HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/09/2013Economic & Community Development
Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Bill Boyce ● Deborah Ranniger ● Jamie Perry, Chair
Unless otherwise noted, the Planning and Economic Development Commi ttee meets the
2nd Monday of each month at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall,
220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895.
For information on the above item(s), the City of Kent’s Website can be accessed at
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1025 on Thursday, November 8,
2012 or contact Julie Pulliam, Pam Mottram or the respective project planner in the Planning
Division at (253) 856-5454 or as indicated on the agenda.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance.
For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
AGENDA
December 9, 2013
5:30 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker(s) Time Page
1. Approval of the November 12, 2013 Minutes YES Jamie Perry 5 min 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: YES Fred Satterstrom 15 min 5
Consideration of three (3) Planned Action Gloria Gould-Wessen
and Infill Exemption Ordinance Options
associated with the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Study area.
3. Customer Service Survey Update NO Fred Satterstrom 10 min 119
(Informational Only) Kimberlee McArthur
ECDC Minutes
November 12, 2013
Page 1 of 4
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 12, 2013
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger, Bill Boyce. Perry
called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Committee Member Ranniger Moved and Committee Member Boyce Seconded a
Motion to approve the Minutes of October 14, 2013. Motion PASSED 3-0.
2. Public Hearing: Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) and Infill Exemption
Ordinance (IEO) associated with the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP)
Study area.
Long Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen spoke about key principles and action items that
will implement the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Policies. The subarea action plan policies
encourage mixed use, provide urban residential living, encourage quality development,
improve livability through safety and open space, and develop economic incentives to help
grow downtown successes.
Gould-Wessen stated that Phase I of the DSAP implementation is nearly complete and
includes the DSAP, Land Use Plan & Zoning Districts Map Amendments and Mixed Use
Overlay (GC-MU) Development Regulations. Ordinances will be voted on at the November
19th City Council meeting.
Gould-Wessen stated that Phase II intends to further implement the DSAP; considers the
Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances (IEO), updates the Downtown Design
Guidelines, includes additional development regulations, adds economic development
incentives, and considers outdoor gathering spaces and parks. This Phase will be brought to
the Committee throughout 2014.
Gould-Wessen stated that the PAO and IEO encourages mixed use, improves livability and
offers economic development incentives. Planned Actions in Kent have included
development of the Kent Station, the Platform Mixed Use development that will soon house
176 residents, and the Town Square Park.
To meet GMA requirements, Kent created the DSAP and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) to Kent’s comprehensive plan review EIS adopted in 2011. The
DSAP/SEIS identifies significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and
unavoidable adverse impacts associated with three land use alternatives that the SEIS
studied. The DSAP/SEIS focus is to analyze impacts of land use alternatives to
transportation, to open space, and to ensure consistency with existing plans and policies.
The draft and final SEIS informs the planned action and the infill exemption ordinances.
Gould-Wessen stated that the environmental review of the DSAP/SEIS was completed at a
programmatic level. Staff analyzed land use, number of jobs and residences that would be
brought to town, looked at transportation and impacts to open space and recreation in
downtown. Through that environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been identified
and future development must address those impacts as part of the permit process as is
currently done with permitting. However, developers will not need to conduct additional
SEPA review if they are deemed consistent with the DSAP/SEIS resulting in cost and time
savings for the developer.
1
ECDC Minutes
November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 4
The PAO would affect a portion of the North Park Neighborhood. The center of the Planned
Action (PA) area is Meeker Street. Gould-Wessen cited the boundaries of the Infill
Exemption area where development will be able to utilize that particular ordinance. Meeker
Street is in the center of the PA area and in the center of the effort to incentivize
development. Gould-Wessen stated that there are a number of properties surrounding Kent
Station with potential for redevelopment in the future which is partly why the PA is
associated with the North Park area. The PA area excludes 1st and 2nd Avenues to
encourage different types of redevelopment to preserve the historic character of that area.
Berk and Associates Consultant Lisa Grueter described the steps taken to complete the PAO
with the first step being preparation and issuance of a Final SEIS issued on October 4, 2013
(that anticipates what future development will be in a specific area). The intent of this
hearing is to consider adoption of the PAO. The PAO defines development levels and
required mitigation anticipated in the SEIS. When developers implement the mitigation
measures, SEPA review does not have to be repeated, and it facilitates the permit process
where the city evaluates future development proposals for consistency with the ordinance.
Most of the ordinance addresses the review process, establishes criteria for reviewing the
planned actions, and adds a monitoring provision where the adopted PAO is reviewed for
validity in five years. Grueter cited examples of mitigation measures evaluated in the
DSAP/SEIS. She stated that the PAO is a tool used since the mid 90’s by a number of
jurisdictions. It facilitates permit review and puts into motion the land use plan.
Grueter stated that the IEO facilitates residential and mixed use residential commercial
development in areas that are not meeting density goals set forth in the comprehensive
plan. The IEO has been used in a number of cities; to focus on bringing more residential to
an area. The IEO would incentivize the permit process for residential or mixed use
developments. SEPA law was amended last year to allow for a small amount of stand-alone
nonretail commercial use of 65,000 sf, whereas previously the exemption was only for
residential or mixed use with residential. If the IEO is approved, it would be applied to
about 400 of the 550 acre DSAP area.
Grueter stated that the infill growth bank projects 3,560 new households, 2,323 new jobs
and 3,790 new trips. She stated that the PA area (consistent with the downtown
commercial enterprise zone located primarily in the southern area) is still the focus for
growth and is where the most intensive development is planned.
Gould-Wessen stated that having a PAO or IEO does not mean that commercial
development can happen in an area zoned for residential. The MRT-16 zoning district within
the North Park area would not be affected by adopting these ordinances. Changing
boundaries to exclude portions of the North Park area from the PAO would require
additional changes to the ordinances.
After deliberating, it was determined that making any adjustments to the boundaries would
be considered a substantial change to the plan and would require a new public hearing.
Councilmember Perry asked staff to craft a couple of additional options for the Committee’s
consideration. She stated that a group of North Park Community residents don’t want
redevelopment, yet she voiced her concern that the Planned Action incentivizes
redevelopment and includes some single family residential parcels within North Park.
Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that the last DSAP update was completed in 2005
simultaneously with some rezoning up to Cloudy Street. At that time, half of that block area
located immediately adjacent to James Street was rezoned Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DCE), and rezoned the other half to Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-
16) which serves as a buffer for the North Park area. The intent with the PAO and IEO is to
incentivize development and attempt to induce the type of development consistent with its
land use plans.
2
ECDC Minutes
November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Satterstrom suggested three options for the Committee to consider related to the subject
site north of James Street; (1) Incentivize the subject area with a planned action to allow
for more flexible zoning (2) incentivize through the infill exemption, limiting the commercial
aspect but incentivizing residential, or (3) do not designate the subject area through either
a planned action or infill exemption.
Committee member Ranniger stated that the rezoning in 2005 incentivized and galvanized
the North Park neighborhood to really take ownership of their community and to work to
keep the integrity of that community as a residential neighborhood. Ranninger spoke in
opposition to include the North Park community as part of the planned action area with
Committee Member Boyce concurring.
Satterstrom stated that staff could provide additional options for the Committee’s
consideration at their December 9 th meeting, preceding the City Council meeting of
December 10th.
3. Business Incubators
Economic Development Specialist Josh Hall stated that staff has been asked to conduct
research on business incubators and to determine if the City might be interested in
engaging in, supporting or creating an incubator type space in the City.
Hall defined business incubation as specific programing designed to accelerate successful
development of small entrepreneurial companies. Most incubator programs focus on market
analysis and financial assistance. Many incubators provide space for companies to grow and
succeed at a lower cost. He described Accelerators, Technology, Mixed Use, Manufacturing,
Service Industry, and Virtual Incubator programs. Hall stated that the Virtual Incubator
Programs are similar to what the Green River Community College (GRCC) provides with
their small business assistance center programs.
Hall stated that staff considered costs, who could manage a facility, considered what some
of the other facilities in the region are doing, considered partnership opportunities, desired
outcomes for Kent businesses and the purpose for the facilities.
Hall stated that staff specifically researched city-driven, initiated incubators in the region
and found that the City of Kenmore just started a two-year technology incubator pilot
program backed by the city with a budget of $240,000 . Kenmore feels they have a
particular niche because of their proximity to Redmond’s Microsoft and Google technology
businesses. The City of Federal Way began a Mixed Use incubator program in 2009 with an
initial investment of $200,000, receiving additional funding from the State and other
sources for a total estimated start-up cost of $325,000. The Federal Way Chamber of
Commerce runs and manages the program with collaboration between the multiservice
center and the Federal Way School District. It has been estimated that Federal Way has
created about 150 new jobs since startup. The city has recently changed its focus from
general use incubators to more specific technology incubators.
Hall stated that revenue is generated to support these incubators by charging companies
rental fees and service fees at a reduced level. The incubators may bring in webinars where
they will charge a fee to go through their course.
Hall spoke about the pros and cons of incubation programs with some arguments that
businesses who get incubation services have a much higher success rate than those
companies that don’t, that companies tend to l ocate near where they have an incubator,
and if services are being provided to those companies many times they are going to
continue to stay in the city as they grow.
3
ECDC Minutes
November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 4
In response to Committee inquires Hall stated that he believes that advanced manufacturing
is an industry Kent is strong in and has regional significance. The Obama Administration is
looking at siting an advanced manufacturing innovation center. The University of
Washington, University of Oregon and the Department of Commerce (DOC) is involved in
this effort with the DOC currently applying for a planning grant. The Center For Advanced
Manufacturing Puget Sound (CAMPS) is located in Kent and a part of this process and could
help direct location of an eventual facility.
Perry stated that she would like to have more information on technology incubators that
have worked in the past, how they work, what they look like, and what type of facilities they
have. She opined that technology incubators would likely require a larger initial investment,
than starting up a service based incubator which would require less space and be less heavy
equipment intensive. Perry voiced support to continue evaluating options.
Ranninger stated that she was in Washington DC where she met with the Department of
Commerce to talk about planning grant dollars. She stated that it is all about collaboration
and partnerships. She stated that if staff’s instincts leads to considering advanced
manufacturing, the city needs to play to its strengths and the next step would be to reach
out and see about obtaining planning grants, perhaps form collaborative partnerships with
other business municipalities and educational institutions to strengthen the opportunities for
obtaining grants.
Informational Only
4. Economic Development Report
Josh Hall reported that Ben Wolters would give Council an update at their November 19th
meeting.
Adjournment
Committee Chair Perry adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
________________________________________
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic & Community Development Committee
P:\Planning\ECDC\2013\Minutes\10-14-13_Min.doc
4
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
December 4, 2013
To: Chair Jamie Perry and Economic & Community Development Committee
From: Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner
Subject: Planned Action Ordinance for Downtown Subarea, and Infill Exemption
Ordinance for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Area (CPZ/CPA-2012-1)
(ENV-2012-30)
For the Public Hearing of December 9, 2013
SUMMARY: A public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) and Infill
Exemption Allowance Ordinance (Infill Exemption) for the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan (DSAP) was scheduled for the November 12, 2013 Economic &
Community Development Committee (ECDC) meeting. Following a presentation and
discussion, the ECDC directed staff to expand the choices of the designated areas
for each ordinance. Therefore, the December 9th ECDC has also been advertized as
a public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND: The PAO and Infill Exemption ordinances are supported by the
DSAP and the Draft and Final Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSAP SEIS). The DSAP SEIS
considered three alternative growth scenarios and the DSAP adopted Alternative #2
(Moderate Growth Scenario). The PAO and Infill Exemption options presented for
consideration at this public hearing fit within Alternative #2.
The PAO and Infill Exemption are regulatory tools that, when utilized by developers,
will facilitate development within specific areas of Kent’s Downtown. New
development within the designated PAO area can utilize the environmental analysis
completed in the DSAP SEIS. As long as the type and amount of proposed
development has been analyzed, and mitigation measures addressed, development
can proceed using streamlined environmental review that expedites the permit
MOTION:
Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/modification of the:
(A) Downtown Planned Action Ordinance Option __ ; and (B) Downtown
Infill Exemption Allowance Option __ ; as evaluated in the Supplemental
EIS for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan.
5
CPZ/CPA-2012-1
Downtown Subarea Action Plan – Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances
Economic & Community Development Committee - December 9, 2013
Page 2 of 2
process. Within the designated area of the Infill Exemption, a categorical exemption
for construction of residential developments, non-retail commercial developments
less than 65,000 square feet in size, and mixed use development is allowed by
ordinance. Mitigation measures for Infill Exemption development were identified in
the DSAP SEIS. It should be noted that neither type of development incentive (PAO
or Infill Exemption) alters in any way the zoning of sites in downtown. These tools
simply, modify, and streamline the environmental review process and, as such,
serve to incentivize development that is consistent with the DSAP.
DSAP Planned Action Ordinance and Infill Exemption Alternatives:
Below are three options that define the size of the designated areas of the PAO and
Infill Exemption based on input from the November 12th ECDC meeting:
Option 1 (i.e., Original) PAO and Infill Exemption as presented to the ECDC on
November 12th (see Attach. A –Option 1 Map).
Option 2 (i.e., James St. Boundary) reduces the designated areas for the PAO
and Infill Exemption by removing all of the North Park residential neighborhood
located north of James Street (see Attach. B – Option 2 Map).
Option 3 (i.e., DCE Included) reduces the designated areas for the PAO and
Infill Exemption by removing the area within the North Park residential
neighborhood located north of James Street zoned MRT-16. The area zoned
DCE (Downtown Commercial Enterprise) remains within the areas designated
PAO and Infill Exemption (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) (see Attach. C –
Option 3 Map).
Analysis of Options:
The reduction in designated area on the PAO and Infill Exemption maps reduces the
amount of future residential and commercial development that can take advantage
of the environmental analysis (i.e., DSAP SEIS). The consequence of the reduced
future development potential in Options 2 and 3 results in a redistribution of the
mitigation costs for streets, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities for the PAO and Infill
Exemption Option 2 and 3. The tables below summarize the estimated cost per trip
associated for the PAO and Infill Exemption ordinance options:
Table 1: PAO Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip by Options
Mitigation
Measure Type
Option 1
Original
Option 2
James St. Boundary
Option 3
DCE Included
Street $1.82 $2.00 $1.88
Sidewalk $276.47 $266.67 $293.75
Bicycle $16.47 $16.00 $15.63
Total $294.76 $284.67 $311.26
Table 2: Infill Exemption Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip by Options
Mitigation
Measure Type
Option 1
Original
Option 2
James St. Boundary
Option 3
DCE Included
Street $1.82 $1.96 $1.87
Sidewalk $369.39 $335.20 $374.33
Bicycle $376.99 $398.00 $381.82
Total $747.99 $736.04 $758.02
6
CPZ/CPA-2012-1
Downtown Subarea Action Plan – Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances
Economic & Community Development Committee - December 9, 2013
Page 3 of 2
Attached you will find the November 12th ECDC staff report, and the three
ordinance options for the PAO and the Infill Exemption with the proposed changes
highlighted in red ‘track changes’ for review. Staff will be available at the December
9th meeting.
GGW/FS/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\ECDC\12-9-13\Memo_PAOInfill.docx
Enc: Attach A: Option 1 Map, Attach B: Option 2 Map, Attach C: Option 3 Map, Attach D: PAO Option 1, Attach E: PAO Option 2,
Attach F: PAO Option 3, Attach G: Infill Ord. Option 1, Attach H: Infill Ord. Option 2, Attach I: Infill Ord. Option 3, Attach J:
ECDC 11/12/13 Memo.
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney
Project Files CPZ/CPA-2012-1
7
8
RE
DEAN ST
E TITU S ST
CLARK AV
WILLIS ST
GOWE ST
MEEKER ST
HARRISON ST
SMITH ST
NADEN AV
6 AV N
4 AV N
STATE
ST
LINCO
LN
AVSAM ST
SMITH ST
5 AV N
3 AV N
2 AV N
CENTRAL AV
E GEORGE
ST
S 234 ST
64 AV S
JAMES ST
W COLE
TER
AV
S 246 ST
SR 516
THOMPSON AV
HARRISONW
WASHINGTON AV
W CLOUDY ST
PRIV
5 AV S TITUS ST
TACOMA S
SCENIC WY
MCMILLIAN
WARD
TEMP
CEDAR ST
CLOUDY ST
WOODFORD AV N
PROSPECT AV
KENNEBECK AV
PIONEER ST
JASON
AV
UP RR
BN RR
MADISON AV
SAAR ST
SCENIC WY
ALPINE WY
ST
N
K
E
N
N
E
B
E
C
K
71 PL S
1 AV
N
STATE
BOULDRON
RAILROAD AV N
1 AVE S
4 AV S
ADAMS
ST
CONCORD
RAMS
A
Y
W
A
Y
2 PL N W KENT STA.ST
W
TEMPERANCE
ST
2 AV
N
W MORTON ST
S 238 PL
JAMES ST
P/ECD GIS Data/Gloria/Project/DSAP_EIS/PAO_Option1.mxdCPA/CPZ-2012-1 DSAP/ENV-2012-30 Planned Action & Infill Exemption Ordinances
Planning Services
November 2013
No Scale
Option 1
Planned Action & Infill Exemption
Legend
DSAP Study Area
Planned Action Boundary
Infill Exemption Boundary
9
10
R
DEAN ST
E TITU S ST
CLARK AV
WILLIS ST
GOWE ST
MEEKER ST
HARRISON ST
SMITH ST
NADEN AV
6 AV N
4 AV N
STATE
ST
LINCO
LN
AVSAM ST
SMITH ST
5 AV N
3 AV N
2 AV N
CENTRAL AV
E GEORGE
ST
S 234 ST
64 AV S
JAMES ST
W COLE
AV
S 246 ST
SR 516
THOMPSON AV
HARRISONW
WASHINGTON AV
W CLOUDY ST
PRI
V
5 AV S TITUS ST
TACOMA
SCENIC WY
MCMILLIAN
WARD
TE
CEDAR ST
CLOUDY ST
WOODFORD AV N
PROSPECT AV
KENNEBECK AV
PIONEER ST
JASON
AV
UP RR
BN RR
MADISON AV
SAAR ST
SCENIC WY
ALPINE WY
ST
N
K
E
N
N
E
B
E
C
K
71 PL S
1 AV
N
STATE
BOULDRO
RAILROAD AV N
1 AVE S
4 AV S
ADAMS
ST
CONCORD
RAMS
A
Y
W
A
Y
2 PL N W KENT STA.ST
W
TEMPERANCE
ST
2 AV
N
W MORTON ST
S 238 PL
Legend
DSAP Study Area
Planned Action Boundary
Infill Exemption Boundary
Planned Action & Infill Exemption
Planning Services
November 2013
JAMES ST
No Scale
CPA/CPZ-2012-1 DSAP/ENV-2012-30 Planned Action & Infill Exemption OrdinancesP/ECD GIS Data/Gloria/Project/DSAP_EIS/PAO_Option2.mxd
Option 2
11
12
R
DEAN ST
E TITU S ST
CLARK AV
WILLIS ST
GOWE ST
MEEKER ST
HARRISON ST
SMITH ST
NADEN AV
6 AV N
4 AV N
STATE
ST
LINCO
LN
AVSAM ST
SMITH ST
5 AV N
3 AV N
2 AV N
CENTRAL AV
E GEORGE
ST
S 234 ST
64 AV S
JAMES ST
W COLE
AV
S 246 ST
SR 516
THOMPSON AV
HARRISONW
WASHINGTON AV
W CLOUDY ST
PRI
V
5 AV S TITUS ST
TACOMA
SCENIC WY
MCMILLIAN
WARD
TE
CEDAR ST
CLOUDY ST
WOODFORD AV N
PROSPECT AV
KENNEBECK AV
PIONEER ST
JASON
AV
UP RR
BN RR
MADISON AV
SAAR ST
SCENIC WY
ALPINE WY
ST
N
K
E
N
N
E
B
E
C
K
71 PL S
1 AV
N
STATE
BOULDRO
RAILROAD AV N
1 AVE S
4 AV S
ADAMS
ST
CONCORD
RAMS
A
Y
W
A
Y
2 PL N W KENT STA.ST
W
TEMPERANCE
ST
2 AV
N
W MORTON ST
S 238 PL
Legend
DSAP Study Area
Planned Action Boundary
Infill Exemption Boundary
Planned Action & Infill Exemption
Planning Services
November 2013
JAMES ST
No Scale
CPA/CPZ-2012-1 DSAP/ENV-2012-30 Planned Action & Infill Exemption OrdinancesP/ECD GIS Data/Gloria/Project/DSAP_EIS/PAO_Option3.mxd
Option 3
13
14
1 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT D
PAO
Option #1
Original Proposal
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing a Planned
Action for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with
the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
15
2 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by
jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
E. The City approved a Planned Action Ordinance for a portion of the
Downtown Subarea in 2002 and has largely completed those actions.
F. The City desires to designate a new Planned Action for a portion of
the Downtown Subarea.
G. Designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for
subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously
addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and
thereby encourages desired growth and economic development.
H. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
16
3 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
I. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
J. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown area. Together these are referenced as the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
K. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
L. The Kent City Code (KCC) 11.03.020 provides for Planned Actions
within the City.
M. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through a SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
17
4 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
N. The City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee
hosted a community meeting on October 14, 2013 consistent with RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b).
O. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
P. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
18
5 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Q. After providing appropriate public notice, on November 12, 2013,
the City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee for the
City of Kent considered the planned action ordinance at a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Recitals. The recitals set forth above are
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. - Purpose. The City of Kent declares that the purpose
of this ordinance is to:
A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, development
regulations, Kent codes and ordinances together with the mitigation
measures in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS to mitigate
environmental impacts and process Planned Action development
applications in the Planned Action Area.
B. Designate the central Downtown Subarea shown in Exhibit A as a
Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting
of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.031.
C. Determine that the 2013 SEIS prepared for the DSAP Update
together with the 2011 EIS prepared for the Comprehensive Plan meet the
requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA (together
referenced as the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS).
19
6 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will
determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area
qualify as Planned Actions.
E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how
the City will process implementing projects within the Planned Action Area.
F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by
relying on the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
mitigation measures described in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS
and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development
contemplated by this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A),
and is applying the Planned Action to an Urban Growth Area (UGA).
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the
GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate a subarea
plan specific to the Downtown.
C. The City is adopting zoning and development regulations in a
phased approach both concurrent with and subsequent to the DSAP Update
to implement said Plan, including this ordinance.
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared for the
Planned Action Area, and the City Council finds that the EIS adequately
20
7 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
identifies and addresses the probable significant environmental impacts
associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in
the designated Planned Action Area.
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein
by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the
Planned Action Area.
F. The DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS identify the location, type and
amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action.
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned
Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance
economic development.
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS, including a community
meeting prior to the publication of notice for the Planned Action Ordinance;
has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified
the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments.
I. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 36.70A.200(1) are excluded
from the Planned Action and are not eligible for review or permitting as
Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that
otherwise qualifies as a Planned Action.
J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the
overall City boundaries.
21
8 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed
Planned Action, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 4. – Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and
Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area.
A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to
the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a
site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be
based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS issued by the City on
June 21, 2013 and the Final SEIS published on October 4, 2013 together
with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS completed in 2011 (considered together to be the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS). The 2011 Draft and Final EIS as
supplemented by the SEIS documents shall comprise the Planned Action
EIS for the Planned Action Area. The mitigation measures contained in
Exhibit B and attached to this Ordinance are based upon the findings of the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City
regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply
appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action Projects within the
Planned Action Area.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds
described in subsection 4.D and the mitigation measures contained in
22
9 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific
Planned Action Project located within the Planned Action Area shall be
designated a Planned Action if it completes a SEPA Checklist and City
application and evaluation form, and any other form required by the City,
and meets the criteria set forth in Subsection 4.D of this Ordinance and all
other applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of
the City are met.
D. Planned Action Thresholds. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned
Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action and has had its
environmental impacts evaluated in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS:
(1) Qualifying Land Uses.
(a) Planned Action Categories: The following general
categories/types of land uses are defined the Downtown Subarea Plan and
are considered Planned Actions:
i. Residential: High and medium density
multifamily residential; townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density
single-family detached dwellings;
ii. Employment: Dense and varied retail, office,
commercial, and service activities;
iii. Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
iv. Mixed use development with housing,
employment, civic, governmental, and recreational uses.
(b) Planned Action Uses: A land use shall be considered a
Planned Action Land Use when:
23
i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in
Exhibit A;
ii. it is within the one or more of the land use
categories described in subsection 1(a) above; and
iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable
to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action
Area.
A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a
combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed use development.
Planned Action uses include accessory uses.
(c) Public Services: The following public services,
infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Actions:
i. Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and road improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
ii. Parks and recreation facilities and improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
(2) Development Thresholds:
(a) Land Use: The following amounts of various new land
uses are contemplated by the Planned Action:
Growth Type Base Year
2006
Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2031)
Total Net Growth
Households 713 2,571 1,858
Jobs1 1,867 3,033 1,166
Total Activity Units: Jobs and
Households2 2,580 5,604 3,024
Notes:
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures in the prior
2011 EIS. These elements make up about 6-9% of the job totals depending on alternative.
2 Numbers in SEIS reflect formula results; above numbers are rounded.
Source: City of Kent 2011 and 2012
24
11 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in
D(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the
aggregate amount of development reviewed in the 2013 SEIS; the traffic
trips for Alternative 2 Moderate Growth are not exceeded; and, the
development impacts identified in the 2013 SEIS are mitigated consistent
with Exhibit B.
(c) To be considered a planned action, where a proposal
includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height shall be
two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those studied in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the subject
zoning district.
(d) Further environmental review may be required
pursuant to WAC 197-11-172, if any individual Planned Action or
combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds
specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
(3) Transportation Thresholds:
(a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM peak
hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the 2013
SEIS is as follows:
Trip Generation – Planned Action Ordinance Area
Alternative
Planned Action Area
Trip Ends* Growth Compared
to Existing
Existing Conditions (2006) 2,200 0
Alternative 2 3,900 1,700
Note: * PM peak hour vehicle trips.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
25
12 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the
transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS thresholds
established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service established in the 2013
DSAP SEIS.
(c) Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and impact fee ordinance is updated, all Planned Actions shall
pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements
identified in Exhibit B as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in
addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated impact fee
program, chapter 12.14 KCC.
(d) Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Planned Action.
(4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A
proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or
degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed
in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS shall not qualify as a Planned
Action.
(5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned
Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental
review is conducted.
26
13 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as
“Planned Actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440, applications that meet all
of the following conditions:
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with
those described in the 2013 SEIS and Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds
and other criteria of Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent Comprehensive
Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated
by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable
City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special
permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state
and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official
determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined
by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to
or part of a development that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
27
14 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist,
or an alternative form approved in accordance with SEPA laws and rules,
and review of the Planned Action application and evaluation form and
supporting documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be
considered to qualify and be designated as a Planned Action, consistent
with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.440, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and
this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA
Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in
accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the
development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the
environmental analysis contained in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS.
(2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 4.D and qualifies as a
Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold
determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review
pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions
shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process:
28
15 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(1) Development applications shall meet all applicable
requirements of the Kent City Code (KCC). Applications for Planned
Actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the
SEPA checklist.
(2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether
the application is complete as provided in Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action
Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it
is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a
Planned Action Project.
(a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
regarding consistency of a project as a Planned Action is a Type 1 decision.
The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision.
(b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned
Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review
procedures specified in Chapter 12.01 KCC, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
(c) Notice of the application for a Planned Action Project
shall be consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the
notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If
notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice
is required by this ordinance.
(5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements,
the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a
development agreement for a Planned Action Project, consistent with RCW
36.70B.170 et seq.
29
16 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action,
the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a
SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the
requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the
application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action.
(7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may
incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet
their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the
scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and
environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 5. – Monitoring and Review.
A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the
designated Planned Action Area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is
consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance regarding the type and
amount of development and associated impacts addressed in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and with the mitigation measures and
improvements planned for the Planned Action Area in Exhibit B.
B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed by the SEPA
Responsible Official no later than five years from its effective date. The
review shall determine the continuing relevance of the Planned Action
assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action Area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation
measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to
this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
30
17 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
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 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 7. – 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 8. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2013.
31
18 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO_Infill\FINAL_PAO_Ord.Docx
32
Exhibit A 19
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED ACTION AREA
33
Exhibit B 20
EXHIBIT B
COMBINED DSAP PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION
MEASURES
Section B-1. Mitigation Required for Development Applications
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent issued the Draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS on June
21, 2013 and the Final SEIS on October 4, 2013 (referenced as the 2013 SEIS). Previously, the
City completed the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS in 2011 (referenced as the 2011 EIS). The Draft and Final EIS as supplemented by
the SEIS documents comprise the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for the Planned Action
Area (see Exhibit A). The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has identified significant
beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of
the Planned Action Area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those
significant adverse impacts. Please see the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for a
description of impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
A Mitigation Document is provided in this Exhibit Section B-1, and it establishes specific
mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-1 shall apply to future
development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and which are located within the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). Exhibits B-2 and B-3 provide
advisory notes on applicable regulations and commitments and city actions for monitoring
purposes and may be consulted as appropriate.
Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in
project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where “should”
or “would” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a
source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as
a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require
preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of
maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund
and/or perform.
34
Exhibit B 21
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Land Use Patterns
The following mitigation measures shall be applied to Planned Actions:
1. Solar Access: Until superseded by amended design standards or guidelines in the Kent City
Code, solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parks, schools and
other areas sensitive to shading shall be preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level
setbacks for adjacent development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of daytime use.
2. Public Views: The City may condition Planned Actions to incorporate site design measures that
preserve significant public views from public areas.
Transportation
This section applies measures to mitigate the impacts of new development on transportation
infrastructure, including streets, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit infrastructure and
services.
Until the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and impact fee ordinance are updated, all Planned
Actions shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified
below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan and associated impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
3. Street Mitigation Measures
Table 1 summarizes the street mitigation projects that have been identified for the DSAP Study
Area. The cost is shared between development inside the Planned Action Area and outside the
Planned Action Area. The Planned Action Area cost per trip is shown in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 1. Street Mitigation Measures – Alternatives 2
Location Description Cost Estimate1
Meeker Street & 4th
Avenue
Restripe roadway to reduce width of
westbound receiving lane and allow
eastbound left turn pocket
$5,000-$10,000
Notes:
1. The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
35
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
4. Pedestrian Mitigation Measures
Key arterial and collector sidewalk links are identified in the 2013 SEIS and could be used by all
pedestrians within Downtown Kent. In addition, there are several sidewalk need areas along local
streets in Downtown Kent. Sidewalks will be completed by new development consistent with the
City’s frontage design standards.
Specifically, under all alternativesthe preferred alternative (Alternative 2), development within the
Planned Action Area will be responsible for a cost of $340,000 to $470,000. Each new
development’s proportional share will be calculated based on the amount and type of land use
proposed.
The following sidewalk segments in Table 2 are identified for improvement in the Planned Action
Area. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 2. Sidewalk Improvements – Alternatives 2
Roadway Classification Planned Action Area
Feet of Sidewalk Cost Estimate
Principal Arterial 1,220 $290,000-$400,000
Minor Arterial 200 $50,000-$70,000
Collector N/A N/A
Total 1,420 $340,000-$470,000
Note: The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Fehr & Peers, 2013
5. Bicycle Mitigation Measures
Bicycle facilities identified in the 2013 SEIS are needed to complete the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan. The bicycle routes will serve the needs of all Downtown travelers. New development will share
the cost of implementing these facilities. Specifically, under all alternativesthe preferred alternative
(Alternative2), development within the Planned Action Area will be responsible for a cost of
$28,000. Each new development’s proportional share shall be calculated based on the amount and
type of land use proposed. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6. The following
bicycle segments in Table 3 are identified for improvement.
36
Exhibit B 23
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
6. Planned Action Per Trip Fee to Implement Street, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Improvements
Table 4 includes the Planned Action Area costs per trip based on the estimates included in
Mitigation Measures 3-5 for Alternatives 2. For those estimates that were given as a range, the
tables below use the upper end of the range.
Table 4. Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure Type
Planned Action Area
1,700 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $3,1001 $1.82
Pedestrian $470,000 $276.47
Bicycle $28,000 $16.47
Total $501,100 $294.76
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action Area and Infill Exemption Areas according to
the number of trips generated (31 percent by the Planned Action Area and 69 percent by the Infill Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
7. Transit: New development shall be required to provide convenient pedestrian connections to
bus stops.
Parks
Until such time as the City adopts a new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code
amendments addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and requirements
applicable to the Planned Action Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply. Following
adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code amendments such standards shall
supersede the measures below.
8. Urban Park Space: Each Planned Action shall dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square
feet of public park area per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
Mitigation Measure 10.
9. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each Planned Action shall provide private onsite
recreation space for leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square feet
per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is required to provide the private
space in one or more of the following arrangements.
An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s play area
37
Exhibit B 24
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the parks and community
services director. Alternatively up to fifty percent (50%) of the private open space may be
accomplished offsite or through a fee in lieu consistent with Mitigation Measure 10.
10. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City may allow fifty percent (50%) of the private
recreation space and 100% of the public recreation space in Mitigation Measures 9 and 10 to be:
1) accomplished offsite as approved by the parks and community services director; or 2) a fee -
in-lieu of providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
Air Quality
11. The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best management practices
(BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment, including
but not limited to the following measures.
A. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
B. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways.
C. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces.
D. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
E. Cover soil piles when practical.
F. Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical.
G. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications.
H. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use.
I. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be permitted without express approval from
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any
construction projects in the study area.
12. The City shall require Planned Action applicants to identify the reduction measures in Table 5
that are being implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures found in the table
are not included or are not applicable. The City shall, as appropriate, condition Planned Action
applications to incorporate reduction measures determined (by the City based on the
development application) feasible and appropriate for site conditions.
38
Exhibit B 25
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 5. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Reduction Measures Comments
Site Design
Plant large-caliper trees and mature vegetation near
structures to shade buildings
Trees and vegetation that directly shade buildings
decrease demand for air conditioning. By reducing
energy demand, trees and vegetation decrease the
production of associated air pollution and GHG
emissions. They also remove air pollutants and store
and sequester carbon dioxide. Thus trees and
vegetation reduce onsite fuel combustion emissions
and purchased electricity plus enhance carbon sinks.
Minimize building footprint. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption, materials used,
maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction
emissions.
Design water efficient landscaping. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and
upstream emissions from water management.
Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Building Design and Operations
Apply LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
offsite/indirect purchased electricity, water use, waste
disposal
Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public
agency use.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Incorporate onsite renewable energy production, including
installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption.
Design street lights to use energy efficient bulbs and fixtures Reduces purchased electricity.
Construct “green roofs” and use high-albedo roofing
materials.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Install high-efficiency HVAC systems. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage
before/after to determine GHG reduction.
Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates,
increased building perimeter and use of skylights,
clerestories and light wells.
Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces
purchased electrical energy consumption.
Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as: super
insulation motion sensors for lighting and climate control
efficient, directed exterior lighting
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
39
Exhibit B 26
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Reduction Measures Comments
Use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code
requirements.
Reduces water consumption.
Re-use gray water or collect and re-use rainwater. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream
electricity requirements.
Recycle demolition debris and use recycled building
materials and products.
Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly
reduces transportation of materials, encourages
recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal.
Use building materials that are extracted or manufactured
within the region.
Reduces transportation of purchased materials
Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased
materials
Conduct 3rd party building commissioning to ensure energy
performance.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Track energy performance of building and develop strategy
to maintain efficiency.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Transportation
Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking
requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in
parking supply through special permits or waivers.
Reduced parking discourages auto dependent travel,
encouraging alternative modes such as transit, walking,
biking etc. Reduces direct and indirect vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)
Develop and implement a marketing/information program
that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit
information.
Reduces direct and indirect VMT
Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during
peak periods through alternative work schedules,
telecommuting, or flex-time. Provide a guaranteed ride
home program.
Reduces employee VMT
Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Reduces employee VMT
Utilize traffic signalization and coordination to improve
traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Reduces transportation emissions and VMT
Apply advanced technology systems and management
strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets.
Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing
idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for
fuel efficiency.
Develop shuttle systems around business district parking
garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes.
Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect
VMT
Source: City of Kent 2011
40
Exhibit B 27
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Water Resources
13. By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in place to address water quality treatment and
promote low impact development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to 2016, the City shall
require that applicants identify any low impact development (LID) techniques described in the
2012 Ecology manual and demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible.
Flow reduction credits provided in the Ecology stormwater manual for use in LID facilities will
translate into smaller stormwater treatment and flow control facilities over those which use
conventional methods. In certain cases, use of various LID techniques can result in elimination
of stormwater mitigation facilities entirely. As part of required land use, building, or
construction permits, the City may condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-
appropriate LID techniques.
Noise
14. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the following mitigation measures shall be
incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:
A. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving properties will decrease noise from that
equipment.
B. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive
receivers will reduce noise.
C. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive
nighttime hours.
D. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate unnecessary noise.
E. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment to potentially reduce noise
effects.
F. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of
rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas
to reduce noise effects.
15. At its discretion, the City may require all prospective Planned Action developers to use low-noise
mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime
noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City may
require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to
specify appropriate noise control measures.
41
Exhibit B 28
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
16. To address traffic and transit noise, the City may, at its discretion, require new residential
development to install triple-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its
authority under the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
Cultural Resources
17. In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately
surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the
potential impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed, a study
conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be conducted at the applicant’s
expense to determine whether the proposed development project would materially impact the
archaeological resource.
18. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require that an
applicant obtain all appropriate permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any
required archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that would disturb
archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a permit must be obtained from the
department of archaeology and historic preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known
archaeological resource or site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of
project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected
resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.
19. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and
affected tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such
notification, the City may require implementation of Mitigation Measures 17 and 18.
20. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that is determined eligible for listing on
either state or national historic registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding
mitigation options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the City.
21. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties within the Planned Action Area, the City will
notify the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals under the Planned Action
Ordinance consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
42
Exhibit B 29
Section B-2. Advisory Notes to Applicants: Applicable Regulations
The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation
measures. These are summarized below by EIS topic. All applicable federal, state, and local
regulations shall apply to Planned Actions. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all
adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included
in the EIS.
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
EARTH
The Kent Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area. For example, KCC
11.06.760.E.1.b of the code specifies the following mitigation required for
seismic hazard areas:
Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geotechnical
practices shall be implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the
risk of damage, death, or injury resulting from seismically induced
settlement or soil liquefaction. Mitigation shall be consistent with the
requirements of Ch. 14.01 KCC and shall be approved by the building
official.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) requires a drainage
plan for surface and pertinent subsurface water flows entering, flowing
within and leaving the subject property both during and after
construction, and would address measures to minimize erosion.
The International Building Code (KCC Chapter 14.01 Building Codes)
includes standards intended to reduce risks associated with seismic
activity, and it allows the City to require geotechnical studies.
The City administers grading permits through various codes (e.g. the
construction standards in KCC Chapter 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements).
AIR QUALITY
All stationary emissions sources associated with new commercial facilities
will be required to register with PSCAA (Regulation I and Regulation II).
43
Exhibit B 30
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
As part of future project-specific NEPA documentation for individual new
roadway improvement projects, the City will be required to conduct CO
hot-spot modeling (as required under WAC 173-420) for state-funded or
federally-funded projects to demonstrate that the projects would not
cause localized impacts related to increased CO emissions from vehicle
tailpipes at congested intersections.
Mobile source air toxics include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), naphthalene,
and diesel particulate matter. Because of potential health and
environmental effects, the US Environmental Protection Agency
developed a rule in 2007 to reduce hazardous air pollutants from mobile
sources. The rule will limit the benzene content of gasoline and reduce
toxic emissions from passenger vehicles and gas cans. The rule is
expected to reduce total emissions of mobile source air toxics by 330,000
tons as well as reduce other emissions (such as precursors to ozone and
PM2.5). (EPA September 2012)
WATER
In Washington, compliance with the federal Clean Water Act is
administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Development and redevelopment projects would generally be covered by
and subject to the restrictions of National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NDPES) construction permits.
The Washington State Hydraulic Code Rules (WAC 220-110) apply to any
project that takes place within or over the bed and banks of waters of the
state. Aquatic projects require a hydraulic project approval (HPA) from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
44
Exhibit B 31
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
KCC 14.09, Flood Hazard Regulations, regulates building in special flood
hazard areas and requires building standards to protect structures from
flood damage as well as requires compensation for loss of flood storage.
Any development or redevelopment would be subject to these rules.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area.
All development is required to comply with the standards set forth in the
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (City of Kent 2002). These standards
have been adjusted to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington
State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (2005). Section 5.8 of the City of Kent 2009 Design
and Construction Standards encourages the use of non-structural
preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques, measures to minimize the creation of
impervious surfaces, and measures to minimize the disturbance of native
soils and vegetation. The city recognizes that LID techniques are not
practical for all locations, depending on soil type and other factors.
Approval for LID techniques will be on a case-by-case basis.
PLANTS
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on the natural
environment. These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC
11.06). Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the
mitigation sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
per the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
KCC Chapter 15.07, Landscaping Regulations, provides landscape
standards for the perimeter of properties, parking areas, and transition
areas between higher intensity zones and lower density zones.
ANIMALS
Projects with federal nexus are subject to review and interagency
consultation under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Federal review applies to any project with federal nexus, such as projects
with federal funding or that require federal permits. Impacts on ESA listed
species must be avoided and minimized, and in some cases mitigation is
required.
45
Exhibit B 32
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
See also stormwater and drainage regulations.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The City has adopted the Washington State Energy Code in KCC Chapter
14.01, Building Codes.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) established prohibitions and requirements concerning
closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites. The act provides funding
and governs cleanup of identified contaminated Superfund sites.
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) sets standards for cleanup of lower
levels of contaminants that are incorporated into new development and
redevelopment parcels noted to have contamination potential.
The City of Kent specifically regulates hazardous substances or waste
through performance standards contained in KCC 15.08.050. Future site-
specific activities will comply with City Fire and Zoning Codes.
NOISE
Certain noise-control measures would be required to comply with current
City regulations (Chapter 8.05 KCC). Chapter 8.05 of the KCC establishes
limits on the noise levels and durations of noise crossing property
boundaries. Permissible noise levels at a receiving land use depend on its
environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA). These required
measures would be the use of low-noise mechanical equipment at office
and retail facilities adequate to comply with the City noise ordinance
limits.
46
Exhibit B 33
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
If nighttime construction is requested by developers, then a noise control
study would need to be submitted for City approval, demonstrating
compliance with the City’s nighttime noise ordinance limits.
Any roadway improvements in the Kent Planning Area that use state or
federal funding would be required to prepare a traffic noise analysis to
identify noise impacts at noise sensitive receivers and to assess whether
state or federal funds could be used to abate identified impacts.
City rules for the EDNA system in WAC 173-60 fully exempts railroad
noise (KCC 8.05.140 Other exemptions)
State rules, WAC 173-60, exempt railroad noise, except at night.
Federal regulations address railroad noise emissions, particularly noise
defective railroad equipment.
LAND USE AND AESTHETICS
Downtown Design Review Guidelines (2003): Design review guidelines set
parameters for review, and give guidance to City staff performing
administrative reviews of new development proposals. The guidelines
address a broad range of urban design topics, including context-sensitive
site planning, pedestrian amenities, parking lot landscaping, human-
scaled architectural design, and building materials and details.
KCC 15.04.200, 205: Contain design guidelines, development standards,
and conditions for development within areas covered by a mixed-use
overlay, such as GC-MU. These design guidelines and development
standards include limits on FAR, site coverage, and height, as well as
setback and parking requirements.
KCC 15.08.210: Addresses the buffer between commercial or industrial
districts, and residential zoning districts. Development standards include
additional setbacks, building offsets, parking, noise, glare, landscaping,
heights, and building size.
KCC 15.08.215: Addresses multifamily transition standards where
multifamily residential districts abut single family districts. Development
standards include additional setbacks, building offsets, and heights, as
well as landscaping.
47
Exhibit B 34
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
HOUSING
Any housing proposed for the study area will be in compliance with the
City of Kent land use and development codes, and Title 14, Buildings and
Construction.
LIGHT AND GLARE
A purpose of the City’s Landscape Regulations in KCC Chapter 15.07 is to
buffer dwelling units from light and glare.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include “Site Design for Safety”
measures that adress confining site lighting to the project site.
RECREATION
The City’s 2010 Park & Open Space Plan provides policies and
recommended parks improvements.
The Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards require new
development to locate corner buildings with a setback to allow for the
corner to be a pedestrian attractive use (e.g. outdoor dining).
The Downtown Design Guidelines require residential open space such as
individual balconies, shared courtyards, or rooftop space.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Chapter 14.12 of the KCC adopts King County Code Chapter 20.62 to
designate and act as a landmarks commission for Kent.
Washington State has a number of laws that oversee the protection and
proper excavation of archaeological sites (RCW 27.53, WAC 25‐48),
human remains (RCW 27.44), and historic cemeteries or graves (RCW
68.60). Under RCW 27.53, DAHP regulates the treatment of
archaeological sites on both public and private lands and has the
authority to require specific treatment of archaeological resources. All
precontact resources or sites are protected, regardless of their
significance or eligibility for local, state, or national registers. Historic
archaeological resources or sites are protected unless DAHP has made a
determination of “not‐eligible” for listing on the WHR and the NRHP.
48
Exhibit B 35
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
The Governor’s Executive Order 05‐05 requires state agencies to
integrate DAHP, the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned
tribes into their capital project planning process. This executive order
affects any capital construction projects and any land acquisitions for
purposes of capital construction not undergoing Section 106 review
under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
TRANSPORTATION
Through Chapter 6.12 KCC, Kent requires employers of a certain size to
encourage employees to reduce vehicle miles of travel and single-
occupant vehicle commute trips.
Chapter 6.02 KCC requires developers to install public infrastructure
improvements as conditions of permit. Infrastructure improvements
include, but are not limited to rights-of-way and paved streets, street
lighting systems; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping; storm
drainage systems; sanitary sewer systems; domestic water and fire
systems; traffic control systems; and conduit for fiber optic systems.
Chapter 12.11 KCC sets forth specific standards providing for city
compliance with the concurrency requirements of the Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between city and
countywide planning policies under the GMA. This chapter establishes a
transportation concurrency management system (TCMS) to ensure that
the necessary facilities or programs needed to maintain a minimum level
of service can be provided simultaneous to, or within a reasonable time
of new development as required in the GMA.
The City of Kent Transportation Master Plan includes capital improvement
projects designed to help the City maintain transportation concurrency.
Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development to pay its fair share for capital
improvement projects in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and
provides guidance for how impact fees are to be assessed.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The City will monitor growth and demand through its regular
Comprehensive Plan reviews, capital facility plan preparation, and budget
process.
49
Exhibit B 36
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
Service providers could add facilities and staff to serve the growing
population. Service providers should monitor growth and demand
through their regular planning and budgeting processes.
The Kent Regional Fire Authority will apply its Concurrency Management
Plan process to new development permits.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include safety measures such as “eyes
on the street” and “safe landscaping designs” that are based on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design concepts.
KCC Title 13 contains the City’s fire code and enforcement provisions.
The City assesses school impact fees to help school districts pay for a
development’s proportionate share of school district facilities serving the
development. The City collects impact fees for the Kent School District
that serves the Study Area (KCC 12.13).
UTILITIES
Utilities will monitor growth and demand through their regular capital
facility planning and budgeting processes.
The City will apply adopted functional plans for sewer and water systems.
The King County Solid Waste Management Plan includes measures to help
facilitate and increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted
from the waste stream. These measures should reduce the amount of
waste going to landfills via transfer stations and residential/commercial
collection.
50
Exhibit B 37
Section B-3: Public Agency Actions and Commitments
Under some elements of the environment, specific City or other agency actions are
identified. Generally, incorporation of these actions is intended to provide for consistency
within the Comprehensive Plan or between the Plan and implementing regulations; to
document pending City actions; to establish a protocol for long-term measures to provide for
coordination with other agencies; or to identify optional actions that the City may take to
reduce impacts. These actions are listed below, organized by the pertinent EIS element of
the environment in which they are discussed.
This Section B-3 will be used in the monitoring process established in Section 5 of the
Planned Action Ordinance.
Public Agency Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Land Use Patterns and Plans and Policies
The current DSAP is included as
Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan
and some dates and references to the
Downtown Plan may need to be
amended (some references to
Appendix B say the “1989 Downtown
Plan).
X
Concurrent
Amendment
Economic &
Community
Development
The City will extend design guidelines
and regulatory incentives for mixed-use
development, particularly in the GC-
MU district.
X
Completion in
2013
With the DSAP Update, the City will
implement new zones. Following the
DSAP Update, the City will prepare
regulations to implement DSAP Land
Use Element goals and policies.
X
Completion in
2013-14
Economic &
Community
Development
The DSAP Update will serve as a new
plan for the designated Urban Center
consistent with Policy LU-14.1. VISION
2040 and CPPs for King County guide
the contents of the DSAP Update to
ensure plan consistency. PSRC will
conduct a consistency review.
X
Document
provided to
PSRC through
comment
period.
X
If Alternative 2 Urban Center
boundaries are locally approved,
approval may be needed at the county
and four-county level (PSRC).
X Economic &
Community
Development
51
Exhibit B 38
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
The Transportation and Capital
Facilities Elements would be updated to
be consistent with revised household
and employment growth
estimates/targets for the Urban Center,
DSAP Study Area, and the Planning
Area to ensure that adequate facilities
are in place in time to accommodate
growth, or the Land Use Element would
be revisited as called for in Policy CF-
1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan.
X Economic &
Community
Development
Transportation
Incorporate street, pedestrian, and
bicycle improvements developed as
mitigation in the 2013 SEIS into the
next TMP and impact fee update.
X Public Works
Department
New development will impact the need
for transit service and bus stop
amenities. As demand grows at bus
stops, the City can negotiate with King
County for bus shelters.
X X Public Works
Department
Implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures
can facilitate use of alternative
transportation modes. The City should
consider creating a Transportation
Management Association (TMA) within
Downtown Kent. TMAs are non-profit,
member-controlled organizations that
provide transportation services in a
particular area, such as Downtown
Kent. They are generally public-private
partnerships, consisting primarily of
area businesses with local government
support. TMAs provide an institutional
framework for TDM Programs and
services and allow small employers to
provide Commute Trip Reduction
services comparable to those offered
by large companies.
X Public Works
Department
Parks
Develop updated Parks and Open Space
Plan including standards for Urban
Park.
X Parks,
Recreation &
Community
Services
52
Exhibit B 39
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Develop private open space and
recreation space for multifamily and
mixed use development.
X Economic &
Community
Development
53
Exhibit B 40
Section B-4: Example DSAP Planned Action Application and Evaluation Form
The following form is proposed for use as an application and evaluation form. The City may modify it as appropriate to ensure adequate
information and analysis is provided to make a Planned Action determination.
54
Exhibit B 41
SAMPLE DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN –
PLANNED ACTION APPLICATION AND EVALUATION
FORM
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Date:
Applicant:
Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code:
Give a brief, complete
description of your
proposal.
Property Size in Acres
Property Zoning District Name:
Building Type:
Permits Requested (list
all that apply)
Land Use: ___________________________________________
Building: ___________________________________________
Engineering: _________________________________________
Other: ______________________________________________
SEPA Environmental Checklist Submitted? Yes __ No __ All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __
Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __
Explain:
Existing Land Use
Describe Existing Uses on the Site:
55
Exhibit B 42
Proposed Land Use –
Check All That Apply
Residential: High and medium density multifamily residential;
townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density single-family
detached dwellings [these are in the Planned Action Area – they
wouldn’t need the benefit of a Planned Action – may want to
include them for acknowledgement of current uses];
Employment: Dense and varied retail, office, commercial, and
service activities;
Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
Mixed use development with housing, employment, civic,
governmental, and recreational uses;
Other uses listed in KCC Title 15 Zoning Code as a permitted
use in a zoning district studied in the 2013 SEIS.
Dwellings
# Existing Dwellings:
#____ Dwelling Type_______________
#____ Dwelling Type _______________
# Proposed Dwellings Units:
#____ Type _________
#____ Type _________
Proposed Density (du/ac):
Dwelling Threshold Total in Ordinance: 1,858 - 2,584 Dwelling Bank Remainder (prior to application) as of __________20__
_______________________________dwellings
Non-residential Uses:
Building Square Feet
Existing: Proposed:
Jobs in Ordinance: 1,166 - 4,332 Jobs Remainder (prior to application) as of ____________20__
_____________________________ square feet
Building Height Existing Stories:
Existing Height in feet
Proposed Stories:
Proposed Height in feet:
Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed:
Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet:
PM Peak Hour
Weekday Vehicle Trips
Existing Estimated Trips Total:
Future Estimated Trips Total:
Net New Trips:
Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with KCC Chapter 12.11
Transportation Concurrency Management:
Yes ____ No ____
Proposed timing or
schedule (including
phasing).
Describe plans for
future additions,
expansion, or further
activity related to this
proposal.
56
Exhibit B 43
List any available or
pending environmental
information directly
related to this
proposal.
B. APPLICANT SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
Date:
C. REVIEW CRITERIA
Review Criteria
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “Planned Actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance XXX Subsection 3.F.
Criteria Discussion
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action
Area identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent
with those described in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and Section 4.D of Ordinance XXX;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action
thresholds and other criteria of Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX;
57
Exhibit B 44
Criteria Discussion
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been
mitigated by application of the measures identified in
Exhibit B of Ordinance XXX, and other applicable City
regulations, together with any modifications or
variances or special permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local,
state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the
SEPA Responsible Official determines that these
constitute adequate mitigation;
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as
defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential
public facility is accessory to or part of a development
that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
Determination Criteria
Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance XXX Section 3.E.
Requirement Discussion
Applications for Planned Actions were made on forms
provided by the City including the SEPA Checklist and
this Application and Evaluation Form.
58
Exhibit B 45
Requirement Discussion
The application has been deemed complete in
accordance with KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of
Development Regulations.
The proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
pursuant to Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX.
The proposed use(s) are listed in Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX and qualify as a Planned Action.
D. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action Project.
It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
Notice shall be made pursuant to KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned
Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations.
NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, this determination shall be amended.
Signature
Date:
B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: The application is not consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX, and does not qualify as a Planned Action Project for the following reasons:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to
meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SEPA Process Prescribed: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature:
Date:
59
Exhibit B 46
60
1 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT E
PAO
Option 2
James Street Boundary
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing a Planned
Action for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with
the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
61
2 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by
jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
E. The City approved a Planned Action Ordinance for a portion of the
Downtown Subarea in 2002 and has largely completed those actions.
F. The City desires to designate a new Planned Action for a portion of
the Downtown Subarea.
G. Designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for
subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously
addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and
thereby encourages desired growth and economic development.
H. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
62
3 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
I. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
J. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown area. Together these are referenced as the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
K. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
L. The Kent City Code (KCC) 11.03.020 provides for Planned Actions
within the City.
M. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through an SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
63
4 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
N. The City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee
hosted a community meeting on October 14, 2013 consistent with RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b).
O. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
P. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
64
5 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Q. After providing appropriate public notice, on November 12, 2013,
the City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee for the
City of Kent considered the planned action ordinance at a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Recitals. The recitals set forth above are
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. - Purpose. The City of Kent declares that the purpose
of this ordinance is to:
A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, development
regulations, Kent codes and ordinances together with the mitigation
measures in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS to mitigate
environmental impacts and process Planned Action development
applications in the Planned Action Area.
B. Designate the central Downtown Subarea shown in Exhibit A as a
Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting
of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.031.
C. Determine that the 2013 SEIS prepared for the DSAP Update
together with the 2011 EIS prepared for the Comprehensive Plan meet the
requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA (together
referenced as the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS).
65
6 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will
determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area
qualify as Planned Actions.
E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how
the City will process implementing projects within the Planned Action Area.
F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by
relying on the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
mitigation measures described in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS
and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development
contemplated by this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A),
and is applying the Planned Action to an Urban Growth Area (UGA).
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the
GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate a subarea
plan specific to the Downtown.
C. The City is adopting zoning and development regulations in a
phased approach both concurrent with and subsequent to the DSAP Update
to implement said Plan, including this ordinance.
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared for the
Planned Action Area, and the City Council finds that the EIS adequately
66
7 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
identifies and addresses the probable significant environmental impacts
associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in
the designated Planned Action Area.
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein
by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the
Planned Action Area.
F. The DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS identify the location, type and
amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action.
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned
Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance
economic development.
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS, including a community
meeting prior to the publication of notice for the Planned Action Ordinance;
has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified
the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments.
I. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 36.70A.200(1) are excluded
from the Planned Action and are not eligible for review or permitting as
Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that
otherwise qualifies as a Planned Action.
J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the
overall City boundaries.
67
8 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed
Planned Action, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 4. – Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and
Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area.
A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to
the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a
site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be
based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS issued by the City on
June 21, 2013 and the Final SEIS published on October 4, 2013 together
with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS completed in 2011 (considered together to be the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS). The 2011 Draft and Final EIS as
supplemented by the SEIS documents shall comprise the Planned Action
EIS for the Planned Action Area. The mitigation measures contained in
Exhibit B and attached to this Ordinance are based upon the findings of the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City
regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply
appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action Projects within the
Planned Action Area.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds
described in subsection 4.D and the mitigation measures contained in
68
9 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific
Planned Action Project located within the Planned Action Area shall be
designated a Planned Action if it completes a SEPA Checklist and City
application and evaluation form, and any other form required by the City,
and meets the criteria set forth in Subsection 4.D of this Ordinance and all
other applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of
the City are met.
D. Planned Action Thresholds. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned
Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action and has had its
environmental impacts evaluated in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS:
(1) Qualifying Land Uses.
(a) Planned Action Categories: The following general
categories/types of land uses are defined the Downtown Subarea Plan and
are considered Planned Actions:
i. Residential: High and medium density
multifamily residential; townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density
single-family detached dwellings;
ii. Employment: Dense and varied retail, office,
commercial, and service activities;
iii. Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
iv. Mixed use development with housing,
employment, civic, governmental, and recreational uses.
(b) Planned Action Uses: A land use shall be considered a
Planned Action Land Use when:
69
10 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in
Exhibit A;
ii. it is within the one or more of the land use
categories described in subsection 1(a) above; and
iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable
to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action
Area.
A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a
combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed use development.
Planned Action uses include accessory uses.
(c) Public Services: The following public services,
infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Actions:
i. Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and road improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
ii. Parks and recreation facilities and improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
(2) Development Thresholds:
(a) Land Use: The following amounts of various new land
uses are contemplated by the Planned Action:
Growth Type Base Year
2006
Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2031)
Total Net Growth
Households 713672 2,5712,306 1,8581,634
Jobs1 1,867 3,0332,948 1,1661,081
Total Activity Units: Jobs and
Households2 2,5802,539 5,6045,254 3,0242,715
Notes:
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures in the prior
2011 EIS. These elements make up about 6-9% of the job totals depending on alternative.
2 Numbers in SEIS reflect formula results; above numbers are rounded.
Source: City of Kent 2011 and 2012
70
11 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in
D(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the
aggregate amount of development reviewed in the 2013 SEIS; the traffic
trips for Alternative 2 Moderate Growth are not exceeded; and, the
development impacts identified in the 2013 SEIS are mitigated consistent
with Exhibit B.
(c) To be considered a planned action, where a proposal
includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height shall be
two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those studied in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the subject
zoning district.
(d) Further environmental review may be required
pursuant to WAC 197-11-172, if any individual Planned Action or
combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds
specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
(3) Transportation Thresholds:
(a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM peak
hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the 2013
SEIS is as follows:
Trip Generation – Planned Action Ordinance Area
Alternative
Planned Action Area
Trip Ends* Growth Compared
to Existing
Existing Conditions (2006) 2,200 0
Alternative 2 3,9003,700 1,7001,500
71
12 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Note: * PM peak hour vehicle trips.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
(b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the
transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS thresholds
established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service established in the 2013
DSAP SEIS.
(c) Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and impact fee ordinance is updated, all Planned Actions shall
pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements
identified in Exhibit B as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in
addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated impact fee
program, chapter 12.14 KCC.
(d) Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Planned Action.
(4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A
proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or
degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed
in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS shall not qualify as a Planned
Action.
(5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned
Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental
review is conducted.
72
13 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as
“Planned Actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440, applications that meet all
of the following conditions:
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with
those described in the 2013 SEIS and Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds
and other criteria of Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent Comprehensive
Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated
by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable
City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special
permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state
and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official
determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined
by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to
or part of a development that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist,
or an alternative form approved in accordance with SEPA laws and rules,
73
14 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
and review of the Planned Action application and evaluation form and
supporting documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be
considered to qualify and be designated as a Planned Action, consistent
with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.440, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and
this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA
Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in
accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the
development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the
environmental analysis contained in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS.
(2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 4.D and qualifies as a
Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold
determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review
pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions
shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process:
(1) Development applications shall meet all applicable
requirements of the Kent City Code (KCC). Applications for Planned
Actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the
SEPA checklist.
74
15 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether
the application is complete as provided in Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action
Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it
is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a
Planned Action Project.
(a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
regarding consistency of a project as a Planned Action is a Type 1 decision.
The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision.
(b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned
Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review
procedures specified in Chapter 12.01 KCC, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
(c) Notice of the application for a Planned Action Project
shall be consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the
notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If
notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice
is required by this ordinance.
(5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements,
the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a
development agreement for a Planned Action Project, consistent with RCW
36.70B.170 et seq.
75
16 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action,
the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a
SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the
requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the
application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action.
(7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may
incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet
their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the
scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and
environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 5. – Monitoring and Review.
A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the
designated Planned Action Area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is
consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance regarding the type and
amount of development and associated impacts addressed in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and with the mitigation measures and
improvements planned for the Planned Action Area in Exhibit B.
B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed by the SEPA
Responsible Official no later than five years from its effective date. The
review shall determine the continuing relevance of the Planned Action
assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action Area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation
measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to
76
17 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
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 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 7. – 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 8. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
77
18 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING 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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO_Infill\FINAL_PAO_Ord.Docx
78
Exhibit A 19
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED ACTION AREA
79
Exhibit B 20
EXHIBIT B
COMBINED DSAP PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION
MEASURES
Section B-1. Mitigation Required for Development Applications
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent issued the Draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS on June
21, 2013 and the Final SEIS on October 4, 2013 (referenced as the 2013 SEIS). Previously, the
City completed the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS in 2011 (referenced as the 2011 EIS). The Draft and Final EIS as supplemented by
the SEIS documents comprise the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for the Planned Action
Area (see Exhibit A). The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has identified significant
beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of
the Planned Action Area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those
significant adverse impacts. Please see the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for a
description of impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
A Mitigation Document is provided in this Exhibit Section B-1, and it establishes specific
mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-1 shall apply to future
development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and which are located within the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). Exhibits B-2 and B-3 provide
advisory notes on applicable regulations and commitments and city actions for monitoring
purposes and may be consulted as appropriate.
Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in
project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where “should”
or “would” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a
source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as
a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require
preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of
maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund
and/or perform.
80
Exhibit B 21
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Land Use Patterns
The following mitigation measures shall be applied to Planned Actions:
1. Solar Access: Until superseded by amended design standards or guidelines in the Kent City
Code, solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parks, schools and
other areas sensitive to shading shall be preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level
setbacks for adjacent development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of daytime use.
2. Public Views: The City may condition Planned Actions to incorporate site design measures that
preserve significant public views from public areas.
Transportation
This section applies measures to mitigate the impacts of new development on transportation
infrastructure, including streets, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit infrastructure and
services.
Until the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and impact fee ordinance are updated, all Planned
Actions shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified
below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan and associated impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
3. Street Mitigation Measures
Table 1. summarizes the street mitigation projects that have been identified for the DSAP Study
Area. The cost is shared between development inside the Planned Action Area and outside the
Planned Action Area. The Planned Action Area cost per trip is shown in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 1. Street Mitigation Measures – Alternative 2
Location Description Cost Estimate1
Meeker Street & 4th
Avenue
Restripe roadway to reduce width of
westbound receiving lane and allow
eastbound left turn pocket
$5,000-$10,000
Notes:
1. The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
81
Exhibit B 22
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
4. Pedestrian Mitigation Measures
Key arterial and collector sidewalk links are identified in the 2013 SEIS and could be used by all
pedestrians within Downtown Kent. In addition, there are several sidewalk need areas along local
streets in Downtown Kent. Sidewalks will be completed by new development consistent with the
City’s frontage design standards.
Specifically, under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2)all alternatives, development within the
Planned Action Area will be responsible for a cost of $340290,000 to $470400,000. Each new
development’s proportional share will be calculated based on the amount and type of land use
proposed.
The following sidewalk segments in Table 2 are identified for improvement in the Planned Action
Area. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 2. Sidewalk Improvements – Alternatives 2
Roadway Classification
Planned Action Area
Feet of Sidewalk Cost Estimate
Principal Arterial 1,220 $290,000-$400,000
Minor Arterial 200N/A $50,000-$70,000N/A
Collector N/A N/A
Total 1,4201,220 $340,000-$470,000$290,000-
$400,000
Note: The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
5. Bicycle Mitigation Measures
Bicycle facilities identified in the 2013 SEIS are needed to complete the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan. The bicycle routes will serve the needs of all Downtown travelers. New development will share
the cost of implementing these facilities. Specifically, under the preferred alternative
(Alternative2)all alternatives, development within the Planned Action Area will be responsible for a
cost of $2824,000. Each new development’s proportional share shall be calculated based on the
amount and type of land use proposed. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6. The
following bicycle segments in Table 3 are identified for improvement.
82
Exhibit B 23
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 3. Bicycle Facility Improvements – Alternatives 2
Bicycle Facility Type
Planned Action Area
Feet of Bicycle Facility Cost Estimate
Restriping for Bicycle Lane 2,0001,070 $10,0006,000
Shared Bicycle Facility 6,110 $18,000
Total 8,1107,180 $28,00024,000
Note: The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
6. Planned Action Per Trip Fee to Implement Street, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Improvements
Table 4 includes the Planned Action Area costs per trip based on the estimates included in
Mitigation Measures 3-5 for Alternatives 2. For those estimates that were given as a range, the
tables below use the upper end of the range.
Table 4. Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure Type
Planned Action Area
1,7001,500 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $3,0003,1001 $1.822.00
Pedestrian $470,000400,000 $276.47266.67
Bicycle $28,00024,000 $16.4716.00
Total $501,100427,000 $294.76284.67
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action Area and Infill Exemption Areas according to
the number of trips generated (3031 percent by the Planned Action Area and 7069 percent by the Infill Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
7. Transit: New development shall be required to provide convenient pedestrian connections to
bus stops.
Parks
Until such time as the City adopts a new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code
amendments addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and requirements
applicable to the Planned Action Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply. Following
adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code amendments such standards shall
supersede the measures below.
83
Exhibit B 24
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
8. Urban Park Space: Each Planned Action shall dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square
feet of public park area per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
Mitigation Measure 10.
9. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each Planned Action shall provide private onsite
recreation space for leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square feet
per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is required to provide the private
space in one or more of the following arrangements.
An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s play area
Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the parks and community
services director. Alternatively up to fifty percent (50%) of the private open space may be
accomplished offsite or through a fee in lieu consistent with Mitigation Measure 10.
10. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City may allow fifty percent (50%) of the private
recreation space and 100% of the public recreation space in Mitigation Measures 9 8 and 10 9 to
be: 1) accomplished offsite as approved by the parks and community services director; or 2) a
fee-in-lieu of providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
Air Quality
11. The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best management practices
(BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment, including
but not limited to the following measures.
A. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
B. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways.
C. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces.
D. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
E. Cover soil piles when practical.
F. Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical.
G. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications.
H. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use.
I. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be permitted without express approval from
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any
84
Exhibit B 25
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
construction projects in the study area.
12. The City shall require Planned Action applicants to identify the reduction measures in Table 5
that are being implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures found in the table
are not included or are not applicable. The City shall, as appropriate, condition Planned Action
applications to incorporate reduction measures determined (by the City based on the
development application) feasible and appropriate for site conditions.
85
Exhibit B 26
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 5. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Reduction Measures Comments
Site Design
Plant large-caliper trees and mature vegetation near
structures to shade buildings
Trees and vegetation that directly shade buildings
decrease demand for air conditioning. By reducing
energy demand, trees and vegetation decrease the
production of associated air pollution and GHG
emissions. They also remove air pollutants and store
and sequester carbon dioxide. Thus trees and
vegetation reduce onsite fuel combustion emissions
and purchased electricity plus enhance carbon sinks.
Minimize building footprint. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption, materials used,
maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction
emissions.
Design water efficient landscaping. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and
upstream emissions from water management.
Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Building Design and Operations
Apply LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
offsite/indirect purchased electricity, water use, waste
disposal
Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public
agency use.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Incorporate onsite renewable energy production, including
installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption.
Design street lights to use energy efficient bulbs and fixtures Reduces purchased electricity.
Construct “green roofs” and use high-albedo roofing
materials.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Install high-efficiency HVAC systems. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage
before/after to determine GHG reduction.
Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates,
increased building perimeter and use of skylights,
clerestories and light wells.
Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces
purchased electrical energy consumption.
Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as: super
insulation motion sensors for lighting and climate control
efficient, directed exterior lighting
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
86
Exhibit B 27
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Reduction Measures Comments
Use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code
requirements.
Reduces water consumption.
Re-use gray water or collect and re-use rainwater. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream
electricity requirements.
Recycle demolition debris and use recycled building
materials and products.
Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly
reduces transportation of materials, encourages
recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal.
Use building materials that are extracted or manufactured
within the region.
Reduces transportation of purchased materials
Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased
materials
Conduct 3rd party building commissioning to ensure energy
performance.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Track energy performance of building and develop strategy
to maintain efficiency.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Transportation
Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking
requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in
parking supply through special permits or waivers.
Reduced parking discourages auto dependent travel,
encouraging alternative modes such as transit, walking,
biking etc. Reduces direct and indirect vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)
Develop and implement a marketing/information program
that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit
information.
Reduces direct and indirect VMT
Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during
peak periods through alternative work schedules,
telecommuting, or flex-time. Provide a guaranteed ride
home program.
Reduces employee VMT
Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Reduces employee VMT
Utilize traffic signalization and coordination to improve
traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Reduces transportation emissions and VMT
Apply advanced technology systems and management
strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets.
Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing
idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for
fuel efficiency.
Develop shuttle systems around business district parking
garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes.
Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect
VMT
Source: City of Kent 2011
87
Exhibit B 28
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Water Resources
13. By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in place to address water quality treatment and
promote low impact development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to 2016, the City shall
require that applicants identify any low impact development (LID) techniques described in the
2012 Ecology manual and demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible.
Flow reduction credits provided in the Ecology stormwater manual for use in LID facilities will
translate into smaller stormwater treatment and flow control facilities over those which use
conventional methods. In certain cases, use of various LID techniques can result in elimination
of stormwater mitigation facilities entirely. As part of required land use, building, or
construction permits, the City may condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-
appropriate LID techniques.
Noise
14. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the following mitigation measures shall be
incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:
A. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving properties will decrease noise from that
equipment.
B. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive
receivers will reduce noise.
C. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive
nighttime hours.
D. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate unnecessary noise.
E. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment to potentially reduce noise
effects.
F. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of
rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas
to reduce noise effects.
15. At its discretion, the City may require all prospective Planned Action developers to use low-noise
mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime
noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City may
require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to
specify appropriate noise control measures.
88
Exhibit B 29
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
16. To address traffic and transit noise, the City may, at its discretion, require new residential
development to install triple-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its
authority under the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
Cultural Resources
17. In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately
surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the
potential impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed, a study
conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be conducted at the applicant’s
expense to determine whether the proposed development project would materially impact the
archaeological resource.
18. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require that an
applicant obtain all appropriate permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any
required archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that would disturb
archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a permit must be obtained from the
department of archaeology and historic preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known
archaeological resource or site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of
project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected
resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.
19. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and
affected tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such
notification, the City may require implementation of Mitigation Measures 17 and 18.
20. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that is determined eligible for listing on
either state or national historic registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding
mitigation options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the City.
21. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties within the Planned Action Area, the City will
notify the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals under the Planned Action
Ordinance consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
89
Exhibit B 30
Section B-2. Advisory Notes to Applicants: Applicable Regulations
The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation
measures. These are summarized below by EIS topic. All applicable federal, state, and local
regulations shall apply to Planned Actions. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all
adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included
in the EIS.
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
EARTH
The Kent Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area. For example, KCC
11.06.760.E.1.b of the code specifies the following mitigation required for
seismic hazard areas:
Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geotechnical
practices shall be implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the
risk of damage, death, or injury resulting from seismically induced
settlement or soil liquefaction. Mitigation shall be consistent with the
requirements of Ch. 14.01 KCC and shall be approved by the building
official.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) requires a drainage
plan for surface and pertinent subsurface water flows entering, flowing
within and leaving the subject property both during and after
construction, and would address measures to minimize erosion.
The International Building Code (KCC Chapter 14.01 Building Codes)
includes standards intended to reduce risks associated with seismic
activity, and it allows the City to require geotechnical studies.
The City administers grading permits through various codes (e.g. the
construction standards in KCC Chapter 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements).
AIR QUALITY
All stationary emissions sources associated with new commercial facilities
will be required to register with PSCAA (Regulation I and Regulation II).
90
Exhibit B 31
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
As part of future project-specific NEPA documentation for individual new
roadway improvement projects, the City will be required to conduct CO
hot-spot modeling (as required under WAC 173-420) for state-funded or
federally-funded projects to demonstrate that the projects would not
cause localized impacts related to increased CO emissions from vehicle
tailpipes at congested intersections.
Mobile source air toxics include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), naphthalene,
and diesel particulate matter. Because of potential health and
environmental effects, the US Environmental Protection Agency
developed a rule in 2007 to reduce hazardous air pollutants from mobile
sources. The rule will limit the benzene content of gasoline and reduce
toxic emissions from passenger vehicles and gas cans. The rule is
expected to reduce total emissions of mobile source air toxics by 330,000
tons as well as reduce other emissions (such as precursors to ozone and
PM2.5). (EPA September 2012)
WATER
In Washington, compliance with the federal Clean Water Act is
administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Development and redevelopment projects would generally be covered by
and subject to the restrictions of National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NDPES) construction permits.
The Washington State Hydraulic Code Rules (WAC 220-110) apply to any
project that takes place within or over the bed and banks of waters of the
state. Aquatic projects require a hydraulic project approval (HPA) from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
91
Exhibit B 32
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
KCC 14.09, Flood Hazard Regulations, regulates building in special flood
hazard areas and requires building standards to protect structures from
flood damage as well as requires compensation for loss of flood storage.
Any development or redevelopment would be subject to these rules.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area.
All development is required to comply with the standards set forth in the
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (City of Kent 2002). These standards
have been adjusted to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington
State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (2005). Section 5.8 of the City of Kent 2009 Design
and Construction Standards encourages the use of non-structural
preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques, measures to minimize the creation of
impervious surfaces, and measures to minimize the disturbance of native
soils and vegetation. The city recognizes that LID techniques are not
practical for all locations, depending on soil type and other factors.
Approval for LID techniques will be on a case-by-case basis.
PLANTS
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on the natural
environment. These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC
11.06). Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the
mitigation sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
per the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
KCC Chapter 15.07, Landscaping Regulations, provides landscape
standards for the perimeter of properties, parking areas, and transition
areas between higher intensity zones and lower density zones.
ANIMALS
Projects with federal nexus are subject to review and interagency
consultation under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Federal review applies to any project with federal nexus, such as projects
with federal funding or that require federal permits. Impacts on ESA listed
species must be avoided and minimized, and in some cases mitigation is
required.
92
Exhibit B 33
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
See also stormwater and drainage regulations.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The City has adopted the Washington State Energy Code in KCC Chapter
14.01, Building Codes.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) established prohibitions and requirements concerning
closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites. The act provides funding
and governs cleanup of identified contaminated Superfund sites.
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) sets standards for cleanup of lower
levels of contaminants that are incorporated into new development and
redevelopment parcels noted to have contamination potential.
The City of Kent specifically regulates hazardous substances or waste
through performance standards contained in KCC 15.08.050. Future site-
specific activities will comply with City Fire and Zoning Codes.
NOISE
Certain noise-control measures would be required to comply with current
City regulations (Chapter 8.05 KCC). Chapter 8.05 of the KCC establishes
limits on the noise levels and durations of noise crossing property
boundaries. Permissible noise levels at a receiving land use depend on its
environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA). These required
measures would be the use of low-noise mechanical equipment at office
and retail facilities adequate to comply with the City noise ordinance
limits.
93
Exhibit B 34
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
If nighttime construction is requested by developers, then a noise control
study would need to be submitted for City approval, demonstrating
compliance with the City’s nighttime noise ordinance limits.
Any roadway improvements in the Kent Planning Area that use state or
federal funding would be required to prepare a traffic noise analysis to
identify noise impacts at noise sensitive receivers and to assess whether
state or federal funds could be used to abate identified impacts.
City rules for the EDNA system in WAC 173-60 fully exempts railroad
noise (KCC 8.05.140 Other exemptions)
State rules, WAC 173-60, exempt railroad noise, except at night.
Federal regulations address railroad noise emissions, particularly noise
defective railroad equipment.
LAND USE AND AESTHETICS
Downtown Design Review Guidelines (2003): Design review guidelines set
parameters for review, and give guidance to City staff performing
administrative reviews of new development proposals. The guidelines
address a broad range of urban design topics, including context-sensitive
site planning, pedestrian amenities, parking lot landscaping, human-
scaled architectural design, and building materials and details.
KCC 15.04.200, 205: Contain design guidelines, development standards,
and conditions for development within areas covered by a mixed-use
overlay, such as GC-MU. These design guidelines and development
standards include limits on FAR, site coverage, and height, as well as
setback and parking requirements.
KCC 15.08.210: Addresses the buffer between commercial or industrial
districts, and residential zoning districts. Development standards include
additional setbacks, building offsets, parking, noise, glare, landscaping,
heights, and building size.
KCC 15.08.215: Addresses multifamily transition standards where
multifamily residential districts abut single family districts. Development
standards include additional setbacks, building offsets, and heights, as
well as landscaping.
94
Exhibit B 35
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
HOUSING
Any housing proposed for the study area will be in compliance with the
City of Kent land use and development codes, and Title 14, Buildings and
Construction.
LIGHT AND GLARE
A purpose of the City’s Landscape Regulations in KCC Chapter 15.07 is to
buffer dwelling units from light and glare.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include “Site Design for Safety”
measures that adress confining site lighting to the project site.
RECREATION
The City’s 2010 Park & Open Space Plan provides policies and
recommended parks improvements.
The Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards require new
development to locate corner buildings with a setback to allow for the
corner to be a pedestrian attractive use (e.g. outdoor dining).
The Downtown Design Guidelines require residential open space such as
individual balconies, shared courtyards, or rooftop space.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Chapter 14.12 of the KCC adopts King County Code Chapter 20.62 to
designate and act as a landmarks commission for Kent.
Washington State has a number of laws that oversee the protection and
proper excavation of archaeological sites (RCW 27.53, WAC 25‐48),
human remains (RCW 27.44), and historic cemeteries or graves (RCW
68.60). Under RCW 27.53, DAHP regulates the treatment of
archaeological sites on both public and private lands and has the
authority to require specific treatment of archaeological resources. All
precontact resources or sites are protected, regardless of their
significance or eligibility for local, state, or national registers. Historic
archaeological resources or sites are protected unless DAHP has made a
determination of “not‐eligible” for listing on the WHR and the NRHP.
95
Exhibit B 36
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
The Governor’s Executive Order 05‐05 requires state agencies to
integrate DAHP, the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned
tribes into their capital project planning process. This executive order
affects any capital construction projects and any land acquisitions for
purposes of capital construction not undergoing Section 106 review
under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
TRANSPORTATION
Through Chapter 6.12 KCC, Kent requires employers of a certain size to
encourage employees to reduce vehicle miles of travel and single-
occupant vehicle commute trips.
Chapter 6.02 KCC requires developers to install public infrastructure
improvements as conditions of permit. Infrastructure improvements
include, but are not limited to rights-of-way and paved streets, street
lighting systems; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping; storm
drainage systems; sanitary sewer systems; domestic water and fire
systems; traffic control systems; and conduit for fiber optic systems.
Chapter 12.11 KCC sets forth specific standards providing for city
compliance with the concurrency requirements of the Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between city and
countywide planning policies under the GMA. This chapter establishes a
transportation concurrency management system (TCMS) to ensure that
the necessary facilities or programs needed to maintain a minimum level
of service can be provided simultaneous to, or within a reasonable time
of new development as required in the GMA.
The City of Kent Transportation Master Plan includes capital improvement
projects designed to help the City maintain transportation concurrency.
Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development to pay its fair share for capital
improvement projects in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and
provides guidance for how impact fees are to be assessed.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The City will monitor growth and demand through its regular
Comprehensive Plan reviews, capital facility plan preparation, and budget
process.
96
Exhibit B 37
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
Service providers could add facilities and staff to serve the growing
population. Service providers should monitor growth and demand
through their regular planning and budgeting processes.
The Kent Regional Fire Authority will apply its Concurrency Management
Plan process to new development permits.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include safety measures such as “eyes
on the street” and “safe landscaping designs” that are based on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design concepts.
KCC Title 13 contains the City’s fire code and enforcement provisions.
The City assesses school impact fees to help school districts pay for a
development’s proportionate share of school district facilities serving the
development. The City collects impact fees for the Kent School District
that serves the Study Area (KCC 12.13).
UTILITIES
Utilities will monitor growth and demand through their regular capital
facility planning and budgeting processes.
The City will apply adopted functional plans for sewer and water systems.
The King County Solid Waste Management Plan includes measures to help
facilitate and increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted
from the waste stream. These measures should reduce the amount of
waste going to landfills via transfer stations and residential/commercial
collection.
97
Exhibit B 38
Section B-3: Public Agency Actions and Commitments
Under some elements of the environment, specific City or other agency actions are
identified. Generally, incorporation of these actions is intended to provide for consistency
within the Comprehensive Plan or between the Plan and implementing regulations; to
document pending City actions; to establish a protocol for long-term measures to provide for
coordination with other agencies; or to identify optional actions that the City may take to
reduce impacts. These actions are listed below, organized by the pertinent EIS element of
the environment in which they are discussed.
This Section B-3 will be used in the monitoring process established in Section 5 of the
Planned Action Ordinance.
Public Agency Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Land Use Patterns and Plans and Policies
The current DSAP is included as
Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan
and some dates and references to the
Downtown Plan may need to be
amended (some references to
Appendix B say the “1989 Downtown
Plan).
X
Concurrent
Amendment
Economic &
Community
Development
The City will extend design guidelines
and regulatory incentives for mixed-use
development, particularly in the GC-
MU district.
X
Completion in
2013
With the DSAP Update, the City will
implement new zones. Following the
DSAP Update, the City will prepare
regulations to implement DSAP Land
Use Element goals and policies.
X
Completion in
2013-14
Economic &
Community
Development
The DSAP Update will serve as a new
plan for the designated Urban Center
consistent with Policy LU-14.1. VISION
2040 and CPPs for King County guide
the contents of the DSAP Update to
ensure plan consistency. PSRC will
conduct a consistency review.
X
Document
provided to
PSRC through
comment
period.
X
If Alternative 2 Urban Center
boundaries are locally approved,
approval may be needed at the county
and four-county level (PSRC).
X Economic &
Community
Development
98
Exhibit B 39
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
The Transportation and Capital
Facilities Elements would be updated to
be consistent with revised household
and employment growth
estimates/targets for the Urban Center,
DSAP Study Area, and the Planning
Area to ensure that adequate facilities
are in place in time to accommodate
growth, or the Land Use Element would
be revisited as called for in Policy CF-
1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan.
X Economic &
Community
Development
Transportation
Incorporate street, pedestrian, and
bicycle improvements developed as
mitigation in the 2013 SEIS into the
next TMP and impact fee update.
X Public Works
Department
New development will impact the need
for transit service and bus stop
amenities. As demand grows at bus
stops, the City can negotiate with King
County for bus shelters.
X X Public Works
Department
Implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures
can facilitate use of alternative
transportation modes. The City should
consider creating a Transportation
Management Association (TMA) within
Downtown Kent. TMAs are non-profit,
member-controlled organizations that
provide transportation services in a
particular area, such as Downtown
Kent. They are generally public-private
partnerships, consisting primarily of
area businesses with local government
support. TMAs provide an institutional
framework for TDM Programs and
services and allow small employers to
provide Commute Trip Reduction
services comparable to those offered
by large companies.
X Public Works
Department
Parks
Develop updated Parks and Open Space
Plan including standards for Urban
Park.
X Parks,
Recreation &
Community
Services
99
Exhibit B 40
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Develop private open space and
recreation space for multifamily and
mixed use development.
X Economic &
Community
Development
100
Exhibit B 41
Section B-4: Example DSAP Planned Action Application and Evaluation Form
The following form is proposed for use as an application and evaluation form. The City may modify it as appropriate to ensure adequate
information and analysis is provided to make a Planned Action determination.
101
Exhibit B 42
SAMPLE DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN –
PLANNED ACTION APPLICATION AND EVALUATION
FORM
A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Date:
Applicant:
Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code:
Give a brief, complete
description of your
proposal.
Property Size in Acres
Property Zoning District Name:
Building Type:
Permits Requested (list
all that apply)
Land Use: ___________________________________________
Building: ___________________________________________
Engineering: _________________________________________
Other: ______________________________________________
SEPA Environmental Checklist Submitted? Yes __ No __ All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __
Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __
Explain:
Existing Land Use
Describe Existing Uses on the Site:
102
Exhibit B 43
Proposed Land Use –
Check All That Apply
Residential: High and medium density multifamily residential;
townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density single-family
detached dwellings [these are in the Planned Action Area – they
wouldn’t need the benefit of a Planned Action – may want to
include them for acknowledgement of current uses];
Employment: Dense and varied retail, office, commercial, and
service activities;
Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
Mixed use development with housing, employment, civic,
governmental, and recreational uses;
Other uses listed in KCC Title 15 Zoning Code as a permitted
use in a zoning district studied in the 2013 SEIS.
Dwellings
# Existing Dwellings:
#____ Dwelling Type_______________
#____ Dwelling Type _______________
# Proposed Dwellings Units:
#____ Type _________
#____ Type _________
Proposed Density (du/ac):
Dwelling Threshold Total in Ordinance: 1,858 - 2,584 Dwelling Bank Remainder (prior to application) as of __________20__
_______________________________dwellings
Non-residential Uses:
Building Square Feet
Existing: Proposed:
Jobs in Ordinance: 1,166 - 4,332 Jobs Remainder (prior to application) as of ____________20__
_____________________________ square feet
Building Height Existing Stories:
Existing Height in feet
Proposed Stories:
Proposed Height in feet:
Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed:
Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet:
PM Peak Hour
Weekday Vehicle Trips
Existing Estimated Trips Total:
Future Estimated Trips Total:
Net New Trips:
Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with KCC Chapter 12.11
Transportation Concurrency Management:
Yes ____ No ____
Proposed timing or
schedule (including
phasing).
Describe plans for
future additions,
expansion, or further
activity related to this
proposal.
103
Exhibit B 44
List any available or
pending environmental
information directly
related to this
proposal.
B. APPLICANT SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
Date:
C. REVIEW CRITERIA
Review Criteria
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “Planned Actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance XXX Subsection 3.F.
Criteria Discussion
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action
Area identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent
with those described in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and Section 4.D of Ordinance XXX;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action
thresholds and other criteria of Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX;
104
Exhibit B 45
Criteria Discussion
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been
mitigated by application of the measures identified in
Exhibit B of Ordinance XXX, and other applicable City
regulations, together with any modifications or
variances or special permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local,
state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the
SEPA Responsible Official determines that these
constitute adequate mitigation;
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as
defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential
public facility is accessory to or part of a development
that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
Determination Criteria
Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance XXX Section 3.E.
Requirement Discussion
Applications for Planned Actions were made on forms
provided by the City including the SEPA Checklist and
this Application and Evaluation Form.
105
Exhibit B 46
Requirement Discussion
The application has been deemed complete in
accordance with KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of
Development Regulations.
The proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
pursuant to Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX.
The proposed use(s) are listed in Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX and qualify as a Planned Action.
D. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action Project.
It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
Notice shall be made pursuant to KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned
Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations.
NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, this determination shall be amended.
Signature
Date:
B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: The application is not consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX, and does not qualify as a Planned Action Project for the following reasons:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to
meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SEPA Process Prescribed: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature:
Date:
106
Exhibit B 47
107
108
1 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT F
PAO
Option 3
DCE Zoning Boundary
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing a Planned
Action for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with
the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
109
2 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by
jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
E. The City approved a Planned Action Ordinance for a portion of the
Downtown Subarea in 2002 and has largely completed those actions.
F. The City desires to designate a new Planned Action for a portion of
the Downtown Subarea.
G. Designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for
subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously
addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and
thereby encourages desired growth and economic development.
H. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
110
3 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
I. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
J. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown area. Together these are referenced as the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
K. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
L. The Kent City Code (KCC) 11.03.020 provides for Planned Actions
within the City.
M. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through an SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
111
4 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
N. The City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee
hosted a community meeting on October 14, 2013 consistent with RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b).
O. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
P. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
112
5 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Q. After providing appropriate public notice, on November 12, 2013,
the City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee for the
City of Kent considered the planned action ordinance at a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Recitals. The recitals set forth above are
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. - Purpose. The City of Kent declares that the purpose
of this ordinance is to:
A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, development
regulations, Kent codes and ordinances together with the mitigation
measures in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS to mitigate
environmental impacts and process Planned Action development
applications in the Planned Action Area.
B. Designate the central Downtown Subarea shown in Exhibit A as a
Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting
of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.031.
C. Determine that the 2013 SEIS prepared for the DSAP Update
together with the 2011 EIS prepared for the Comprehensive Plan meet the
requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA (together
referenced as the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS).
113
6 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will
determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area
qualify as Planned Actions.
E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how
the City will process implementing projects within the Planned Action Area.
F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by
relying on the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
mitigation measures described in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS
and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development
contemplated by this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A),
and is applying the Planned Action to an Urban Growth Area (UGA).
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the
GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate a subarea
plan specific to the Downtown.
C. The City is adopting zoning and development regulations in a
phased approach both concurrent with and subsequent to the DSAP Update
to implement said Plan, including this ordinance.
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared for the
Planned Action Area, and the City Council finds that the EIS adequately
114
7 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
identifies and addresses the probable significant environmental impacts
associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in
the designated Planned Action Area.
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein
by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the
Planned Action Area.
F. The DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS identify the location, type and
amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action.
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned
Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance
economic development.
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the DSAP Update and 2013 SEIS, including a community
meeting prior to the publication of notice for the Planned Action Ordinance;
has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified
the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments.
I. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 36.70A.200(1) are excluded
from the Planned Action and are not eligible for review or permitting as
Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that
otherwise qualifies as a Planned Action.
J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the
overall City boundaries.
115
8 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed
Planned Action, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 4. – Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and
Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area.
A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to
the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a
site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be
based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS issued by the City on
June 21, 2013 and the Final SEIS published on October 4, 2013 together
with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS completed in 2011 (considered together to be the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS). The 2011 Draft and Final EIS as
supplemented by the SEIS documents shall comprise the Planned Action
EIS for the Planned Action Area. The mitigation measures contained in
Exhibit B and attached to this Ordinance are based upon the findings of the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City
regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply
appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action Projects within the
Planned Action Area.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds
described in subsection 4.D and the mitigation measures contained in
116
9 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific
Planned Action Project located within the Planned Action Area shall be
designated a Planned Action if it completes a SEPA Checklist and City
application and evaluation form, and any other form required by the City,
and meets the criteria set forth in Subsection 4.D of this Ordinance and all
other applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of
the City are met.
D. Planned Action Thresholds. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned
Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action and has had its
environmental impacts evaluated in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS:
(1) Qualifying Land Uses.
(a) Planned Action Categories: The following general
categories/types of land uses are defined the Downtown Subarea Plan and
are considered Planned Actions:
i. Residential: High and medium density
multifamily residential; townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density
single-family detached dwellings;
ii. Employment: Dense and varied retail, office,
commercial, and service activities;
iii. Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
iv. Mixed use development with housing,
employment, civic, governmental, and recreational uses.
(b) Planned Action Uses: A land use shall be considered a
Planned Action Land Use when:
117
10 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in
Exhibit A;
ii. it is within the one or more of the land use
categories described in subsection 1(a) above; and
iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable
to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action
Area.
A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a
combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed use development.
Planned Action uses include accessory uses.
(c) Public Services: The following public services,
infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Actions:
i. Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and road improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
ii. Parks and recreation facilities and improvements
identified in the 2013 SEIS.
(2) Development Thresholds:
(a) Land Use: The following amounts of various new land
uses are contemplated by the Planned Action:
Growth Type Base Year
2006
Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2031)
Total Net Growth
Households 713683 2,5712,403 1,8581,720
Jobs1 1,867 3,033 1,166
Total Activity Units: Jobs and
Households2 2,5802,550 5,6045,436 3,0242,886
Notes:
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures in the prior
2011 EIS. These elements make up about 6-9% of the job totals depending on alternative.
2 Numbers in SEIS reflect formula results; above numbers are rounded.
Source: City of Kent 2011 and 2012
118
11 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in
D(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the
aggregate amount of development reviewed in the 2013 SEIS; the traffic
trips for Alternative 2 Moderate Growth are not exceeded; and, the
development impacts identified in the 2013 SEIS are mitigated consistent
with Exhibit B.
(c) To be considered a planned action, where a proposal
includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height shall be
two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those studied in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the subject
zoning district.
(d) Further environmental review may be required
pursuant to WAC 197-11-172, if any individual Planned Action or
combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds
specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
(3) Transportation Thresholds:
(a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM peak
hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the 2013
SEIS is as follows:
Trip Generation – Planned Action Ordinance Area
Alternative
Planned Action Area
Trip Ends* Growth Compared
to Existing
Existing Conditions (2006) 2,200 0
Alternative 2 3,9003,800 1,7001,600
Note: * PM peak hour vehicle trips.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
119
12 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the
transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS thresholds
established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service established in the 2013
DSAP SEIS.
(c) Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and impact fee ordinance is updated, all Planned Actions shall
pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements
identified in Exhibit B as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in
addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated impact fee
program, chapter 12.14 KCC.
(d) Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Planned Action.
(4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A
proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or
degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed
in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS shall not qualify as a Planned
Action.
(5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned
Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental
review is conducted.
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
120
13 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as
“Planned Actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440, applications that meet all
of the following conditions:
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with
those described in the 2013 SEIS and Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds
and other criteria of Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent Comprehensive
Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated
by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable
City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special
permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state
and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official
determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined
by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to
or part of a development that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist,
or an alternative form approved in accordance with SEPA laws and rules,
and review of the Planned Action application and evaluation form and
supporting documentation.
121
14 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be
considered to qualify and be designated as a Planned Action, consistent
with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.440, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and
this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA
Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in
accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the
development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the
environmental analysis contained in the Combined DSAP Planned Action
EIS.
(2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 4.D and qualifies as a
Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold
determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review
pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions
shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process:
(1) Development applications shall meet all applicable
requirements of the Kent City Code (KCC). Applications for Planned
Actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the
SEPA checklist.
122
15 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
(2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether
the application is complete as provided in Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action
Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it
is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a
Planned Action Project.
(a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
regarding consistency of a project as a Planned Action is a Type 1 decision.
The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision.
(b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned
Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review
procedures specified in Chapter 12.01 KCC, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
(c) Notice of the application for a Planned Action Project
shall be consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
(4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the
notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If
notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice
is required by this ordinance.
(5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements,
the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a
development agreement for a Planned Action Project, consistent with RCW
36.70B.170 et seq.
(6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action,
the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a
123
16 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the
requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the
application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action.
(7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may
incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet
their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the
scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and
environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 5. – Monitoring and Review.
A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the
designated Planned Action Area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is
consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance regarding the type and
amount of development and associated impacts addressed in the
Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and with the mitigation measures and
improvements planned for the Planned Action Area in Exhibit B.
B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed by the SEPA
Responsible Official no later than five years from its effective date. The
review shall determine the continuing relevance of the Planned Action
assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action Area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation
measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to
this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS.
124
17 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
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 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 7. – 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 8. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2013.
125
18 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO_Infill\FINAL_PAO_Ord.Docx
126
Exhibit A 19
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED ACTION AREA
127
Exhibit B 20
EXHIBIT B
COMBINED DSAP PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION
MEASURES
Section B-1. Mitigation Required for Development Applications
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent issued the Draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS on June
21, 2013 and the Final SEIS on October 4, 2013 (referenced as the 2013 SEIS). Previously, the
City completed the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS in 2011 (referenced as the 2011 EIS). The Draft and Final EIS as supplemented by
the SEIS documents comprise the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for the Planned Action
Area (see Exhibit A). The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has identified significant
beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of
the Planned Action Area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those
significant adverse impacts. Please see the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS for a
description of impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
A Mitigation Document is provided in this Exhibit Section B-1, and it establishes specific
mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-1 shall apply to future
development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and which are located within the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). Exhibits B-2 and B-3 provide
advisory notes on applicable regulations and commitments and city actions for monitoring
purposes and may be consulted as appropriate.
Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in
project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where “should”
or “would” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a
source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as
a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require
preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of
maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund
and/or perform.
128
Exhibit B 21
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Land Use Patterns
The following mitigation measures shall be applied to Planned Actions:
1. Solar Access: Until superseded by amended design standards or guidelines in the Kent City
Code, solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parks, schools and
other areas sensitive to shading shall be preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level
setbacks for adjacent development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of daytime use.
2. Public Views: The City may condition Planned Actions to incorporate site design measures that
preserve significant public views from public areas.
Transportation
This section applies measures to mitigate the impacts of new development on transportation
infrastructure, including streets, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit infrastructure and
services.
Until the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and impact fee ordinance are updated, all Planned
Actions shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified
below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan and associated impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
3. Street Mitigation Measures
Table 1 summarizes the street mitigation projects that have been identified for the DSAP Study
Area. The cost is shared between development inside the Planned Action Area and outside the
Planned Action Area. The Planned Action Area cost per trip is shown in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 1. Street Mitigation Measures – Alternative 2
Location Description Cost Estimate1
Meeker Street & 4th
Avenue
Restripe roadway to reduce width of
westbound receiving lane and allow
eastbound left turn pocket
$5,000-$10,000
Notes:
1. The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
129
Exhibit B 22
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
4. Pedestrian Mitigation Measures
Key arterial and collector sidewalk links are identified in the 2013 SEIS and could be used by all
pedestrians within Downtown Kent. In addition, there are several sidewalk need areas along local
streets in Downtown Kent. Sidewalks will be completed by new development consistent with the
City’s frontage design standards.
Specifically, under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2)all alternatives, development within the
Planned Action Area will be responsible for a cost of $340,000 to $470,000. Each new
development’s proportional share will be calculated based on the amount and type of land use
proposed.
The following sidewalk segments in Table 2 are identified for improvement in the Planned Action
Area. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6.
Table 2. Sidewalk Improvements – Alternatives 2
Roadway Classification
Planned Action Area
Feet of Sidewalk Cost Estimate
Principal Arterial 1,220 $290,000-$400,000
Minor Arterial 200 $50,000-$70,000
Collector N/A N/A
Total 1,420 $340,000-$470,000
Note: The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
5. Bicycle Mitigation Measures
Bicycle facilities identified in the 2013 SEIS are needed to complete the 2008 Transportation Master
Plan. The bicycle routes will serve the needs of all Downtown travelers. New development will share
the cost of implementing these facilities. Specifically, under the preferred alternative
(Alternative2)all alternatives, development within the Planned Action Area will be responsible for a
cost of $28,00025,000. Each new development’s proportional share shall be calculated based on the
amount and type of land use proposed. The cost per trip is identified in Mitigation Measure 6. The
following bicycle segments in Table 3 are identified for improvement.
130
Exhibit B 23
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 3. Bicycle Facility Improvements – Alternatives 2
Bicycle Facility Type
Planned Action Area
Feet of Bicycle Facility Cost Estimate
Restriping for Bicycle Lane 2,0001,400 $10,0007,000
Shared Bicycle Facility 6,110 $18,000
Total 8,1107,510 $28,00025,000
Note: The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
6. Planned Action Per Trip Fee to Implement Street, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Improvements
Table 4 includes the Planned Action Area costs per trip based on the estimates included in
Mitigation Measures 3-5 for Alternatives 2. For those estimates that were given as a range, the
tables below use the upper end of the range.
Table 4. Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure Type
Planned Action Area
1,7001,600 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $3,0003,1001 $1.821.88
Pedestrian $470,000 $276.47293.75
Bicycle $28,00025,000 $16.4715.63
Total $501,100498,000 $294.76311.26
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action Area and Infill Exemption Areas according to
the number of trips generated (31 30 percent by the Planned Action Area and 69 70 percent by the Infill Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
7. Transit: New development shall be required to provide convenient pedestrian connections to
bus stops.
Parks
Until such time as the City adopts a new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code
amendments addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and requirements
applicable to the Planned Action Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply. Following
adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code amendments such standards shall
supersede the measures below.
131
Exhibit B 24
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
8. Urban Park Space: Each Planned Action shall dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square
feet of public park area per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
Mitigation Measure 10.
9. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each Planned Action shall provide private onsite
recreation space for leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square feet
per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is required to provide the private
space in one or more of the following arrangements.
An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s play area
Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the parks and community
services director. Alternatively up to fifty percent (50%) of the private open space may be
accomplished offsite or through a fee in lieu consistent with Mitigation Measure 10.
10. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City may allow fifty percent (50%) of the private
recreation space and 100% of the public recreation space in Mitigation Measures 9 8 and 10 9 to
be: 1) accomplished offsite as approved by the parks and community services director; o r 2) a
fee-in-lieu of providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
Air Quality
11. The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best management practices
(BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment, including
but not limited to the following measures.
A. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
B. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways.
C. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces.
D. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
E. Cover soil piles when practical.
F. Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical.
G. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications.
H. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use.
I. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be permitted without express approval from
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any
132
Exhibit B 25
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
construction projects in the study area.
12. The City shall require Planned Action applicants to identify the reduction measures in Table
5that are being implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures found in the
table are not included or are not applicable. The City shall, as appropriate, condition Planned
Action applications to incorporate reduction measures determined (by the City based on the
development application) feasible and appropriate for site conditions.
133
Exhibit B 26
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 5. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Reduction Measures Comments
Site Design
Plant large-caliper trees and mature vegetation near
structures to shade buildings
Trees and vegetation that directly shade buildings
decrease demand for air conditioning. By reducing
energy demand, trees and vegetation decrease the
production of associated air pollution and GHG
emissions. They also remove air pollutants and store
and sequester carbon dioxide. Thus trees and
vegetation reduce onsite fuel combustion emissions
and purchased electricity plus enhance carbon sinks.
Minimize building footprint. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption, materials used,
maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction
emissions.
Design water efficient landscaping. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and
upstream emissions from water management.
Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Building Design and Operations
Apply LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
offsite/indirect purchased electricity, water use, waste
disposal
Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public
agency use.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Incorporate onsite renewable energy production, including
installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption.
Design street lights to use energy efficient bulbs and fixtures Reduces purchased electricity.
Construct “green roofs” and use high-albedo roofing
materials.
Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
purchased electricity consumption
Install high-efficiency HVAC systems. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage
before/after to determine GHG reduction.
Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates,
increased building perimeter and use of skylights,
clerestories and light wells.
Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces
purchased electrical energy consumption.
Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as: super
insulation motion sensors for lighting and climate control
efficient, directed exterior lighting
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
134
Exhibit B 27
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Reduction Measures Comments
Use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code
requirements.
Reduces water consumption.
Re-use gray water or collect and re-use rainwater. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream
electricity requirements.
Recycle demolition debris and use recycled building
materials and products.
Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly
reduces transportation of materials, encourages
recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal.
Use building materials that are extracted or manufactured
within the region.
Reduces transportation of purchased materials
Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased
materials
Conduct 3rd party building commissioning to ensure energy
performance.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Track energy performance of building and develop strategy
to maintain efficiency.
Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
consumption.
Transportation
Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking
requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in
parking supply through special permits or waivers.
Reduced parking discourages auto dependent travel,
encouraging alternative modes such as transit, walking,
biking etc. Reduces direct and indirect vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)
Develop and implement a marketing/information program
that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit
information.
Reduces direct and indirect VMT
Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during
peak periods through alternative work schedules,
telecommuting, or flex-time. Provide a guaranteed ride
home program.
Reduces employee VMT
Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Reduces employee VMT
Utilize traffic signalization and coordination to improve
traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Reduces transportation emissions and VMT
Apply advanced technology systems and management
strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets.
Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing
idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for
fuel efficiency.
Develop shuttle systems around business district parking
garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes.
Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect
VMT
Source: City of Kent 2011
135
Exhibit B 28
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Water Resources
13. By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in place to address water quality treatment and
promote low impact development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to 2016, the City shall
require that applicants identify any low impact development (LID) techniques described in the
2012 Ecology manual and demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible.
Flow reduction credits provided in the Ecology stormwater manual for use in LID facilities will
translate into smaller stormwater treatment and flow control facilities over those which use
conventional methods. In certain cases, use of various LID techniques can result in elimination
of stormwater mitigation facilities entirely. As part of required land use, building, or
construction permits, the City may condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-
appropriate LID techniques.
Noise
14. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the following mitigation measures shall be
incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:
A. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving properties will decrease noise from that
equipment.
B. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive
receivers will reduce noise.
C. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive
nighttime hours.
D. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate unnecessary noise.
E. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment to potentially reduce noise
effects.
F. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of
rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas
to reduce noise effects.
15. At its discretion, the City may require all prospective Planned Action developers to use low-noise
mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime
noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City may
require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to
specify appropriate noise control measures.
136
Exhibit B 29
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
16. To address traffic and transit noise, the City may, at its discretion, require new residential
development to install triple-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its
authority under the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
Cultural Resources
17. In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately
surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the
potential impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed, a study
conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be conducted at the applicant’s
expense to determine whether the proposed development project would materially impact the
archaeological resource.
18. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require that an
applicant obtain all appropriate permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any
required archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that would disturb
archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a permit must be obtained from the
department of archaeology and historic preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known
archaeological resource or site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of
project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected
resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.
19. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and
affected tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such
notification, the City may require implementation of Mitigation Measures 17 and 18.
20. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that is determined eligible for listing on
either state or national historic registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding
mitigation options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the City.
21. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties within the Planned Action Area, the City will
notify the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals under the Planned Action
Ordinance consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
137
Exhibit B 30
Section B-2. Advisory Notes to Applicants: Applicable Regulations
The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation
measures. These are summarized below by EIS topic. All applicable federal, state, and local
regulations shall apply to Planned Actions. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all
adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included
in the EIS.
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
EARTH
The Kent Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area. For example, KCC
11.06.760.E.1.b of the code specifies the following mitigation required for
seismic hazard areas:
Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geotechnical
practices shall be implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the
risk of damage, death, or injury resulting from seismically induced
settlement or soil liquefaction. Mitigation shall be consistent with the
requirements of Ch. 14.01 KCC and shall be approved by the building
official.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) requires a drainage
plan for surface and pertinent subsurface water flows entering, flowing
within and leaving the subject property both during and after
construction, and would address measures to minimize erosion.
The International Building Code (KCC Chapter 14.01 Building Codes)
includes standards intended to reduce risks associated with seismic
activity, and it allows the City to require geotechnical studies.
The City administers grading permits through various codes (e.g. the
construction standards in KCC Chapter 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements).
AIR QUALITY
All stationary emissions sources associated with new commercial facilities
will be required to register with PSCAA (Regulation I and Regulation II).
138
Exhibit B 31
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
As part of future project-specific NEPA documentation for individual new
roadway improvement projects, the City will be required to conduct CO
hot-spot modeling (as required under WAC 173-420) for state-funded or
federally-funded projects to demonstrate that the projects would not
cause localized impacts related to increased CO emissions from vehicle
tailpipes at congested intersections.
Mobile source air toxics include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), naphthalene,
and diesel particulate matter. Because of potential health and
environmental effects, the US Environmental Protection Agency
developed a rule in 2007 to reduce hazardous air pollutants from mobile
sources. The rule will limit the benzene content of gasoline and reduce
toxic emissions from passenger vehicles and gas cans. The rule is
expected to reduce total emissions of mobile source air toxics by 330,000
tons as well as reduce other emissions (such as precursors to ozone and
PM2.5). (EPA September 2012)
WATER
In Washington, compliance with the federal Clean Water Act is
administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Development and redevelopment projects would generally be covered by
and subject to the restrictions of National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NDPES) construction permits.
The Washington State Hydraulic Code Rules (WAC 220-110) apply to any
project that takes place within or over the bed and banks of waters of the
state. Aquatic projects require a hydraulic project approval (HPA) from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
139
Exhibit B 32
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
KCC 14.09, Flood Hazard Regulations, regulates building in special flood
hazard areas and requires building standards to protect structures from
flood damage as well as requires compensation for loss of flood storage.
Any development or redevelopment would be subject to these rules.
The Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07) would apply to
development and redevelopment in the Study Area.
All development is required to comply with the standards set forth in the
Kent Surface Water Design Manual (City of Kent 2002). These standards
have been adjusted to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington
State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (2005). Section 5.8 of the City of Kent 2009 Design
and Construction Standards encourages the use of non-structural
preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques, measures to minimize the creation of
impervious surfaces, and measures to minimize the disturbance of native
soils and vegetation. The city recognizes that LID techniques are not
practical for all locations, depending on soil type and other factors.
Approval for LID techniques will be on a case-by-case basis.
PLANTS
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on the natural
environment. These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC
11.06). Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the
mitigation sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
per the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
KCC Chapter 15.07, Landscaping Regulations, provides landscape
standards for the perimeter of properties, parking areas, and transition
areas between higher intensity zones and lower density zones.
ANIMALS
Projects with federal nexus are subject to review and interagency
consultation under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Federal review applies to any project with federal nexus, such as projects
with federal funding or that require federal permits. Impacts on ESA listed
species must be avoided and minimized, and in some cases mitigation is
required.
140
Exhibit B 33
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
All alternatives would be subject to existing policies and regulations
enacted to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts on natural environment.
These regulations include the Kent Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06)
addressing wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic
hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
Adverse impacts on critical areas must be mitigated and the mitigation
sequence applied is avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per the Kent
Critical Areas Code (KCC 11.06.550).
See also stormwater and drainage regulations.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The City has adopted the Washington State Energy Code in KCC Chapter
14.01, Building Codes.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) established prohibitions and requirements concerning
closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites. The act provides funding
and governs cleanup of identified contaminated Superfund sites.
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) sets standards for cleanup of lower
levels of contaminants that are incorporated into new development and
redevelopment parcels noted to have contamination potential.
The City of Kent specifically regulates hazardous substances or waste
through performance standards contained in KCC 15.08.050. Future site-
specific activities will comply with City Fire and Zoning Codes.
NOISE
Certain noise-control measures would be required to comply with current
City regulations (Chapter 8.05 KCC). Chapter 8.05 of the KCC establishes
limits on the noise levels and durations of noise crossing property
boundaries. Permissible noise levels at a receiving land use depend on its
environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA). These required
measures would be the use of low-noise mechanical equipment at office
and retail facilities adequate to comply with the City noise ordinance
limits.
141
Exhibit B 34
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
If nighttime construction is requested by developers, then a noise control
study would need to be submitted for City approval, demonstrating
compliance with the City’s nighttime noise ordinance limits.
Any roadway improvements in the Kent Planning Area that use state or
federal funding would be required to prepare a traffic noise analysis to
identify noise impacts at noise sensitive receivers and to assess whether
state or federal funds could be used to abate identified impacts.
City rules for the EDNA system in WAC 173-60 fully exempts railroad
noise (KCC 8.05.140 Other exemptions)
State rules, WAC 173-60, exempt railroad noise, except at night.
Federal regulations address railroad noise emissions, particularly noise
defective railroad equipment.
LAND USE AND AESTHETICS
Downtown Design Review Guidelines (2003): Design review guidelines set
parameters for review, and give guidance to City staff performing
administrative reviews of new development proposals. The guidelines
address a broad range of urban design topics, including context-sensitive
site planning, pedestrian amenities, parking lot landscaping, human-
scaled architectural design, and building materials and details.
KCC 15.04.200, 205: Contain design guidelines, development standards,
and conditions for development within areas covered by a mixed-use
overlay, such as GC-MU. These design guidelines and development
standards include limits on FAR, site coverage, and height, as well as
setback and parking requirements.
KCC 15.08.210: Addresses the buffer between commercial or industrial
districts, and residential zoning districts. Development standards include
additional setbacks, building offsets, parking, noise, glare, landscaping,
heights, and building size.
KCC 15.08.215: Addresses multifamily transition standards where
multifamily residential districts abut single family districts. Development
standards include additional setbacks, building offsets, and heights, as
well as landscaping.
142
Exhibit B 35
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
HOUSING
Any housing proposed for the study area will be in compliance with the
City of Kent land use and development codes, and Title 14, Buildings and
Construction.
LIGHT AND GLARE
A purpose of the City’s Landscape Regulations in KCC Chapter 15.07 is to
buffer dwelling units from light and glare.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include “Site Design for Safety”
measures that adress confining site lighting to the project site.
RECREATION
The City’s 2010 Park & Open Space Plan provides policies and
recommended parks improvements.
The Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards require new
development to locate corner buildings with a setback to allow for the
corner to be a pedestrian attractive use (e.g. outdoor dining).
The Downtown Design Guidelines require residential open space such as
individual balconies, shared courtyards, or rooftop space.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Chapter 14.12 of the KCC adopts King County Code Chapter 20.62 to
designate and act as a landmarks commission for Kent.
Washington State has a number of laws that oversee the protection and
proper excavation of archaeological sites (RCW 27.53, WAC 25‐48),
human remains (RCW 27.44), and historic cemeteries or graves (RCW
68.60). Under RCW 27.53, DAHP regulates the treatment of
archaeological sites on both public and private lands and has the
authority to require specific treatment of archaeological resources. All
precontact resources or sites are protected, regardless of their
significance or eligibility for local, state, or national registers. Historic
archaeological resources or sites are protected unless DAHP has made a
determination of “not‐eligible” for listing on the WHR and the NRHP.
143
Exhibit B 36
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
The Governor’s Executive Order 05‐05 requires state agencies to
integrate DAHP, the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned
tribes into their capital project planning process. This executive order
affects any capital construction projects and any land acquisitions for
purposes of capital construction not undergoing Section 106 review
under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
TRANSPORTATION
Through Chapter 6.12 KCC, Kent requires employers of a certain size to
encourage employees to reduce vehicle miles of travel and single-
occupant vehicle commute trips.
Chapter 6.02 KCC requires developers to install public infrastructure
improvements as conditions of permit. Infrastructure improvements
include, but are not limited to rights-of-way and paved streets, street
lighting systems; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping; storm
drainage systems; sanitary sewer systems; domestic water and fire
systems; traffic control systems; and conduit for fiber optic systems.
Chapter 12.11 KCC sets forth specific standards providing for city
compliance with the concurrency requirements of the Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between city and
countywide planning policies under the GMA. This chapter establishes a
transportation concurrency management system (TCMS) to ensure that
the necessary facilities or programs needed to maintain a minimum level
of service can be provided simultaneous to, or within a reasonable time
of new development as required in the GMA.
The City of Kent Transportation Master Plan includes capital improvement
projects designed to help the City maintain transportation concurrency.
Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development to pay its fair share for capital
improvement projects in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and
provides guidance for how impact fees are to be assessed.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The City will monitor growth and demand through its regular
Comprehensive Plan reviews, capital facility plan preparation, and budget
process.
144
Exhibit B 37
TOPIC/REGULATION Notes
Service providers could add facilities and staff to serve the growing
population. Service providers should monitor growth and demand
through their regular planning and budgeting processes.
The Kent Regional Fire Authority will apply its Concurrency Management
Plan process to new development permits.
The Downtown Design Guidelines include safety measures such as “eyes
on the street” and “safe landscaping designs” that are based on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design concepts.
KCC Title 13 contains the City’s fire code and enforcement provisions.
The City assesses school impact fees to help school districts pay for a
development’s proportionate share of school district facilities serving the
development. The City collects impact fees for the Kent School District
that serves the Study Area (KCC 12.13).
UTILITIES
Utilities will monitor growth and demand through their regular capital
facility planning and budgeting processes.
The City will apply adopted functional plans for sewer and water systems.
The King County Solid Waste Management Plan includes measures to help
facilitate and increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted
from the waste stream. These measures should reduce the amount of
waste going to landfills via transfer stations and residential/commercial
collection.
145
Exhibit B 38
Section B-3: Public Agency Actions and Commitments
Under some elements of the environment, specific City or other agency actions are
identified. Generally, incorporation of these actions is intended to provide for consistency
within the Comprehensive Plan or between the Plan and implementing regulations; to
document pending City actions; to establish a protocol for long-term measures to provide for
coordination with other agencies; or to identify optional actions that the City may take to
reduce impacts. These actions are listed below, organized by the pertinent EIS element of
the environment in which they are discussed.
This Section B-3 will be used in the monitoring process established in Section 5 of the
Planned Action Ordinance.
Public Agency Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Land Use Patterns and Plans and Policies
The current DSAP is included as
Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan
and some dates and references to the
Downtown Plan may need to be
amended (some references to
Appendix B say the “1989 Downtown
Plan).
X
Concurrent
Amendment
Economic &
Community
Development
The City will extend design guidelines
and regulatory incentives for mixed-use
development, particularly in the GC-
MU district.
X
Completion in
2013
With the DSAP Update, the City will
implement new zones. Following the
DSAP Update, the City will prepare
regulations to implement DSAP Land
Use Element goals and policies.
X
Completion in
2013-14
Economic &
Community
Development
The DSAP Update will serve as a new
plan for the designated Urban Center
consistent with Policy LU-14.1. VISION
2040 and CPPs for King County guide
the contents of the DSAP Update to
ensure plan consistency. PSRC will
conduct a consistency review.
X
Document
provided to
PSRC through
comment
period.
X
If Alternative 2 Urban Center
boundaries are locally approved,
approval may be needed at the county
and four-county level (PSRC).
X Economic &
Community
Development
146
Exhibit B 39
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
The Transportation and Capital
Facilities Elements would be updated to
be consistent with revised household
and employment growth
estimates/targets for the Urban Center,
DSAP Study Area, and the Planning
Area to ensure that adequate facilities
are in place in time to accommodate
growth, or the Land Use Element would
be revisited as called for in Policy CF-
1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan.
X Economic &
Community
Development
Transportation
Incorporate street, pedestrian, and
bicycle improvements developed as
mitigation in the 2013 SEIS into the
next TMP and impact fee update.
X Public Works
Department
New development will impact the need
for transit service and bus stop
amenities. As demand grows at bus
stops, the City can negotiate with King
County for bus shelters.
X X Public Works
Department
Implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures
can facilitate use of alternative
transportation modes. The City should
consider creating a Transportation
Management Association (TMA) within
Downtown Kent. TMAs are non-profit,
member-controlled organizations that
provide transportation services in a
particular area, such as Downtown
Kent. They are generally public-private
partnerships, consisting primarily of
area businesses with local government
support. TMAs provide an institutional
framework for TDM Programs and
services and allow small employers to
provide Commute Trip Reduction
services comparable to those offered
by large companies.
X Public Works
Department
Parks
Develop updated Parks and Open Space
Plan including standards for Urban
Park.
X Parks,
Recreation &
Community
Services
147
Exhibit B 40
Mitigation Measures
Short Term:
Next Comp Plan
Amendment
Cycle or within
5 years
Long Term Other Agency
Estimated Year
of Completion
and Responsible
Department
Develop private open space and
recreation space for multifamily and
mixed use development.
X Economic &
Community
Development
148
Exhibit B 41
Section B-4: Example DSAP Planned Action Application and Evaluation Form
The following form is proposed for use as an application and evaluation form. The City may modify it as appropriate to ensure adequate
information and analysis is provided to make a Planned Action determination.
149
Exhibit B 42
SAMPLE DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN –
PLANNED ACTION APPLICATION AND EVALUATION
FORM
A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Date:
Applicant:
Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code:
Give a brief, complete
description of your
proposal.
Property Size in Acres
Property Zoning District Name:
Building Type:
Permits Requested (list
all that apply)
Land Use: ___________________________________________
Building: ___________________________________________
Engineering: _________________________________________
Other: ______________________________________________
SEPA Environmental Checklist Submitted? Yes __ No __ All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __
Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __
Explain:
Existing Land Use
Describe Existing Uses on the Site:
150
Exhibit B 43
Proposed Land Use –
Check All That Apply
Residential: High and medium density multifamily residential;
townhouses; multiplexes; and higher density single-family
detached dwellings [these are in the Planned Action Area – they
wouldn’t need the benefit of a Planned Action – may want to
include them for acknowledgement of current uses];
Employment: Dense and varied retail, office, commercial, and
service activities;
Civic, governmental, and recreational uses;
Mixed use development with housing, employment, civic,
governmental, and recreational uses;
Other uses listed in KCC Title 15 Zoning Code as a permitted
use in a zoning district studied in the 2013 SEIS.
Dwellings
# Existing Dwellings:
#____ Dwelling Type_______________
#____ Dwelling Type _______________
# Proposed Dwellings Units:
#____ Type _________
#____ Type _________
Proposed Density (du/ac):
Dwelling Threshold Total in Ordinance: 1,858 - 2,584 Dwelling Bank Remainder (prior to application) as of __________20__
_______________________________dwellings
Non-residential Uses:
Building Square Feet
Existing: Proposed:
Jobs in Ordinance: 1,166 - 4,332 Jobs Remainder (prior to application) as of ____________20__
_____________________________ square feet
Building Height Existing Stories:
Existing Height in feet
Proposed Stories:
Proposed Height in feet:
Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed:
Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet:
PM Peak Hour
Weekday Vehicle Trips
Existing Estimated Trips Total:
Future Estimated Trips Total:
Net New Trips:
Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with KCC Chapter 12.11
Transportation Concurrency Management:
Yes ____ No ____
Proposed timing or
schedule (including
phasing).
Describe plans for
future additions,
expansion, or further
activity related to this
proposal.
151
Exhibit B 44
List any available or
pending environmental
information directly
related to this
proposal.
B. APPLICANT SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
Date:
C. REVIEW CRITERIA
Review Criteria
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “Planned Actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance XXX Subsection 3.F.
Criteria Discussion
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action
Area identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent
with those described in the Combined DSAP Planned
Action EIS and Section 4.D of Ordinance XXX;
(c) the proposal is within the Planned Action
thresholds and other criteria of Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX;
152
Exhibit B 45
Criteria Discussion
(d) the proposal is consistent with the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan;
(e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Combined DSAP
Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been
mitigated by application of the measures identified in
Exhibit B of Ordinance XXX, and other applicable City
regulations, together with any modifications or
variances or special permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local,
state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the
SEPA Responsible Official determines that these
constitute adequate mitigation;
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as
defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential
public facility is accessory to or part of a development
that is designated as a Planned Action under this
ordinance.
Determination Criteria
Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance XXX Section 3.E.
Requirement Discussion
Applications for Planned Actions were made on forms
provided by the City including the SEPA Checklist and
this Application and Evaluation Form.
153
Exhibit B 46
Requirement Discussion
The application has been deemed complete in
accordance with KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of
Development Regulations.
The proposal is located within the Planned Action Area
pursuant to Exhibit A of Ordinance XXX.
The proposed use(s) are listed in Section 4.D of
Ordinance XXX and qualify as a Planned Action.
D. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action Project.
It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations, except that no SEPA threshold
determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required.
Notice shall be made pursuant to KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned
Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in KCC Chapter 12.01 Administration of Development Regulations.
NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, this determination shall be amended.
Signature
Date:
B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: The application is not consistent with the criteria of Ordinance XXX, and does not qualify as a Planned Action Project for the following reasons:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to
meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
SEPA Process Prescribed: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature:
Date:
154
Exhibit B 47
155
156
1 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT G
Infill Exemption
Option 1
Original Proposal
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing an infill
exemption allowance for the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Area pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent (City) has adopted a Comprehensive Plan
complying with the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
157
2 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management
Act (GMA) through an exemption for infill development pursuant to RCW
43.21C.229, as amended by SB 6406, effective July 10, 2012.
E. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
F. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
G. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown Subarea. Together these are referenced as
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
158
3 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
H. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through an SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
I. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
159
4 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
J. After providing appropriate public notice, the City Council of the City
of Kent conducted a public hearing on November 12, 2013, to consider the
Infill Exemption Ordinance.
K. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
L. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose
of this Ordinance is to:
A. Exempt residential, mixed use, and selected commercial infill
development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Kent
development regulations, and the development studied in the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Draft and Final SEIS (2013 SEIS) and the
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS completed in 2011, collectively referenced as the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS; and,
160
5 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law,
that will determine whether proposed exempt projects within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
qualify for exemption from SEPA review; and,
C. Provide the public with information about how the City will
process infill exemptions; and,
D. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
infill exemption thresholds defined in this ordinance to address the impacts
of future development contemplated by this ordinance.
SECTION 2. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW
36.70A); and
B. The City is adopting the Downtown Subarea Action Plan, a
subarea plan under the GMA, and associated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments as appropriate; and
C The Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption
Area encompasses an area of approximately 408 gross acres; and
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared
for the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area; and
E. The thresholds incorporated in this ordinance, together with
adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant
impacts from development within the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area ; and
161
6 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
F. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan and associated
development regulations identify the location, type and amount of
development that is contemplated by the infill exemption; and
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and this ordinance
will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic
development; and
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and 2013 SEIS, has
considered all comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the
proposal in response to comments.
SECTION 3. – New Section. Chapter 11.03 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new section 11.03.215, entitled, “Categorical
exemptions for residential mixed use and residential infill development,”
and reads as follows:
Sec. 11.03.215. Categorical exemptions for residential mixed
use and residential infill development.
A. Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated. The city designates a categorical exemption for construction of
residential developments, non-retail commercial developments less than
65,000 square feet in size, and mixed use developments under RCW
43.21C.229 in the following boundary.
162
7 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Exempt Levels of Construction and Trips. In order to
accommodate residential mixed use and residential infill development in
the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city establishes the
following exempt levels for construction of residential developments and
mixed use developments under RCW 43.21C.229, considered the Mixed
Use and Infill Development and Trip Bank.
1. Exempt levels of infill residential and mixed use
development through the year 2031 are shown in the table below. No
individual stand-alone non-retail commercial development shall exceed
65,000 square feet in size.
163
8 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Growth Type Base Year (2006)
DSAP Study Area
Alternative 2 Moderate
Growth Total (2031)
Alternative 2 - Net
Growth (2031)
Households 4,530 8,090 3,560
Jobs1 3,184 5,507 2,323
Total Activity Units
(Jobs and Households) 7,714 13,597 5,883
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures
in the prior 2011 EIS. However, these elements make up only 3% of the job totals.
For the purposes of this section:
a. Infill means: Residential developments, non-
retail commercial developments less than 65,000 square feet in size, and
mixed use developments on unused and underutilized lands within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area.
b. Mixed use development means: Two (2) or more
permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one
another on the same site. A mixed use development may include two (2)
or more separate buildings if the requirements of this section are met,
provided that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as
defined in KCC 15.02.170, be a permitted commercial use. For mixed use
development in the General Commercial district, the percentage of gross
floor area that must be a permitted commercial use may be reduced to five
(5) percent. The residential component of any mixed use development
cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy
of the commercial component.
2. To be considered for the infill exemption, where a
proposal includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height
shall be two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those
studied in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the
subject zoning district.
164
9 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
3. For infill residential and mixed use development in the
area designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city may permit up to
3,790 new trips over the existing trips, consistent with Alternative 2, as
established by the SEPA responsible official in the City of Kent Downtown
Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Draft and Final SEIS issued June 21,
2013 and October 4, 2013, respectively.
C. Traffic Analysis, Concurrency, Impact Fees. In determining
whether or not a proposal is exempt, the SEPA responsible official shall
consider a traffic analysis based on the quantity of development units and
the related applicable trip generation.
1. Concurrency. All exempt development applications
shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS
thresholds established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008
Transportation Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service
established in the 2013 DSAP SEIS.
2. Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance are updated, infill exemption
proposals shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle
improvements identified below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee
program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated
impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
165
10 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure
Type
Infill Exemption Area
3,790 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $6,9001 $1.82
Pedestrian $1,400,000 $369.39
Bicycle $1,428,000 $376.78
Total $2,834,900 $747.99
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action and Infill Exemption Areas
according to the number of trips generated (31 percent by the Planned Action Area and 69 percent by the Infill
Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
3. Impact Fees: Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development
to pay its fair share for capital improvement projects in the city’s
Transportation Master Plan and provides guidance for how impact fees are
to be assessed.
4. Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Infill Exemption Ordinance.
D. Development will be allowed under this exemption up to the
point that development levels of housing, jobs, and trips have been
achieved, unless denied by concurrency.
E. Parks and Open Space. Until such time as the city adopts a
new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code amendments
addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and
requirements applicable to the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply.
166
11 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Following adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code
amendments such standards shall supersede the measures below.
1. Urban Park Space: Each infill exemption proposal shall
dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of public park area
per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
subsection (E)(2) of this section.
2. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each infill
exemption proposal shall provide private onsite recreation space for
leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square
feet per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is
required to provide the private space in one or more of the following
arrangements.
a. An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
b. Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s
play area
c. Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the parks and community services director. Alternatively up
to fifty (50) percent of the private open space may be accomplished offsite
or through a fee in lieu consistent with subsection (E)(3) of this section.
3. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City
may allow up to fifty (50) percent of the private recreation space and up to
one hundred (100) percent of the public recreation space in subsections
(E)(1) and (E)(2) of this section to be: 1) accomplished offsite as approved
by the parks and community services director; or 2) a fee-in-lieu of
providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
F. Cultural Resources: The following mitigation measures shall
apply to infill exemption proposals:
167
12 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. In the event that a future development project in the
study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an
archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the potential
impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed,
a study conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be
conducted at the applicant’s expense to determine whether the proposed
development project would materially impact the archaeological resource.
2. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be
avoided, the city shall require that an applicant obtain all appropriate
permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any required
archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that
would disturb archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a
permit must be obtained from the department of archaeology and historic
preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known archaeological resource or
site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project
alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area
of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or
mitigating impacts.
3. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop
work and notify the city, DAHP and affected tribes if archaeological
resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the
city may require implementation of subsections (F)(4) and (F)(5) of this
section.
4. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that
is determined eligible for listing on either state or national historic
registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding mitigation
options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the city.
5. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties
within the Infill Exemption area, the city will notify the state historic
preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
168
13 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals
consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
G. Water Quality: By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in
place to address water quality treatment and promote low impact
development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to
2016, the city shall require that applicants identify any low impact
development (LID) techniques described in the 2012 Ecology manual and
demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible. As part
of required land use, building, or construction permits, the city may
condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-appropriate LID
techniques.
H. Air Quality Control Plans: The City shall require all
construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best
management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted
by diesel construction equipment, including but not limited to the following
measures.
1. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
2. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control
methods on unpaved roadways.
3. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved
surfaces.
4. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
5. Cover soil piles when practical.
6. Minimize work during periods of high winds when
practical.
7. Maintain the engines of construction equipment
according to manufacturers’ specifications.
169
14 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
8. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not
in use.
9. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be
permitted without express approval from the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction
projects in the study area.
I. Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Infill exemption applicants shall
identify the greenhouse gas reduction measures that are being
implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures listed in
the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS are not included or are not applicable. The city shall, as
appropriate, condition infill exemption applications to incorporate reduction
measures determined by the city to be feasible and appropriate for site
conditions, based on the development application.
J. Solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle
pathways, parks, schools and other areas sensitive to shading shall be
preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level setbacks for adjacent
development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of
daytime use.
K. The city may condition infill exemption proposals to
incorporate site design measures that preserve significant public views
from public areas.
L. Infill exemptions shall comply with the following noise
mitigation measures:
170
15 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the
following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into construction plans
and contractor specifications:
a. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving
properties to decrease noise from that equipment.
b. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary
equipment located near sensitive receivers to reduce noise.
c. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours.
d. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate
unnecessary noise.
e. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all
equipment to potentially reduce noise effects.
f. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud
actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel
plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas to reduce noise effects.
2. At its discretion, the city may require all prospective
infill exemption developers to use low-noise mechanical equipment
adequate to ensure compliance with the city’s daytime and nighttime noise
ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development,
the city may require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to
forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control
measures.
3. To address traffic and transit noise, the city may, at its
discretion, require new residential development to install triple-pane glass
windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under
the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
M. Exemption Procedure. Upon approval of the proposal
according to the provisions of Chapter 12.01 KCC, the SEPA responsible
official shall remove dwellings, jobs, and trips from the levels specified in
171
16 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
subsections (B)(1) and (B)(3) of this section. These exempt levels are not
applicable once the total available units, jobs, or trips have been utilized.
N. General Monitoring. The SEPA responsible official will monitor
the total development approved as part of the development approval
process for any development in the area designated in subsection (A) of
this section, whether considered exempt or not, in order to ensure that the
available units, square feet, and trips cumulatively address growth planned
for the designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical
Exemption Area.
SECTION 4. – New Subsection. Section 11.03.220, entitled, “Use
of exemptions,” is amended by adding a new subsection (D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.03.220. Use of exemptions.
A. Each department within the city that receives an application
for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department
initiating the proposal, shall determine whether the license and/or the
proposal is exempt. The department’s determination that a proposal is
exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a
proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter
apply to the proposal. The city shall not require completion of an
environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the
department shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall
identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a
proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the department shall
172
17 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the
department’s consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions,
the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the
procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse
environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of
reasonable alternatives.
2. A department may withhold approval of an exempt
action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when
such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not
approved; and
3. A department may withhold approval of exempt actions
that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant
when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were
not approved.
D. The city may authorize a categorical exemption for residential
mixed use, non-retain commercial space, and residential infill development
for specifically designated portions of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
area pursuant to KCC section 11.03.215.
SECTION 5. – 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
173
18 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
correction of clerical errors; Ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – 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 7. – Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2013.
APPROVED: day of , 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2013.
174
19 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO_Infill\FINAL_Infillexempord.Docx
175
176
1 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT H
Infill Exemption
Option #2
DCE Zoning Boundary
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing an infill
exemption allowance for the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Area pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent (City) has adopted a Comprehensive Plan
complying with the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
177
2 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management
Act (GMA) through an exemption for infill development pursuant to RCW
43.21C.229, as amended by SB 6406, effective July 10, 2012.
E. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
F. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
G. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown Subarea. Together these are referenced as
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
178
3 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
H. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through an SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
I. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
179
4 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
J. After providing appropriate public notice, the City Council of the City
of Kent conducted a public hearing on November 12, 2013, to consider the
Infill Exemption Ordinance.
K. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
L. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose
of this Ordinance is to:
A. Exempt residential, mixed use, and selected commercial infill
development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Kent
development regulations, and the development studied in the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Draft and Final SEIS (2013 SEIS) and the
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS completed in 2011, collectively referenced as the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS; and,
180
5 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law,
that will determine whether proposed exempt projects within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
qualify for exemption from SEPA review; and,
C. Provide the public with information about how the City will
process infill exemptions; and,
D. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
infill exemption thresholds defined in this ordinance to address the impacts
of future development contemplated by this ordinance.
SECTION 2. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW
36.70A); and
B. The City is adopting the Downtown Subarea Action Plan, a
subarea plan under the GMA, and associated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments as appropriate; and
C The Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption
Area encompasses an area of approximately 408 gross acres; and
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared
for the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area; and
E. The thresholds incorporated in this ordinance, together with
adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant
impacts from development within the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area ; and
181
6 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
F. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan and associated
development regulations identify the location, type and amount of
development that is contemplated by the infill exemption; and
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and this ordinance
will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic
development; and
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and 2013 SEIS, has
considered all comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the
proposal in response to comments.
SECTION 3. – New Section. Chapter 11.03 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new section 11.03.215, entitled, “Categorical
exemptions for residential mixed use and residential infill development,”
and reads as follows:
Sec. 11.03.215. Categorical exemptions for residential mixed
use and residential infill development.
A. Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated. The city designates a categorical exemption for construction of
residential developments, non-retail commercial developments less than
65,000 square feet in size, and mixed use developments under RCW
43.21C.229 in the following boundary.
182
7 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Exempt Levels of Construction and Trips. In order to
accommodate residential mixed use and residential infill development in
the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city establishes the
following exempt levels for construction of residential developments and
mixed use developments under RCW 43.21C.229, considered the Mixed
Use and Infill Development and Trip Bank.
1. Exempt levels of infill residential and mixed use
development through the year 2031 are shown in the table below. No
individual stand-alone non-retail commercial development shall exceed
65,000 square feet in size.
183
8 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Growth Type Base Year (2006)
DSAP Study Area
Alternative 2 Moderate
Growth Total (2031)
Alternative 2 - Net
Growth (2031)
Households 4,5304,476 8,0907,859 3,5603,383
Jobs1 3,184 5,5075,411 2,3232,227
Total Activity Units
(Jobs and Households) 7,7147,660 13,59713,270 5,8835,610
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures
in the prior 2011 EIS. However, these elements make up only 3% of the job totals.
For the purposes of this section:
a. Infill means: Residential developments, non-
retail commercial developments less than 65,000 square feet in size, and
mixed use developments on unused and underutilized lands within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area.
b. Mixed use development means: Two (2) or more
permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one
another on the same site. A mixed use development may include two (2)
or more separate buildings if the requirements of this section are met,
provided that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as
defined in KCC 15.02.170, be a permitted commercial use. For mixed use
development in the General Commercial district, the percentage of gross
floor area that must be a permitted commercial use may be reduced to five
(5) percent. The residential component of any mixed use development
cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy
of the commercial component.
2. To be considered for the infill exemption, where a
proposal includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height
shall be two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those
studied in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the
subject zoning district.
184
9 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
3. For infill residential and mixed use development in the
area designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city may permit up to
3,7903,580 new trips over the existing trips, consistent with Alternative 2,
as established by the SEPA responsible official in the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Draft and Final SEIS issued
June 21, 2013 and October 4, 2013, respectively.
C. Traffic Analysis, Concurrency, Impact Fees. In determining
whether or not a proposal is exempt, the SEPA responsible official shall
consider a traffic analysis based on the quantity of development units and
the related applicable trip generation.
1. Concurrency. All exempt development applications
shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS
thresholds established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008
Transportation Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service
established in the 2013 DSAP SEIS.
2. Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance are updated, infill exemption
proposals shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle
improvements identified below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee
program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated
impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
185
10 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure
Type
Infill Exemption Area
3,7903,580 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $7,0006,9001 $1.821.96
Pedestrian $1,400,0001,200,000 $369.39335.20
Bicycle $1,428,000 $376.78398.00
Total $2,834,9002,635,000 $747.99736.04
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action and Infill Exemption Areas
according to the number of trips generated (31 30 percent by the Planned Action Area and 69 70 percent by the
Infill Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
3. Impact Fees: Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development
to pay its fair share for capital improvement projects in the city’s
Transportation Master Plan and provides guidance for how impact fees are
to be assessed.
4. Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Infill Exemption Ordinance.
D. Development will be allowed under this exemption up to the
point that development levels of housing, jobs, and trips have been
achieved, unless denied by concurrency.
E. Parks and Open Space. Until such time as the city adopts a
new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code amendments
addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and
requirements applicable to the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply.
186
11 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Following adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code
amendments such standards shall supersede the measures below.
1. Urban Park Space: Each infill exemption proposal shall
dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of public park area
per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
subsection (E)(23) of this section.
2. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each infill
exemption proposal shall provide private onsite recreation space for
leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square
feet per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is
required to provide the private space in one or more of the following
arrangements.
a. An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
b. Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s
play area
c. Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the parks and community services director. Alternatively up
to fifty (50) percent of the private open space may be accomplished offsite
or through a fee in lieu consistent with subsection (E)(3) of this section.
3. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City
may allow up to fifty (50) percent of the private recreation space and up to
one hundred (100) percent of the public recreation space in subsections
(E)(1) and (E)(2) of this section to be: 1) accomplished offsite as approved
by the parks and community services director; or 2) a fee-in-lieu of
providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
F. Cultural Resources: The following mitigation measures shall
apply to infill exemption proposals:
187
12 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. In the event that a future development project in the
study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an
archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the potential
impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed,
a study conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be
conducted at the applicant’s expense to determine whether the proposed
development project would materially impact the archaeological resource.
2. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be
avoided, the city shall require that an applicant obtain all appropriate
permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any required
archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that
would disturb archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a
permit must be obtained from the department of archaeology and historic
preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known archaeological resource or
site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project
alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area
of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or
mitigating impacts.
3. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop
work and notify the city, DAHP and affected tribes if archaeological
resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the
city may require implementation of subsections (F)(41) and (F)(52) of this
section.
4. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that
is determined eligible for listing on either state or national historic
registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding mitigation
options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the city.
5. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties
within the Infill Exemption area, the city will notify the state historic
preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
188
13 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals
consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
G. Water Quality: By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in
place to address water quality treatment and promote low impact
development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to
2016, the city shall require that applicants identify any low impact
development (LID) techniques described in the 2012 Ecology manual and
demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible. As part
of required land use, building, or construction permits, the city may
condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-appropriate LID
techniques.
H. Air Quality Control Plans: The City shall require all
construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best
management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted
by diesel construction equipment, including but not limited to the following
measures.
1. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
2. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control
methods on unpaved roadways.
3. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved
surfaces.
4. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
5. Cover soil piles when practical.
6. Minimize work during periods of high winds when
practical.
7. Maintain the engines of construction equipment
according to manufacturers’ specifications.
189
14 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
8. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not
in use.
9. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be
permitted without express approval from the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction
projects in the study area.
I. Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Infill exemption applicants shall
identify the greenhouse gas reduction measures that are being
implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures listed in
the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS are not included or are not applicable. The city shall, as
appropriate, condition infill exemption applications to incorporate reduction
measures determined by the city to be feasible and appropriate for site
conditions, based on the development application.
J. Solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle
pathways, parks, schools and other areas sensitive to shading shall be
preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level setbacks for adjacent
development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of
daytime use.
K. The city may condition infill exemption proposals to
incorporate site design measures that preserve significant public views
from public areas.
L. Infill exemptions shall comply with the following noise
mitigation measures:
190
15 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the
following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into construction plans
and contractor specifications:
a. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving
properties to decrease noise from that equipment.
b. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary
equipment located near sensitive receivers to reduce noise.
c. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours.
d. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate
unnecessary noise.
e. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all
equipment to potentially reduce noise effects.
f. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud
actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel
plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas to reduce noise effects.
2. At its discretion, the city may require all prospective
infill exemption developers to use low-noise mechanical equipment
adequate to ensure compliance with the city’s daytime and nighttime noise
ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development,
the city may require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to
forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control
measures.
3. To address traffic and transit noise, the city may, at its
discretion, require new residential development to install triple-pane glass
windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under
the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
M. Exemption Procedure. Upon approval of the proposal
according to the provisions of Chapter 12.01 KCC, the SEPA responsible
official shall remove dwellings, jobs, and trips from the levels specified in
191
16 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
subsections (B)(1) and (B)(3) of this section. These exempt levels are not
applicable once the total available units, jobs, or trips have been utilized.
N. General Monitoring. The SEPA responsible official will monitor
the total development approved as part of the development approval
process for any development in the area designated in subsection (A) of
this section, whether considered exempt or not, in order to ensure that the
available units, square feet, and trips cumulatively address growth planned
for the designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical
Exemption Area.
SECTION 4. – New Subsection. Section 11.03.220, entitled, “Use
of exemptions,” is amended by adding a new subsection (D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.03.220. Use of exemptions.
A. Each department within the city that receives an application
for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department
initiating the proposal, shall determine whether the license and/or the
proposal is exempt. The department’s determination that a proposal is
exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a
proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter
apply to the proposal. The city shall not require completion of an
environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the
department shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall
identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a
proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the department shall
192
17 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the
department’s consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions,
the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the
procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse
environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of
reasonable alternatives.
2. A department may withhold approval of an exempt
action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when
such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not
approved; and
3. A department may withhold approval of exempt actions
that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant
when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were
not approved.
D. The city may authorize a categorical exemption for residential
mixed use, non-retain commercial space, and residential infill development
for specifically designated portions of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
area pursuant to KCC section 11.03.215.
SECTION 5. – 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
193
18 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
correction of clerical errors; Ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – 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 7. – Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2013.
APPROVED: day of , 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2013.
194
19 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\ECDC\12-9-13\Finalordinances\Option2_Infillexempord.Docx
195
196
1 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT I
Infill Exemption
Option #3
DCE Zoning Boundary
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing an infill
exemption allowance for the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Area pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act.
RECITALS
A. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development
Committee recommended to the City Council passage of a resolution
declaring an emergency under the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.130(2)(b), and 12.02.010.A.1 Kent City Code, to pursue an
amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the 2005 Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The City Council passed Resolution 1857 on June 5,
2012 declaring an emergency.
B. The City of Kent (City) has adopted a Comprehensive Plan
complying with the GMA.
C. To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea
197
2 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Action Plan (DSAP) Update. The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision
statement and strategies for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood
urban centers.
D. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning
and project review by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management
Act (GMA) through an exemption for infill development pursuant to RCW
43.21C.229, as amended by SB 6406, effective July 10, 2012.
E. On October 9, 2012, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued a
Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, solicited public comment through a
November 1, 2012, open house meeting, and invited comments during the
scoping period, which closed November 2, 2012. A Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was issued on June 21, 2013.
The Draft SEIS was considered during a public hearing on the DSAP, which
was held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 2013. A Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was issued on October 4, 2013.
F. The DSAP SEIS supplements the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement completed in 2011 (2011 EIS).
G. The City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS (referenced as the 2013 SEIS) and the 2011 EIS jointly
identify impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned
development in the Downtown Subarea. Together these are referenced as
the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
198
3 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
H. The City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities
through an SEIS scoping period in October 2012, and for the DSAP Update
in 2012 and 2013 as part of a coordinated DSAP public participation
program.
Extensive community visioning was conducted through individual
interviews, three neighborhood meetings, and two online surveys.
A Downtown Steering Committee consisting of community business
and property owners, local developers, citizens, and city leadership,
convened seven (7) times between July 2012 and April 2013 for the
purpose of advising the DSAP update.
The Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on June 25, 2012,
October 22, 2012, March 11, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 28, 2013,
and June 24, 2013, to review the DSAP update and associated
comprehensive plan and zoning text and map amendments. On July
8, 2013, and July 22, 2013, the Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing to consider the draft DSAP update, land use plan map
amendments, rezones, comprehensive plan and zoning text
amendments and the Draft SEIS.
The City conducted three briefings and meetings with the City
Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee on June
11, 2012, March 11, 2013, and October 14, 2013.
The City Council was briefed on the DSAP Update and
recommendations at a workshop held on September 17, 2013.
I. The City has adopted development regulations and ordinances that
will help protect the environment, and is adopting regulations specific to
the Downtown Subarea that will guide the allocation, form and quality of
desired development.
199
4 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
J. After providing appropriate public notice, the City Council of the City
of Kent conducted a public hearing on November 12, 2013, to consider the
Infill Exemption Ordinance.
K. On June 19 and June 21, 2013, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
for the DSAP Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments,
Draft Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances. On July 23, 2013,
the City provided the State of Washington the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 for the Mixed Use Overlay Code
Amendments and code reference correction for downtown design
guidelines. The sixty (60) day notice periods have lapsed.
L. On October 4, 2013, the City’s SEPA responsible official issued the
Final Planned Action SEIS for the DSAP Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose
of this Ordinance is to:
A. Exempt residential, mixed use, and selected commercial infill
development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Kent
development regulations, and the development studied in the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Draft and Final SEIS (2013 SEIS) and the
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS completed in 2011, collectively referenced as the Combined
DSAP Planned Action EIS; and,
200
5 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law,
that will determine whether proposed exempt projects within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
qualify for exemption from SEPA review; and,
C. Provide the public with information about how the City will
process infill exemptions; and,
D. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the
infill exemption thresholds defined in this ordinance to address the impacts
of future development contemplated by this ordinance.
SECTION 2. - Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW
36.70A); and
B. The City is adopting the Downtown Subarea Action Plan, a
subarea plan under the GMA, and associated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments as appropriate; and
C The Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption
Area encompasses an area of approximately 408 gross acres; and
D. The Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS has been prepared
for the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area; and
E. The thresholds incorporated in this ordinance, together with
adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant
impacts from development within the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area ; and
201
6 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
F. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan and associated
development regulations identify the location, type and amount of
development that is contemplated by the infill exemption; and
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and this ordinance
will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic
development; and
H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and 2013 SEIS, has
considered all comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the
proposal in response to comments.
SECTION 3. – New Section. Chapter 11.03 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new section 11.03.215, entitled, “Categorical
exemptions for residential mixed use and residential infill development,”
and reads as follows:
Sec. 11.03.215. Categorical exemptions for residential mixed
use and residential infill development.
A. Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated. The city designates a categorical exemption for construction of
residential developments, non-retail commercial developments less than
65,000 square feet in size, and mixed use developments under RCW
43.21C.229 in the following boundary.
202
7 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
B. Exempt Levels of Construction and Trips. In order to
accommodate residential mixed use and residential infill development in
the Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area
Designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city establishes the
following exempt levels for construction of residential developments and
mixed use developments under RCW 43.21C.229, considered the Mixed
Use and Infill Development and Trip Bank.
1. Exempt levels of infill residential and mixed use
development through the year 2031 are shown in the table below. No
individual stand-alone non-retail commercial development shall exceed
65,000 square feet in size.
203
8 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Growth Type Base Year (2006)
DSAP Study Area
Alternative 2 Moderate
Growth Total (2031)
Alternative 2 - Net
Growth (2031)
Households 4,5304,505 8,0907,978 3,5603,473
Jobs1 3,184 5,507 2,323
Total Activity Units
(Jobs and Households) 7,7147,689 13,59713,485 5,8835,796
1 Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of "jobs" consistent with the presentation of growth figures
in the prior 2011 EIS. However, these elements make up only 3% of the job totals.
For the purposes of this section:
a. Infill means: Residential developments, non-
retail commercial developments less than 65,000 square feet in size, and
mixed use developments on unused and underutilized lands within the
designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical Exemption Area.
b. Mixed use development means: Two (2) or more
permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one
another on the same site. A mixed use development may include two (2)
or more separate buildings if the requirements of this section are met,
provided that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as
defined in KCC 15.02.170, be a permitted commercial use. For mixed use
development in the General Commercial district, the percentage of gross
floor area that must be a permitted commercial use may be reduced to five
(5) percent. The residential component of any mixed use development
cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy
of the commercial component.
2. To be considered for the infill exemption, where a
proposal includes the construction of a new building, the minimum height
shall be two stories. The maximum height shall be consistent with those
studied in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS and applicable in the
subject zoning district.
204
9 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
3. For infill residential and mixed use development in the
area designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city may permit up to
3,7903,740 new trips over the existing trips, consistent with Alternative 2,
as established by the SEPA responsible official in the City of Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Draft and Final SEIS issued
June 21, 2013 and October 4, 2013, respectively.
C. Traffic Analysis, Concurrency, Impact Fees. In determining
whether or not a proposal is exempt, the SEPA responsible official shall
consider a traffic analysis based on the quantity of development units and
the related applicable trip generation.
1. Concurrency. All exempt development applications
shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS
thresholds established in Chapter 12.11 KCC, as amended by the 2008
Transportation Master Plan, and the multimodal levels of service
established in the 2013 DSAP SEIS.
2. Traffic Impact Mitigation. Until the 2008 Transportation
Master Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance are updated, infill exemption
proposals shall pay their cost per trip for the street, pedestrian, and bicycle
improvements identified below as part of the DSAP Study Area fee
program in addition to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and associated
impact fee program, KCC 12.14 Transportation Impact Fees.
205
10 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Mitigation Measure
Type
Infill Exemption Area
3,7903,740 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $7,0006,9001 $1.821.87
Pedestrian $1,400,000 $369.39374.33
Bicycle $1,428,000 $376.78381.82
Total $2,834,9002,835,000 $747.99758.02
Notes:
1. The total cost of $10,000 is shared proportionately between the Planned Action and Infill Exemption Areas
according to the number of trips generated (31 30 percent by the Planned Action Area and 69 70 percent by the
Infill Exemption Area).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
3. Impact Fees: Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development
to pay its fair share for capital improvement projects in the city’s
Transportation Master Plan and provides guidance for how impact fees are
to be assessed.
4. Discretion. The public works director or the director’s
designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip
generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at
the director’s sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed
under this Infill Exemption Ordinance.
D. Development will be allowed under this exemption up to the
point that development levels of housing, jobs, and trips have been
achieved, unless denied by concurrency.
E. Parks and Open Space. Until such time as the city adopts a
new Parks and Open Space Plan, and adopts Kent City Code amendments
addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and
requirements applicable to the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area, the following mitigation measures shall apply.
206
11 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
Following adoption of a new Parks and Open Space Plan Kent City Code
amendments such standards shall supersede the measures below.
1. Urban Park Space: Each infill exemption proposal shall
dedicate onsite two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of public park area
per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with
subsection (E)(23) of this section.
2. Private Onsite Recreation and Open Space: Each infill
exemption proposal shall provide private onsite recreation space for
leisure, play, and sport activities at a ratio of two hundred (200) square
feet per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is
required to provide the private space in one or more of the following
arrangements.
a. An individual balcony or screened patio for each unit
b. Small, shared courtyards and a furnished children’s
play area
c. Roof-top open space – roof garden or game court
The recreation space proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the parks and community services director. Alternatively up
to fifty (50) percent of the private open space may be accomplished offsite
or through a fee in lieu consistent with subsection (E)(3) of this section.
3. Through a negotiated voluntary agreement the City
may allow up to fifty (50) percent of the private recreation space and up to
one hundred (100) percent of the public recreation space in subsections
(E)(1) and (E)(2) of this section to be: 1) accomplished offsite as approved
by the parks and community services director; or 2) a fee-in-lieu of
providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065.
F. Cultural Resources: The following mitigation measures shall
apply to infill exemption proposals:
207
12 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. In the event that a future development project in the
study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an
archaeological resource, as defined in Chapter 27.53 RCW, the potential
impacts on the archaeological resource shall be considered and, if needed,
a study conducted by a professional archaeologist shall be required to be
conducted at the applicant’s expense to determine whether the proposed
development project would materially impact the archaeological resource.
2. If the impacts on archaeological resources cannot be
avoided, the city shall require that an applicant obtain all appropriate
permits consistent with state and federal laws and that any required
archaeological studies are completed before permitting any project that
would disturb archaeological resource(s). Under Chapter 27.53 RCW, a
permit must be obtained from the department of archaeology and historic
preservation (DAHP) prior to disturbing a known archaeological resource or
site. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project
alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area
of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or
mitigating impacts.
3. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop
work and notify the city, DAHP and affected tribes if archaeological
resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the
city may require implementation of subsections (F)(41) and (F)(52) of this
section.
4. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that
is determined eligible for listing on either state or national historic
registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding mitigation
options and shall provide documentation of consultation to the city.
5. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties
within the Infill Exemption area, the city will notify the state historic
preservation officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or
208
13 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals
consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC.
G. Water Quality: By December 31, 2016, regulations will be in
place to address water quality treatment and promote low impact
development measures that are equivalent to the 2012 Department of
Ecology Western Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Prior to
2016, the city shall require that applicants identify any low impact
development (LID) techniques described in the 2012 Ecology manual and
demonstrate why unincorporated LID techniques are not feasible. As part
of required land use, building, or construction permits, the city may
condition applications to incorporate feasible and site-appropriate LID
techniques.
H. Air Quality Control Plans: The City shall require all
construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for
construction activities. The air quality control plans will include best
management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted
by diesel construction equipment, including but not limited to the following
measures.
1. Develop a fugitive dust control plan.
2. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control
methods on unpaved roadways.
3. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved
surfaces.
4. Prevent track out of mud onto public streets.
5. Cover soil piles when practical.
6. Minimize work during periods of high winds when
practical.
7. Maintain the engines of construction equipment
according to manufacturers’ specifications.
209
14 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
8. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not
in use.
9. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be
permitted without express approval from the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction
projects in the study area.
I. Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Infill exemption applicants shall
identify the greenhouse gas reduction measures that are being
implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures listed in
the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS are not included or are not applicable. The city shall, as
appropriate, condition infill exemption applications to incorporate reduction
measures determined by the city to be feasible and appropriate for site
conditions, based on the development application.
J. Solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle
pathways, parks, schools and other areas sensitive to shading shall be
preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level setbacks for adjacent
development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall
minimize casting shadows on public spaces during their primary hours of
daytime use.
K. The city may condition infill exemption proposals to
incorporate site design measures that preserve significant public views
from public areas.
L. Infill exemptions shall comply with the following noise
mitigation measures:
210
15 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
1. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the
following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into construction plans
and contractor specifications:
a. Locating stationary equipment away from receiving
properties to decrease noise from that equipment.
b. Erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary
equipment located near sensitive receivers to reduce noise.
c. Limiting construction activities between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours.
d. Turning off idling construction equipment to eliminate
unnecessary noise.
e. Requiring contractors to rigorously maintain all
equipment to potentially reduce noise effects.
f. Training construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud
actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel
plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas to reduce noise effects.
2. At its discretion, the city may require all prospective
infill exemption developers to use low-noise mechanical equipment
adequate to ensure compliance with the city’s daytime and nighttime noise
ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development,
the city may require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to
forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control
measures.
3. To address traffic and transit noise, the city may, at its
discretion, require new residential development to install triple-pane glass
windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under
the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010).
M. Exemption Procedure. Upon approval of the proposal
according to the provisions of Chapter 12.01 KCC, the SEPA responsible
official shall remove dwellings, jobs, and trips from the levels specified in
211
16 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
subsections (B)(1) and (B)(3) of this section. These exempt levels are not
applicable once the total available units, jobs, or trips have been utilized.
N. General Monitoring. The SEPA responsible official will monitor
the total development approved as part of the development approval
process for any development in the area designated in subsection (A) of
this section, whether considered exempt or not, in order to ensure that the
available units, square feet, and trips cumulatively address growth planned
for the designated Mixed Use and Infill Development Categorical
Exemption Area.
SECTION 4. – New Subsection. Section 11.03.220, entitled, “Use
of exemptions,” is amended by adding a new subsection (D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.03.220. Use of exemptions.
A. Each department within the city that receives an application
for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department
initiating the proposal, shall determine whether the license and/or the
proposal is exempt. The department’s determination that a proposal is
exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a
proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter
apply to the proposal. The city shall not require completion of an
environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the
department shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall
identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a
proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the department shall
212
17 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the
department’s consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions,
the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the
procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse
environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of
reasonable alternatives.
2. A department may withhold approval of an exempt
action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when
such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not
approved; and
3. A department may withhold approval of exempt actions
that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant
when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were
not approved.
D. The city may authorize a categorical exemption for residential
mixed use, non-retain commercial space, and residential infill development
for specifically designated portions of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan
area pursuant to KCC section 11.03.215.
SECTION 5. – 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
213
18 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
Ordinance
correction of clerical errors; Ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – 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 7. – Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in force five
(5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2013.
APPROVED: day of , 2013.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2013.
214
19 KCC 15.02 – Infill exemptions
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
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\ECDC\12-9-13\Finalordinances\Option3_Infillexempord.Docx
215
ATTACHMENT J
DECEMBER 9, 2013
ECDC MEETING
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
November 7, 2013
To: Chair Jamie Perry and Economic & Community Development Committee
From: Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner
Subject: Planned Action Ordinance for Downtown Subarea, and Infill Exemption
Ordinance for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Area (ENV-2012-30)
(KIVA-RPSA 2123291)
For the Public Hearing of November 12, 2013
SUMMARY: On October 4, 2013, the City issued the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the City of Kent Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Planned Action. As provided for in the State environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), WAC 197-11-164 and -168, a GMA jurisdiction may designate planned
actions that will benefit from a more simplified and consolidated SEPA review
process. Kent City Code (KCC) 11.03.0202 also provides for Planned Actions within
the City. Future development that utilizes the planned action process can be
streamlined because the environmental review for development within a specified
geographical area is contained within the EIS document and all of the SEPA
mitigating measures are outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). SEPA and
implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land
use planning and project review through an exemption for Infill development
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.229, as amended by SB 6406, effective July 10, 2012. The
PAO and Infill Ordinance streamline development review within the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan study area. As part of the process to adopt a Planned Action
Ordinance and the Infill Exemption Ordinance, state regulations require that
jurisdictions hold a public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION:
1. Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/modification of the:
(A) Planned Action Ordinance for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan;
(B) Infill Exemption Allowance for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan;
as evaluated in the Draft and Final City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action
Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS.
216
ENV-2012-30 of CPZ/CPA-2012-1
Downtown Subarea Action Plan – Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances
Economic & Community Development Committee
November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND: To guide Downtown’s growth and redevelopment, the City has
engaged in extensive planning for the Downtown Subarea and has adopted
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown Subarea Action
Plan (DSAP). The DSAP supports the City Council’s vision statement and strategies
for the creation of richly diverse neighborhood urban centers. The DSAP and
associated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
are based upon Alternative #2 (Moderate Growth Scenario) as evaluated in the
Draft and Final Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSAP SEIS). SEPA and its implementing rules
provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and
project review through designation of “Planned Actions” and “Infill Exemptions” by
jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
A supplemental EIS was issued for the DSAP area because it builds upon previous
environmental review that was completed under the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS completed in 2011
(referenced as the 2011 EIS). The DSAP SEIS and the 2011 EIS identify impacts
and mitigation measures associated with development options in the Downtown
pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.031. Together these environmental documents are
referenced as the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS.
(A) DSAP Planned Action Ordinance
On October 14th, the Economic & Community Development Committee held a
community meeting to solicit public comments on designating a Planned Action
Ordinance (PAO) for a portion of the DSAP’s study area, consistent with RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b). The DSAP PAO and SEPA Mitigation Document is based on the
environmental analysis contained in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS (see
Attach A – PAO Ordinance). The PAO applies to an area shown in Attachment A;
Exhibit A. Mitigation measures are contained in Attachment A, Exhibit B, and
provide a summary of all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts,
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, and mitigating measures. The mitigation
measures are based on findings of the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS, and
along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to
apply appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action Projects. Together, the
PAO and existing development regulations will help protect the environment, and
will guide the allocation, form and quality of desired development.
(B) DSAP Infill Exemption Ordinance
The DSAP Infill Exemption Ordinance is based on the environmental analysis found
in the Combined DSAP Planned Action EIS (see Attach B – Infill Exemption
Ordinance). The Infill Exemption applies to an area shown in Attachment B, Section
3. Within this designated area, the City designates a categorical exemption for
construction of residential developments, non-retail commercial developments less
than 65,000 square feet in size, and mixed use development under RCW
43.21C.229. Mitigation measures associated with traffic impact, parks and open
space, cultural resources, water and air quality, and greenhouse gas reduction will
all be addressed by proposed development for Infill Exemption applicants.
217
ENV-2012-30 of CPZ/CPA-2012-1
Downtown Subarea Action Plan – Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances
Economic & Community Development Committee
November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 4
GGW/FS/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\Council\11-12-13\Memo_PAOInfill.docx
Enc: Attach A – Planned Action Ordinance; and Attach B – Infill Exemption Ordinance.
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney
Project Files ENV-2012-30
218
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
December 4, 2013
TO: Jamie Perry, Chair and ECDC Committee Members
FROM: Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
RE: Permit Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
The Economic & Community Development Department has been surveying our
permit customers for about three years now. We send it out via email to those who
get permits from the City. It is a relatively simple survey that takes only a few
minutes to fill out and email back. It asks respondents to rate our timeliness,
friendliness, helpfulness, among other things, as well as their overall permit
experience. There is also a box for any comment they wish to leave with us. We
get a terrific number of responses to the survey and the number of comments in
the comment box has increased over the years we have been conducting the
survey. Some of these comments have influenced the Department to make changes
in process or procedure and we have communicated this back to our customers. It
seems we are developing a dialogue with our customers as a result.
We recently conducted another survey of 600+ customers and will report the
results at the ECDC meeting on December 9th.
FS/pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2013\Packet Documents\12-09-13\customer service survey memo.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, E&CD Director
Kimberlee McArthur, Permit Center Manager
MOTION: For Informational Purposes Only
219