energy supplies, and increase community sustainability.
Telecommunications
A telecommunications network throughout King County is essential to fostering broad
economic vitality and equitable access to information, goods and services, and opportunities
for social connection.
PF-16 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and
development in a manner consistent with the regional and countywide vision.
Human and Community Services w
U
Public services beyond physical infrastructure are also necessary to sustain the health and >
quality of life of all King County residents. In addition,these services play a role in �
distinguishing urban communities from rural communities and supporting the Regional Growth Q
Strategy. d
CIO
PF-17 Provide human and community services to meet the needs of current and future w
P-
residents in King County communities through coordinated planning, funding, and delivery of
services by the county, cities, and other agencies. U
4
w
U
a
Locating Facilities and Services
w
VISION 2040 calls for a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the
Regional Growth Strategy, and for limiting the availability of services in the rural area. In the
long term, there is increased efficiency and cost effectiveness in siting and operating facilities CCj
and services that serve a primarily urban population within the Urban Growth Area. At the
4
8
62
a'aje King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
same time, those facilities and services that primarily benefit rural populations provide a
greater benefit when they are located within neighboring cities and rural towns.
PF-18 Locate new schools, institutions, and other community facilities and services that primarily
serve urban populations within the Urban Growth Area, where they are accessible to the
communities they serve, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task
Force Report). Locate these facilities in places that are well served by transit and pedestrian and
bicycle networks,
PF-19 Locate new schools and institutions primarily serving rural residents in neighboring cities and
rural towns, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report) and
locate new community facilities and services that primarily serve rural residents in neighboring
cities and rural towns, with the limited exceptions when their use is dependent upon rural location
and their size and scale supports rural character.
Siting Public Capital Facilities
While essential to growth and development, regional capital facilities can disproportionately
affect the communities in which they are located. It is important that all jurisdictions work
collaboratively and consider environmental justice principles when siting these facilities to
foster the development of healthy communities for all.
PF-20 Site or expand public capital facilities of regional or statewide importance within the
county in a way that equitably disperses impacts and benefits and supports the Countywide
Planning Policies.
W
U
d,
W
Ca
z
a
LU
w
h
:a
U
d
w
U
a
cra
a
a
Ci
4
9
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
N
f dy
1 d
Pi da B a
u ✓ /, v ireIZI (Y �'
� M"
§ d 6 a NU
ON
tl y ry
r � �
pgpNNn
" "pn �d'S
IL
i S p
n
A I
W
M) ♦a
M
00 m Lt7
RP
r
,P m
a
" x
0
64
m'WW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
l J I MEmuxu t.a" 4;.
1
I r
f< J
ww
br
wm
1
!
enlA trcew"' '�
, G'Lr �.ii.n I Y w.IIwA Y F x
Cww1Yy � b." 1.
b 5 f
Potential
Annexation Areas
Counlywide Planning Pollefea
June 2012 a
1 Wby
ea
fwn iA nW nl 4 t-� i M V WEfwpl
ha SW 1 fNI�NM A aroA z
GNfrF If F.fYLOPrvn NW[41nf!NVAV f(f. L sf0b m.Ey � f—�
.FIIA lldnilARlilln W
` Ely{MM a
_ Q A¢ �.{!ry U( YINry Ay�x' wl,.NuddM1dvta puuugfly�
ICE +x s+ is xd rnn rnsrsc;r- kg inn County: Q'
rIIII 9.w,wl o-mvf rsrxrsnin ',� °V"u,E„x" u�u,aa is
Aa arens,r.,�•.iw;..n y N
t roars m( m4n 1 ¢,
a u rmli npw�fir
ri r
........._ ......_.... ....,.,.. . .. .._ U
5
1
65
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS
I,
C
If
vw
1.11j"I NOW
h.,0, C
"4%
z
k91I County Urban Separators: North Overview-June 2012
I j,
fff)//� 1 I I III'e,IHJ'A I'I I",I I —,"Ij
66
W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
a
f
�EIJI f I
r,
tiJ V,y •`
Avql� Ile
j:
i[a,y A 7 x mGo�sdo-w 41rew4
& /G1/
��
w Q
L
ftwwt
z
f
a �
Wing,County Urban Separators: South Overview -June 2012
�., ,.m r IMM,
IIN!e
GII n .u..1 1 t Lm. v..umx Nm.0
hiR � Mrul. YA ,..ytiA A V 1
It Irv. I If 1,0yff "+1 d) y
m yl
.. UIIV i
.::rm:...._.m_..:_...,.,..m.........:...........»�...,»..,..... .... 7iaCh^G:YFi mi�xm C�
5
3
67
s'We King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Ji,
..........
11 71V
my
lk
IJ 1.111,1
ul Iof
",l
IV,
'IV i"ll ill
,IV M,no
"I
"lull, y
>
lullllu
C)
flui"
............... --------- ..................
Lg King County Urban Separators: Kirkland/Willows-June 2012
111"'I , 11111111P'lu u, "a"'I�u - k,
......... Jumw J.-, 1/1,11,
l"V-i I Vill-1 9 1 1 1 11
011111
I V.........
Ol A MCI full
5
4
68
W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Affordable Housing Need
Each jurisdiction, as part of its Comprehensive Plan housing analysis, will need to address
affordability and condition of existing housing supply as well as its responsibility to
accommodate a significant share of the countywide need for affordable housing. In order for
each jurisdiction to address its share of the countywide housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income housing, a four step approach has been identified:
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respond to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
The methodology for each jurisdiction to address countywide affordable housing need is
summarized as follows:
Countywide need for Housing by Percentage of Area Median Income (AMI)
1. Moderate Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates'indicate that approximately 16
percent of households in King County have incomes between 50 and 80 percent of area
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these moderate
income households at 16 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. X
q
z
2. Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates'indicate that approximately 12 a
percent of households in King County have incomes between 30 and 50 percent of area
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these low income
households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. 0
3. Very-Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates'indicate that approximately 12)
percent of households in King County have incomes between 0 and 30 percent of area F
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these very-low
income households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. This is where
the greatest need exists, and should be a focus for all jurisdictions. p
x
Housing Supply and Needs Analysis
Context: As set forth in policy H-3, each jurisdiction must include in its comprehensive plan Y
an inventory of the existing housing stock and an analysis of both existing housing needs and Z
housing needed to accommodate projected population growth over the planning period. This0.
policy reinforces requirements of the Growth Management Act for local Housing Elements.
The In ousing supply and needs analysis is referred to in this appendix as the housing analysis.
As is noted in policy H-1, H-2, and H-3, the housing analysis must consider local as well as cl
countywide housing needs because each jurisdiction has a responsibility to address a
U
significant share of the countywide affordable housing need.
5
5
69
a'Aje King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December3, 2012
The purpose of this section of Appendix 4 is to provide further guidance to local jurisdictions on
the subjects to be addressed in their housing analysis. Additional guidance on carrying out the
housing analysis is found in the Puget Sound Regional Council's report, "Puget Sound Regional
Council Guide to Developing an Effective Housing Element," and the Washington Administrative
Code, particularly 365-196-410 (2)(b) and (c). The state Department of Commerce also provides
useful information about housing requirements under the Growth Management Act.
Housing Supply
Understanding the mix and affordability of existing housing is the first step toward identifying
gaps in meeting future housing needs. Combined with the results of the needs analysis, these
data can provide direction on appropriate goals and policies for both the housing and land use
elements of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. A jurisdiction's housing supply inventory
should address the following:
• Total housing stock in the community;
• Types of structures in which units are located (e.g., single-family detached, duplex or
other small multiplex, townhome, condominium, apartment, mobile home, accessory
dwelling unit, group home, assisted living facility);
• Unit types and sizes (i.e., numbers of bedrooms per unit);
• Housing tenure (rental vs. ownership housing);
• Amount of housing at different price and rent levels, including rent-restricted and
subsidized housing;
• Housing condition (e.g. age, general condition of housing, areas of community with w
higher proportion of homes with deferred maintenance); as
• Vacancy rates; d
• Statistics on occupancy and overcrowding; e
• Neighborhoods with unique housing conditions or amenities; U
• Location of affordable housing within the community, including proximity to transit;
• Transportation costs as a component of overall cost burden for housing; W
• Housing supply, including affordable housing, within designated Urban Centers and local
centers; Z
• Capacity for additional housing, by type, under current plans and zoning; and O
• Trends in redevelopment and reuse that have an impact on the supply of affordable x
housing.
>C
Housing Needs
The housing needs part of the housing analysis should include demographic data related to W
existing population and demographic trends that could impact future housing demand (e.g. d
aging of population).The identified need for future housing should be consistent with the
jurisdiction's population growth and housing targets. The information on housing need should
be evaluated in combination with the housing supply part of the housing analysis in order to
assess housing gaps, both current and future. This information can then inform goals, policies, U
and strategies in the comprehensive plan update.
5
6
70
seW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
A comprehensive housing needs analysis should address the following population, household,
and community characteristics:
• Household sizes and types;
• Age distribution of population;
• Ethnic and racial diversity;
• Household income, including the following income groupings:
0 30 percent of area median income or lower (very-low-income),
o Above 30 percent to 50 percent of area median income (low-income)
o Above 50 percent to 80 percent of area median income (moderate-income)
o Above 80 percent to 100 percent of area median income (middle-income)
o Above 100 percent to 120 percent of area median income (middle-income)
o Above 120 percent of median income;
• Housing growth targets and countywide affordable housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income households as stated in the Countywide Planning Policies;
• The number and proportion of households that are "cost-burdened." Such households
pay more than thirty percent of household income toward housing costs.
"Severely-cost-burdened" households pay more than fifty percent of household income
toward housing costs.
• Trends that may substantially impact housing need during the planning period. For y�
example, the impact that a projected increase in senior population would have on Z
demand for specialized senior housing, including housing affordable to low- and w
moderate-income seniors and retrofitted single family homes to enable seniors to age in Q
place.
• Housing demand related to job growth, with consideration of current and future jobs-
housing balance as well as the affordable housing needs of the local and subregional Z
workforce.
U
• Housing needs, including for low- and moderate-income households, within designated H
Urban Centers and local centers. U
z
Note on Adjusting for Household Size a
As currently calculated, the affordable housing targets do not incorporate differences in o
x
household size. However, the reality is that differently-sized households have different housing
needs (i.e., unit size, number of bedrooms) with different cost levels. A more accurate
approach to setting and monitoring housing objectives would make adjustments to reflect p
current and projected household sizes and also unit sizes in new development. Accounting for w
household size in providing affordable units could better inform local policies and programs as
well as future updates of the Countywide Planning Policies and affordable housing targets.
a
Lnplementation Strategies
As stated in policy H-5, local jurisdictions need to employ a range of strategies for promoting U
housing supply and housing affordability. The Puget Sound Regional Council's Housing
5
7
71
;'We King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Innovations Program Housing Toolkit1 presents a range of strategies. The strategies are
identified as being generally applicable to single family development, multifamily development,
ownership housing, rental housing, market rate projects, and subsidized projects. Strategies
marked as a "Featured Tool" are recommended as being highly effective tools for promoting
affordable and diverse housing in the development markets for which they are identified.
Measuring Results
Success at meeting a community's need for housing can only be determined by measuring
results and evaluating changes to housing supply and need. Cities are encouraged to monitor
basic information annually, as they may already do for permits and development activity.
Annual tracking of new units, demolitions, redevelopment, zoning changes, and population
growth will make periodic assessments easier and more efficient. A limited amount of annual
monitoring will also aid in providing timely information to decision makers.
Policy H-18 requires jurisdictions to review their housing policies and strategies at least every
five years to ensure periodic reviews that are more thorough and that provide an opportunity
to adapt to changing conditions and new information. This five-year review could be aligned
with a jurisdiction's five-year buildable lands reporting process.
>C
Q
z
w
a
a
.a
d
u
U
w
E~
z
V)
0
x
�c
Q
z
w
a
a
c,
u
PSRC Housing Innovations Program Housing Toolkit http://psrc.org/growth/hip/
8
72
z'W King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 5: KING COUNTY SCHOOL SITING TASK FORCE REPORT
On March 31, 2012 the School Siting Task Force issued the following report and
recommendations related to 18 undeveloped school sites in King County, and future school
siting. Countywide Planning Policies DP-50, PF-12, PF-18 and PF-19 contain references to this
report, and in particular the Site Specific Solutions table found on pages 15-19.
F4
cC
O
a
c4
W
U
FC
O
w
x
v7
Q
F�
C7
F-
W
O
O
x
U
O
U
CD
.q,
Z
W
0.
P.
Q
i
Y
Q
U
5
9
73
41�4� King County Countywide Plonning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
H
O
a
W
U
O
w
Q
F-
C7
H
O
O
x
v
H
O
0
z
x
p
z
w
w
a
Q
v
6
74
17486
March 31, 2012
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
King County Chinook Building
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Executive Constantine,
With this letter we transmit to you the final report and recommendations of the School Siting Task Force.
The critical issues of quality education, efficient use of taxpayer dollars, equitability, preservation of rural
character, and sustainable growth made consideration of undeveloped rural school sites and all other
future school siting a complex and important undertaking.
Together, we have worked diligently since December to craft these recommendations. We represent
diverse perspectives and through our discussions we have reached agreement on specific solutions and
recommendations that we believe to be in the best interests of all King County residents, particularly our
schoolchildren. We are pleased to present to you these recommendations informed by accepted data
collected by our Technical Advisory Committee.
We would be happy to serve as a resource in any way we can as you consider these recommendations. We
look forward to your review, and we stand ready to assist in their implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Task Force. We look forward to having these
recommendations incorporated in future planning.
Sincerely,
King County School Siting Task Force members
(signatures on reverse)
75
17486
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................... . .........................................1
SECTION 2:GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS...............................—..........................................1
SECTION 3: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................4
OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................................................4
GM PC GUIDANCE FOR THE TASK FORCE.................................................................................................................S
SECTION 4:THE TASK FORCE PROCESS................................................ ............................. —..............6
APPOINTINGTHE TASK FORCE...............................................................................................................................6
HIRINGA FACILITATOR........................................................................................................................................6
STRUCTURE AND ROLES OF THE TASK FORCE.............................................................................................................7
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE........................................................................................................................7
FRAMINGWORK GROUP.....................................................................................................................................7
MEETING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS......................................................................................................................7
DECISIONMAKING:A CONSENSUS APPROACH.........................................................................................................8
PUBLICPROCESS................................................................................................................................................9
INFORMATIONCONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE....................................................................................I..................9
TASKFORCE REPORT........................................................................................................................................11
SECTION S: RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................11
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................11
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS FOR UNDEVELOPED RURAL SITES...................................................................................11
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SCHOOL SITING..................................................................................................20
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS..............................22
NEXTSTEPS....................................................................................................................................................22
APPENDICES(Attached)
A. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP...............................................................................................................ATTACHED
B. FRAMING WORK GROUP MEMBERSHIP..............................................................................................ATTACHED
C. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.................................................................................ATTACHED
D. MAP OF 18 UNDEVELOPED SCHOOL SITES...........................................................................................ATTACHED
E. GMPC MOTION 11-2....................................................................................................................ATTACHED
APPENDICES(ON CD)
F. MATRIX OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON UNDEVELOPED SITES..................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
G. MAPS OF UNDEVELOPED SITES............................................................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
H. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION................................................................................................ ON ATTACHED CD
I. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS................................................................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
J. PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS OF SCHOOL SITING....................................................... _...................ON ATTACHED CD
K. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK(13 TASKS)................................................................. ON ATTACHED CD
L. STATE SCHOOL SITING GUIDELINES.......................................................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
M, EXISTING POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK....................................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
N. EXCERPT FROM PSRC ISSUE PAPER ON RURAL AREAS.................................................................. ON ATTACHED CD
O. LAND USE PLANNING OVERVIEW.............................................................................................ON ATTACHED CD
P. MEETING SUMMARIES..........................................................................................................ON ATTACHED CD
Q. OPERATING PROTOCOLS........................................................................................................ ON ATTACHED CD
R. PROCESS SCHEMATIC............................................................................................................ ON ATTACHED CD
76
17486
S. TASK FORCE MEMBER INTERESTS............................................................................................ ON ATTACHED CID
T. INTERVIEW SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ON ATTACHED CD
U. PUBLIC COMMENTS.............................................................................................................. ON ATTACHED CD
77
mass
SECTION 1: Acknowledgements
The School Siting Task Force thanks the King County FxeCntiVe and the Growth Management Planning
Council for the opportunity to provide input on an issue critical to supporting K-12 education and to
preserving natural resources,public health, and quality of life in King County.
The Task Force would especially like to thank its members who agreed to serve on the Framing Work
Group. This group met on multiple occasions throughout the process, generally twice between each Task
Force meeting, to develop and frame issues and meeting approaches for the fill Task Force. Without the
considerable efforts of this group,the Task Force would not have been able to accomplish its work.
The Task Force also thanks the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), whose members worked
throughout January, February, and March of 2012 to gather data and information on the undeveloped
rural school sites and to compile additional information relevant to future school siting.
The Task Force also acknowledges the many members of the public who submitted comments and/or
attended one or more Task Force or TAC meetings. Their contributions provided valuable insight for the
Task Force's consideration.
Finally, the Task Force thanks Triangle Associates for their exemplary support throughout the process.
See Appendices A, B, and C for Task Force,Framing Work Group,and TAC membership.
SECTION 2: Glossi of Terms and Acronyms
Comprehensive Plan
A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body of a county or city that is
adopted pursuant to 36.70A RCW. (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Countywide Planning Policies(CPPs)
A written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which
county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to the Growth Management
Act. (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Growth Management Act (GMA)
The GMA was enacted in 1990 in response to rapid population growth and concerns with suburban
sprawl, environmental protection, quality of life, and related issues. The GMA requires the fastest
growing counties and the cities within them to plan for growth. The GMA provides a framework for
regional coordination; counties planning under the GMA are required to adopt county-wide planning
policies to guide plan adoption within the county and to establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Local
comprehensive plans must include the following elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities,
78
17486
transportation, and, for counties, a rural element. (Municipal Research and Services Center of
Washington)
Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC)
The GMPC, which was established by an Interlocal agreement, is a 15-member council of elected
officials from Seattle, Bellevue, suburban cities and King County. The GMPC has been responsible for
the preparation and recommendation of the Countywide Planning Policies to the Metropolitan King
County Council, which then adopts the policies and sends them to the cities for ratification. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Identified Need
Identified need exists if a school district has determined the type of school needed and a timeframe for
development on one of the 18 undeveloped school sites. (Source. School Siting TaskForce)
Multi-County Planning Policies
An official statement, adopted by two or more counties, used to provide guidance for regional decision-
making, as well as a common framework for countywide planning policies and local comprehensive
plans. (Puget SonndRegional Council)
Nonconformance
Any use, improvement or structure established in conformance with King County rules and regulations in
effect at the time of establishment that no longer conforms to the range of uses permitted in the site's
current zone or to the current development standards of the code, due to changes in the code or its
application to the subject property. (King County Code)
Regional Growth Strategy
An approach for distributing population and employment growth within the four-county central Puget
Sound region(King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish). (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Rural Area
Outside the urban growth area, rural lands contain a mix of low-density residential development,
agriculture, forests, open space and natural areas, as well as recreation uses. Counties and adjacent small
towns provide a limited number of public services to rural residents. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Rural Character
Rural Character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural
clement of its comprehensive plan:
a. In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
environment;
b. That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas;
79
17486
c. That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
d. That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
e. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
f. That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
g. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater and
surface water recharge and discharge areas
(Washington Stale Growth 17anagernent Act)
Rural Cities
A free-standing municipality that is physically separated from other cities and towns by designated rural
lands. Also referred to as "Cities in the Rural Area." The incorporated rural cities are Black Diamond,
Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw,North Bend, Skykomish and Snoqualmie. (PugetSoamcl Regional Council,
King County Comprehensive Plan)
Rural Towns
Rural towns are unincorporated areas governed directly by King County. They provide a focal point for
community groups such as chambers of commerce or community councils to participate in public affairs.
The purposes of rural town designations within the County's Comprehensive Plan are to recognize
existing concentrations of higher density and economic activity in rural areas and to allow modest growth
of residential and economic uses to keep them economically viable into the future. Rural towns in King
County include Alpental, Fall City and Vashon. (King County Comprehensive Plan)
Rural Zoning
The rural zone is meant to provide an area-wide, long-term, rural character and to minimize land use
conflicts with nearby agricultural, forest or mineral extraction production districts. These purposes are
accomplished by: 1) limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with
rural character and nearby resource production districts and are able to be adequately supported by rural
service levels; 2) allowing small scale farming and forestry activities and tourism and recreation uses that
can be supported by rural service levels and are compatible with rural character; and 3) increasing
required setbacks to minimize conflicts with adjacent agriculture, forest or mineral zones. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Tightline Sewer
A sewer trunk line designed and intended specifically to serve only a particular facility or place, and
whose pipe diameter should be sized appropriately to ensure service only to that facility or place. It may
occur outside the local service area for sewers, but does not amend the local service area. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated areas are those areas outside any city and under King County'sjurisdiction. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
80
17486
Urban Growth Area (UGA)
The area formally designated by a county, in consultation with its cities, to accommodate future
development and growth. Given that cities are urban, each city is within a county-designated urban
growth area. Cities may not annex lands outside an urban growth area, nor may they formally identify
additions to the urban growth area independently of the county designation process. Development that is
urban in character is to occur within the designated urban growth area, preferably in cities. Development
outside the designated urban growth area is to be rural in character. (Pugei Sound Regional C'Ouncil)
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is the growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation vision for the
central Puget Sound region. It consists of an environmental framework, a regional growth strategy,
policies to guide growth and development, actions to implement, and measures to track progress. (Puget
Sound Regional Council)
SECTION 3: Overview and Background Information
Overview
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to work together to
plan for growth. In King County, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is the countywide
planning body through which the County and cities collaborate. The GMPC is comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities Association, and special purpose
districts. The GMPC develops and recommends Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to the King
County Council where they are reviewed, adopted, and sent to the cities for final ratification. The CPPs
were initially adopted in 1992; certain elements of the policies have been updated over the years.
In 2010 and 2011, the GMPC undertook the first comprehensive evaluation of the CPPs since their initial
adoption. A full set of updated policies is required to bring the CPPs into compliance with the
multicounty planning policies (VISION 2040) adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008.
VISION 2040 is the regional growth strategy for the four-county region including King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish Counties.
On September 21, 2011 the GMPC completed its review and voted to recommend an updated set of CPPs
to the King County Council. However,they could not reach consensus on policies governing the siting of
public facilities and services. At issue was whether public schools serving primarily urban populations
Should be sited in rural areas, and whether such facilities should be served by sewers. The recent update
of VISION 2040 included policies stating that schools and other community facilities serving primarily
urban populations should be sited in the urban growth area, and that urban services(sewers) should not be
provided in rural areas. In the interest of consistency, the GMPC was considering adding similar policies
to the CPPs.
81
17486
While the GMA is clear that sewers are not permitted in rural areas (except in limited circumstances), the
CPPs have since 1992 contained a policy that allows public schools to be served by sewer when afinding
is made that no alternative technologies are feasible.King County implements this policy by authorizing a
tightline sewer connection after the finding is made.
This potential change in policy was of concern to school districts, many of which owned or had an
interest in undeveloped rural properties. While some had acquired their properties before the adoption of
the GMA and CPPs, most had not. Those school districts purchasing land after 1992 did so under a
regulatory framework that permitted schools in rural areas and that allowed a tightline sewer if needed. At
the time, with rising laud costs in urban areas and rapid growth, choosing less expensive rural sites
seemed the most judicious use of limited taxpayer funds. Many school districts pointed out the difficulty
of finding large parcels in urban areas, and the importance of siting schools so that they are convenient for
all students, including those in rural areas. School districts leaders testified that they do not distinguish
between the urban and rural portions of their service areas; their planning takes into account the needs of
their districts as a whole.
The policy debate generated testimony from rural residents, many of whom expressed concerns about the
impacts of siting schools in rural areas, including traffic congestion, environmental degradation, and loss
of rural character. They pointed out that while initial land costs might be tower in rural areas, the total
costs to society of siting schools in non-urban areas might be greater. In addition to the impacts of
transporting large numbers of urban students to schools in rural areas, the cost of transportation
investments needed to support new schools are borne only by unincorporated area residents. These
community impacts and financial burdens are not shared equally by residents in incorporated areas. Much
of the testimony from rural residents questioned the fairness and sustainability of siting in rural areas
infrastructure supporting primarily urban development.
In order to address these concerns, to acknowledge the changing environment and to support school
districts in their obligation to provide quality education for the children of King County, the GMPC
agreed to set aside the policies related to siting public facilities and postpone their consideration until a
task force made up of school districts, cities, King County, rural residents, and other experts could study
the issue and report back to the King County Executive.
GMPC Guidance for the Task Force
The GMPC. established guidance for formation of the School Siting Task Force in their Motion 11-2
(Appendix E) on September 21, 2011.
The Task Force was given the Mission to:
Develop recommendations to better align city, county, and school districts'Manning
for future school facilities in order to provide quality education for all children and
rnaximize health, envirornnewal, programmatic,fiscal, and social objectives.
-G111PCAlo1ion 11-2, School Siting TaskForce Work Plan, Task Force Alission
82
17486
To fulfill this Mission, the GMPC recommended a specific scope of work. As described in GMPC Motion
11-2, the Task Force's primary task is "to evaluate the current inventory at rural properties owned by
King County school districts" and to make recommendations as to their use or disposition. Collectively,
the Task Force identified 18 undeveloped sites in rural areas. To further support the fulfillment of its
Mission, it was anticipated that the Task Force might recommend legislative and other strategies.
The GMPC established a set of eight principles to guide the Task Force in its work. All of the solutions
recommended by the Task Force in this Report reflect the Guiding Principles established by GMPC:
Academic Excellence: Educational facilities should promote and support the academic achievement of
students.
Equitable: All children should have access to quality educational facilities.
• Financially Sustainable: School siting should be financially sustainable for each impacted jurisdiction
(school districts, cities, county unincorporated areas, and sewer/water districts) and male the most
efficient use of total tax dollars.
• Support Sustainable Growth: Planning for school facilities shall comply with slate law and be
integrated with other regional and local planning, including land use,transportation, environment, and
Public health.
• Community Assets: Schools should unite the communities in which they are located and be
compatible with community character.
Based on existing data and evidence: The Task Force process shall utilize recent demographic,
buildable lands inventory, and other relevant data and information.
• Public Engagement: The Task Force process should include robust community engagement with
impacted communities. Meetings will be transparent and open to the public for observation. The Task
Force shall provide opportunities for public comment.
• Best Practice and Innovation: Lasting recommendations should serve the region well for years to
come and support education,health, environmental, programmatic, fiscal, and social objectives.
SECTION 4: The Task Force Process
Appointing the Task Force
The GMPC designated categories ofinembership in Motion 11-2, but did not specify individual members.
Task Force members were appointed by the King County Executive (see Appendix A).
Hiring a Facilitator
Public Health - Seattle King County hired Triangle Associates as the independent facilitator to help
coordinate the work of the Task Force, including conducting initial assessment interviews of all Task
Force members, organizing Task Force meetings, facilitating development of recommendations by the
Task Force and providing support through drafting and production of the Task Force's Final Report and
Recommendations.
83
17486
Structure and Roles of the Task Force
The Task Force established two workgroups to assist in the effort: the Technical Advisory Committee,
(also recommended by the GMPC) and the Framing Work Group. Both are described below.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was comprised of representatives from King County, the
Puget Sound Regional Council, school districts, water and sewer districts, and the Suburban Cities
Association. A membership list is included in Appendix C. The TAC met throughout the beginning and
middle stages of the Task Force process; its role was to provide data and information to support Task
Force decision making. TAC meetings were open to the public and included dialogue with those who
attended. Meeting summaries(Appendix P) were developed to provide a record of their work.
The primary work product of the TAC involved compiling a matrix containing information related to the
18 undeveloped school sites (Appendix F), in addition to populating the matrix with site-specific
information, the TAC was asked to collect data and information in several other areas of inquiry, which
collectively were referred to as the "13 Tasks". This included subject areas such as demographic trends
and school enrollment projections. A complete list of the 13 tasks is included as Appendix F.
the TAC work and products enabled swift evaluation of, and development of solutions for, specific sites
by the Task Force. The breadth and detail of the data compiled by the TAC, and that Committee's timely
response to Task Force requests, played a critical role in the accomplishments of the Task Force.
Framing Work Group
Due to the short timeline for the Task Force to complete its work, the Task Force created a Framing Work
Group (Appendix B)to frame issues for its consideration. Prior to each meeting of the full Task Force, the
Framing Work Group met to review information gathered by the TAC and to discuss how best to organize
information and issues for discussion. Doing so helped the Task Force have focused and substantive
discussions and stay on task to meet their deadlines.
The Training Work Group made recommendations on process to the Task Force; however, all decision-
making power remained with the full Task Force, Framing Work Group members were appointed by the
Task Force Chair from the general Task Force roster. The group met on average twice between each Task
Force meeting, and meeting summaries (Appendix P) were included in the materials that the Task Force
received.
Meeting Structure and Process
The 'Task Force met six times from December 2011 through March 2012, using the process schematic
(Appendix R)as a visual guide for navigating its work effort:
84
17486
1. The first meeting, December 14, 2011, focused on introducing Task Force unembers, establishing
a process for the work effort, and hearing Task Force nteniber perspectives on hopes and desired
outcomes from the process.
2. The second meeting, January 25, 2012, focused on learning information from the TAC and
creating a set of interests (Appendix S) based on the Task Force's Guiding Principles as
established in the GMPC Motion 11-2. The Task Force also agreed upon a set of Operating
Protocols (Appendix Q).
3. On February 16, 2012, the Task Force held a 4-hour workshop to begin developing solutions for
the 18 undeveloped rural school sites and for future school siting. The Technical Advisory
Committee presented data on each of the 18 sites, and each school district was given the
opportunity to present additional information on their sites. The Task Force reached consensus on
an approach for evaluating sites that was developed by the Framing Work Group. This approach
involved identifying the critical or "threshold" factors that would allow Task Force members to
create four categories into which the 18 sites would eventually be sorted. The first step was to
brainstorm potential solutions for each category.
4. On March 1 2012,the Task Force met for the fourth time, also in a 4-hour workshop. Working in
small groups, Task Force members accepted possible solutions for the four categories of sites.
They then sorted the 18 sites into the four categories and also considered future school siting. The
Task Force reached consensus agreement on several items, including:
• The "Solutions Set and Criteria" document (Document 1 in the Recommendations
section), with agreement that a few items needed additional definition, clarification, and
confirmation at its next meeting
• The placement of all school sites in appropriate quadrants of the solutions table
5. On March 15, 2012, the Task Force accepted by 100% consensus:
• A final version of the"Solutions Set and Criteria'document
• Recommended and prioritized solutions for 12 specific sites
• The following technical documents: Matrix of school sites, list of 13 tasks, population
and demographic information, enrollment trends by school district, public health aspects
of school siting.
• Recommendations to the Growth Management Planning Council and Washington State
legislature related to school siting
6. On March 29, 2012, the Task Force accepted the Recommendations Report to be submitted to the
King County Executive.
Decision Making: A Consensus Approach
At the second Task Force meeting, the Task Force members accepted the Operating Protocols (Appendix
Q). This document established roles for all non-Task Force members involved in the process, clarified
communications protocols and workgroup composition, and defined a specific decision-making approach.
85
17486
The'rask Force defined consensus as obtaining the full acceptance of all members; short of that, decisions
and recommendations would move forward with the approval of at least 70°G, of the Task Force members
present, with at least one member from each primary interest group (county, cities, school districts, and
residents)voting in favor to accept a document or decision.
Public Process
The GMPC Motion stated that the Task Force process should include robust public engagement. All Task
Force meetings and TAC meetings were open to the public. All written materials (agendas, meeting
summaries, and other information) were made available on the Task Force website, and public comments
were accepted throughout the process at Task Force meetings, through the Task Force website and via
email. Comments from the public were summarized by the facilitator at the beginning of every Task
Force meeting, and the compiled comments were ensiled to Task Force members after each meeting(sec
Appendix U).
Information Considered by the Task Force
As Task Force members studied the issues associated with siting schools in rural areas, they considered a
range of data and information. The majority of this information was provided by the TAC. It included the
following documents, reports and policy frameworks, many of which are included in the appendices to
this Report.
• f8 undeveloped rural school sites. The TAC prepared a matrix containing factual information
related to each of the 18 sites including: general site information (e.g., zoning, acreage, assessed
value), land use and transportation considerations (e.g., landscape position, distance to UGA,
distance to sewer/water connection, environmental features), and the school districts' plans (e.g.,
intended use, development timeline). School districts were given the opportunity to correct and/or
augment the information about their school sites.
• Planning context. King County staff provided the Task Force with a brief history of the land use
planning in two areas where many of the undeveloped sites are located: the Bea-Evans Corridor
and the Soos Creek Basin. The county's land use strategy in both areas employed zoning and
development regulations on an area-wide basis so the cumulative impact of development would
not cause environmental degradation. A summary of this history is included as Appendix O.
• GMA policy framework. There is a strong policy basis in Washington State for focusing growth
in urban areas, protecting rural areas and the environment, and the efficient provision of
government services and facilities. The growth management framework considered by the Task
Force included GMA, VISION 2040, the Countywide Planning Policies, King County
Comprehensive Plan and King County Code. Relevant portions of these documents can be found
in Appendix M.
• Demographic information. The Task Force was presented with information from the 2010
census that identified population trends in the urban and rural portions of each school district, and
86
17486
also district-wide. Significant demographic shifts have occurred in the past decade: from 2000 to
2010, the overall rural population in King County declined by 1%, and the rural population under
the age of 18 declined by 18.4%. During the same time, the urban population saw an overall
increase of 12.11%and under-18 increase of 8.3`Yo. This information can be found in Appendix H.
• School district enrollment projections. The Task Force was presented with information related
to current and projected school enrollment, which illustrates that district populations will continue
to grow to varying degrees and that urban students will continue to comprise the majority of those
populations. The anticipated enrollment for students from rural areas generally failed to
materialize in the vicinities of the sites owned by school districts. The enrollment projections can
be found in Appendix 1.
• Funding for school construction. Although there was no formal presentation on this topic, it
came up on several occasions and was an important consideration for the Task Force. The State
of Washington does not provide funding to school districts for acquisition of properties; school
districts must rely on their own funding sources (through bonds, levies, grants, and donations).
Once properties are acquired, school districts can apply for state assistance for school
construction as part of a state match program.
• Current criteria and process for school siting. Using both state regulations and locally adopted
standards, school districts consider many factors when locating a site to develop a public school
facility. Following guidance set forth by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the Washington Administrative Code (392-142-020 WAC), districts look at site quality, cost,
projected enrollment, distance to students/transportation, and timing of school construction.The
WAC guidelines can be found in Appendix L.
• Funding for county road maintenance. The TAC determined that the cost for upgrading,
operating and maintaining county roads to serve future schools on the 18 undeveloped sites could
range from $30-35 million over 20 years. This is important to consider because the County road
fund has become severely strained, and because that cost would be borne solely by
unincorporated area residents through the county road levy. In addition to cost of road
infrastructure and tax equity issue, there are climate impacts associated with transporting large
numbers of students to schools in rural areas, in the form of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Public health aspects of school siting. One member of the TAC and one member of the Task
Force presented information on the public health aspects of school siting. hl recent years, best
practices in school siting have evolved to reflect a more community-centered approach, placing
schools in urban areas where children can walk to school and where school facilities can serve as
community assets. The major themes identified in this research(included in Appendix J)include:
a. School siting determines the proximity of schools to a student's home and larger
community and can affect whether children achieve and maintain good health,
b. Physical activity is key to children's health,
c. School travel impacts children's health in multiple ways, and
87
17486
d. Education policy is also health policy.
Task Force Report
This Report was drafted by the independent facilitation team. The Training Work Group refined the initial
draft document, which the Task Force considered at the March 15"i meeting. Between the March 15" and
March 29"i meetings, the Framing Work Group, project team, and facilitation team refined iterations of
the Report, with a final draft presented to the Task Force at its last meeting on March 29, 2012. The Task
Force accepted the document, with revisions, at that meeting. The facilitation team made final revisions
based on Task Force input before submitting this Report to the King County Executive.
SECTION 5_Recommendations
Introduction
The GMPC and King County Executive requested that the Task Force recommend solutions for the 18
undeveloped rural sites and guidelines for future school siting. The 'Task Force analyzed data and
information to create and prioritize specific solutions for each of the sites and to develop
recommendations for future sites. These are encapsulated below in Recommended Solutions for
Undeveloped,Sites and Reeontmendations fbr Future School Siting, respectively. Throughout the process,
Task Force members identified other recommendations in support of its Mission; the other
recommendations are listed under Reeonunendalions for Future School Siting.
Recommended Solutions for Undeveloped Rural Sites
The Task Force focused the major part of its effort on the 18 undeveloped sites, seeking logical and
sustainable solutions. Once the Task Force process was underway, the Task Force surveyed all the school
districts to ensure the Task Force's scope included the universe of undeveloped rural property with a
school district interest.No other undeveloped rural sites were identified by the school districts.
The Task Force, with guidance from the Framing Work Group, decided to use a"threshold" approach for
determining solutions for each of the 18 undeveloped sites. This threshold approach identified two
specific criteria; a site must possess one or the other in order to be considered for development. After
some refinement, the Task Force accepted the following criteria for decision making:
1) Does the school district have an identified need for a school site? (Identified need exists if
a district has identified a type ofschool and a time frame in which the school is needed.)
2) Does the site border the Urban Growth Area (LIGA) or have an existing sewer
connection? (Bordering the UGA means the site is directly contiguous to the UGA, An
existing sewer connection means sewer line is on site. This does not include sites with server
on an adjacent parcel or across the street.)
88
sass
Based on these criteria, the Task Force accepted the threshold approach for sorting the 18 sites and
created the Solutions Table, which separated the school sites into four quadrants:
• Box A, in the upper left corner, includes sites that border the UGA and/or have an existing sewer
connection and for which school districts have an identified need.
• Box B, in the upper right corner, includes sites that do not border the UGA and have no sewer
connection and for which school districts have an identified need.
• Box C, in the lower left corner, includes sites for which school districts do not have an identified
need and that border the UGA and/or have an existing sewer connection on site.
• Box D. in the lower right corner, includes sites for which school districts do not have an
identified need and that do not border the UGA and have no existing sewer connection on site.
Any and all other undeveloped rural school sites (those not among the 18 recognized sites) fall into
"future school siting" in Box E of the Solutions Table. Future school siting issues are addressed in greater
detail in the section entitled Recommendations for Feature School Siting.
The Task Force then developed possible solutions for each box and ranked these possible solutions in
order of preference, recognizing that circumstances for specific sites within each category might merit a
different order.
The recommended Solutions Set and Criteria are shown here as Document 1.
89
17486
Document 1-Solutions Set and Criteria
Existing Undeveloped School Sites in the Rural Area
Assumptions for Solution Set:
• For any solution that would result in a school district not being permitted to use a site for a school, the Task Force
recommends options through which the school district could receive fair and appropriate value.
• All solutions resulting in site development should mitigate impacts and provide community benefits.
• Any solutions that involve a change in the UGA or allow/prohibit sewer service shall be governed by the laws,
policies, and/or administrative procedure(s) in place at the time.
• Additional solutions may apply; detailed analysis may be required to determine optimal solution for any site.
• All sites,site conditions, and identified needs are included in the Matrix. School districts were asked to bring forward
any additional sites and no other sites emerged so the full and final list of specific sites is shown in Documents 2-3.
NOTE: Solution Sets in each box is listed in priority order.
Site borders UGA or has sewer Site does not border UGA and has no sewer
connection. "seiner cowwf,,n"defnedas having connection.
seiner on site alreadr�(riot adiaceno.
School district 4 B
has an 1. Find an alternative site in the UGA 1. Find an alternative site in the UGA
identified need 2. Allow school district to connect to 2. Find an alternative site bordering UGA (ii/'
fora school existing sewer this occurs, see Box A for possible
site. 3. Incorporate site into adjacent UGA solutions)
3. Sell,or hold with the understanding that
vdenr{tted need" any tuture development must be
e.VWS ifd[60o has consistent with Vision 2040 as
rd,wifted a type oJ'
ec{tool and a rtne implemented by King County Code
flame to vk,h Iher'
need the school Prohibit: Extending addirional sewer outside Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight-line sewer
UGA
C pI
School district 1. Find an alternative site in the UGA I. If the site is of value to the county,cities
does not have 2. If the site is of value to the county, cities or community,facilitate the purchase,
an identified or community,facilitate the purchase, sale, or land swap of property
need for a sale, or land swap of property 2. Find an alternative site in the UGA
school site. 3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that 3. Sell,or hold with the understanding that
any future development must be any future development must be
consistent with Vision 2040 as consistent with Vision 2040 as
implemented by King County Code implemented by King County Code
Prohibit:Moving UGA; neiv sewer Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight-line sewer
connections
All Other Undeveloped School Sites Il�alture)
Future School
Siting All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040,
90
17486
Once the"I'ask Force accepted these criteria and categories plus the prioritized solution sets for each
quadrant,members considered each undeveloped school site. At the March I"meeting, the Task Force
reached consensus agreement for the placement of each site in accordance with the accepted criteria.
The accepted placement of each rural school site is shown below as Document 2.
Document 2-Site Categorization
Task Force breakout groups identified the sites in each category. The fill Task Force reached 100%Consensus on March
I, 2012 on the following site categorization:
Existing Undeveloped Sites in the Rural Area (18 sites)
Site borders UGA or has sewer Site does not border UGA and has no sewer
connection. connection.
A B
School district Sites: Sites:
has an Enumclaw A, D Enumclaw B
identified need Lake Washington 2, 4 Issaquah 1
for a school site Snoqualinie Valley 1
Tahoma 1
C D
School district Sites: Sites:
does not have Kent 4 Auburn I,2, 3
an identified Kent 1, 2, 3
need for a Lake Washington 1, 3
school site Northshore 1
All Other Undeveloped School Sites (Future
[Future School
Siting All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040,
Once the Task Force accepted the theshold criteria and site categories, developed the basic solution sets
for each quadrant, and placed the school sites in categories based on the threshold criteria, members
brainstormed possible solutions for each site. Task Force members developed a preferred solution for
each site, with a prioritized list of additional solutions. Where appropriate,they included notes,
considerations, and rationale to support each site's recommended solution(s).
The Task Force recognized that VISION 2040,the CPPs,the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the
King County Code will ultimately govern what happens on both current undeveloped school sites and on
any other future school sites in rural areas. In addition, school districts will control the timing and specific
actions within that framework. The involvement of cities is needed to facilitate siting within urban areas.
Document 3 below shows the recommended solution(s) for each school site,along with site-specific
considerations.
91
17486
Document 3—Site-Specific Solutions
Box A
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
.........
School
district has Overview:
an In general, while the Task Force's preference is to find alternative sites in the UGA, the Task Force finds
identified that for the sites in Box A the particular site conditions and circumstances facing the impacted school
need for a districts may warrant other solutions. Thus the recommended solutions vary by site. For any
school site. recommendations that allow for development on a site, the Task Force recommends that the district work
with the county and community to minimize impacts on the rural surroundings and rural residents.
Because of the identified need by the school districts, the 'task Force recommends that these sites receive
prioritized attention from city, county and school district decision makers.
Sites and their Solutions:
Snoqualmie Valley 1
1. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specie. The high percentage of floodplain land in this school district makes finding an alternate site
very challenging. The site does not have significant conservation value. The site has an existing school,
which was developed with the intent that another school rvould be built on the site. The district has
undertaken site preparation for the addition of an elementary school on the site. The school district
invested in the Local Improvement District that enabled the sewer to reach the site.
Tahoma 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specific, The Task Force encourages the district to work with the county and cities in the district to
explore opportunities for finding an alternative site in the UGA that would meet the pressing need for
additional capacity that development of another school would provide. If viable alternative site that fits
within the district's financial plans can be expeditiously found the availability of sewer and an existing
school on the site present compelling reasons for development of the site to meet the district's needs. The
site does have conservation value and the Task Force recommends that any new development on the site
occur adjacent to the existing school so that impacts to the site's forest cover are rninirnized.
Lake Washington 2
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Incorporate site into adjacent UGA
Site specific. The site borders the Redmond watershed and has conservation value. The Task Force
therefore encourages the school district, the county and the Chy of Redmond to find an alternative site
within the UGA that would meet the district's need for additional capacity that development of another
school would provide. The parties should identify other partners and fading mechanisms that would
allow for purchase of the property (perhaps in conjunction wilh the Lake FFashinglon I site) for
permanent conservation as well as provide resources to the district for purchase of alternative site. If
no viable alternative site can be expeditiously identified, the Task Face recommends that the school
district develop the site in a manner that src m°rves as much cr,>r'the conservation value of the site as
92
17486
possible. This may be accomplished through,for example, incorporation of a small developable portion of
the site (about five acres) into the UGA for a small environmental schools'while placing the remainder of
the site into permanent conservation. The district should also work closely wilh the county and community
to nrinirnize other impacts, such as transportation. The Task Force does not recommend extension of
sewer to any portion of that site that remains outside of the UGA. V the site is proposed for incorporation
into the UGA, it shall go through the King County docket process.
*Environmental School will have sustainable or "green ' buildings and grounds (refer to State RCW
39.35D, "Ifigh performance public Buildings—Guidcliacsftn-School Districts
Lake Washington 4
1. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specifics The Task Force recognizes the school district's need for additional capacity in the eastern
portion of district, which straddles the City of Redmond, the rural area, and an unincorporated urban
"island" sun-ounded by rural area. The site is part of a large parcel on which there is an existing
elementary and middle school, both already connected to sewer. The undeveloped portion of the site was
previously used as a mink farm and portions of the site are cleared The Task Force recommends that the
district work closely with King County and the cornnnunitlr to minimize both existing and additional
impacts on the area surrounding the parcel, particularly the transportation impacts related to several
facilities being located or developed on the site.
Enumclaw A &D:
la. Find alternative sitels in the UGA
lb. Place all school buildings and impervious surfaces on the urban side of the UGB and place
hallilel&/playfields on the rural side of the UGH.
Site specific (M): This joint site ties on the south-eastern boundary of the Black Diamond UGA and a
masterplanned development (MPD) that has yet to be constructed. The idenfifed need of the school
district is associated primarily with the population projections of the AIPD and with students residing
outside o/the MPD but in the northern part of the district, the sites are planned for an elementary and a
middle school. The fee title to both sites is held by the developer, with the districCs property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district if the MPD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no server be extended to the rural portion of the site and
that the City, of Black Diamond and county work with the developer and the school district to site all
schools associated with the MPD completely within the UGA, The Black Diamond City Council supported
this solution in a resolution passed 3-1-12. The Black Diamond City Council previously approved the
Comprehensive School Mitigation Agreement identifying Enurriclux, Sites A, $ and D as agreed-upon
school sites,
Site specific (1 b): The Enumclaw School District and the developer have identif ed es an alternative to /a
the placement of a portion of the proposed school-related facilities ora rural lands. !f attempts to site each
of these schools fully within the UGA are unsuccessful, alternative lb may be contemplated Alternative
1b consists of sitig n all school buildings, storm water detention and other support facilities, and all
parking and impervious surfaces within the UGA and limiting any development in the adjacent rural area
to ballfzel&1pldyfelds. The TaskForce feather recommends rnacntairting signifcont.forest buffers between
the ballfields/playfields and adjacent rural lands including the Block Diamond Natural Area.
Recommendation of !tics urban/rural alternative by the Tasdc Force is meant to address the unique
circumstances of the Enumclaw A &D sites and is not to he construed as a precedent for locating schools
on adlutveru rural lands. Consee lsenily, it is not recommended/rn any other sites„
93
17486
Box B
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
.....
School district
has as identified Overview:
need for a school The Task Force recommends that alternative sites in he UGA be found for all sites in this box and
site. that sewer not be extended to these sites. Because of the identified need by the school districts and
the recommendation to find alternative sites, the Task Force recommends that these sites receive
prioritized attention by school district, county and city decision makers.
Sites and their Solutions:
Issaquah 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
Site specific. The site is a large parcel (80 acres) on May Talley Road between SquakMoantain to
the north and Cedar Hills Landfill to the south. The site has conser vaiion value. The Task Force
recommends that the school district work expeditiously with King County, the City of Issaquah and
the City of'Renton. These partners shall work diligently to find an alternative site within the UGA
that would meet the school district's need for additional capacity that development of another
school would provide. The county, cities and school district should idendfj, other partners and
funding mechanisms that may allow for purchase of the properry for permanent conservation or
other rural-related uses while also providing resources to the district for purchase of an
alternative site.
Emmnclaw B:
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
.Site specific. The site is in the rural area west of the Black Diamond UGA and a master-planned
development(NIPD) that has been approved but is yet to be constructed. The identified need of the
school district is associated with the population projections of the MPD; the site is planned for a
middle school. The fee title for the site is held by the developer, with the districts property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district if the A,1PD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no sewer be extended to the site and that the City of
Black Diamond and the county work with the developer and the school district to site schools
associated with the AIPD in the UGA.
94
17486
BOX C
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
.........
School district does
not have all
Overview:
identified need for Because the site in this box is not associated with an identified need, the Task Force recommends
a school site. that the school district plan to develop the site consistent with Vision 2040 or manage the site as
part of its capital portfolio.
Site and its solution:
Kent 4
1. Sell, or hold with the understanding that any future development must be consistent with
Vision 2040 as implemented by King County code.
95
17486
Box D
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
....... ......... — — —
School district does Overview:
not have an Because sites in this box are not associated with an identified need, the Task Force
identified need for recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites consistent with Vision 2040 or
a school site. manage the sites as part of their capital portfolio.The Task Force also recommends that while
the school districts will ultimately determine how sites are handled, the count}, cities, and
other interested parties should investigate whether sites may be suitable for permanent
conservation or other public purposes: if so, these entities should work to facilitate the
acquisition of the properties for the identified public purposes.
Solutions for sites with conservation value:
1. If the site is of value to the county, cities or community, facilitate the purchase, sale, or
land swap of property
The Task Force recommends that the county, cities and school districts investigate whether
the properties may be appropriate for permanent conservation or acquisition for other public
purposes.
• Auburn 1: The site has value for f ood hazard reduction.
• Kent 3: The site has forestlannd of value for environmental, social, and potewially
economic benefits.
• Lake Washington 1: The site has value for flood hazard reduction and regionally
signifcant aquatic or terrestrial natural resources, Facilitating the sale of the property
into conservation may assist with solutions for other Lake Washington sites in Box A.
• Northshore 1: The site has forestland of value for environmental, social, and potentially
economic benefits.
Solutions for sites without identified conservation value:
Auburn 3,Kent 1,and Lake Washington 3
1. Sell, or hold understanding that any future development must be consistent with Vision
2040.
The Task Force recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites consistent with
Vision 2040 or manage the sites as part of their capital portfolio.
Solution for Auburn 2:
Auburn 2: The site has an existhr q elementary school, but no sewer extension. The school
district plans to redevelop the existing elementary school or build a middle school to replace
the elementary school. No time frame has been specified. The Task Force recommends that
the school district be allowed to redevelop, if no .newer connection is needed and as allowed
by development regulations in place at the thne of developmenl.
96
17486
Note: In develoloing the above recommendations for schools sites, TaskFbrce members reached ont to all
school districts whose service area induces rural land, even those districts not represented ou the Task
Force. To make satire the solutions recornrnended by the Task Force would encompass all known sites and
create lasting solutions, school distrims were asked if they owned w had interest in any rural sites raot
already under consideration in/his,process. School district representatives stated there were no
additional rural sites needing to be addressed cat this time. Therefore, no other sites are included and all
futtrre school siring should be gadded by the recorrnnendeeions below.
Recommendations for Future School Siting
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ comprehensively updated VISION 2040 in 2008. in
preparation for the update, the PSRC developed an issue paper regarding Rural Areas that included a
discussion on Special Purpose Districts and Institutional Uses (Appendix N). The issue paper noted that.
special purpose district planning is disconnected from GNIA, and that many facilities (including schools)
had expanded into rural areas, taking advantage of relatively low land values and large tracts of land. The
issue paper recommended that policies be established that provide regional guidance on siting special
purpose districts within rural areas. 'Thus, the following policies were established and incorporated into
VISION 2040:
MPP-PS-4 Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when
they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase the
development potential of the surrounding rural area.
MPP-PS-S Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size and
scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure.
MPP-PS-21 Site schools, institutions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban
populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the local desired
growth plan.
MPP-PS-22 Locate schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents
in neighboring cities and towns and design those facilities in keeping with the size and scale of
the local community.
Also in 2008, VISION 2040 incorporated new policies integrating public health considerations into land
use and transportation planning, and addressing climate change through the regional growth strategy
(reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focusing growth in urban centers).
Consistent with all of the above, VISION 2040 now encourages the siting of public facilities in urban
areas, and states that "Schools should be encouraged to become the cornerstone of their cornrmunities by
locating in more urban settings and designing facilities to better integrate wilt their urban
neighborhoods."
97
17486
Given the adopted policies in VISION 2040 and after consideration of the wide range of technical
information presented, the Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
Box E
The Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
In support of this recommendation, the Task Force further recorn mends:
1. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) should develop policies and adopt a work
program that commits jurisdictions to working together to identify future school sites within the UGA.
These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tools to ensure a sufficient
supply of land for siting schools.
2. King County should work with the school districts, community representatives, and other stakeholders
to address any future redevelopment of existing schools on rural sites to accommodate school districts'
needs while protecting rural character.
3. The Growth Management Planning Council should add a school district representative to its
membership.
4. The Puget Sound Regional Council should collaborate with counties and cities in working with school
districts to ensure coordination in regional (4-cou11ty) growth management discussions (per VISION
2040 PS-Action-6).
5. The Washington State Legislature and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction should
examine, together with the State Department of Commerce, how state laws, guidelines, policies and
administrative procedures can influence school siting decisions, including:
a. Reconsideration of existing transportation policies and funding that incentivize busing and
siting schools away from population centers
K Identifying new funding for school land acquisition, including incentives for purchases, land
swaps, and other avenues for obtaining land inside the UGA
c. Revising existing guidelines for school siting such that districts who build on small sites in
urban areas are eligible for state match funds
d. Increasing the compensation to school districts for the construction costs of schools sited
within the UGA
Note. The Task Force did not specifically consider redevelopment of existing schools on sites in the rural
area. Redevelopment issues were not included in the Task Force scope of work. Information emerged late
in the Task Force process regarding redevelopment and will be passed on to appropriate officials for
consideration at afrlure date. Redevelopment is addressed in 42 in Box E.
98
17486
Communicating Task Force Findings to Stakeholders
To help communicate its findings, Task Force members are available to speak with interested parties
(school boards, city councils, etc.)to discuss its work, its process, and its recommendations.
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Implementation of these recommendations will require additional work by and ongoing coordination
between King County, the cities, school districts, and other stakeholders.For this reason,the Task Force
has recommended including school districts in regional planning bodies.
Recognizing that the Task Force's recommendations will require school districts to reconsider their real
estate portfolios and/or financial plans, one of the first implementation items should be to explore the
recommended solutions for specific sites, including:
• Finding alternative sites in the UGA
• Exploring land swaps for undeveloped sites
• Exploring acquisition of undeveloped rural sites for public purposes, including conservation,
recreation, or other rural-based uses
The Task Force suggests that this work commence immediately, and defers to the King County Executive
on identifying the appropriate fortnn(s).
Next Steps
The following are the next formal steps in the development of new policies to support the Task Force's
recommendations:
l. The King County Executive will review this Task Force Report and propose new Countywide
Planning Policies for Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) consideration
2. The GMPC will review the Executive's proposal, and recormnend new Countywide Planning
Policies to the King County Council for their consideration
3. The King County Council will review the GMPC's recommendation,adopt new Countywide
Planning Policies, and send them to the cities for ratification
4. The King County Council will adopt new Comprehensive Plan policies and development
regulations that are consistent with the new Countywide Planning Policies
99
17486
Appendices (Attached)
A. Task Force Membership
B. Framing Work Group Membership
C. Technical Advisory Committee Membership
D. Map of 18 Undeveloped School Sites
E. GMPC Motion 11-2
Appendices on CD
F. Matrix of Technical Information on Undeveloped Sites
G. Maps of Undeveloped Sites
H. Demographic Information
I. Enrollment Projections
J. Public Health Aspects of School Siting
K. Technical Advisory Committee Work (13 Tasks)
L. State School Siting Guidelines
M. Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework
N. Excerpt from PSRC Issue Paper on Rural Areas
0. Land Use Planning Overview
P. Meeting Summaries
Q. Operating Protocols
R. Process Schematic
S. Task Force Member Interests
T. Interview Summary
U. Public Comments
100
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
GLOSSARY
Affordable Housing: Housing that is affordable at 30 percent or less of a household's monthly
income. This is a general term that may include housing affordable to a wide range of income
levels.
Agricultural Production District: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, agricultural lands that are not characterized by urban
growth, have soils suitable for agriculture, and that have long-term significance for commercial
farming. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates Agricultural Production Districts
where the principal land use should be agriculture.
Area Median Income: The annual household income for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA Metro Area
as published on approximately an annual basis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Buildable Lands Program: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for certain counties
in western Washington to report on a regular basis the amount of residential and commercial
development that has occurred, the densities of that development, and an estimate of each
jurisdiction's ability to accommodate its growth target based on the amount of development
that existing zoning would allow.
Climate Change: The variation in the earth's global climate over time. It describes changes in
the variability or average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from natural
factors or processes (such as change in ocean circulation) or from human activities that change
the atmosphere's composition (such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.)
Climate Change Adaptation refers to actions taken to adapt to unavoidable impacts as a
result of climate change.
Climate Change Mitigation refers to actions taken to reduce the future effects of climate
change. >1
d
Comprehensive Plan: A plan prepared by a local government following the requirements of the
Washington Growth Management Act, containing policies to guide local actions regarding land
use, transportation, housing, utilities, capital facilities, and economic development in ways that U
will accommodate at least the adopted 20-year targets for housing and employment growth.
a
ro
.c
Environmental Justice: The fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for U
social equity. Environmental justice is concerned with the right of all people to enjoy a safe,
6
1
101
King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
clean, and healthy environment, and with fairness across income, ethnic, and racial groups in
the siting and operation of Infrastructure, facilities, or other large land uses.
Forest Production District. A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, forest lands that are not characterized by urban
growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of timber. The King
County Comprehensive Plan designates Forest Production Districts where the primary use
should be commercial forestry.
Growth Management Act: State law (RCW 36.70A) that requires local governments to prepare
comprehensive plans (including land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities)
to accommodate 20 years of expected growth. Other provisions of the Growth Management
Act require developing and adopting countywide planning policies to guide local comprehensive
planning in a coordinated and consistent manner.
Greenhouse Gas: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to global warming, including
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Human activities have added to
the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases.
Healthy Housing: Housing that protects all residents from exposure to harmful substances and
environments, reduces the risk of injury, provides opportunities for safe and convenient daily
physical activity, and assures access to healthy food and social connectivity.
High-capacity Transit: Various types of transit systems, such as light rail and bus rapid transit,
operating on fixed guideway or dedicated right-of-way designed to carry a large number of
riders at higher speeds.
Industry Clusters: Specific economic segments that are the focus of the Regional Economic
Strategy. As of June 2011, the identified regional industry clusters included: aerospace, clean
technology, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
King County Open Space System: A regional system of county-owned parks,trails, natural
areas, working agricultural and forest resource lands, and flood hazard management lands.
Low-Income Households: Households earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the Area d
Median Income for their household size.
O
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting
.a
criteria detailed in policies DP 35-37,
a
Mixed-Use Development: A building or buildings constructed as a single project which contains U
more than one use, typically including housing plus retail and/or office uses.
6
2
102
iNUW King County Countywide Planning Policies
November2012
Amended December3, 2012
Moderate-Income Households: Households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the
Area Median Income for their household size.
Potential Annexation Area: A portion of the unincorporated urban area in King County that a
city has identified it will annex at some future date. See Appendix 2: Interim Potential
Annexation Areas Map.
Purchase of Development Rights: Programs that buy and then extinguish development rights
on a property to restrict development and limit uses exclusively for open space or resource-
based activities such as farming and forestry. Covenants run with the land in perpetuity so that
the property is protected from development regardless of ownership.
Regional Growth Strategy: The strategy defined in VISION 2040 that was developed by the
Puget Sound Regional Council to help guide growth in the four-county region that includes King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. VISION 2040 directs most of the region's forecasted
growth into designated Urban Areas, and concentrates growth within those areas in designated
centers planned for a mixes of uses and connection by high-capacity transit
Resource Lands: Designated areas within King County that have long-term significance for
agricultural, forestry, or mining. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Rural Area: Designated area outside the Urban Growth Area that is characterized by small-
scale farming and forestry and low-density residential development. See Appendix 1: Land Use
Map.
Rural Cities: Cities that are surrounded by Rural Area or Resource Lands. Rural Cities are part
of the Urban Growth Area.
Stormwater Management: An infrastructure system that collects runoff from storms and
redirects it from streets and other surfaces into facilities that store and release it—usually back
into natural waterways.
Sustainable Development: Methods of accommodating new population and employment that
protect the natural environment while preserving the ability to accommodate future
generations.
a'
Transfer of Development Rights: Ability to transfer allowable density, in the form of permitted CIO
building lots or structures,from one property (the "sending site") to another (the "receiving O
site") in conjunction with conservation of all or part of the sending site as open space or
working farm or forest.
fl.
Transportation 2040: A 30-year action plan for transportation investments in the central Puget U
Sound region intended to support implementation of VISION 2040.
6
3
103
a'AU� King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Transportation Demand Management: Various strategies and policies (e.g. incentives,
regulations) designed to reduce or redistribute travel by single-occupancy vehicles in order to
make more efficient use of existing facility capacity.
Transportation System: A comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes,
automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g,
sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement
of people and goods on a local, regional, national and global scale.
Universal Design: A system of design that helps ensure that buildings and public spaces are
accessible to people with or without disabilities.
Urban Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting criteria detailed in
Development Pattern chapter policies 31-32.
Urban Growth Area: The designated portion of King County that encompasses all of the cities
as well as other urban land where the large majority of the county's future residential and
employment growth is intend to occur. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Very Low-Income Households: Households earning 30 percent of the Area Median Income or
less for their household size.
VISION 2040: The integrated, long-range vision for managing growth and maintaining a healthy
region—including the counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish. It contains an
environmental framework a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, the Multicounty Policies, and
implementation actions and measures to monitor progress.
Water Resource Inventory Area: Major watershed basins in Washington identified for water-
related planning purposes.
Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to households with one or more workers.
Creating workforce housing in a jurisdiction implies consideration of the wide range of income
levels that characterize working households, from one person working at minimum wage to
two or more workers earning the average county wage or above. There is a particular need for
workforce housing that is reasonably close to regional and sub-regional job centers and/or >
easily accessible by public transportation.
O
o.
U
6
4
104
This page intentionally left blank.
105
King County
Metropolitan King County Council
Committee of the Whole
REVISED STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 6 Name: Kendall Moore
...Proposed No:: 2012-0282 Date: November 26, 2012
Invited: Paul Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
Karen Wolf, Executive's office
SUBJECT
A proposed ordinance adopting Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC")
recommended revisions to the King County Countywide Planning Policies ("CPPs"),
including changes to he Potential Annexation Area ("PAX) map.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2012-0282 as
amended with a "do pass" recommendation.
BACKGROUND
Please see October 29, 2012 staff report.
ANALYSIS
Attached to this staff report as Attachment 4 is a matrix identifying all the changes
made to the CPPs that are proposed by the striking amendment.
The only addition to the changes described at the October 29, 2012 committee meeting
is the change found at page 33 of the CPPs, which is new text to provide the reader
context for jobs housing balance strategy called out in policy H-9 (CPPs, page 33), as
well as in the Housing Appendix at page 57.
As reported in the discussion at the October 29, 2012 committee meeting, these
changes were reviewed by the interjuridictional team ("ITX) members, who are staff to
the GMPC. No objections to the changes were received.'
At the October 26 meeting several members commented that these changes improved the document's
clarity and readability.
1 of 2
106
AMENDMENT
A new Attachment A, incorporating the changes discussed at the October 29, 2012
committee meeting has been prepared. Additionally as also discussed at that
committee meeting, as striking amendment has been prepared to make code changes
so that listing every GMPC action and ratification by the Council will no longer called
out in code. The proposal is to decodify those listing sections in the code rather than
repeal, so that history will be preserved. This approach is similar to what is proposed
for the Comprehensive Plan code sections that list the history of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.'
2 of 2
107
KING COUNTY 1200 Kbnp,(ounty(-o11rtf1,L1sQ
516'Mird Avenue
k9 Signature Report Seatflv,WA 98104
KingCourity
December 3, 2012
Ordinance 17487
Proposed No. 2012-0436.2 Sponsors Phillips
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting Growth Management planning
2 Council Motion 12-5 and. ratifying Motion 12-5 for
3 unincorporated King County,
4 STATEMENT OFFACTS:
5 1 . 'the Countywide Planning policies ("(21's") are adopted in accordance
6 with the state Growth Management Act, under 36,70A.21 0 RCW.
7 2. The Growth Managerneni Planning Council ("GIVIFT") was formed in
8 1992 to guide the development of the CPPs. The GMI'Cis a
9 representative body of elected officials from King County, the city of
10 Seattle, the city of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities Association,
11 Representatives ot-the special districts serve as ex officio members.
12 1 The CPI's esuiblish a framework for guiding developilient in all King
13 County jurisdictions,
14 4. The CI'lls are deemed adopted when ratified by King County and the
15 requisite number of'cifies and satisfying the required population
16 percentage.
17 5. The GM11C recommends CIT amendments to the King County council
18 for consideration, possible revision and ratification,
19 BE ITORDAINE,I) I 3 y 7HE COUNCIL OF KING ('01 f NTY.
108
Ordinance 17487
...............
20 SEC,uON 1-., Findings,
21 A. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council introduced
22 Motion 12-5 listing the proposed changes to the urban,growth area then under
23 consideration by the King County Council and accepted public testimony regarding the
24 proposed changes.
25 & On September 11, 2012, the Growth Management Manning Council approved
26 Motion 12-5 following additional public testimony regarding the proposed changes to the
27 urban growth area.
28 C, Attachment A to this ordinance incorporates Motion 12-5.
29 S)"'CTION 2. The amendments to 2012 King County Planning Policies, as shown
2
109
Ordinance 17487
30 in Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted and ratified oil behalf ol"the.
31 population of unincorporated King County,
32
Ordinance 17487 was introduced on 10/29/2012 and passed by the Metropolitan King
COUray Council on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
Yes: 9 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr, Dunn and My,,
McDermott
No: 0
Fxcused: 0
KING COUNI Y COUNCIL
KING (',0UNrY, WASIUNGTON
AYI I SF: /,at iy Gosseu, hair
Anne Nods, Clerk of the (,oajjcij
APPROVED thisS day of-
l 2012,
-
...... .. .........
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: A. Monon No, G2-S
3
110
17481
ATTAC81Pv1I NT A
9/11/12
Decision: Ap7proml Sponsored i3y: fi;xecutive ('otnmiuce
err
1 13fM ION NO . 12-5
y A MOTION to ameml the l lrbarr Gmwih mesa or King
3 ('only. "Phis Modell also rnerclifies the Polernisal Annexation
4 Area rasp it, Inc Countywide Planning Policies,
`i
6
7 Vr11IER AS, the Washinlrlon State Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A.I pd requires
S counties trn desig nme an uArn gaowth area or areas within which rtrbmi x nmW shalt be
g encouraged and outsicic of which growth can occur only if it is not urban rrr nature; and
1 C?
I WI lEREAS ('ountykvide Plaun ing 1041y FW-I Step S recognizes that tt ing C ounly may
12 inhale amendments to thu Urbrnr (nowth Arcas; and
E3
14 All H AS, the King, ('otrnty F3xecutive and the Mcwolrolilan King ('aunty ('owicil
15 recpucs(s the (hoWth Managenrent Mining (buncil consithu fire attached "'Imenclgarcrrts to
16 be Man (Nomh Arca for eventta.al ndophon by the Mer-opolitAn King County Cotmcil
17 and ratification by the citic^s; and
18
19 W11151MAT Countywide Mining h' Hdcs 1AX31 and E,1.J-32 amiciprate the coileborauve
20 of Potential Antre^xatron Areas and the; evcntual annexaalion of dew areas by
21 vitae Ilie attached <uaacnchnerits are supported by the aflecled city,
22
23 BEITRk'SOLVEDlI WAIT (ihdOW"fitMAYWHMI.N`I PVANN1N(; COtiNCH 01'
24 KING ( OUN 1'Y I lFPEMY MC7US AS FOLLOWS:
25
26 1. Ainend the 15b an thrown' Area ,as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Meat) in IN
27 Countywide Planning 1'o icics, [lie Potential Annexation Area maji, as depicted oil the
28 followans_ attached neaps:
9
30 Anaclnaicnt t: Sanun n hr h `soaring faglc
31 Attachincol 2: Saoclualmie 'Mining `3ina
32 A tnclummt is Auhum — 148'a Ave SE technical cm1cauoar
33 Att<eclirrrerrt 4: E lwrcl< I)i,amouri 212°i Ave 41r,teehrnca4 Corr c'Ciorr
311 ArtacWNH Y Redmond- fit, tlnkm Hill Road/196"4'Ave TO Icclrnical t anrection
W Anachnnou( G: Black iNarnond ➢..rite Sawyer Road SE tuduliml cotrcctfon
fps Anactmrcnt'7:1 eutrnr `3E Ohal E ulmvrtski Road technical convc:tiorr
1 ..
111
17487
1 Attachiywsif 8: Maple Valley
Y SL 28V" Way tedmival �,oiivutioil
2, Attachment 9 M;jpje V�ljjey - SE' 298"' Si,. technical coiredioii
m Altachoni 10: Fnumchm SE 440"' St. technical correction
4 AttacAmwnt 11: North ficind -SE' 142`' St. technical correction
Muidbment 12: Noitlr Bend SE' 1-50"' S 9 techni"ll c(rilvcti(jll
Li AtUidimetit 13: Auburn St;Breen Vallee Real technical correction
At-eichnicnt 14 Duvall SR 203/NK' 140'r' St. to chnicat corl,cetioe
8 Attachment I: 'Mapic Valley split parcel
9
lo
1 1 1 Amend the Inierit-n Potential Annexation Area Map by
v includirw any additional
2 unincorporated urban hind created by these t JGA amelidincias ill the Powmikil
Amwmition Area of the adjoining city, and delefing any land changed Crom urban lo
14 mial from flic respective PAA.
15
t6 3 TIwsc amendments are recommended to the Kin}? County Council 'ind the Cities of
17 l4rnga Ctrunty for adoption and ratification.
20 Al 0( 'TI D by the Growth Marl[jgclTlelll Plclbllillt, COLUICil ol'Kiug Comity in open session
21 on Seplember 11, 2012 aixt signed by the chair of'LI)c (jMp('.
12
2 3
24
25 Dow C onsfallfille, Chaiv�-( lowth Managenite)I Phin I ning C I o uncil
20
27
2
112
Altachment I
Soaring Eagle w
Recommended Land Use Map King County
........ OS KG' Opaqi
I[P li 11, - —: i i c,o I p o ra if.,d Are as
Spac.e Sys(fin
0 P Other Parks/Wilderness
......f
�f
, WJ (I
If
StUdyAmIi
'(,fbW '1,a 4,*+** Pripos(d Urban
1 G I J I i L I I f; I)�, I I)I I, I I III"I if
mcumiii I d f Gfcfwth b(imidnry
-—--------- ------- ................
IDS
a* N'N;■
m a
I I a
s?
S, I' m Rolm wwas Bills 0 loan", 4
a is
a
Op a
■
a
a a
vi,1,
f
Sammamish If
P/
A
or Y
Attachment 2 113
Snoqualmie - Mining Lm
Recommended Land Use Map King County
� �<� r'X Rural C[tivS Wbaan G;rowfh Ar'a�a y. �� Iricorprar rf(A Aieas
III
nr� i. r n f'a Rural Area
v
, " rrl Mincing ' Urban Growth E'wuradary
r
�^ � � Gv < g4ounY
C7an Upaein" � . .....
Change
ii n� ..F4 t,�. 4 I'rorur ed Ufb an
a�i ,� r "n 1, > tno ,Jr Growth Boundary c e
c-,
J
�r
rn I
171 AVI °iF
f
2024089DW r I'rrf,uni;t'
1 20„?405✓o1"
P 21,4f)'wil `%r
tiT7 r53 '.
1
{ � r
i
r
ar l irr.id
024WI9I)2U 02,109961'
os
Y
I a
F
fr
i
i
I
Y
114
17487 Attachment 3
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - 148th Avenue SE
x
a
--`3E 3G4a-Jt -..... -_
I/OY�
m
r
mo-Ve tJC;C' to c ast ear ir7 cif f C
to include entire road segment
in urban area, Road is already
maintained by City ofAubLfln,
........ , -- _
v
Auburn
_ _ r
r
kI
-. _. --SE-368th-St---
,b
_w
B
Urban Growth Linn,
I
county P.o.¢jc;
Unur c,r;.lcu atr II Area
125 U 5 r r22 Feet King County
" " , .,"., ._..._...._._ May 10,201'i Inaw it io., .uc+ier.n.a
115
17487 Attaachrrrent 4
Urban Growth Boundary Fight of Way Issues - 212th Avenue SE
----- . _..... ..- .._ _
y r
r4 wWie�7L'JfPro.9T/ay�ra"'"�'° ,o�nec '
^mow„
CC! r�
...
va
Move UGB to west fE
ROW margin to includL �u
entire roar! m Urban Area.
St,
e*a rUD �t
e
w aY v
'" b
v`
r9' !
K
ytb`� Fr SY:Ii �
" O $
..1"`�'^t
^^,w... lP..
maple". Vafl tiiy
Kent
J
f �..,..f
FVyr11 c!1 Way JGIUFY ( K ,, ; /
t ll,ex x{Y '° (" Black` e9udf l't eYE"P°
Urtsai! 41rowth! I_irlE;
County 43n..ld:.
N,:r. i., 7 t.
,+ r r
mu,ru��!>l ntr�J i3rc a .. . ".
Gx r
yp
_.1 May 10.20 11 King County
rrnMr Attachment .5 116
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way ISSUes m PEE Union Hill Road
. -I, - - ------ .. -------—._..
EN
�x
,�,...>�az AA �r�,,�mr Nh^WrEuorM°�drlll [nou.vfY
W Abs e
Ix
FO
Move; LJGB to north maigin a
cif NE Union Hill Road ROW
to include entire road in Urban Area.
1"v'c„^cJM t'p€f ydta o
VV �N
� W
Move UGR to west mrargm
of 196'fh five NE ROW t(.) 'inc(t.rde
entire road in Rural Area.
'r Yf(-&M AIR VMd E4i i#i-ded�QS.UYE^
N
W
W
N
SINS QO Itk L`d IYd.Vd.Ary-.WX.{W OIN-iNMN6- .. ..,w ii ,w, .....a.....,... ...,,.....,®...... ..®....... .„...w.,«.,.......,».........m..«....., .....,....r..,....,.W,...�.,,.M,,...
iar C.tl&C)C"M r.
� � B°�4 C� &�
Ri halo Way
I_,. fit`
Yd
�r, v,.�Urban Growlti ..'il lu�..imth:,t
0111,
a rfrrc fnf;t7 , Lu rR
,
County Road,
Parcels
Ar
Unincorporated at;a Arica
a 0 r^ tCrara c5ts�re . .
Y
�l y
...u..m..«. _.... . .......
_.__..._..._. May 10,2011
117
17487 AttziChment 6
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - fluke Sawyer Rd SE
_ o- staet, sr...
s
r
....... .. --- `tarrrrartrr. ,,
r Pra f Move UGB to west ROW m argm
to include road in urban area
� k
- -
CJ
a
+�x
to
•day .r- _....
ypA ...,...._._,.,,.. ......._...,..
a
SE 12^87,C;4"'8
d
..�..#7. ,, Y
i
i�
t hack r<aaaaakaatrt
R'iser,r ofw,,y ca;uv t
IA an C:rowlh Line* +n
. . .:a-
• r;otfnly Iroacis
Pea rctl`, � pa
.,
._ f 4 Y "9 k rec�ber��tr N
f i4u ...0 Ra
Uriinrf�firfualffiF,rta el
@ rr
r
saa 1 ra o 34o F-�el 6 unit cxtrra y
_.
MAY'10,2011
118
174a7 Attache-rent 7
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SE Old Petrovitsky Road
rr
ff y
C!
EGA 4
FA yy N
Val
N
,a \ M
ON
S
> `C+;4,%
3rd PI
rs �
a
"" ungt,-S'erv'irc-R-rP-�
Y
to imftide road in Urban of ROWt
Area ad
dd
d:
4a t
UGC vy
" i
' ..
Rig V cd Wry ,kkc
1110
C.ourit Roa(j�
Urban � rawtPi t,l
� a
I � 4
1-'nrce[r,'
1 Unnc
or
�x7r atFU Area
ink
all .�&: ..�:.,........
230 11 f a P30 Feet IGwng County
_• d may 10,2011
119
17487 Attachment'. £t
Urban Growth Boundary Fight of Way Issues - SE 281st Way
_. ._ ---- _......... ........
a
t
Nt 1
Move 11GB to sot.ith ROVV nrsrgirl
to include road in L.hb ara err=a
_......__.a.,__.. _W
_.._ .. s
s 2n,
aF'250kh t i
Maple VHHO of
2t,7
f
9F, ab/e
e 14'" bY 4
@ ,M
Urlmn Growth Une
Rioht of Way Issue, g '�
f
....m.,.....,. County Rc)ads V
ciflrs
Unnrnrrmi ate dArea t"9'ta,yd` t'1a�rrCx,traty -„
oa n �00 r Poi41 Ding County
_
m ........ __ 1
_... y10 2011
120
1-1487 Attachment 9
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way ISSUeS - SE 288th Strut
......__.
cy ..%y136tl7'sP' ^4
Move UGB to south ROW rnargir
to include entire road in Urban
-...__....... r.x estn�nscsttas.4 mxauUY"ss�I,CiPP91u1`sw.`'8y5"�°s7b ,s`s"'mJ nmrarsw wu�irr4�rrn za.w2ronmcs, .m::naexalwserar e aZidPl$0 wU,N..Y n(Y/IRYr ti44 m sd'0A
Black � yt `
vt
n °
s
,o
er �"
x ry
to
t
&tl R
M,
gE
j a"+,'9lpir" Valley
KG"tfda r
SE 28Sth St. t
-, ryupfir uP Way l•14SUFn e
II IYI. Pk 164�F R
q bsara C`aluwth[.'inc 7county Rrocl�,
.,,.....
a
k
k'aroc,� ' Black tb asrrrwrrod ,
ut
?!G 7135 0 270 ill'en, County
may 10,2U11 K„ oaell.��
121
iraai
Auacltar ent 10
Urban Growth BOUndary Right of Way Issues - SE 440th Street
'glove fl. GB to north margin of ROW
ict N
to inch.ade entire road in Urban Area. 'r
V
t�
c Own Ia ik 23-d4 Id
k A C R �
WHO a1& A , GA
(CX P9 le R Ck Hk /k [: i%t .'� P/A SP FA ffi m vIe L�pp TY. 1%t Ye Stt d. Ind Bd"
..»..,...,,, Ma-m
McHugh Ave ESE 432nd=5�,,--------RiyW
"t
uy yA 0
niu in 01e
rpe e an op Man i 3R(I'crWff'r E..I114:.
.'.'. County Roads 5', S/,' 4 ENTd,96"PAclaw
e7
SR 410 r. N
' � UiilPs; in 'r SR 4M1 CI �
Urunaqwi atr ct Pmi
17ci e:'; n 170rEet LQ King County
TAY"A
_.._.----- M.a..:_� y
fll,20 11
Attachment 1 122
. ...........
Q.
as 4u 21
(b ccj
r� (1) 0 T in
>
LL CCJ
Lli
Q3
cc m
X cu
CD
qj
fxi 0
0 "E, <
aL w
J.
0 U)
C-1
3AV
...............
S' DAV G W�A�
ly
LU o m
0
QD Q)
>
0
yiq Qj
rl)
...............- ...... .............
Attachmen2t 1 123
1'487
0
C'I
C.0
co
) F
U.1
Q)
u
0
CL
0 75
CL
C Q
JS JAV Y--.
IN H 1'29�
0
ce 1�/
co
RI
Yl 0 — 0
E -0 CYO
.................
J ,
............. ................ .........
124
y 4 7 Attachment 13
Urban Growth Boundary Might of Way Issues - SE Green Valley Road
Move UGB to south ROW
margin to include road in
Rural Area. All other segments
of SE Green Valley Road
are rural.
A,,
e YV�iy
Acibmn
�FwMy�
���VbVVu
)� n
H� 4Y "moVw.y�niuw.m F v�
I
G r^VJrhfPv�ri�rzu9nV�d7,n'krl(�;,,
...5,..„7 PY SFrµ S a` ��NM � wP, m ...,„_.. . .�..,,...»nr,,.....................I,y.td ry :
N
- — r
p
R
E
+, I
Vdiyhf o(Wedy �„
i n SR'I tick "ww.„.,,__... .,.... .. „,.,.
l.hh crE Growth Line
Parcels �
,.. ........� c ire
_ r
Unlnccxporaled Arca
ria b:, o orb r'm,d1l King County
,, w.� _ ..._J May10 2011
125
7T487 Attuaclinmtt 1,4
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SR 203 & NE 140th Street
st
s.,taW,f�
R
Y
4i
Ur
tf
0a
41
J
Move UGB to east rnarclin of 11
SR 2043 ROVV to include all 1
ROW fog NE 140ffi Street in r
Urban Area and eiirninatc;
oprhaned ROW segment. t
e
a
rxY t
xr �
� 1
R , NS 1 St
W �dfh
b y
IR
,....a. .. r t
�,
t PIF.:145ttr SPY'
s
° �.�ki'b✓Ysfifk°
��,...- WNE MI'd Pa c
N
h
_ Ur:�ap9�Y B e..l
6 d` ^,
1H I lrt7�rn Growth Liar,
a�W
Counly Roads
frfil f:JU�;:Y
� (rhie.w
Unln�rrrrrur�etet,i Aiee r �w
o a. 0 911 actKing County
126
1 487 _.... Attach meat .is
MapleValley UGA Revision
J/
r<
jr Maple Valley
01
a
i
r
l�k
f
(,OmAM 4K
L111. 4wa',r✓I O�fO"SIftEJO:ilJ is le�.taif uvlPiin U'u54iP pf M1Ya>b J�Ale _ '"'""""" "'"'"""""""' ^---- �—�--�_---�--Y Y { y. Piowwnr ibra UGA i nn cicvw¢,nit rnnfonrl tq tY n 6;Itlyn Ion <1'ctlnr¢¢I t5reudxlrery.
M1h ni ry>i fw9 , V ryry4 r, 11 ity bl y( i1 rfYf � nry i� n � if Ifl n a1y not tic_�cl�
R I��u n t it i U UI m [m [ w pi d 1Y d Y 'P�lp in Umef)qva qC yMv in lhv sM P t f. nl �� �����
Y P f i Kl q i, my fi II Y W 1 dle Po b YNen '1 gpih Y �W rtct NUS 4N o� q q glal 0 'gbm If6yiC If tt�H � Irearmenlls l(rcft" moil pi 4i utrvt sn�YPa'iim:git uninatlrrnpi ray hiyeslmot n & x Y llor b llratt ey p vl N'Fmnrr c{it Cy IW 10 ^v Itttf 11 l inn tjr� ty
it la',uJ2A/JUt2 �ca K aC ry'll� A�Y��. l ;u Ii inGri'�Yo Oti'IOG rnefrnc�ylavlM.f�laAlyl ��� � �. ��d..
127
LIM
King County
Metropolitan King County Council
Committee of the Whole
REVISED STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: Name: Kendall Moore
Proposed No:: 2012-0436 Date: November 26,"2012
Invited: Paul Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
Karen Wolf, Executive's office
SUBJECT
Adoption of the UGA and PAA1 map amendment recommendations by the Growth
Management Planning Council
COMMITTEE ACTION
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2012-0436 as
amended with a "do pass" recommendation.
SYNOPSIS
Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2012-0436 would approve and ratify for the population
of unincorporated King County the recommendations made by the Growth Management
Planning Council ("GMPC") relevant moving the Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") in 15
different instances, none of which are controversial. These changes have already been
forwarded as part of the King County Comprehensive Plan ("KCCP") Update for
consideration. Additionally, except for the split parcel correction (Attachment 15 to
GMPC Motion 12-5) all have been subject to the County's KCCP public review and no
one has opposed these changes. Additionally, no one testified at the GMPC hearing in
opposition to these changes.
BACKGROUND
At its June 6, 2012 meeting, the GMPC took up for consideration Motion 12-5 listing the
proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area ("UGA") then under consideration by the
King County Council and accepted public testimony regarding the proposed changes.
No one testified against the proposals.
UGA is the acronym for Urban Growth Area and PAA is the acronym for Potential Annexation Area.
1 of 8
128
On September 11, 2012, the GMPC approved Motion 12-5 following additional public
testimony regarding the proposed changes to the UGA. Again, no one testified against
the proposals.
ANALYSIS
1. . GMPC Motion 12-5 Attachment 1_(Soaring Eagle)2
The proposal would change the from Rural to Urban a 29.9 acre portion of Soaring
Eagle Park and add it to the Potential Annexation Area ("PAA") of the City of
Sammamish. It is expected that a later time, the ownership of the parcel will be
transferred from King County to the City and an interlocal agreement would ensure that
this property to be permanently kept in park use. This will allow the City to annex the
subject property and develop it with an active recreation city park.
KCCP Policy U-104 supports this change.3 The transfer will result in a public benefit in
the form of a city park with restrooms served by public sewers.
2 All of the map amendments recommended by the GMPC in Motion 12-5 were included in the striking
amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2012-0103, the 2012 Updates to the King County Comprehensive
' Plan, .
3 U-104 Rural properties that are immediately adjacent to a city and are planned or designated for park
purposes by that city may be redesignated to urban when the city has committed to designate
the property in perpetuity in a form satisfactory to the King County Council for park purposes
and:
a. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994;
b. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and receives county support through a park
or recreation facility transfer agreement between King County and a city; or
C. The property is or was formerly a King County park and is being or has been transferred to
a city.
2 of 7
129
Soaring Eagle
Recommended Land Use Map
:t.rteaiaw.�n.e u.eu nu w uu mmw A
w.m..wve...,..w...., u" OS KO Open Space System tr.crporated Areas
0P Other Park%WiWemess
Uftsn Grawlh Brn .,y
study Aiea
W -muu ro4 w.vyµ x..�.t.sa. J.=,•^^a Alt, PrePod U .
Micae.'mn:�avw..cror~e, ++.,wn..vs,.nee.r+.a uwe� 4 'l Grmtthse Bovedary
r.a
OS
6
Iff
Ai
r Op AF
bi
Im
IN 'm
fg
z }rtr
Sammamish
4D
Fi
prr` Y x,
k
3 of 8
130
2. GMPC Motion 12=5 Attachment 2• (Snogualmie Mining Site)
This recommendation would change the land use designation from Urban (and in
Snoqualmie's PAA) to Rural for a portion- of 'parcel 2024089017 and all of parcel
2024089020. Both of these properties contain a long-term mining operation and are
zoned Mining. Both the City and the property owner, Weyerhaeuser, support the
change.
KCCP Policies also support this change:
• R-510,4 which calls for land designated in a Rural City's PAA should be planned
and developed with urbanuses, not mining activity.
• R-676,$ support the designating existing mining sites as a Designated Mineral
Resource. By definition designated Resource Lands are not within the Urban
Area.
4 In substantive part, R-510 The cities in the rural area and their Urban Growth Areas are considered
part of the overall Urban Growth Area for purposes of planning land uses and facility
needs.
s In substantive part, R-676 King County shall identify existing and potential mining sites on the
Mineral Resources Map in order to conserve mineral resources, promote
compatibility with nearby land uses, protect environmental quality, maintain and
enhance mineral resource industries and serve to notify property owners of the
potential for mining activities. The county shall identify:
a. Sites with existing Mineral zoning as Designated Mineral Resource Sites;
4 of 7
131
Snoqualmie Mining
Recommended Land Use Map
TH W.er0.•n N'+f[f.,.q T4 nV w b+e[vt[.Gp
„rsyyCs+6�aTMawiYhNwna+w G [laq C-
rs„ c.T w (% Rwal cibs Urban GTawth Area L� Ncarporated Areas
M. "`w :,.`.i[LL tw„`.�:�. Fa Rural Area
a m w yr i .mot nl lAining. <} 'E4t' Urban Groru4h BoSmdary
ms-Nswn�� i' OS King ewnty Open Bpace System
change _
omn�w.�11 a 5 ®� Pt ed Urban
LN .7N.TY.MAF 2 �„j[.1PV'I){,Cmpt(rtNrC[I UwcY n ,Ta 4'v+ssJ ITT # opos
wa.apemrrJ9+�!n.crcoixfA�^raaWrrre�,i=Joi can n�:v,m.t.ur�+ass uw.:u i' Growth Boundary o xa zo
pLctiN(Ep 0.
\ 5u�
J
rR
I f
w.vwnct I FcratU'
17
..:,xt11MC AVE SF.
m I r
•' [ .. .1'xtTWS-....
JJ
G� Fen_onU
ti` � : :c:=osscax ow wT z+y
it
r8 ,'
ii.
i rx
i
;M1
;3
5 of 7
132
3. GMPC Motion 12-5 Attachments 3-14• (ROW/UGA Technical Correction
Pursuant to T-2056, King County Department of Transportation determined 12
segments of King County road rights-of-way ("ROW") should be redesignated on the
KCCP Land Use map for the purposes of efficient future road maintenance. ' ,In eight
cases, the ROW segment should be included within the UGA so that the adjacent city
will have long-term maintenance responsibility. In three cases, the ROW segment
should be included in the Rural Area, since King County will continue to have
maintenance responsibility. One case involves two segments; one should be
designated Rural and the other Urban to clarify maintenance responsibility between
King County and the City of Redmond.
Map Amendments —These map amendments are attached to this staff report as part of
Attachment A to proposed Ordinance 2012-0436.
Redesignate from Rural to Urban
• 148th Ave SE, adjacent to Auburn
• 212th Ave SE, west of Black Diamond
• NE Union Hill Road, east of Redmond
• Lake Sawyer road SE, west of Black Diamond
• SE Old Petrovitsky Road, east of Renton
• SE 281st Way, east of Maple Valley
• SE 288th Street, south of Maple Valley
• SE 440th Street, north of Enumclaw
• SR 203 at NE 140th Street; south of Duvall.
Redesignate from Urban to Rural:
• 196th Ave NE, east of Redmond -
• SE 142nd Street, south of North Bend
• SE 150th Street, south of North Bend
• SE Green Valley Road, northeast of Auburn
4. GMPC Motion 12-5 Attachment 15: Maple Valley Split Parcel
Council Staff discovered a split parcel in the city of Maple Valley during their review of
the map amendments for the 2012 KCCP Updates.7 This developed parcel, located
within a subdivision totally within the city limits of Maple Valley, shows up on the UGA
map with the UGB running through it, resulting in half designated Urban and half
T-205 Any segment of a county roadway that forms the boundary between the Urban Growth Area and
the Rural Area shall be designed and constructed to urban roadway standards on both sides of
such roadway segment.
This map amendment was not included as an area study for the 2012 KCCP Update; however, it is a
technical change rather than substantive change and merely corrects the UGA map to reflect the existing
conditions on the ground.
6of7
133
designated Rural. This change results in the parcel being completely within the Urban
Area.
This map amendment is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment A to
proposed Ordinance 2012-0436.
The change comports with KCCP Policy U-103.8
AMENDMENT
A striking amendment has been prepared to comport this legislation with the revisions to
the code that are included in the striking amendment for Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282. As members will recall, the striking amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282 will simplify the King County Code changes so that listing every GMPC action and
ratification by the Council will no longer called out in Code. The striking amendment to
Proposed Ordinance 2012-0282 will decodify those listing sections in the Code rather
than repeal them, so that history will be preserved. This approach is similar to what is
proposed for the Comprehensive Plan code sections that list the history of amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the section in the transmitted proposed
ordinance reflecting the history of past GMPC and Council action relative to CPP
amendments are. not necessary and have been removed. Findings are added to set the
context.
e U-103 Parcels which are split by the Urban Growth Area boundary line should be redesignated to either
all urban or all rural unless the parcel is split to recognize environmentally sensitive features or
the requirements of interlocal agreements or King County plans.
This parcel was not split for environmental reasons or as a result of planning or agreements with the City.
Maple Valley supports this change.
7 of 7
KENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6R
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment, Landscaping Ordinance - Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , amending Chapter 15.07, 15.02.086,
15.02.172, and 15.02.274 Kent City Code, related to landscaping regulations.
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to the zoning code relate to landscaping
regulations for development. The amendments are undertaken as part of the City
Council's initiative to transform regulatory processes in order to increase operating
efficiencies.
In general, the amendments modernize the code, incorporate low impact development
techniques and soil amendment regulations, improve maintenance requirements,
reorganize the code for better ease of use, and provide clarity where there is
confusion.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance
RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter
15.07, Kent City Code pertaining to landscaping
regulations; repealing Section 15.02.172, and
adding new Sections 15.02.086 and 15.02.274,
Kent City Code [ZCA-2012-3].
RECITALS
A. Local planning legislation arises from many sources, including,
but not limited to, Federal, State or regional mandates; changes to local
community vision; complaints; need for clarity; updated technologies,
business operations or strategies that make existing codes outdated; and
conflicts with updated regulations in other city departments.
B. The city has determined that amendments to Chapter 15.07,
Kent City Code (KCC), Landscaping Regulations, with related amendments
to definitions in 15.02.086, 15.02.172 and 15.02.274 are necessary to
modernize the code, incorporate low impact development techniques, and
provide clarity where there is confusion.
C. The Land Use and Planning Board discussed amendments to
Chapter 15.07, KCC, that regulate landscaping, with related amendments
to definitions in 15.02.086, 15.02.172, and 15.02.274, at its public
1 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
workshops on October 8, 2012 and November 26, 2012. After holding a
public hearing on January 14, 2013 and January 28, 2013, the Board
recommended approval of the amendments. The Economic and
Community Development Committee considered this matter at its February
11, 2013, meeting, and the city council considered this matter at its
February 19, 2013 meeting.
D. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible
Official conducted an environmental analysis of the impacts of the
proposed amendments and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on
November 26, 2012.
E. On November 19, 2012, notice was sent to the Washington
State Department of Commerce and expedited review was requested. On
December 13, 2012, the City was granted expedited review and was
informed that it had met the Growth Management Act notice requirements
under RCW 36.70A.106.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 15.07.010 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 15.07.010. Purpose.
A. The provisions of this chapter are to provide minimum standards for
landscaping in order to maintain and protect property values and enhance
2 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
the general appearance of the city. It is also the purpose of this chapter to
encourage Low Impact Development (LID) through the use of soil
amendments and integration of landscape areas and LID stormwater
management facilities. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral part
of the overall site plan with the purpose of enhancing building design,
public views, and spaces, and providing buffers, transitions, and screening_
B. The planning marragerdirector shall have the authority to waive
specific requirements or impose additional requirements in unique or
special circumstances to ensure the fulfillment of the stated PuFpese
purposes of this chapter and to allow for flexibility and innovation of
design. Special circumstances or unique conditions shall be reviewed with
the planning managerdirector prior to submittal of a landscape plan.
Examples of what might constitute unique or specials
mig#rtcircumstances include:
1. Preservation of unique wildlife habitat.
2. Preservation of natural or native areas.
3. Compliance with special easements.
4. Renovation of existing landscaping.
5. Unique site uses.
This list is for illustrative purposes only, and is not intended to be
exhaustive.
3 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
SECTION 2. — Amendment. Section 15.07.020 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 15.07.020. Landscape plan approval.
A. A building permit shall not be issued until the landscapelandseaping
plan has been approved.
B. At the time of development plan review, the planning
:ptngen}services shall review specific landscape requirements with the
owner or his Feffesentat = applicant.
C. Landscape plan review shall be required in the following instances:
1. New construction. New construction is covered by this
chapter as follows:
a. Buildings constructed or enlarged.
b. Other structures or use areas constructed or enlarged.
C. Landscaped areas constructed or enlarged as follows:
i. If constructing new landscaped area or adding
the equivalent of fifty (50) percent or more of the existing landscaped
area, the entire site must meet the standards of this title.
ii. If adding less than fifty (50) percent of the
existing landscaped area, only the new portion must meet the standards of
this title.
4 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
2. Change in use. When change of use permit is required,
landscaping shall be provided to meet the standards in this title.
SECTION 3. - Amendment. Section 15.07.030 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 15.07.030. Failure to complete required landscaping -
Inspection.
A. Failure to complete all of the required landscaping or any part of it
within six (6) months of the building occupancy, issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, or issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancyT-&�
planning depaFtngent final inspeEtien shall constitute a gcode
violation, subject to abatement under KCC 1.04.
B. It shall be the responsibility of the project manager or business
owner to contact #brplanning depaen services upon completion of the
landscaping work and request an inspection.
C. The pPlanning depaentservices may inspect the landscaping
upon request of the project manager or business owner or at any time
after the six (6) month expiration date as described in subsection A of this
section.
SECTION 4. - Amendment. Section 15.07.040 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 15.07.040. General landscape requirements for all
zones.
5 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
A. Landscape Development Standards.
1. All ingress or egress easements that provide corridors to a
subiect lot, and are not adiacent to a public right-of-way, shall be
considered the same as a public right-of-way. Landscape requirements for
easement corridors shall be the same as those required for areas[dj[x21
adiacent to public rights of way.
2. All portions of a lot not devoted to building, future building,
parking, storage, or accessory uses shall be landscaped in a manner
appropriate to the stated purposes of this chapter.
3. All required landscaping areas shall extend to the curbline or
to the street edge. A crushed rock path in lieu of landscaping shall be
required where appropriate, as determined by planning services.
Landscaping located in a right-of-way does not satisfy the landscape
requirements.
4. Required landscape areas that are not appropriate for
landscaping, due to the existence of rail lines or other features, shall be
relocated. Relocation shall be another lot line of the subject lot, if
appropriate; if inappropriate, relocation shall be to an equal-sized area in
another portion of the lot, to be determined by planning services upon
review with the owner or developer.
5. Landscaping shall not conflict with the safety of those using
adiacent sidewalks, or with traffic safety. Safety features of landscaping
shall be discussed at the time of development plan review, if necessary.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles shall
6 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
be used in the development and landscape plan to identify and incorporate
design features that reduce opportunities for criminal activity to occur.
6. Required landscaping may be integrated with LID stormwater
management facilities, where feasible. LID facilities shall not compromise
the purpose or intent of required landscaping, and landscaping shall not
result in the disruption of the function of the LID facilities. LID facilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LID Technical
Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (2005 edition, or as subsequently
amended) and any applicable city codes and standards.
7. The configuration and plant species of landscape areas on a
site shall be designed so as to not disrupt the functions of stormwater
systems.
B. Landscape Requirements for Parking Areas, Buffers, and Screening_
1. All parking, maneuvering, and loading areas of over twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet shall have a minimum of ten (10) percent
of the parking area, maneuvering area, and loading space landscaped with
Type V landscaping as a means to reduce the barren appearance of the lot
and to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff. Perimeter landscaping,.
required adiacent to property lines, shall not be calculated as part of the
ten (10) percent figure.
2. The perimeter of all parking lots that abut residential zones or
uses shall be landscaped in a manner that shields residential zones or uses
from lights and provides aesthetic separation between uses. This shall
include minimum depth of five (5) feet of type II landscaping and
appropriate fencing (6 foot high solid wood fence or equivalent), unless
7 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
otherwise provided by this chapter, or otherwise approved by the planning
director.
3. All property abutting Highway 167 or Interstate 5 shall be
landscaped with Type III landscaping to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet
unless a larger area is required elsewhere in this chapter.
4. All property abutting East Valley Highway between South
180th Street on the north to the SR167 overpass on the south shall be
landscaped with Type III landscaping to a minimum depth of fifteen (15)
feet unless a larger area is required elsewhere in this chapter.
5. All trash containers shall be screened from abutting properties
and streets by a one hundred (100) percent sight-obscuring fence or wall
and appropriate landscape screen (Type II or III, minimum three (3) feet
wide) that allows for aesthetic improvement without compromising site
safety.
6. All outside storage areas shall be screened by fencing and
landscaping a minimum of five (5) feet in depth unless it is determined by
development plan review that such screening is not necessary, due to
storage area location, existing fencing or landscaping, or because stored
materials are not visually obtrusive.
7. Landscaping shall be placed outside of sight-obscuring fences,
or one hundred (100) percent sight-obscuring fences, unless it is
determined by planning services that such arrangement would be
detrimental to the stated purposes of this chapter or would compromise
site safety.
S. The perimeter of all stormwater detention ponds shall be
landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet of type II landscaping. If
8 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
perimeter fencing is required based on public works department standards,
it shall be constructed of vinyl-coated chainlink or sold screen fencing. The
fencing shall be located between the pond and the landscape area.
C. Landscape Planting Requirements.
1. Bark mulch, Gravel, or other nonvegetative material shall only
be used in coniunction with landscaping to assist vegetative growth and
maintenance or to visually complement plant material. Nonvegetative
material is not a substitute for plant material.
2. Required landscape areas shall be provided with adequate
drainage. All new landscape areas shall incorporate soil amendments as
follows: the uppermost twelve (12) inches of soil shall be tilled and two
(2) inches of composted material shall be fully incorporated into the tilled
soil; or to specifications as otherwise provided in the Stormwater
Management Manual of Western Washington, Department of Ecology,
dated August 2012, or as subsequently amended. Compaction of
landscaping areas from vehicles and heavy equipment shall be avoided
after tilling.
3. Slopes shall not exceed a three (3) to one (1) ratio (width to
height), in order to decrease erosion potential and assist in ease of
maintenance.
4. Quantity, arrangement, and types of plants installed shall be
appropriate to the size of the required landscape areas and purpose of
planting area as noted in KCC 15.07.050 pertaining to types of
landscaping.
9 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
5. Landscape plans shall include a diversity of native, native
adapteds, and drought tolerant, low water use plant species, and shall
promote native wildlife habitat where feasible.
6. Irrigation systems incorporated into a landscaping area shall
include rain sensors to promote water conservation.
A. A" paFking, n9aneuveFing, and leading aFeas of eveF twenty thousand
'Ones, shall not be Eakulated as paFt of the ten (10) peFEent figUFe.
B. All ingFess OF effess easengents whiEh Vide EOFFOdOFS tO the ubj eEt
let, not adjaEent to a publiE Fight of way, shall be EensideFed the sange a
be the sange as these FeqUiFed adjaEent to publiE Fights of way.
G. All ..utsode Stffage aFeas shall be S ed by FenEing and I-.,..1,-Eaping a
OEEUF within the StFeet Fight of way abutting the PFOpeFty lirl--
D. A" POFtiens of a lot not devoted to building, fUtUFe building,n9iningung of five (5) feet On depth unless it is deteffigined by development
10 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
E. All FeqUiFed I-....1.-.,-,. ing aFeas sh-.II e)Et nd to the ., .MIm..e OF the StFeet
apffeffiate as deteffinined by the planning depaFtngent.
edge. A EFUshed FOEIE path On lieu of landsEaping shall be FeqUiFed wheFe
landsEaping unless etheFWOS— PFeVided by this EhapteF. A SOX (6) feet high
shall be 'andsEaped te a nniningung depth ef thFee (3) feet with type 11
11 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
K. LandsEaping shall not EenfliEt with the safety of these using adjaEent
sodewalks eF with tFaffiE safety. Safety featUFes ef landsEaping shall be
d„-.•u„-sed at the tinge ..F .1......1...... ent plan Feview, of n
L. Quantity, affangengent, and types ef plants installed shall be appFeffiate-
e'sewheFe on this EhapteF.
P. A" PFepeFty abutting East Valley Highway between Seuth 180th StFeet
n9iningung depth ef fifteen (15) feet unless a !aFgeF aFea 05 FeqUiFed
e'sewheFe on this EhapteF.
Q. The use ef native and dFeught teleFant, lew wateF use plants shall be
12 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
R. LandsEape plans shall inducle wheFe feasible a diveFSity of native plant
_p__.__ ....._.. P. _...___ native ...._life ..__.___.
any tinge.
SECTIONS. — Amendment. Section 15.07.050 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
13 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
Sec. 15.07.050. Types of landscaping.
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Solid Screen Visual Screen Visual Buffer Low Cover Open Area
Purpose Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V landscaping
landscaping is landscaping is landscaping is landscaping is is primarily
intended to intended to intended to intended to intended to visually
provide a solid create a visual provide visual provide visual interrupt large
sight barrier to separation that separation of relief where open spaces of
totally separate is not uses from streets clear sight is parking areas.
incompatible necessarily one and main desired or as a
uses. hundred (100) arterials and complement to
percent sight- between larger, more
obscuring compatible uses predominant
between so as to soften planting
incompatible the appearance materials.
uses. of streets,
parking lots, and
building facades.
Description Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V landscaping
landscaping shall landscaping shall landscaping shall landscaping shall consist of
consist of be evergreen or be evergreen and shall consist of a trees planted with
evergreen trees a mixture of deciduous trees mixture of supporting shrubs
or tall shrubs evergreen and planted not more evergreen and or ground cover.
with a minimum deciduous trees than thirty (30) deciduous Each landscape
height of six (6) with large feet on center shrubs and area shall be of
feet at planting, shrubs and interspersed with ground cover, to sufficient size to
which will ground cover large shrubs and provide solid promote and
provide a one interspersed ground cover. covering of the protect growth of
hundred (100) with the trees. A Where used to entire plantings,with a
percent sight- sight-obscuring separate parking landscaping one hundred (100)
obscuring screen fence w14n ay be from streets, area within Ewe square foot
within Ewe required aaless plantings must (241hree L31 minimum area and
(241hree L31 +Fisif determined create a visual years of planting no dimension less
years from the by development barrier of at least and to be held than five (5) feet.
time of planting; plan review that forty-two (42) to a maximum (see !(CC
or a combination such a fence is inches in height height of three '5�;(=r)).
of evergreen and aet-necessary. at time of and one-half (3 (S-- B
deciduous trees (See alse A. B- planting and form 1/2) feet (see belew)
and shrubs and belaw) a solid "'screen ---�E,an a
backed by one Ewe-(2-}three 3 gFGURd ee,.,eF).
hundred (100) years after
percent sight- planting. (See
obscuring fence. a'sa.. e-,-. B.and, �-''
belew)
Additional requirements '--types 11 and "are as follows. Specifications consistent with American
Standard for Nursery Stock,ANSI Z60.1-2004, or as amended,are also acceptable.,
(A) Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches caliper at the time of planting.
Evergreen trees shall be six (6) feet high at planting. Tree spacing shall be as
appropriate for the species. De` #-PPq shall be the felle ,dig s zes based an the F,....., ng,
(B) Ground cover means low-growing vegetative materials with a mound or spreading manner of
14 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
arowth. Spacina is dependent on the type and size of the plant material and must be adequate to
provide total coverage of the landscape area within three (3) years. shall be ef suff a eM`5 Ze aMEI
Ground cover plants.
other than grasses, must be at least the four-inch (4") pot size at time of planting.
(C) Shrubs shall be a minimum of 18 inches in height, or two-gallon container size, at the time of
planting.
fDLThe plantings and fence must not violate the sight area safety requirements at street intersections.
SECTION 6, - Amendment, Section 15.07.060 of the Kent City
Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced as follows:
Sec. 15.07.060. Regulations for specific districts.
Minimum Perimeter Landscape Planter Width and Type
Zones Abutting Street Side Yard Rear Yard Abutting Additional
Residential requirements
District or Use
SR-1 throuah N/A (see also N/A
SR-8 jZ04 245
MR-D WA
Open green
area shall
MR-G 10'Type III 10'Type II or 10'Type II or N/A, except occupy no less
MR-T III III for parking than twenty-
MR-M lots per five 25
MR-H 15.07.040.13.2 percent of the
total lot area.
A minimum of
5'of foundation
landscaping
shall be placed
alona the
perimeter of
any multifamily
structure.
Foundation
landscaping
consists of
shrubbery or
some other
combination of
landscape
materials that
helps to reduce
the visual bulk
of structures
and buffer
dwelling units
from light,
glare, and other
environmental
intrusions.
Additional
15 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
requirements
may apply
through
Multifamily
Design Review,
15.09.045.D
KCC
MHP Requirements per Cha ter 12.05 KCC
CC 10'Tvpe II,
CM 5'Tvpe III N/A aLA and for
GC parking lots
O per
15.07.040.B.2
A minimum of
3'of
DC N/A landscaping to
screen off-
street parking
areas
placement of
which shall be
determined
through the
downtown
design review
process outlined
in KCC
15.09.046.
Additional
landscaping or
alternative
methods of
screening may
be approved
through
downtown
desi n review.
10'Tvpe II, A minimum of
and for 3'of
DCE N/A parking lots landscaping to
per screen off-
15.07.040.B.2 street parking
areas
placement of
which shall be
determined
through the
downtown
design review
process outlined
in KCC
15.09.046.
Additional
landscaping or
alternative
methods of
screening may
be approved
through
downtown
desi n review.
MTC-11
16 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
MTC-22
MCR'
MA 20'Tvpe III in 15'Type II or N/A N/A, except
AG front yard III for parking
M1 lots per
15.07.040.B.2
M2 15'Tvpe III in 10'Tvpe II or N/A N/A, except
front yard III for parking
lots per
15.07.040.B.2
M3 10'Type III in 5'Type II or L N/A, except
front yard III for parking
lots per
15.07.040.B.2
GWC 15'or 20'Type 5'or 15'Type 5'Tvpe II or 10'Type II
III° II or III5,s III
NCC 10'Tvpe III 5'or 10'Type 5'Type II or 10'Type II
II or III5,' 1 III
'MTC-1 additional landscaping requirements. Landscaping requirements
shall be determined through the midway design review process outlined in
KCC 12.01.040 and shall include the following to soften the appearance of
parking areas and building elevation, and �to provide separation between
uses 6s :
a. The perimeter of properties abutting a single-family
residential or mobile home park land use shall be landscaped with a
minimum of ten (10) feet of type I landscaping.
b. The perimeter of properties abutting a multifamily residential
land use shall be landscaped with a minimum of ten (10) feet of type I
landscaping.
C. The perimeter of properties abutting a public right-of-way
shall be landscaped with a minimum of ten (10) feet of type III
landscaping. The following exceptions apply:
i. When a vehicular parking area abuts such setback, a
type III landscape strip with an average of twenty (20) feet in depth shall
be provided.
17 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
H. When such setback is utilized as a public open space
plaza and not accompanying parking, no perimeter landscaping strip shall
be required.
iii. When such setback is utilized as a public open space
plaza and exceeds thirty (30) linear feet, street trees shall be provided as
set forth in the 2009 Design and Construction Standards, or as the same
may be subsequently amended.
d. The perimeter of side property lines shall be landscaped with
a minimum of five (5) feet of type III landscaping, unless the building is
constructed at the build-to line or property line.
'MTC-2 additional landscaping requirements. Landscaping requirements
shall be determined through the midway design review process outlined in
KCC 12.01.040 and shall include the following to soften the appearance of
parking areas, and building elevations, and to provide separation between
uses:
a. The perimeter of properties abutting public parks, plazas,
open space, or multi-purpose trails shall be landscaped with a minimum of
ten (10) feet of type III landscaping_
b. When a vehicular parking area abuts a public right-of-way, a
type III landscaping strip a minimum of five (5) feet in depth shall be
provided.
C. When a vehicular parking area abuts the side property lines, a
type III landscaping strip a minimum of ten (10) feet in depth shall be
provided.
18 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
'MCR additional landscape requirements. Landscaping requirements shall
be determined through the midway design review process outlined in KCC
12.01.040 and shall include the following to soften the appearance of
parking areas and, building elevations, and to provide separation between
uses:
'Where buildings abut the required front yard, a landscape strip at least
fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be provided. Where vehicular parking areas
abut the required front yard, a landscape strip at least twenty(20) feet in
depth shall be provided.
'No landscaping along the side property lines shall be required between
adjacent properties where a common, shared driveway with a perpetual
cross-access easement is provided to serve the adjoining properties.
'A Type III landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be
provided alongside property lines flanking the street of a corner lot.
'A Type III landscape strip of at least ten (10) feet in depth shall be
provided alongside property lines flanking the street of a corner lot.
SECTION 7, - Amendment. Section 15.07.070 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 15.07.070. Maintenance of landscaping.
A. Required. Whenever landscaping is or has been required in
accordance with the provisions of this title or any addition or amendments
to this title, or in accordance with the provisions of any previous code or
19 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
ordinance of the city, the landscaping shall be permanently maintained in
such a manner as to accomplish the purpose for which it was initially
required. All landscaping which, due to accident, damage disease, lack of
maintenance, or other cause, fails to show a healthy appearance and
growth, shall be restored, or replaced with the same type of landscaping
elements and in the same location as required in the approved landscape
plan. These requirements also apply to landscaping for LID stormwater
management systems, such as bioretention swales. Failure to
permanently maintain landscaping will result in a code violation, in
accordance with KCC 1.04.
B. Maintenance Assurance. To ensure the maintenance of new
landscaping, the planning director may require a performance and
maintenance bond or other acceptable maintenance assurance device,
such as an irrevocable letter of credit, set-aside letter, assignment of
funds, or certificate of deposit, prior to permit issuance. In determining
whether to require an assurance device, the planning director may
consider elements such as the size and complexity of the project, the
likelihood of plant survival, and the likelihood of adequate maintenance.
The device shall remain in effect for two years from the completion of
planting. The value of the maintenance assurance device shall equal at
least 125 percent of the total landscape materials plus installation. If a
maintenance assurance device is required, the property owner shall
comply with the following provisions:
1. If the landscaping is not being properly maintained, the
planning director shall notify the property owner that the owner must
restore the landscaping to its required condition, to the satisfaction of the
director, within thirty(30) days. If the property owner does not restore
the landscaping to the satisfaction of the director within thirty (30) days of
20 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
the notification, then the city may use the proceeds of the assurance
device to perform any type of maintenance or replacement necessary to
ensure compliance with this chapter.
2. The maintenance assurance device shall be accompanied by
an agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the
property and perform any necessary work. The agreement shall also hold
the city harmless from all claims and expenses, including attorney's fees.
3. Upon completion of the two-year maintenance period, and
inspection by the city to determine that the landscaping has been
maintained to the satisfaction of the planning director, the city shall
release the maintenance assurance device, less any proceeds previously
used by the city pursuant to this section 15.07.070.
4. The property owner is responsible for all costs incurred by the
city in doing any work covered by the assurance device. The property
owner shall reimburse the city for any amount expended by the city that
exceeds any proceeds of the assurance device actually used by the city.
The city shall have a lien against the subject property for the amount of
any excess.
B. Notice of Welatien. The planning nganageF OF his OF heF designee is
FequiFed te be landscaped, eF the agent, tenant, lessee, eF assignee ef an
suEh ewneF, that the landsEaping is not beffig adequately maintained and
date by which the maintenance n9ust be accengplished, and shall be sent
G. Action upon none-empliance.
21 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
..tmEe within fifteen (1 C) days afteF the date of .- Eh netiEe Of the netiEe
inability
TTrCITfTJCCCfVT
D. aarge for maintenance by 64, to be induded in tag( big. When the Eity
EhaFged shall be due and payable by the ewneF at the tinge ef payngent e
suET
E. Lien for payment of charges. if the full angeunt due the Eity is net paid
state..._.._ _.._.....g the ____ and _..p_..__ ...__. . __ ._. the .._. ._/ the date
22 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
the WOFIE was done, and the legal deSEFiptien of the PFOpeFty on whiEh the
final payngent has been n9ade. The Eests and eXpenses shall be EelleEted On
the n9anneF fixed by law feF the EelleEtien ef taxes and fUFtheF shall be
and eXpenses aFe net paid On full en eF befeFe the date the ta)E bill Upen
wthiEh the c#aFge appeaFs beeenge delinquent. SWeFn statements FeEeFded
eyodenEe that a" legal feffigalities have been Eengplied with and that the
statengent and that the EhaFge is due and EelleEtible as PFeVided by law.
F. Aiternathe methods of collection of charges. in additien te eF on lieu ef
SECTIONS. - Amendment. A new section 15.02.086 is added to
the Kent City Code as follows:
Sec. 15.02.086. Composted material.
Composted material means organic solid waste that has undergone
biological degradation and transformation under controlled conditions
23 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
designed to promote aerobic decomposition at a solid waste facility in
compliance with state regulations. Natural decay of organic solid waste
under uncontrolled conditions does not result in composted material.
Composted material must contain 40% - 65% organic matter and meet the
contaminant standards for "composted materials" in WAC 173-350-220.
SECTION 9. - Amendment. Section 15.02.172 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Ground Cover" is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 10. - Amendment. A new Section 15.02.274 is added to
the Kent City Code as follows:
Sec. 15.02.274. Native adapteds.
Native adapteds means noninvasive plant species that have adapted to the
climactic conditions of the Northwest region.
SECTION 11. - Savings. The existing portions of Title 15 of the
Kent City Code which are repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall
remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 12. - SeverabilitY. If any one or more section,
subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or
invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this ordinance and the same shall maintain its full force and effect.
SECTION 13. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section or subsection numbering;
24 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 14. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2013.
APPROVED: day of 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of 2013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
25 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
PVCiviROr mmceV15 07 Landscape Reg latmsA mdmen�doc
26 Amend Chapter 15.07
Landscaping Regulations
Ordinance
Z KENT
A'HIN`ra" Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 6S
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Partner with Integra Telecom for City of Kent Telecom
Services - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a three-year contract with
Integra Telecommunications for telecommunication services in an amount not
to exceed $303,050.67, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney and Information Technology Director.
SUMMARY: Contracting with Integra Communications will replace our current
month-to-month contracts with vendors who cannot offer the same level of service
or product. This contract for these core services will save the City approximately
$22,000 per year over the current cost of services. In addition, associated
overhead time and cost savings through consolidation related paperwork
processing being performed by internal staff will free personnel to do other high
priority activities that have thus far been neglected.
EXHIBITS: Integra Telecom Master Service Agreement
RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
BUDGET IMPACTS: Funding for telecommunications service was approved as part
of the 2013-2014 biennial budget.
INTEGRA TELECOM MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT
Integra Telecom Holdings, Inc., by and through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Electric Lightwave, LLC and
Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (hereinafter"Integra")and City of Kent("Customer"), hereby agree to the following terms and
conditions for Integra services to Customer.
1. EFFECTIVE DATE, SERVICES, AND SERVICES TERM. This Master Service Agreement (this "Agreement"),
along with the order for service ("Services Agreement(s)"), any attachments, the policies and procedures found on
Integra's website: www.integratelecom.com, and any filed tariffs, price lists or schedules, comprise the entire
agreement between the parties for each service described in the Services Agreement (the "Service"). This
Agreement supersedes any and all prior discussions, representations, memoranda, or agreements; oral or written,
between the parties related hereto. Integra reserves the right, in its sole reasonable discretion, to reject any Services
Agreement prior to Integra's signature. This Agreement is fully binding and enforceable as of the date the Services
Agreement(s) is/are signed by both parties ("Effective Date"). Integra agrees to provide to Customer (subject to
availability and adequacy of underlying service) and Customer agrees to procure from Integra, the Services, at the
locations set forth for the number of months set forth ("Services Term") as detailed on the Services Agreement(s)
into which this Agreement is incorporated and made a part. The Services Term commences upon installation of the
Services by Integra ("Installation Date"). Installation of Services occurs at the delivery of operating circuits to the
demarcation terminal at the Customer's premise ("Installation of Service"). Integra will use reasonable efforts to install
Services on the date agreed upon by the parties; however, Integra does not guarantee that Services will be installed
and provisioned on Customer's desired due date. Upon the expiration of the Services Term, this Agreement and the
Services will continue on a month-to-month until terminated by either party on thirty (30) days' written notice to the
other party.
2. RATES, CHARGES, BILLING AND PAYMENT. Rates and charges are described in the Services Agreement.
Integra will notify Customer when Customer's circuit has been delivered and Installation of Service has occurred.
Upon Installation of Service, Customer agrees to convert its services and commit to a specific conversion date.
Customer further agrees that billing will commence with Integra's first regular billing cycle after Installation of Service
regardless of the Customer's actual conversion date. Monthly recurring charges ("MRC") will be billed in advance
each month. Non-recurring charges("NRC")will be billed on the first invoice after the Installation Date, or if the NRC
are incurred after the Installation Date, or are usage based, such charges will be billed on the next invoice thereafter.
Customer is responsible for payment of all charges for originating and terminating calls to Customer's telephone
number(s). Payments are due on the Payment Due By date set forth on the Integra invoice, provided, however, that
no Payment Due By date is less than Net thirty(30)days. Customer must provide payment in full on Payment Due By
date. If Customer believes it has been billed in error or otherwise disputes a charge. Customer must notify Integra
within 90 days of the date of the invoice containing the disputed charge. Customers notice must specifically detail the
dispute and provide supporting documentation for the amount in dispute. Integra will investigate all disputes and
notify Customer of the results of its investigation and, if appropriate, credit Customer's account or notify Customer of
denial of the dispute. Integra may assess a late fee of 1.5% per month (not to exceed the maximum rate allowed
under state law) on any undisputed balances not paid when due or any disputed balances later found to be correct.
Late fees may be assessed, as of the original Payment Due By Date,against any disputed amount denied by Integra.
Integra has the option to pursue any and all legal remedies until payment is made and suspend services if payment is
not made after thirty(30)days written notice from Integra. Customer will pay any and all costs incurred in collection of
rates and charges due and payable, including all collection agency costs, whether or not a suit is instituted. All
payments hereunder will be in U.S.currency.
This Agreement is subject to credit approval. Customer hereby authorizes Integra to conduct a credit search and
agrees to provide Integra with information regarding payment history for communications services, number of years in
business,financial statement analysis and commercial credit bureau rating. Integra may require Customer to tender a
deposit up to the maximum permitted by law to guarantee payment hereunder. Such deposit may have, as an
additional component, deposit for any Integra-provided Customer Premise Equipment. When Customer establishes
acceptable credit history or upon termination of this Agreement, Integra will return the balance of the deposit, if any,
to Customer along with interest as required by law.
Integra shall not be liable for any third party charges arising from or related to the termination of any previous
agreement for services or the failure of Customer to terminate any previous agreement for services.
If any property owner, under which Customer is a tenant, assesses a fee against Integra in order to, or as a result of,
the provisioning of any Services to Customer, Integra may pass through such charges to Customer.
3. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Integra may change its policies and procedures found at
wvvw.integratelecom.com upon thirty(30) days'written notice to Customer. Use of Integra services after the thirty(30)
day notice period shall be deemed consent to the changed policies and procedures.
4. FRAUD, TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND DIRECTORY LISTINGS. Customer is responsible for payment of any
charges incurred due to fraud, abuse, or misuse of the Services,whether known or unknown, to Customer, unless
such fraud, abuse or misuse is the sole fault of Integra. It is the Customer's obligation to take all measures to ensure
against such occurrences.
Telephone numbers are assigned to the business entity (Customer) named on the Services Agreement and not to
any individual owner or operator of the business. Customer shall designate those individuals authorized to make
changes to the Customer's account with Integra, including changes to the Services or to the telephone numbers in
conformity with the Rules (as hereinafter defined). Integra shall be held harmless for any changes authorized by the
individuals designated by Customer. Integra shall take all reasonable measures to provide Customer with
continuation of existing telephone numbers. However, if Customer is changing location at the time of conversion or
taking service for the first time at a location, Integra makes no warranties regarding assignment of particular
telephone numbers to Customer. Integra shall not be liable to Customer for any change in telephone numbers due to
actions of any vendor or supplier of services to Integra. Customer's reliance upon and/or use of any Service
numbering information prior to installation and acceptance of Service is at the Customer's sole risk.
Integra shall not be liable for any inaccurate or dropped listings of any publisher/directory database. Integra shall not
be liable for any errors or omissions,whether arising through negligence or otherwise, in the information furnished to
a publisher or to a directory database(s). Additional costs may be assessed for publisher/directory database listing
charges.
5. TAXES, SURCHARGES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS. Customer is responsible for payment of any and all
federal, state and local taxes, surcharges, or fees, as may be imposed from time to time associated with the Service
(excluding Integra income taxes). Integra will collect all such taxes, surcharges, and fees unless Customer provides
Integra with proof of exemption. Customer will indemnify Integra for any and all costs, claims, taxes, charges, and
surcharges levied against Integra relative to such exempt status. Surcharges and assessments, which are not
required by regulatory agencies, but which Integra is permitted to charge to recover expenses, may be applied. All
such charges will be set forth on a detailed invoice.
6. TARIFF APPLICATION. In the event of any conflict between any provision of this Agreement and any provision of
an applicable filed tariff or price list,the provision of such filed tariff or price list will control.
7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. This Agreement is subject to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
rulings, orders and other actions of governmental agencies ("Rules"). and the obtaining and continuance of any
required approvals, authorizations, or tariffs or price lists filed with the FCC or any other governmental agency.
Integra will use good faith reasonable efforts to obtain, retain, and maintain such approvals and authorizations. If any
such Rule adversely affects the Services or requires Integra to provide Services other than in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement, either party may, without liability to the other party, terminate the affected Services upon
thirty(30)days prior written notice to the other party. In performing their obligations under this Agreement,the parties
will comply with all applicable Rules, specifically including, but not limited to, the Rules governing 911/E-911 and any
other emergency services.
Subject to Integra's 911/E-911 policy (found at www.integratelecom.com), and unless otherwise specifically agreed,
(a) Integra will provide Customer with the network connection for each circuit, billing telephone number(BTN)or trunk
group that comprise the Services, and (b) Integra will provide the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
with the automatic location identification (ALI), including the same emergency response location, for all BTNs of the
circuit or trunk group regardless of the number of lines, trunks, or unique telephone numbers on that circuit or trunk
group. Customer will be responsible for providing all other 911/E-911 functionality as required by the Rules, including,
but not limited to agreements with, and network or other connection to, the local PSAPs. Customer will maintain the
necessary databases and update and transfer the ALI to the appropriate PSAPs. Integra is not responsible for and
will not make any changes or submit updates to 911/E-911 databases for any services other than the one emergency
response location as set forth above. Customer agrees to fully indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Integra, its
officers, directors, parent, and affiliated companies, employees, agents and subcontractors from all liabilities, claims,
fees, expenses, costs or damages of any kind arising out of personal injury or death or damage to property related to
Customers failure to give end users appropriate warnings if VoF services are provided by Integra, as well as the
failure to maintain the necessary databases and update the ALI being transmitted to the PSAP .
8. SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADE OF FACILITIES. Services will meet industry standards. Integra will
maintain its facilities and equipment used to provide the Services as set forth in its policies and procedures, at no
additional charge to Customer, except where work or service calls result from failure or malfunction in, or improper
operation of, Customer's facilities and/or equipment. In such event, Customer will reimburse Integra for the cost of the
required maintenance at Integra's standard time and material rate plus any taxes imposed upon Integra related to
such maintenance, and Customer shall be responsible for the cost of repair or replacement of Integra equipment
that is damaged by Customer's actions or equipment.
Integra reserves the right to suspend Service for scheduled maintenance or planned enhancements or upgrades
upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice to Customer or to suspend Service for emergency repairs to Integra's network
without notice (but will make a reasonable attempt to give notice)to Customer. Integra equipment will remain the sole
and exclusive property of Integra or Integra's assignee. Customer will not tamper with, remove or conceal any
Integra identifying plates, tags or labels. Customer will indemnify, hold harmless and defend Integra against any liens
placed on Integra equipment due to Customer's action or inaction. Any lien will be discharged by Customer within
twenty(20)days of notice of filing. Failure to discharge any such lien is a material breach of this Agreement, and may
result in immediate termination.
Customer will provide equipment compatible with the Services and Integra's network and facilities. Customer will
bear the costs of any additional apparatus reasonably required to be installed because of the use of Integra's network
or facilities.
Upon termination of the Service, Customer shall, upon notice from Integra, return the Integra provided equipment to
Integra, in accordance with the instructions in the notice. Customer's damage to the equipment,with the exception of
reasonable wear and tear, or failure to return the equipment, including but not limited to the battery pack, as directed,
shall constitute Customer acceptance of ownership of and responsibility for the equipment and Integra may invoice
Customer for the then fair market value of such equipment.
Integra reserves the right to substitute, change or rearrange any equipment used in delivering Services that does not
affect the quality, cost or type of Services. Integra will manage its network in Integra's sole discretion. Customer will
provide all reasonable information, authorizations, and access required by Integra for the purpose of installing
Services, performing routine network grooming, maintenance,
9. SERVICE INTERUPTION CREDITS. Credits are subject to the limitation of liability set forth in Section 10, and
shall only be given for disruption of Services in accordance with this Section. Upon request, Customer shall be
entitled to a credit for any disruption that exceeds twenty-four (24) hours and for which Integra is the sole cause of
such disruption and such disruption is not the result of(i) scheduled maintenance that occurs between the hours of
eleven pm and six am; (ii) planned enhancements, or(iii) upgrades. Such credit shall be based upon the ratio of the
duration of the service interruption (measured from the time the interruption is reported to or detected by Company,
whichever occurs first) to the total time in a thirty (30) day month. That ratio, multiplied by the monthly rate for the
service affected shall determine the amount of the credit allowance. No credit shall be owing for any disruption
resulting from a Force Majeure event.
10. DISCLAIMER/LIMITED WARRANTY. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT,
INTEGRA MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. INTEGRA
DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.
11. LIMITED LIABILITY. INTEGRA'S LIABILITY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF CUSTOMER FOR DAMAGES
ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE SERVICES AND/OR THIS AGREEMENT, WILL BE SOLELY LIMITED
TO AN AMOUNT NO GREATER THAN THE AMOUNTS PAID BY CUSTOMER TO INTEGRA DURING THE
MONTH OF THE OCCURANCE OF ANY CLAIM. IN NO EVENT WILL INTEGRA BE LIABLE TO THE CUSTOMER
FOR LOSS OF USE, INCOME OR PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUES, LOSS OF SAVINGS OR HARM TO
BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OR
DAMAGES, REGARDLESS OF THE FORSEE ABILITY THEREOF.
12. CUSTOMER WARRANTIES. (a) The Customer represents and warrants that it is an entity, duly organized,
validly existing and in good standing under the laws of its origin, with all requisite power to enter into and perform its
obligations under this Agreement in accordance with its terms; (b) Customer represents and warrants that its use of
the Services will comply and conform with all applicable federal, state and local laws, administrative and regulatory
requirements and any other authorities having jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Agreement and it will be
responsible for applying for, obtaining and maintaining all registrations and certifications which may be required by
such authorities; (c) Customer represents and warrants that it will not resell all or a portion of the Service(s) provided
by Integra under this Agreement. Customer will indemnify and hold Integra harmless from any and all loss, liability,
claim, demand, and expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) related to Customers violation of this
Section.
13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI")shall only be disclosed in
accordance with the Rules and Integra's policies and procedures.
In addition to the foregoing,the parties may have access to certain information,the ownership and confidential status
of which is highly important to the other party and is treated or designated by one of the parties as confidential(herein
referred to as"Confidential Information"). Neither party will disclose the other party's Confidential Information, directly
or indirectly under any circumstances, to any third person without the express written consent of the other party, and
neither party will copy, transmit, reproduce, summarize, quote, or make commercial or other use whatsoever of the
other party's Confidential Information, except as may be necessary to perform its duties hereunder or as required by
the Rules. Each party will exercise the highest degree of care in safeguarding the other party's Confidential
Information against loss, theft, or other inadvertent disclosure and take all steps necessary to maintain such
confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Integra acknowledges that the Customer is a public agency subject to the Washington
state Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, and may be required to disclose records within the Customer's
possession or control that relate to this Agreement. Customer shall provide five (5) days' notice to Integra prior to
disclosing such records to allow Integra the opportunity to seek injunctive relief.
14. INDEMNIFICATION. Customer will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Integra, its officers, directors, parent
and/or affiliated companies, employees, agents and subcontractors from liabilities, claims or damages and expenses
whatsoever(including reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or in connection with Customer's use of the Services
and/or Customer's end-users or third parties use of the Services, resale, or sharing of the Services. Customer's
indemnification obligations do not apply to claims for damages to real or tangible personal property or for bodily injury
or death to the extent caused by Integra due to Integra's gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Integra will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Customer, its officers, directors, parent and/or affiliated companies,
employees, agents and subcontractors from claims for damages to real or tangible personal property or for bodily
injury or death directly caused or directly resulting from Integra's negligence or willful misconduct except to the extent
caused by Customer due to Customer's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Integra has provided Customer with
its certificate of insurance.
15. DEFAULT/TERMINATION. Customers use of the Services provided herein and any equipment
associated therewith will not: (a) interfere with or impair service over Integra's network; (b) impair privacy of any
communications over such network; (c) cause damage of any nature to Integra's assets or customers; (d)be used
to frighten, abuse, torment or harass, or create hazards to Integra or its network; (a) be used for a high volume
of short duration calls, regardless of nature (high volume short duration calls are defined as 10% of total outbound
calls that are six seconds or less in duration) or(1)violate the provisions of any of Integra's policies and procedures,
including Integra's 9111E-911 policy. Integra may immediately suspend or terminate,without liability,the Services for
any violation of these provisions other than (a) above. If Customer violates (a) above, Integra may, in its sole
discretion, assess a higher rate for a high volume of short duration calls to reflect Integra's increased costs. If
Services are suspended pursuant to this Section 15. reconnection charges may apply.
Except as set forth above, if either party violates any provision of this Agreement the non-defaulting party may send
the defaulting party written notice detailing the default.The defaulting party will have: (a)ten (10)days from the date
of the written notice to cure a payment default,or(b)thirty(30)days from the date of the written notice to cure a non-
payment default. If the defaulting party fails to cure,the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement and any
Services hereunder upon notice or pursue any and all other legal remedies.This Agreement also may be terminated
by either party in accordance with the provisions of the then current tariff or price list.
If Customer terminates this Agreement or all or any part of the Services at any time after the Effective Date,or if
Integra terminates this Agreement as a result of Customer's breach, Integra may charge Customer an early
termination fee equal to and including any or all of the following: 100%of the total MRC, surcharges and taxes for the
Services Term then remaining, plus any unpaid activation, installation and/or special construction charges,and all
other fees or costs,whether previously waived or not, less amounts already paid. Customer acknowledges that
Integra's damages for early termination would be difficult to determine and the termination charge(s) constitutes
liquidated damages and are not intended as a penalty but as a mutually-agreed upon amount representing, but not
limited to, lost revenue, proportionate or actual third party costs and capital expenditures,and internal costs. All such
amounts will become immediately due and payable by Customer to Integra.
Customer will not be liable for the early termination fees set forth above if Integra breaches the Agreement or if
Customer orders from Integra,at the time of Service termination, services of equal or greater MRC than the Services
terminated and the new services are approved by Integra. Separate recovery for the same damages is not permitted
under this Agreement by either party.
16. FORCE MAJEURE. In the event that either party's performance is delayed, prevented, or inhibited because of
any Act of God,fire,casualty,delay or disruption in transportation,flood,war, strike, lockout, epidemic,destruction or
shut-down of facilities, shortage or curtailment, riot, insurrection, governmental acts or directives, any full or partial
failure of any third party communications or computer network or any other cause beyond such party's reasonable
control, the party's performance will be excused and the time for the performance will be extended for the period of
delay or inability to perform resulting from such occurrence. The occurrence of such an event will not constitute
grounds for a declaration of default by either party hereunder.
17. GENERAL. Except as otherwise permitted herein, any amendment must be in writing and signed by the parties
hereto. Electronic or Facsimile copies of this Agreement and any amendments or modification hereto, including
electronic or facsimile signatures,will be accepted by the parties as originals. The failure of either party to insist upon
the performance of any provision or to exercise any right granted hereunder,will not be construed as a waiver of such
provision(s), and the same will continue in full force. If any provision hereof is held to be invalid, void, or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions will nevertheless remain unimpaired and in effect. All notices to
Customer under this Agreement will be in writing and will be made by one or more of the following methods: regular
mail, overnight delivery, or by certified mail. Notices will be sent to the address of record, and in the event of multiple
addresses, to the address of the parent account. In the case of a notice to Integra, all notices under this Agreement
will be in writing and will be made by personal delivery, overnight delivery, or certified mail with a copy to the Legal
Department,1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232. The various rights and remedies given to or
reserved by either party herein or allowed by law, are cumulative, and no delay or omission to exercise any of its
rights will be construed as a waiver of any default or acquiescence, nor will any waiver of any breach or any provision
be considered a condonement of any continuing or subsequent breach of the same provision. Customer may not
assign its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of Integra, which will not be unreasonably withheld.
This Agreement will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws for the state where the Services are
to be provided. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, or shall be construed, as creating a partnership or any third-
party beneficiaries. The provisions of Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 shall survive
termination. Integra reserves the right to revise the terms and provisions of all of its policies and procedures as it
deems appropriate and this Agreement is subject to all revisions.
CUSTOMER: INTEGRA:
City of Kent Integra Telecom Holdings, Inc.
by and through its wholly owned subsidiaries
By: By:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
P.%CMRFlles\open F11es\W73-ITGenea1\Int,a Master$arvke AgreamentFINAL.daex
Z KENT
A A s ni No sae
Agenda Item: Other Business - 7A
TO: City Council
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Medic One/Emergency Medical Services Levy Resolution -
Adopt
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. supporting the Medic One/
Emergency Medical Service Levy, confirming the City of Kent's support of the levy.
SUMMARY: The internationally recognized county-wide tiered Medic One/EMS service
provides county residents and visitors with essential life-saving services throughout
the region regardless of location, incident circumstances, day of week, or time of day.
The current voter-approved King County Medic One/EMS levy expires on December
31, 2013. An EMS Advisory Task Force, created pursuant to King County ordinance,
was formed and has worked collaboratively with countywide EMS stakeholders to
develop a revised Medic One/EMS strategic plan to continue to provide service for the
six-year period beginning January 1, 2014 and expiring at the end of 2019.
Representatives from the city and the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority
participated in these discussions throughout the process.
Under the proposed new plan, the initial levy rate for 2014 would be $0.335/$1000.00
of assessed property valuation.
The Kent community has benefitted from the advanced life saving and basic life saving
support services made available through the revenue provided from this levy. Under
state law, cities with a population greater than 50,000 residents must approve the
levy before it can be placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the King County
voters. Accordingly, the attached resolution provides that approval.
EXHIBITS: Resolution
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, supporting the county-
wide 2014-2019 Medic One/Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) Levy.
A. The delivery of emergency medical services (EMS) is an
essential function of the fire and life safety responsibility of local and
regional government.
B. The internationally recognized county-wide tiered Medic
One/EMS in King County provides county residents and visitors essential
life-saving services throughout the region regardless of location, incident
circumstances, day of week, or time of day.
C. It has been to the benefit of the citizens of the City of Kent to
support and participate in the county-wide cooperative of delivering
Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support services.
D. King County should continue to exercise leadership and
assume responsibility for assuring the consistent, standardized, effective
and cost efficient development and provision of emergency services
throughout the county.
1 Resolution 2014 - 2019
Medic One/EMS Levy
E. State law, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 84.52.069
provides for county-wide emergency medical care and service levies.
F. The highly praised patient and program services of the King
County Medic One/EMS system are funded by a county-wide Medic
One/EMS levy that expires December 31, 2013.
G. The EMS Advisory Task Force, created via King County
Ordinance 15862, worked collaboratively with EMS Stakeholders to develop
the Medic One/EMS 2014-2019 Strategic Plan to continue providing this
county-wide service and has recommended an initial levy rate of 33.5
cents per $1,000 assessed value to fund EMS services throughout King
County.
H. The City of Kent significantly participated in these discussions
throughout the process and was represented on the task force.
I. RCW 84.52.069 requires that cities with a population greater
than fifty thousand approve a county-wide levy prior to placement on a
ballot.
J. The City of Kent has a population of 119,100 thousand people.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, The above is found to be true and correct in all
respects.
2 Resolution 2014 - 2019
Medic One/EMS Levy
SECTION 2, The City of Kent supports the proposed six-year $.335
per thousand dollars of assessed value county-wide Medic One/EMS Levy
for the years 2014-2019 and urges the voters to vote for the Levy.
SECTION 3, - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city
of Kent, Washington, this day of 2013.
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this day of
2013.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRU BAKE R, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the
day of 2013.
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
3 Resolution 2014 - 2019
Medic One/EMS Levy
REPORTS FROM STAFF, COUNCIL COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
A. Council President
B. Mayor
C. Administration
D. Economic & Community Development
E. Operations
F. Parks & Human Services
G. Public Safety
H. Public Works
I. Regional Fire Authority
J. Other
K. Other
KENT
WASHINGTON
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 2nd, 2013
Committee Members Present: Les Thomas, Chair, Dennis Higgins and Jamie Perry
The meeting was called to order by L. Thomas at 4:02 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 4T", 2012.
J. Perry moved to approve the Operations Committee minutes dated
December 4, 2012. D. Higgins seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.
2. APPROVAL OF CHECK SUMMARY REPORT DATED 12/1/2012 THROUGH
12/15/2012.
D. Higgins moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Check Summary
Report dated December 1'`, 2012 thru December 15th, 2012. J. Perry seconded the
motion, which passed 3-0.
3. INTEGRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT-AUTHORIZE.
M. Carrington presented the contract with Integra Telecommunications for telecom, voice & data
services for the City. This contract will save the City $22,000 per year over the current month to
month contract. This contract will not only help save $66,000 over the next three years but also help
save the overhead cost.
D. Higgins asked about the deadline for when the City will receive the replacement equipment. M.
Carrington responded that this project will be implemented in three phases and we are anticipating
complete phone upgrades by mid-2014.
M. Carrington also mentioned that we suffered three significant server outages in 2012 and the
current provider did not follow up with comforting signs that it won't happen again in future.
D. Higgins asked if there will by any difficulty with transition from current provider to the new one. M.
Carrington responded that the move to this provider coupled with replacement project will enable us
to provide no downside to our big customers. This will also help improve Disaster recovery plan.
J. Perry moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to enter into a three-year contract
with Integra Telecommunications for telecommunication services in an amount not to
exceed $303,050.67. D. Higgins seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.
4. WORKSITE WELLNESS AGREEMENT TO ADMINISTER CITY'S WELLNESS PROGRAM-
AUTHORIZE.
B. Fowler presented the wellness contract for 2013-2014. The City requested RFPs for the wellness
program and five firms responded. Healthcare committee, which consists of represented and non-
represented employees, helped choose the best fit. Top two firms were interviewed and the
Worksite wellness was selected unanimously. The firm has interactive website that the employees
can use. The unions and the employees are excited about the program.
Operations Committee Minutes
January 2, 2013
Page: 2
D. Higgins moved to recommend that the Mayor be authorized to enter into the 2013-14
Worksite Wellness contract for the City's Wellness program, subject to approval of final
terms and conditions by the City Attorney. I Perry seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. by L. Thomas.
Satwinder Kaur
Operations Committee Secretary
0 T
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING DATE: November 13, 2012
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger/absent-excused, Bill
Boyce/absent-excused. Elizabeth Albertson attended on behalf of Deborah Ranniger. Perry
called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Albertson Moved and Councilmember Perry Seconded a Motion to
approve the October 8, 2012 Minutes. Motion PASSED 2-0.
2. 2012 Annual Docket Report
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson reported that four docket items were submitted for
consideration this year with staff recommending inclusion of these dockets as part of the 2013
Work Program. Dkt-2012-1 through Dkt-2012-4 amend the Kent Comprehensive Plan (KCP):
Dkt-2012-1 includes the 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan; Dkt-2012-2 includes the 2011
Water System Plan; Dkt-2012-3 includes the 2009 City of Kent Fire Department's Standards of
Response Coverage and Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan; and Dkt-2012-4 relates to
current Fire and Life Safety Services by providing text updates reflecting the 2010 formation of
the Kent Regional Fire Authority (RFA) and the Department's reaccreditation. Although the
2010 docket report could be reconsidered, Anderson recommended no changes.
Kent Fire Department RFA Captain Larry Rabel reported that a growth management modeling
exercise conducted in 2008 showed a regional need for 12 fire stations, which could require
five additional stations throughout the region. Rabel cited potential locations of: 231" Way
(serving the Riverview Development and the Midway area), moving Station 75 further west
away from Kent Kangley, placement of a station in the southeast Covington area, and along
the Benson Corridor around 2171h on existing RFA property. Rabel stated that the highest
priority is placement of a station in the Kent Valley at 407 Washington Avenue. The RFA is
looking at moving forward sometime within 3-5 years.
Councilmember Albertson MOVED to accept staff's recommendation to approve the
2012 Annual docket Report as presented, with no change to the 2010 Annual Docket
Report. Councilmember Perry SECONDED the Motion which PASSED 2-0.
3. Growina Transit Communities
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson introduced Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Senior
Planner Michael Hubner reporting on the Growing Transit Communities Partnership (GTCP).
The GTCP is looking at developing implementation strategies (to include affordable housing) for
the types of stations that might be developed in the corridor that runs from Everett to Tacoma
and east to Redmond. Anderson stated that the Midway Subarea Plan included a policy to
create an affordable housing task force by 2012 to consider options, policies, and partnerships
for resolving issues surrounding the potential displacement of affordable housing. Staff is
participating in the GTCP and looking at their work for furtherance of this policy.
Hubner summarized the differences between the work of Sound Transit and GTCP. He
reported that Sound Transit (ST) is conducting an alternatives' analysis within the segment of
the light rail corridor passing through Kent to look at different alignment possibilities and
station locations. The PSRC committees and task forces including local jurisdictions and ST are
looking at community development issues surrounding light rail station locations and the
potential future of those locations. PSRC has selected several study areas within the Kent
corridor. When a location is chosen, Kent will have available a set of recommendations and
tools to help achieve its vision for Midway.
ECDC Minutes
November 14,2012
Page 1 of
Hubner stated that the GTCP is a three-year long project funded by a five-million dollar
Sustainable Communities grant from the Federal Government. The PSRC is the lead agency
working in partnership with Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation (DOT) along with a consortium of
local governments, nonprofits, and business communities that have signed a memorandum of
understanding and have exercised their work program through the PSRC.
Hubner stated that the PSRC's policy framework for regional and local growth management
and transportation includes Vision 2040, a Regional Transportation Plan, and a Regional
Economic Development Strategy. Anticipated regional growth between now and 2040 includes
1.5 million people and over 1 million jobs with a strategy in place to accommodate that growth
in a series of centers to be fully served by light rail by 2040. Transportation 2040 calls for 100
billion dollars in transit investments over the next 30 years. Hubner explained that three basics
of growing transit communities are to accommodate more growth in station areas, to achieve
housing, commercial and small business affordability, and to ensure social equity for those
community members that have not been as engaged in the policy processes and that are
disadvantaged due to income status, disabilities or age.
Hubner stated that demonstration projects are moving forward within the south, north and
east corridors with Tacoma in the south utilizing an affordable housing strategy in downtown
Tacoma that includes tax increment financing (defined as value capture techniques) and new
legislation that would enable expanded use of that kind of tool in part to pay for infrastructure
and in part to provide funds for affordable housing.
Hubner stated that small community-based nonprofits such as the Refugee Federation Service
Center, the Somali Community Services Coalition, and One America have each received up to
$15,000 for capacity building and outreach to members of Kent and adjacent communities
through a small grants program now in its third round.
Hubner stated that the PSRC will provide the region with goals related to transit supported
densities and uses, technical assistance and guidance in the development of public and private
sector parking regulations relevant to station areas and transit accessibility, financing tools,
guidance for completing a transit station area housing needs assessment, and provide a model
for local and state adoption of fair housing legislation. A property acquisition fund would be
available to provide support for affordable housing providers. Guidance, and incentives for local
adoption of incentive zoning would be tailored to be most effective in the different corridors.
Hubner stated that a set of recommendations and a Corridor Action Strategy will be completed
by May 2013. Public comment is welcome from Kent staff and Council members. The 3-year
grant period terminates the end of 2013. PSRC will continue to work with the consortium
partners and local governments on implementation agreements.
Informational Only
4. East Hill Revitalization Proiect United Way of Kina County New Solutions Funding Grant
Economic Development Specialist Josh Hall stated that last year Kent received a $20,000 grant
from UWKC to fund Phase I of a revitalization effort for East Hill facilitated by the consulting
group, Pomegranate Center. A community forum held March 3r' had 70-80 people in
attendance where over 80 suggestions were received. The City has been awarded a $25,000
grant from United Way of King County's (UWKC) New Solutions Fund to proceed with Phase 2
of the Revitalization Project.
Hall stated that a stakeholder committee decided to concentrate their efforts and goals on
economic development, physical improvements, and ways to engage youth and families.
Thought has been given to creating a distinctive cultural or international district initiated by the
concept of trying to promote the diverse and ethnic communities on East Hill that Kent could
use to brand the area.
Hall stated that the intent of Phase 2 is to assist the revitalization effort by equipping the group
with the tools to be a self sustaining entity, with a focus on organization and leadership
development. Kent envisions hiring a consultant to work with the stakeholders and community
to identify what type of organizational structure this group should have. The City envisions
ECDC Minutes
November 14,2012
Page 2 of
identifying a local community member to act as an Executive Director to move this effort into
the hands of the community. Staff has been working with the Seattle Foundation to develop a
proposal the Foundation can support to help this group move forward.
Councilmember Albertson Moved to accept a grant from United Way King County's
New Solutions Fund in the amount of $25,000 and Councilmember Perry Seconded
the Motion which PASSED 2-0.
S. Neiahborhood Urban Centers
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson presented a list of planning principles and a draft scope
of work for the Committee's consideration. She presented a slide show illustrating
neighborhood urban center examples within Washington and California that could further the
City Council's strategic goal of creating neighborhood urban centers. Criteria considered
pedestrian, bicycle and transit needs, code enforcement, realistic standards and regulations,
and neighborhood compatibility..
Anderson spoke about a 5.1 acre commercial node located on West Hill that could be classified
a Neighborhood Business District. She also spoke about a two-acre site on East Hill that could
benefit from an improved pedestrian connectivity system for a corner store. Anderson depicted
three areas in the City with gaps in half-mile radii of commercial nodes: East Hill around 256rh
and 132"', the Panther Lake area, and West Hill at 2601h and 38th. Anderson stated that
pedestrian connectivity and sidewalk improvements are needed to support commercial nodes.
She provided an illustration from the Transportation Master Plan that depicted composite of
need areas which combined walk to school routes, population, employment density,
populations below poverty levels and with disabilities.
Anderson stated that the staff work program will look at connectivity and intensity of land use
that would support commercial as well as general streetscape characteristics in Neighborhood
Commercial Districts. Staff also needs to collect data, consider demographics and
infrastructure, look at funding strategies, policies and code requirements, conduct public
outreach, hold workshops and public hearings. Staff is looking for concurrence with the
planning principles and the scope of the work to move this project forward and guide the work
of the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB).
Council members Perry and Albertson suggested changes to the draft principles and scope of
work to incorporate both existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks and to develop
strategies to increase walkability scores.
Anderson stated that staff will continue to update the Committee on the status of this project.
The result of the work could be a pilot project on corner stores, with some strategies for
intensifying the City's neighborhood business districts. There may be policy decisions to control
sprawl, with strategies for intensifying existing districts to make them more viable and
successful.
Councilmember Albertson Moved to approve the Planning Principles and Scope of
Work for the Neighborhood Urban Centers as presented by staff and amended by the
Committee to be used to guide the work of the Land Use and Planning Board.
Councilmember Perry Seconded the Motion which PASSED 2-0.
6. Economic Development Report - None
None
Adiournment
Committee Chair Perry adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic & Community Development Committee
PIAPlanningAECDQ2012VMinutes\11-]312_DaftMlnA doc
ECDC Minutes
November 14,2012
Page 3 of
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 14, 2013
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger, Bill Boyce.
Albertson sat in for Ranniger. Perry called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Committee member Boyce Moved and Committee member Albertson Seconded a
Motion to approve the November 13, 2012 Minutes. Motion PASSED 3-0.
2. Coal Trains
Public Works Engineering Staff Steve Mullen, Tim LaPorte, Cathy Mooney and Chad Bieren
reported on impacts and issues related to running coal trains through Kent. Initially 18
additional trains will travel through Kent daily. Each coal train is 1.5 miles in length consisting
of 125-150 cars per train. Intersections from South 2591h Street to James Street on the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks will be blocked at once while the trains
run through Kent. It is estimated that an additional 1 hour will be added to the current traffic
delays of 2.5 hours at eight of Kent's at-grade crossings.
Staff spoke about public health issues that include disturbance from train horn noise and
vibrations, and diesel and coal dust pollution. Staff reported that each car can lose up to a ton
of coal dust during the trip from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana to Cherry
Point, Washington. Scoping is being conducted to determine the focus of environmental
review, and staff drafted a comment letter for Mayor and Council signatures.
Staff spoke about a law-suit Kent filed in collaboration with Auburn against BNSF in the
1990's. The law-suit was motivated by issues related to the Stampede Pass connection with
the BNSF main line in Auburn where curves require trains to turn at 20 miles per hour
subsequently creating a bottleneck. Staff reported that Kent may be in a position to receive
Federal funds for grade separations were they made available. Grade separations would
mitigate for train delays.
Staff reported that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be issued late this year
with a Final EIS issued in early 2014. Comments may be submitted by US mail to GPT/BNSF
Custer Spur EIS, Co-lead Agencies, 110-1121h Avenue NE, Suite 400, Bellevue WA 98004 or by
email at: www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov. Staff encouraged the public to submit comments.
Informational Only
3. Economic and Community Development Report
Economic Development Director Ben Wolters, Economic Development Manager Kurt Hanson,
and Planning Manager Charlene Anderson reported on the department's 2012
accomplishments related to the Permit Process, Business, Code Enforcement, the permit
application process, current and long range planning.
Wolters stated that the number of submitted permit applications and issued permits has
climbed. Total building valuation of permits issued has steadily risen with one-half million
dollars in contributed revenues beyond the 2012 fund contributions.
Wolters stated that 2012 initiatives included the introduction of on-line permitting, shortened
timelines, authorizing reviewers to redline plans when possible, and improving departmental
communication. Economic & Community Development (ECD) received many commendations
as a result of these implementations. Additional permits were added for over-the-counter
issuance. An on-line survey was introduced targeting the city's diverse customer base and
used as a tool to gauge the customer's perception of city services.
ECDC Minutes
January 14,2013
Page 1 of
Wolters stated that the City anticipates implementing KIVA upgrades in 2013, implementation
of a Council approved wireless remote access system for use by the building inspectors, the
expansion of on-line services with consideration towards adding additional on-line permits.
Wolters stated that ECD is the first department to take on the LEAN Initiative, a rigorous
process whereby a consultant agency will shadow and evaluate individual jobs and device a
method for streamlining jobs and creating more efficiency.
Wolters stated that through the code enforcement process, the cost to demolish the Lupkes
home was $23,000 at city expense. A lien was placed on the property that will allow Kent to
recoup demolition costs when the property sells.
Wolters stated that at the end of 2012, 445 code enforcement cases remain open. 2013 goals
and initiatives include streamlining and automating the code enforcement process. Staff is
considering how to fund a second code enforcement officer position.
Anderson described current planning as being an integral part of the permit process and code
enforcement work mentioned earlier. She classified long-range planning as the strategy arm of
planning. Anderson stated that staff moved numerous code amendments through Council this
year, with the ultimate goal to refresh and modernize the land use codes. She stated there are
approximately 1400 lots vested under the old residential development standards, although
864 lots are not finalized and because of market conditions ultimately could be adjusted to
more closely reflect the new standards. There are 132 lots approved but unrecorded under the
new standards.
Anderson stated that staff worked extensively on the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP),
with a study area expanded to include areas west of 167 and areas further north on Central
Avenue. Staff developed strategies for encouraging growth in those areas through a Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO) and SEPA infill exemptions. The preliminary draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for DSAP is now being reviewed. Anderson stated
that with the DSAP update, staff is looking at new strategies for determining levels of service
for parks and multimodal transportation, e.g., pedestrian, bicycles, and roads.
Staff worked extensively on Medical Marijuana code amendments and will be reviewing new
legislative changes associated with this issue.
Anderson stated that Planning, Economic Development, Development Engineering, and
Building division staff collaborate to efficiently manage various significant projects, such as the
Boeing Surplus Properties and Heritage Bank project. The collaboration ensures the strategies,
options and process are well known, which then helps move those projects to completion.
Anderson mentioned the Bridges Planned Unit Development (PUD) project (located on the old
city watershed facility south of Kent), which as a PUD has incorporated enhanced design
guidelines. Approximately 380 residential development units are approved with about 325
units yet to be built.
Anderson stated that probably the most significant part of the long range strategy arm is
Kent's influence on regional policies to ensure that the City Council's concerns are addressed
in the regional policies under discussion. This includes work on the State's update to SEPA.
Phase I of the SEPA updates includes higher optional SEPA exemption levels and will be
effective January 281h for consideration by cities. Work on Phase II just began and will
consider additional improvements to the SEPA code.
Anderson stated that she and the City's senior transportation planner have worked closely
with regional groups such as Metro to look at how Metro's service guidelines might better
mesh with local planning policies.
Anderson stated that she sits on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) regional staff
committee which is currently working on the process for prioritization of projects in
Transportation 2040.
Anderson stated staff participates in PSRC's Growing Transit Communities Partnership which is
looking at guidelines for station areas along the future light rail line in the area around Pacific
ECDC Minutes
January 14,2013
Page 2 of
Highway South. Staff is looking at how Envision Midway goals, policies, and standards can
influence and benefit by the transit-oriented development approach under consideration.
Anderson stated that she sits on the Transit Service Overlay Zone Advisory Committee. She
stated that the committee is looking at transit emphasis corridors and where transit dollars
might best be provided on corridors that utilize a transit-oriented development approach.
Anderson stated that Sound Transit recently took over a group she established in South King
County to create a voice for influencing Sound Transit work in the South Corridor. This
current Interagency Working Group is reviewing draft products for alignments, screening
criteria and other materials for future light rail.
Anderson stated that she also sat on the Affordable Housing Subcommittee for the Countywide
Planning Policies and was successful in addressing the City Council's direction on recognizing
what South County cities like Kent already have accomplished in provision of affordable
housing.
Anderson stated that she assisted in setting up a roundtable on the importance of agriculture
to Kent, how Kent can influence agriculture, and how agriculture can benefit from Kent's urban
centers.
Anderson stated that staff has worked on significant issues related to the floodplain, levee,
and river setbacks, and has considered how those issues might affect the capacity for growth
in the Kent Valley.
Anderson stated that along with continuation of regional policy work, Planning's efforts for
2013 will include finalizing the DSAP and moving forward on implementation measures. A
Planned Action Ordinance will require a separate action from the adoption of the Plan. Staff
also will analyze how to move forward on corner stores; by implementation of regulations or
through a pilot project and will consider parking requirements.
Anderson stated that through the process of updating the Zoning Code staff will consider how
the update can influence successful development projects and process efficiencies, what the
community will support, and how these codes are compatible with Kent's growth strategies.
Anderson stated that staff will begin work on the comprehensive plan update incorporating
new strategies related to social equity, environmental justice, healthy living, and climate
change. Capital improvements that the City funds should mesh with the City's vision and with
the comprehensive plan goals and policies. New strategies for levels of service related to parks
and modes of transportation need to be considered.
Wolters stated that from a planning perspective, Planning and Public Works staff continue to
serve as the City's point of contact. Sound Transit's project manager has indicated
appreciation that Kent has a light rail plan in place as they embark on planning a light rail
route. Sound Transit is going through a scoping process to identify what should be studied and
to bullet-proof the legality of Sound Transit's environmental assessment upon which their final
decision rests.
Hanson reported Kent recruited 1247 jobs to Kent in 2012. He stated that the aerospace
facility Omax plans to complete a 22,000 sf. facility expansion and is working with the city to
rectify flood plain issues. Corbi Plastics is experiencing growth and staff is working with the
company with respect to new fire standards. Staff is working closely with Heritage Bank to
help resolve access issues associated with their new development project located on a small
irregular shaped site at the corner of 41h and James Street.
Sysco Foods Food Distribution Company employs 600 people with plans to double their
employee base. Staff has been working with their real estate team and providing the company
with ideas on how they can expand onto adjacent properties. Wolters stated that staff is
watching to see what impact the Business and Occupation (B & O) Tax decision may have on
Sysco Food's decision on where to locate their expansion project.
Hanson stated that Kent has been successful in recruiting POP Gourmet Popcorn Company.
The company has secured the Castle Bridge Winery Property on 1801h They produce 47,000
bags of popcorn per month, currently service the Alaska Airlines industry and will be working
with Costco to showcase their product. The company will incorporate a retail presence. Hanson
ECDC Minutes
January 14,2013
Page 3 of
stated that Kent's Economic Development Specialist Josh Hall recruited the Full Circle Farms
Distribution Centerto Kent, a growing business that delivers vegetables.
Hanson stated that Kent recruited an avionics aerospace manufacturer, Carlisle Interconnect
Technologies (CIT). The company initially employed 800 people, has grown to 900 employees
with a goal to employ 1200 people. CIT manufactures in-flight entertainment system hardware
with a plan to manufacture wiring harnesses. Staff is working to resolve parking issues. The
Tazo Tea/Starbucks relocated from Portland to Kent with 58 employees and has reinvested
two-million dollars in the Kent Plant.
Hanson stated that REI employs over 1200 people at their Corporate World Headquarters in
Kent. The City would like to acknowledge their importance by installing attractive signage
acknowledging their presence. Since REI has a staggering number of bicycle commuters the
City has teamed up with Seattle Bike Supply, Raleigh Bicycles and REI to find a cost effective
solution to provide a dedicated route from the Interurban Trail to the REI Campus or beyond.
REI is donating $100,000 to this cause and the HRP properties south of REI are donating up to
twelve feet of their property.
Hanson stated that ECD co-hosted a Foreign Trade Zone Summit in 2012 with Enterprise
Seattle and the Port of Seattle attended by over 30 businesses. A Brownfield assessment was
conducted and resulted in Kent receiving a 3 year grant of $400,000 from the Environment
Protection Agency (EPA). Hanson further stated that the City received a $25,000 grant from
United Way of King County as a result of the East Hill Revitalization effort.
Hanson stated that work will continue in 2013 on the East Hill Revitalization effort. Staff will
strategize on how to define the East Hill commercial corridor and will work to cultivate and
identify those people who can partner together to build that area up. Staff will look at ways in
which the youth of that area can best be served. A survey will be conducted with East Hill
businesses and residents to further determine what they envision.
There is an initiative to implement and market warehouse district sales to retail customers.
The concept of warehouse sales is a real opportunity with Wolters stating that this initiative
could be a way to achieve some of our long term strategic goals of the Council's and City.
Informational Only
Adiournment
Committee Chair Perry adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic & Community Development Committee
PIAPlanningAECDCA2013\MlnutesV01-1413_DaftMln.doc
ECDC Minutes
January 14,2013
Page 4 of4
KENT
w., ,ware.
CITY OF KENT
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
January 8, 2013
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Les Thomas, Dana Ralph, and William Boyce, Chair. The meeting
was called to order by Council Chair William Boyce at 4:32 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Ralph MOVED and Councilmember Thomas SECONDED a Motion to
approve the November 13, 2012 minutes. Motion PASSED 3-0.
2. Target Grant
Assistant Chief Randy Bourne advised that the city received an award of $500 from the Target
Corporation for the purchase of a Photoshop program to digitize photos that businesses turn in
regarding robberies to help prosecutors. Les Thomas thanked Target in their participation in the
community including National Night Out.
After deliberating, Councilmember Ralph MOVED and Councilmember Thomas SECONDED
a Motion to recommend that Council accept the Target grant in an amount of $500,
authorize amending the budget and authorized expenditure of the funds in accordance
with the grant terms acceptable to the police chief and city attorney. Motion PASSED
3-1.
3. Ordinance amending KCC 9.02.150
Deputy city attorney Pat Fitzpatrick presented an ordinance amending the criminal code so that
it complies with Initiative 502. Decriminalizes a portion of the Kent City Code and adopts a
couple of sections of the RCW so that it complies with state law. Adopts a section of 502 that
decriminalizes the possession of one ounce of marijuana or less and adopts the infraction
relating to the use of marijuana in public (opening a package of marijuana in public).
Committee Chair Boyce asked if the dispensaries covered. Pat Fitzpatrick indicated that I-502
only permits-the-sale or-production-of-marijuana-subject-to-state -liquor- control-board control.
The State is currently establishing rules and regulations regarding permitting and opening
facilities to grow and sell marijuana. City will have an opportunity to comment on the rules,
subject to a policy decision of the mayor and council. The State estimates it will take a year to
establish rules.
Committee Chair Boyce indicated that a dispensary that was closed is now open. Pat Fitzpatrick
indicated that they are violating the zoning code, violating state and federal law. The city is
currently assessing that particular situation.
Councilmember Ralph asked if these changes put Kent in conflict with Federal law. Pat
Fitzpatrick indicated that Kent chooses to follow state law. Since Kent does not enforce Federal
law, we are not in conflict with Federal law. If Kent were encouraging taking steps to actively
participate in the production, Kent may be in conflict with Federal Law. The message voters
sent was that this is no longer illegal according to Washington law - does not mention Federal
law. Kent needs to be consistent with the way this law is written regarding enforcement so that
Kent police officers can participate in programs with the federal government.
Councilmember Ralph stated that she struggles to vote to make it ok. Pat Fitzpatrick indicated
that, as a city, it would not be a wise legal decision to remain out of compliance with state law
and that this is the most complex issue the law department has dealt with.
Pat Fitzpatrick indicated that the city of Kent police department has and will continue to
vigorously enforce the driving laws relating to the use of marijuana. The city has drug
recognition officers that are trained to notice people that are under the influence of marijuana.
The city of Kent law department vigorously enforces marijuana-related DUIs.
After deliberating, Councilmember Thomas MOVED and Councilmember Ralph SECONDED
a Motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending Section 9.02.150 of the
Kent City Code, entitled, "Criminal Code," adopting new RCW's relating to marijuana.
The Motion PASSED 3-0.
4. Community Education Unit — Information Only
Sara Wood and Stacy Judd, Public Education Specialists (PES) in the Community Education Unit
of the Police Department. Inform the committee on the jobs and functions of the Public
Education Specialists.
Police department deploys resources and education to the four sectors of the City; K-2 (East
Hill), K-3 (West Hill), K-4 (New Panther Lake Area), K-5 (Valley). Sara Wood is assigned to
West Hill and Valley sectors. Stacy Judd is assigned to all East sectors.
Currently there are 106 block watch programs. Sara and Stacy communicate weekly with
groups and advise of current crimes and provide information to groups. Hold block-watch 101
classes informing how to set up, information on crime trends and tips.
Committee Chair Boyce asked what forms of communication are used for advertising the Block
Watch 101 classes. Stacy advised that Sara is the media expert and she puts it on Facebook,
Twitter, City's website and the Kent Reporter in addition to sending information to current block
watch participants. Neighborhood response officers also refer victims of residential burglaries to
Sara and Stacy.
Sara Wood is required to spend 85% of her time on traffic safety-related projects in Kent and
South King County. Sara is the Target Zero project manager for the South King County area.
25 Target Zero managers across state who manage funding that is filtered through the
— Washington-Traffic Safety-Commission (WTSC)-from-the-National-Highway Transportation--Safety —
Administration (NHTSA) to facilitate five large DUI impaired driving mobilizations per year.
January 1st was the last mobilization. Sara coordinates funding for 13 South King County police
departments and coordinates the patrols for events. Sara works closely with City of Kent
Sergeant, Robert Constant, who is the law enforcement liaison for the Target Zero program
South King County. Sara discussed success of program. Statewide Target Zero goal is to have
zero fatalities and serious injuries on roadways by the year 2030. Sara works closely with
engineering regarding traffic calming and pedestrian safety. Sara discussed current grant from
the State regarding pedestrian safety along Kent-Kangley from 104th to 132nd. Deployed extra
law enforcement officers and reviewing data-driven approaches to crime and traffic safety. The
City will evaluate the stats to determine if extra traffic enforcement has any positive affect on
the crime rates.
Sara is working with North King County Target Zero manager on $70,000 distracted driving
grant and campaign throughout King County.
Sara manages the false alarm program. Manage monthly alarms, if business has three or more
false alarms in any one month, a warning letter is sent out. If the same business has three or
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 2
more false alarms in another month within the same quarter, a letter is sent out advising them
that the City is interested in working with them in an effort to help them stay in compliance.
There is no charge to the businesses for this program.
Stacy Judd manages the Drug-Free Communities (DFC) grant and Stop Underage Drinking
Prevention grant. City is in fifth year of grant with DFC. The grant is at $54,000 per year. City
will be applying for years six through 10, but that application .is competitive. The City is in the
first year the five-year Stop Underage Drinking Prevention grant. The grant is $48,000 per
year. Major focus on these grants is on middle and high school students in the Kent School
District. Focuses on drug and alcohol prevention. New challenges regarding the new marijuana .
law. Stacy works with Kent Police Youth Board which consists of 25 middle and high school
students. Game of Life Youth Conference was held in the beginning of December. There were
over 300 participants from Kent, Renton, Enumclaw, Seattle and Auburn. Volunteers meet 2-3
times per month focusing on drug and alcohol prevention and also leadership development.
Students can serve from 7th through 12th grade. Most students serve on the board until they
graduate. In the springtime the kids will work on another community-based project. Last
spring the kids worked with Sara on the distracted driving presentation, program, banners, and
commercials that ran on Comcast cable and at the AMC theaters that focused on drug and
alcohol prevention.
Work with Kent Drug Free Coalition focusing on monitoring the Drug Free Communities grant
and the Stop Underage Drinking Prevention Grant.
Monitor the alcohol establishments in Kent regarding good business practices of not over-
serving. Work with the liquor control board on compliance checks on underage sales of alcohol.
Both work on the STAR and trespass programs. STAR is for rental property units of two or
more. The trespass program is for property managers to partner with the police department to
allow police officers to trespass people from their property without approval.
Four police personnel teach the police sciences class at Kent Meridian High School.
Councilmember Thomas asked if there is a plan to implement the science class at Kentridge
High School. Stacy indicated that there are staffing issues, so she is not sure.
National Night Out. City received loth in the nation - the highest that the city has been
recognized in our new population category. It is a citywide effort which is coordinated through
the Community Education Unit.
Cornucopia and Fourth of July events. The Public Education Specialists represent the city,
answer questions, and provide informational materials to the public during various events.
Do personal safety presentations for businesses and employees. Passed out flyers for auto theft
prevention and vehicle prowl prevention.
Look for-grants in an effort to bring unique programs to Kent.
Graffiti - City has volunteers, corrections work crew that will clean up the graffiti with the
homeowner's permission. Can provide paint for the homeowner to do graffiti removal. Graffiti
hotline is (253)856-GRAF and leave a message where the graffiti is and Stacy and Sara will
work with homeowner to get the graffiti cleaned up.
Committee member Ralph thanked Sara and Stacy for coming to the meeting and reminding the
community of the work that they do reaching out to every part of the community helping to
keep residents and businesses safe. Committee chair Boyce also expressed his gratitude.
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 3
S. Inmate Phone Services - Information Oniv
Diane McCulstion, Corrections Commander, discussed upgrading the inmate telephone service
the inmates in the housing units use. Current service is 20 years old. Expensive to repair,
expensive for inmates to use, does not have the ability to call cellular phones. Over the past
few months- city staff has met with various providers and evaluated options. Val Added
Communications (VAC) is the current provider and was bought out by another provider.
Securus Technologies offers best program including low-cost calls for inmates, free
attorney/public defender calls. Service and hardware is free to the City. City will receive 50%
of the revenue generated. Last year revenues were approximately $38,000 and it is anticipated
that the City will continue to receive this same amount. Committee Char! Boyce asked about
the cost to the City and Diane indicated that there is no cost to the City. Committee member
Ralph questioned if Diane anticipates the revenue remaining the same even if the costs to the
inmates are reduced. Diane indicated that there will be an increase in the revenue due to the
ability for the inmates to call cell phones.
Committee member Thomas asked if this item will go to Operations committee. Deputy City
Attorney, Pat Fitzpatrick, advised that the City's procurement code requires council approval on
items that cost the city money. Since the inmate phone services will not cost the city money
and it is being presented to the Public Safety Committee as information only. Additionally, since
Securus owns and maintains the system, there is no cost to the City due to Securus owning the
equipment. The City only shares in the revenue generated from phone calls from a much-
improved system for providing the clientele for the phone system.
Commander McCuistion informed the committee that the new system will also record phone calls
for investigatory purposes.
6. Photo traffic enforcement in School Zones - Information Only.
Chief Thomas assigned Traffic Sergeant, Robert Constant, to start researching the photo traffic
program and present preliminary information to the Committee in order to give an opportunity
for input and direction. Chief Thomas hopes to bring this item back to committee in February.
Sergeant Constant advised that this program has gone through legal challenges in the State of
Washington and all have been exhausted, so implementation should not be challenged.
Increases traffic calming and enforcement in areas that have increased ongoing collisions and
fatalities. Auburn and Renton have had for the past 3-5 years. Des Moines just completed an
18 month trail program and is in the process of implementing a second school zone traffic
enforcement camera program. Regionally, the program is working well and it is anticipated that
-- --Kent-would-also benefit from-this-program.- Committee--member Thomas-questioned-if-Kent is - --
thinking about a pilot program. Chief Thomas asked for direction as to whether or not the
committee is interested in a pilot program vs. a working with the company evaluating as many
schools as possible. The businesses providing this program will research and do a study to
determine which school zones would be best, that make the most sense for sustainability. Chief
Thomas would like direction from the committee on what they desire. Committee member
Ralph asked for information regarding the number of school zones vs. how many traffic officers
we have. Sergeant Constant indicated that there are 25 schools and 38 school zones. The
traffic unit consists of eight traffic officers and Sergeant Constant is the traffic supervisor. At
any one time there are 2-3 traffic officers working the City. Additionally, there are 119 signal-
controlled intersections, 500+ stop sign controlled intersections, and 724 miles of roadway.
Utilizing technology and mechanical implementation can be effective. Committee member Ralph
asked if the Kent School District Both Committee Chair Boyce and Chief Thomas have spoken
with Dr. Vargas from the Kent School District who is very passionate about and has already
identified ten schools he would like to implement this technology. Chair Boyce requested that
the city move forward without implementing a pilot program first.
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 4
Committee Chair Boyce asked about the costs involved. Sergeant Constant indicated that the
school zone traffic camera companies will ensure compliance with the statutes by completing
feasibility studies. Costs average $4,800-$5,000 per month per approach. The company
ensures the traffic volumes will support implementing the cameras in the specific area. City
would be responsible for matching fees if there are fewer violations that anticipated. All
surrounding agencies are not having any problem meeting minimum requirements.
The Traffic Safety Commission Study that was just released indicates that the proceeds
generated by school zone traffic cameras are applied to the costs of infrastructure. A
commissioned officer has to review each violation (takes approx. 3-5 minutes/violation)
additional costs to courts, records and prosecutor's office. Surrounding jurisdictions apply
excess revenues towards the costs involved in managing the program and then apply the funds
to traffic calming needs,
Committee member Ralph would like to see what it Is going to take in resources from staff. She
indicated that the goal of this program is student safety not a revenue generator. Setting up
the program having it pay for itself and then using excess revenue for traffic calming programs.
Sergeant Constant indicated that the results the surround jurisdictions and the reductions in
schools zones indicates that this program would be very beneficial.
Chief Thomas indicated that he spoke with Margaret Yetter, the Courts Administrator and
indicated her desire to be involved in the decision making process.
Committee Chair Boyce indicated that he would like us to move forward. Committee member
Thomas indicated that he would like us to implement around five school zones. Sargent
Constant indicated that the City would not be able to support anything more than three zones to
start. After looking at Renton and Auburn (each are doing three schools), how they are
managing them, including their traffic unit. Based on that information, Kent would only be able
to do three zones.
Committee Boyce would like the police department to move forward with gathering data that
would fit our needs, be the most beneficial to the city and the most cost-effective to the City.
The police department should then bring back a recommendation to the February or March
Public Safety Committee meeting with their recommendation.
All three committee members' support moving forward with this program.
7. Staffing elan for police department — Information only
Chief Thomas discussed the staffing plan for the police department with Council President
Higgins and Committee Chair Boyce.
Committee Chair Boyce and Committee member Ralph would like to have the chief put together
a staffing plan based on information on the national, state, and local levels of staffing that take
into account the population numbers. Committee Chair Boyce would like the chief to determine
what the desired level of staffing should be compared to other jurisdictions and prepare a plan,
including a timeline, on how the city can achieve those desired levels. Once the committee
receives the plan, they will review the plan during the next budget cycle.
Councilmember Ralph indicated that a formal plan will establish goals, targets, and provide
accountability which will provide measures for the council to work towards.
Chief Thomas indicated that in February, Bobby Hollis will move back into the active recruiting
position.
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 5
Staffing goals can be discussed as a committee in addition to internally with the police
department and city administration. Paying for the new staff is the biggest challenge. Current
cost per officer to hire is $107,000-$110,000 which includes training, vehicles and uniforms.
Chief Thomas indicated that the City of Kent is safe and we have the best employees and police
officers in the state of Washington. Our officers work hard and smart and do a very good job.
The citizens of the city of Kent are safe, but we could use more officers so that we can be better.
Council Chair Boyce would like a document that is a guideline for ideal staffing levels for the city
of Kent.
Committee member Thomas advised that some officers need to be replaced as they retire.
Advised that Sergeant Gustafson is retiring at the end of January and Sergeant Pagel, out of
detectives, is retiring at the end of this year. Chief Thomas indicated that administration fully
supports immediately filling vacated positions, in order to maintain current levels, Two new
officers starting - one January 16th and the other on February 1st. By this summer, if the
revenue is right, the police department should be able to hire four positions that were on hold.
The city has unfrozen one of the criminal justice positions. Chief Thomas is encouraged with the
plan to move forward.
City is safe and our police department is very, very good.
Committee Chair Boyce requests that the Chief get
Committee member Ralph would like to see what fully-staffed areas (NRT, bike patrol, and
traffic) would look like. Chief Thomas has already assigned assistant chiefs with the task of
working with their commanders to evaluate desired staffing levels to get to full capacity.
Committee Chair Boyce would like this to be discussed again in the next few months.
S. Chiefs update
Homeless in downtown. Chief is getting mixed responses. Officers are actively addressing the
negative issues and impact to the businesses, parks and sidewalks. Chief Thomas is working
with the city attorney's office regarding civility laws. The officers are working with downtown
businesses on trespass issues. The goal is to make Kent a clean and livable city with a high
-quality of life,
Chief Thomas met with Dr. Vargas on January 7th, 2013 and discussed the Connecticut School
Shooting. Kent Police Department partners with the Kent School District to provide School
Resource Officers in the middle and high schools. Nothing addresses the grade schools. Some
schools in the country assign patrol officers to grade schools within their geographical "beat
area." The officers are responsible for randomly checking in with the school periodically for 15
minutes and speak with the office personnel and students as regular policing duties in order to
provide more presence in the schools. Chief Thomas spoke with Dr. Vargas regarding this
program and he indicated that the school district is excited and interested in expanding their
partnership with the Kent Police Department. Chief Thomas also indicated that they would also
implement the program in the Federal Way Schools located within the City of Kent to increase
the police presence and allow the officers to become familiar with the students, staff and
campus. The city of Kent detective's unit would like to adopt schools to be able to contribute to
the safety of the kids. The police department is working on the process of implementing the
program.
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 6
Committee Chair Boyce would like the Chief to follow up with a status report in the next few
months. Review plan, budget and address staffing levels from a public safety prospective.
Chief Thomas indicated that he would be implementing the downtown bicycle unit once the
weather and timing is right.
Committee member Thomas asked how many arrests were made for fireworks on New Year's
Eve. Chief Thomas indicated zero, since the police were actively responding and dealing with
incidents.
Adjournment
Council Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Kim A. Komoto
Public Safety Committee Secretary
Public Safety Committee Minutes
January 8, 2012 7
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Committee Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Committee members Dennis Higgins and
Dana Ralph were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m.
Committee member Dana Ralph arrived before discussion item 5. Committee
member Ralph gave her concurrence on items 1 - 4.
Item 1 - Approval of Meetinq Minutes Dated January 7, 2013:
Committee member Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of January 7,
2013. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson and
PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 2 - Local Hazardous Waste Management Program - Grant:
Gina Hungerford Conservation Coordinator noted that the Seattle/King County
Health Department's Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant is an
annual grant that covers collection of hazardous waste at three special recycling
collection events for residents and local businesses. In the past, these events have
successfully diverted hazardous materials from landfills and/or removed them from
resident's homes and property.
Some of the hazardous items collected at the events include: Refrigerators and
freezers, used oil, antifreeze and other petroleum products, as well as batteries. In
addition, the grant pays for some staffing, printing and mailing costs.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to accept the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant in
the amount of $31,442.22 for 2013, and establish a budget accordingly,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and
Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair
Albertson and PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 3 - Contract/Olympic Environmental Resources - Recycling:
Gina Hungerford Conservation Coordinator noted that the contract with Olympic
Environmental Resources will provide assistance with the implementation of the
City of Kent's Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs, including the spring,
summer, and fall special recycling and collection events, outreach for business and
multi-family waste reduction and recycling programs, rain barrel and compost bin
sales and education to benefit the citizens and businesses of Kent. These programs
provide a cost savings to Kent's customers. Kent staff will continue to concentrate
on the residential sector.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Olympic
Environmental Resources for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and
Programs for 2013 in an amount not to exceed $93,392.25, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works
Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson and
PASSED 3-0, with Committee Chair Ralph's concurrence.
Item 4 — Contract/AMEC Consultants — 64th Ave S Channel Improvements:
Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor noted that next summer, the
Public Works Department will be installing two box culverts within the 64th Avenue
South drainage channel. The culverts are located underneath the Union Pacific
Railroad spur track that crosses the 64th Avenue South channel.
This is phase II of the project, which will help reduce flooding by increasing flow
capacity and improving storm water conveyance along 64th Avenue South from
South 228th Street to the Green River Natural Resources Area.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Contract Agreement with AMEC in an
amount not to exceed $19,096.15 to provide geotechnical engineering
services for the 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements Project, subject
to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public
Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson
and PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 5 — Contract/GEI — Briscoe Desimone Levee:
Ken Langholz Design Engineering Supervisor, stated that under this consultant
services agreement GEI will provide final engineering design for sheet pile walls and
will prepare plans and specifications for the construction. The contract will only be
executed if the flood wall option is chosen as the preferred flood protection method
versus a setback levee. We expect the Flood Control District will make a decision
on this in the spring.
After much discussion the following motion was made.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Contract with
GEI Consultants Inc. in an amount not to exceed $736,544 to provide
structural and geotechnical engineering services for final design of the
Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director and subject to
approval by the King County Flood Control District of the City's sheet pile
wall proposal and subject to approval and release of $7 million grant funds
from the King County Flood Control District to the City of Kent and subject
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
to an acceptable agreement with the City of Tukwila for work within
Tukwila. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Ralph and
PASSED 3-0.
Item 6 — Proposed SE 256th Street Local Improvement District 364 —
Resolution of Intent:
Mark Howlett Design Engineering Manager noted that the project cost estimate is
approximately $7.0 million and that we hope to form a Local Improvement District
(LID) for approximately $2 million.
The City delayed the LID formation process in order to pursue additional funding
sources, however, sources of revenue are scarce and very competitive and the City
could not find additional funding for this project. We are now ready to move
forward with the LID formation.
Committee member Ralph MOVED to recommend the Council adopt the
Resolution of Intent setting a Public Hearing date for March 5, 2013 on the
formation of Local Improvement District 364. The motion was SECONDED
by Committee member Higgins and PASSED 3-0.
Item 7 — Coal Trains — Impacts to the City of Kent:
Steve Mullen Transportation Engineering Manager presented information on a
proposed coal export facility in northwest Washington that could negatively impact
the City. Committee members were provided an opportunity to co-sign a comment
letter on the Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to approve and endorse the Coal
Export Facility Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Letter and
authorize the Mayor and council members to sign the document. The
motion was SECONDED by Committee member Ralph and PASSED 3-0.
Item 8 — Information Only/Public Works Department Managerial Review:
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director introduced Marci Hollingsworth who works for
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Hollingsworth has been on a
developmental assignment for the FAA's Executive Potential Program at the city and
will give a brief overview of her time here.
Information Only/No Motion Required
The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth
Council Committee Recorder
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION