HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development - 11/12/2013 • Economic & Community Development
KENT wAsHINGToN Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Bill Boyce • Deborah Ranniger • Jamie Perry, Chair
AGENDA
Special Meeting Date & Time: November 12, 2013
6:30 p.m.
Item Description ActionSpeaker(s) Time Pace
1. Approval of the October 14, 2013 Minutes YES Jamie Perry 5 min 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: YES Fred Satterstrom 15 min 7
Consideration of Planned Action and Infill Gloria Gould-Wessen
Exemption Ordinances associated with the
Downtown Subarea Action Plan Study area.
3. Business Incubators NO Josh Hall 10 min 75
Informational Only Kurt Hanson
4. Economic Development Report NO Ben Wolters 10 min 0
Informational Only
Unless otherwise noted, the Planning and Economic Development Committee 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.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1025 on Thursday, November 7,
2013 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.
ForTDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
This page intentionally left blank.
400
iiiiiii -/ KENT
W.=r i
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger, Bill Boyce. Perry
called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm noting Committee Member Ranniger's absence.
1. Approval of Minutes
Committee Member Boyce Moved and Committee Member Perry Seconded a Motion
to approve the Minutes of September 9, 2013. Motion PASSED 2-0.
2. Right Size Parking Study
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that this item was presented to the Committee
at their September 91h meeting. She introduced Dan Bertolet of VIA Architecture and Rick
Williams of Rick Williams Consulting who reported on the Right Size Parking project and the
associated Kent pilot project.
Bertolet stated that this study is part of a three-year grant project funded by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHA) with the overall goal of promoting the efficient utilization of
parking resources associated with higher density residential buildings. The project is being
conducted by King County Metro in partnership with the FHA, the US Department of
Transportation, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Urban Land
Institute, and the Center for Neighborhood Technologies. The scope involves policy
research, parking utilization surveys, stakeholder engagement, a web-based parking
demand calculator, development of a model code, and demonstration projects.
Right-size parking is defined as striking an efficient balance between parking supply and
parking demand. Parking is expensive to build; upwards of $40,000 per stall when it is built
under a building and that expense can sometimes make or break a development project.
Overbuilt parking reduces housing affordability, encourages driving, contributes to
increased roadway congestion and makes alternative modes of transportation such as
walking or transit less attractive and efficient.
Tools and methods that informed parking supply regulations in the past are not working
and are often not appropriate for new higher density residential buildings. The basic
problem is that there is no clear understanding of what determines parking demand.
Existing sources don't account for building, transit, or land use factors that change parking
demand. People have found that the incorrect application of existing parking data has
become a major barrier to successful mixed use communities.
The team conducted parking lot counts and looked at over 220 higher density residential
buildings throughout King County (KC). Results showed on the average that parking is
supplied in these buildings at 1.4 parking stalls per dwelling unit and used at 1 space per
dwelling unit, equating to about 40 percent more parking being built than is used. Based on
the model code, all cities (aside from Seattle) require about 43 percent more parking in
their existing codes, than what would be needed based on the model.
The utilization survey data (USD) were inserted into a statistical model that predicts
parking demand based on land use and project characteristics. After analyzing over 100
variables, the project team trimmed them to eight variables which were used to develop
the model that could predict 72 percent of the observed variation in parking utilization.
Kent was approved for a pilot project to test right-size parking concepts. The deliverables
to Kent will be a Draft Parking Code and Draft Parking Strategies to help better manage
parking in Kent's downtown area, which is an intensifying mixed-use environment. The
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 1 of 6
2
code and strategies will be crafted to leverage the economic value of parking stalls and to
appropriately prioritize parking users in the downtown mixed use environment. Research
will include inventories of parking occupancy or parking utilization. The team members
include Rick Williams, Daniel Rowe-King County Metro Project Manager, Carol Cooper-King
County Metro, Chris Breiland-Transportation Planning, Fehr & Peers, City of Kent-Economic
and Community Development (ECD), Public Works and Police, and the Kent Downtown
Partnership.
The model code was intended as a resource for municipalities interested in updating their
parking codes to better support right size parking outcomes and consists of two distinct
approaches; market based and context based. A market based approach removes minimum
parking requirements and lets the market determine the optimum amount of parking that is
built and a context based approach means being smart about setting parking requirements
based on the unique context and characteristics of a given development project. As policy
researchers, the team believes the market based approach is most likely to lead to right
side parking outcomes as it removes the possibility that code will require someone to build
more parking than needed.
Williams stated that the context based option begins with reducing existing minimums
down to a level that does not result in a developer being required to provide more parking
than they need, therefore adding cost to the project. The intent of the right sizing project is
to get codes to the level that will allow the urban vision to occur.
For the Kent pilot project, the team is working with Kent to define a study boundary within
which all on and off-street parking will be inventoried. Data will be collected to track the
use of vehicles both in on-street stalls and through a large sampling of off-street supply to
get a sense of what Kent's current parking occupancies are like; whether Kent fits into the
40 percent model in terms of overbuild; and where constraints are and where surpluses
exist. The team will propose some recommendations for code changes, and based on
parking data will recommend strategies that could help Kent better manage their existing
and future parking supply.
The team will return to the Committee for further discussion.
Informational Only
3. Recognition of Pheasants Hollow Neighborhood Council (PHNC) - Resolution
Neighborhood Program Coordinator Toni Azzola introduced PHNC President, Nancy Jones,
stating that this is the twenty-fifth Kent neighborhood to be recognized. The Pheasants
Hollow Neighborhood (PHN) is located on Kent's East Hill, situated to the west of North
Meridian Park open space, to the north of SE 2241h Street, to the east of 1271h Avenue SE
and to the south of SE 231" Way, adjoining Misty Meadows. Ms. Jones stated that the PHN
is concerned with traffic and crime and hope to engage the surrounding community to work
with them in conjunction with the City to resolve those issues.
Committee Member Boyce MOVED and Committee Member Perry SECONDED a
Motion to recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which recognizes the
Pheasants Hollow Neighborhood Council, supports its community building effort,
and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. Motion
PASSED 2-0.
4. Mill Creek Historic Neighborhood Designation
Azzola introduced Sharon Bersaas-Vice President of Mill Creek Neighborhood (MCN)
Association, and Julie Kohler-Preservation Officer for the King County Historic Preservation
Program, stating that this is a proposal to move a nomination forward to King County. If
approved by Kent City Council and King County Historic Preservation and Landmarks
Commission Mill Creek would become the first historic neighborhood district in South King
County. The boundaries for the proposed historic district are Clark Avenue North to the
west, Hazel Avenue North to the east, Smith Street to the south, and a portion of Cedar
Street to the north.
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 2 of 6
3
Kent City Council adopted an ordinance in 2006 that adopted King County's code as the
criteria for designating Kent Landmarks; and established an interlocal agreement with the
King County Landmarks Commission (KCLC). Before a nomination can move forward to KC,
Kent City Council must approve the nomination to move forward.
Azzola stated that 49 of the homes constructed between 1903 and 1959 contribute to the
historic character of the area, retain all the elements of physical integrity noted in the
landmarks code and reflect a variety of architectural styles.
Koler explained that the MCN district is proposed because of its significance as a group of
homes which together illustrate a specific part of the history of Kent, and reflect what was
going on in the community socially and economically over the first six decades of the 201h
century.
Azzola stated that the neighborhood signifies a well preserved concentration of historic
homes with distinction. Azzola presented a series of slides which showed the various home
styles. The majority of the homeowners within the community favor being recognized as a
historic district. Bersaas stated that the historic district boundary is malleable over time and
can be amended to include others who would like to be included.
Committee Member Boyce MOVED and Committee Member Perry SECONDED a
Motion to recommend to the Full City Council Approval of the nomination of the
Mill Creek Historic District, authorize the King County Historic Preservation Officer
to process the nomination application pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement for
Landmark Services to be paid for by the Mill Creek Neighborhood Council, and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary Resolution. Motion PASSED 2-0.
S. Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) and Related Code Amendments
Economic and Community Development Director Ben Wolters stated that at the beginning
of this process City Council was informed that staff would be pursuing an amendment to
Kent's Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) to update the 2005 Downtown Strategic Action Plan
(2005 DSAP). Wolters stated that 75-80% of the Actions in the 2005 DSAP were
accomplished.
Wolters referred to Figure 4.1, a chart of proposed action items which include: zoning and
land use changes, adopting a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), establishing a planning and
permitting regulatory review process which is important for developers, citing the Platform
project.
Wolters directed attention to the Summary of Interviews and Responses undertaken by
Planning Director Fred Satterstrom; as well as the additional survey information included in
the report. He stated that the survey results were a great tool for Council to gauge the
temperature of how people perceived the Downtown area.
Satterstrom stated that the chart of proposed action items (Figure 4.1) is the crux of what
is proposed. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) sets the stage for
the PAO. The Committee is asked to act upon the Final DSAP, the DSAP Planned Action
SEIS, comprehensive plan and zoning districts map amendments and zoning and mixed use
text amendments.
Satterstrom stated that this plan sets the stage for downtown living based on the premise
that density is good for business, and that downtown will continue to be a place for people
to gather for entertainment and celebratory purposes.
Downtown is perceived as a preeminent place as illustrated on Figure 4.1 of the Actions
Item Matrix. Many actions encourage mixed-use, provide for urban residential living, and
encourage quality development through design control and incorporating urban design
principles.
Gould-Wessen stated that the land use plan and zoning map proposals are based on the
DSAP action item LU-2.1.A to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 3 of 6
4
Districts Map to encourage a diversity of urban uses and building forums, and to encourage
medium to high density uses. This action is moving forward along with the DSAP update.
Gould-Wessen stated that the land use map establishes desirable uses and supports a
variety of zoning. Gould-Wessen described the zoning currently existing in downtown and
west of SR-167. Zoning district changes will be supported by the land use changes.
Gould-Wessen stated that changing land use plan map designations for specific areas of
downtown to Urban Center (UC) will help Kent meet Growth Management Act (GMA)
obligations related to employment and residential unit growth. Intensive population and
employment growth is expected in an urban center, supported by and supporting mass
transit, rapid transit and the bus system.
Staff presented the proposed rezones recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board
(LUPB) that reflect Alternative 2 growth scenario. Generally the proposed rezones are:
rezone from Downtown Commercial (DC) to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) along
Meeker Street between lit and 41h; rezone from General Commercial (GC) to General
Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU) west of SR-167 and along portions of Central Ave; and
rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to GC-MU the properties north of James St. which
includes ShoWare and parcels to the west.
The code text amendment increases heights in the GC-MU area from 40 to 60 feet, expands
the use of design guidelines for GC-MU to ensure that the caliber of development
exemplifies what is planned for Kent in the future, and reduces the amount of commercial
uses to five percent of the total development. The motion includes adopting: the DSAP, the
Land Use Plan Map amendments, the Zoning Districts Map rezones, and text amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code concerning Mixed Use Overlay pertaining to
GC-MU.
Satterstrom stated that once City Council approves Phase I, staff will move to Phase II
which will include: DSAP Implementation, Planned Action and Infill Exemption ordinances,
updating Downtown Design Guidelines, updating Development Regulations, moving forward
on Economic Development initiatives such as the Meeker Street Revitalization Initiative,
outdoor gathering spaces and parks, and developing a citywide economic development
strategy.
Committee Chair Perry opened the floor to testimony.
Bruce Malcolm, 944 3r' Avenue N, Kent, 98032 North Park Neighborhood Association VP,
stated that he wants assurance City Council will approve the LUPB's recommendation to
leave North Park alone. He asked that Kent stop encroaching into North Park and take care
of the areas south of James Street. He stated that his community is involved in cleaning up
graffiti, eliminating the drug element, cleaning up parks and has partnered with Kent to
implement parallel parking in their neighborhood.
Tina Budell, 323 W Cloudy St., Kent, 98032 stated that her North Park Community has
eliminated abandoned vehicles, eradicated two meth houses, and has worked with Kent's
Parks Department to ensure that 65 school age children were held accountable in the
upkeep of their parks. The wetlands area behind ShoWare is used by the community for
recreational purposes. Budell encouraged the City to concentrate on developing the area in
downtown and on Meeker Street which is in major need of a face lift. She voiced opposition
to six-story buildings in her neighborhood.
Susan Stoddard, 733 41h Avenue N, Kent, 98032 supported Bruce and Tina's testimony. She
stated that the half block she lives on (between James and Cloudy, Fourth and Fifth
Avenues) should not be rezoned to commercial and would like to see that the Platform
development succeeds before the City decides to rezone the half block area she lives on.
She said that she would like the area north of ShoWare to remain as a park and available
for walking.
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 4 of 6
5
Committee Member Boyce MOVED and Committee Member Perry SECONDED a
Motion to recommend to the full City Council APPROVAL of(A) Downtown Subarea
Action Plan and associated Comprehensive Plan amendments; (B) Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map amendments; (C) Zoning Districts Map amendments; and (D)
Mixed Use Overlay Regulations Code Amendments for the General Commercial
Mixed Use (GC-MU) Zoning District as recommended by the Land Use and Planning
Board and as evaluated in the Draft and Final City of Kent Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Planned Action SEIS and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinances. Motion PASSED 2-0.
6. DSAP Planned Action/Community Meeting
Long Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen stated that the State's RCWs require a
community meeting to be held with the intent to solicit comments from the public and
agencies, and this meeting satisfies those requirements. The City is considering adoption of
a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) for 142 acres of the DSAP study area to be used for infill
development. The PAO area applies to land extending 260 feet north of Cloudy Street,
Railroad Avenue North to the east, and West Willis Street to the south, and SR 167 to the
west. The balance of the study area would be designated Mixed Use/Infill Exemption Area.
Lisa Grueter with Berk and Associates stated that a PAO provides a more detailed
environmental analysis during formulation of planning proposals rather than at the project
permit review stage. Future development proposals consistent with the PAO do not have to
undergo an environmental threshold determination, and are not subject to SEPA appeals
when consistent with the PAO including specified mitigation measures.
Grueter stated that the PAO review process began with preparing and issuing the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on October 4, 2013. The next step considers
adoption of the PAO which defines allowed development and required mitigation, and
reviews future permits for consistency with the PAO and DSAP. Grueter referred to Exhibit
B in the PAO describing the combined DSAP Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures
required for development applications, and referenced Section B-2 which provides a
bulleted list of specific regulations that act as mitigation measures.
Grueter defined where infill exemption would be applied, how it would be used to attract
growth, increase residential development, meet GMA requirements, and how it would meet
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The primary goal is to attract both residential and
mixed-use development to help meet density goals. Grueter stated that the Planned Action
and Infill Exemption ordinances are about attracting both employment and residential.
Satterstrom explained that if a plan is developed and the City conducts an environmental
review, a developer would not be required to go through a separate environmental review
process. The PAO provides development incentives and is a cost and time saving measure.
Development of 10 lots or more require SEPA review and 9 lots or less are exempt. Staff
will bring a draft ordinance back to Committee on Tuesday, November 121h. The DSAP,
Mixed Use Overlay Code amendments, land use plan and zoning map amendment
ordinances will go to City Council November 191h for adoption and the planned action and
infill exemption ordinances will go to City Council on December loth
Informational Only
7. Economic Development Report
Wolters stated that a hotel has shown a marked interest in some properties located in the
downtown core area south of James Street. This is another sign that the progress we have
been making in downtown is attracting new investment interest and the PAO is one more
incentive that would help advance that effort.
Tarragon continues to re-evaluate the potential for developing a vacant lot that faces
Fourth Avenue and their interest in examining its market potential has picked up which is
encouraging for downtown. We are seeing interest continue to grow in the Stryker
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 5 of 6
6
Development (the Boeing surplus properties) and hope to share more details in the next
two months.
The Platform development is on schedule and going through the design process. Auburn is
beginning to develop mixed-use on property facing the hospital with the same architect
that designed the Platform. These types of projects will build market confidence.
Informational Only
Adiournment
Committee Chair Perry adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic & Community Development Committee
P:\Planning\EC \2013\Minutes\10-14-13 Min.doc
ECDC Minutes
October 14,2013
Page 6 of 6
7
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
• PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
KEN T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WASH IN GTO N
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
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.
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
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
8
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.
GGW/FS/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PL N_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\Council\11-12-13\Memo_PAOInFlll.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
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 2
9
ATTACHMENT A
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
ECDC MEETING
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
1 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
10
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.
2 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
11
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.
3 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
12
• 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.
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).
0. 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.
4 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
13
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).
5 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
14
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
6 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
15
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.
7 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
16
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 Evaluatimg and
Determininq Planned Action Proiects 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
8 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
17
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:
9 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
18
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:
Base Year Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2031)
Growth Type 2006
Total Net Growth
Households 713 2,571 1,858
Jobs' 1,867 3,033 1,166
Notes:
'Includes hotel rooms and university students as part of"jobs"consistent with the presentation of growth figures in the prior
2011 EIS.These elements makeup about 6-9%of the job totals depending on alternative.
Source:City of Kent 2011 and 2012
(b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in
D(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the
10 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
19
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
Planned Action Area
Alternative 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
(b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the
transportation concurrency requirements and the LOS thresholds
11 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
20
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.
12 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
21
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,
13 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
22
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.
14 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
23
(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
36.7013.170 et seq.
15 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
24
(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
16 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
25
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.
SECTIONS. — 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:
17 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
26
ARTHUR "PAT" FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 12013.
APPROVED: day of 12013.
PUBLISHED: day of 12013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO Infill\FINAL_PAO Ord.Do
18 Planned Action Ordinance
Downtown Subarea
Ordinance
27
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED ACTION AREA
1
DOWIN"rOWN sGauraKA
Acri ON M AN
Jff
f f �
3;
M
l /! I
XI1 i /n/ry /0,
�� 1: //�i✓Y /a "" f;. R, r Pkr¢ A
u
w,j,�
N
WNWVMWi✓W4FPA � p 1 '' (%�
twvbo000 fwa 1 'w1
41 BERK
zM
frtd 91 ✓ ,
ep ul
d
Exhibit A 19
28
This page intentionally left blank.
29
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.
Exhibit B 20
30
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 Estimate'
Meeker Street&4th Restripe roadway to reduce width of
Avenue westbound receiving lane and allow $5,000-$10,000
eastbound left turn pocket
Notes:
1. The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Fehr&Peers,2013
Exhibit B 21
31
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 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
Planned Action Area
Roadway Classification
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
S. 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 alternatives, 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.
Table 3. Bicycle Facility Improvements—Alternatives 2
Planned Action Area
Bicycle Facility Type
Feet of Bicycle Facility Cost Estimate
Restriping for Bicycle Lane 2,000 $10,000
Shared Bicycle Facility 6,110 $18,000
Total 8,110 $28,000
Note:The costs shown are estimates only and would vary based on the specific needs of each project.
Fehr&Peers,2013.
Exhibit B 22
32
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
6. Planned Action Per Trip Fee to Implement Street, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Improvements
Table 4 include 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
Planned Action Area
Mitigation Measure Type 1,700 Trip Growth over Existing
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $3,100, $1.62
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).
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
Exhibit B 23
33
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.
Exhibit B 24
34
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Table 5. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Reduction Measures Comments
Site Design
Plant large-caliper trees and mature vegetation near Trees and vegetation that directly shade buildings
structuresto 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 emissionsfrom 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 Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
Design)standards(or equivalent)for design and operations offsite/indirect purchased electricity,water use,waste
disposal
Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliancesfor public Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
agency use. purchased electricity consumption
Incorporate onsite renewable energy production,including Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. purchased electricity consumption.
Design street lights to use energy efficient bulbs and fixtures Reduces purchased electricity.
Construct"green roofs'and use high-albedo roofing Reduces onsite fuel combustion emissions and
materials. 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, Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces
increased building perimeter and use of skylights, purchased electrical energy consumption.
clerestories and light wells.
Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as:super Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
insulation motion sensors for lighting and climate control consumption.
efficient,directed exterior lighting
Exhibit B 25
35
MITIGATION MEASURES Notes
Reduction Measures Comments
Use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code Reduces water consumption.
requirements.
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 Reduces extraction of purchased materials,possibly
materials and products. reduces transportation of materials,encourages
recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal.
Use building materials that are extracted or manufactured Reduces transportation of purchased materials
within the region.
Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased
materials
Conduct 3rd party building commissioning to ensure energy Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
performance. consumption.
Track energy performance of building and develop strategy Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity
to maintain efficiency. consumption.
Transportation
Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking Reduced parking discourages auto dependent travel,
requirements and,where possible,seek reductions in encouraging alternative modes such as transit,walking,
parking supply through special permits or waivers. biking etc. Reduces direct and indirect vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)
Develop and implement a marketing/information program Reduces direct and indirect VMT
that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit
information.
Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during Reduces employee VMT
peak periods through alternative work schedules,
telecommuting,or flex-time. Provide a guaranteed ride
home program.
Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Reduces employee VMT
Utilize traffic signalization and coordination to improve Reduces transportation emissions and VMT
traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Apply advanced technology systems and management Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing
strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for
fuel efficiency.
Develop shuttle systems around business district parking Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect
garagesto reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. VMT
Source:City of Kent 2011
Exhibit B 26
36
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.
Exhibit B 27
37
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.
Exhibit B 28
38
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).
Exhibit B 29
39
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).
Exhibit B 30
40
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.
Exhibit B 31
41
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.
Exhibit B 32
42
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.
Exhibit B 33
43
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.
Exhibit B 34
44
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.
Exhibit B 35
45
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.
Exhibit B 36
46
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
Short Term: Estimated Year
Next Comp Plan of Completion
Mitigation Measures Amendment Long Term Other Agency and Responsible
Cycle or within Department
5 years
Land Use Patterns and Plans and Policies
The current DSAP is included as X Economic&
Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan Concurrent Community
and some dates and references to the Amendment Development
Downtown Plan may need to be
amended(some references to
Appendix B say the"1969 Downtown
Plan).
The City will extend design guidelines X
and regulatory incentives for mixed-use Completion in
development,particularly in the GC- 2013
MU district.
With the DSAP Update,the City will X Economic&
implement new zones.Following the Completion in Community
DSAP Update,the City will prepare 2013-14 Development
regulationsto implement DSAP Land
Use Element goals and policies.
The DSAP Update will serve as a new X X
plan for the designated Urban Center Document
consistent with Policy LU-14.1.VISION provided to
2040 and CPPs for King County guide PSRC through
the contents of the DSAP Update to comment
ensure plan consistency.PSRC will period.
conduct a consistency review.
If Alternative 2 Urban Center X Economic&
boundaries are locally approved, Community
approval may be needed at the county Development
and four-county level(PSRC).
Exhibit B 37
47
Short Term: Estimated Year
Next Comp Plan of Completion
Mitigation Measures Amendment Long Term Other Agency and Responsible
Cycle or within Department
5 years
The Transportation and Capital X Economic&
Facilities Elements would be updated to Community
be consistent with revised household Development
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.
Transportation
Incorporate street,pedestrian,and X Public Works
bicycle improvements developed as Department
mitigation in the 2013 SEIS into the
next TMP and impact fee update.
New development will impact the need X X Public Works
for transit service and bus stop Department
amenities.As demand grows at bus
stops,the City can negotiate with King
County for bus shelters.
Implementation of Transportation X Public Works
Demand Management(TDM)measures Department
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.
Parks
Develop updated Parks and Open Space X Parks,
Plan including standards for Urban Recreation&
Park. Community
Services
Exhibit B 38
48
Short Term: Estimated Year
Next Comp Plan of Completion
Mitigation Measures Amendment Long Term Other Agency and Responsible
Cycle or within Department
5 years
Develop private open space and X Economic&
recreation space for multifamily and Community
mixed use development. Development
Exhibit B 39
49
v
Y
f0
6
U/
f0
U/
C
U/
O
Y
E y
L p
O
LL aO
C a
O a
R
7 f0
Y_
L
W
.a O
C E
f6 T O
o a
E
0
T
Y
f6 V
V N
L
Q H
Q
aE
-
0
co
} O 'Z,
M @
cvv
c � �
o
a ° a
Ln
d � a
£ � v
� Y
f0
x E
W O
Y
a o v
v
v >O
O a a
+, o .�
V Q �
N N 'in
C
� N
O �
b0 C
C �
3 o
O coY
� Y
O E
w
� .� w
50
I 0 a
z
Q
a D
o z
0 � ZI
F—
U
0 Y v o
Q z v
Q a o
Q e a
0
W z V 'o
O
QM E a
W L ui �D v w
D�/� V o v
J
z a LL w o a s
Q a m ❑ ❑ a
a
O � Y
H z
z 0
Q U
Q V
U
W 0 N
J W o
a z
z
0
Q z v
N Q 0
a vo
w o
a
a
v
N
v
• = v Y Y E
V C �
W O
Z L >
V O W
0 j
• � oL
W c oL
a
o v
w
N J O w L O
W w - a m
0 � � a v o w
Ha J N ❑ ❑ vu'i a w
0 Y
W=
a a � V -�
E >
o a Y v
v v o v
d a 3 " o .N E > > a
E a v C N 0 v Q J m
Q a a a 2 l7 'vo o. a 2 a m w W
51
Y I
U 0 N N
U �
W
d I E V
T m N V
O d W V
Q 0 N Y
W E O M O L
yi v U ti �
� Y
O J N c
V E
u 7F o W W 2
� vUU "
z
C W Y VI N w LL m V
O C
E O
> N d d 0 K W L V
V Y W pn N C C
OOD 3 C 3 m c a O 'y� Q 0 0 0
U U U U U
•� C O Y on Y c h W h h h h O O
V C OD O O O O O O
D
O O O O O m m v
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
3 0
T
o �
m « YO m
' I m o F F
d d
m
m ¢
v C N yi d a�
OD 0 E vdi E w
TC.c Q U J o
C U
W O v U
0 C U
C C Q J N
E d m U O N
d C t0 W
C L y C C W W
N v
d vi �n
3 � N
E x t O m M m c
Q0
U d V
_ d
on E —
D
J d -O w0 �
0 3 d E
v c > m
jp -O C d d E F F O c i m m
E t0 W oL oL L c y� K
m W t E p
U 0W W L 'O O .Ei
ai v o E o o c oe on on oe on on
C
X v x Yn Yn Yn Yn Yn >
w 3 a
❑ ❑ yk yk yk � w ° w w w w w
C N N W J L C O W
E C N y+ O
J LC T O
V ] m >_ O.
° L 3 0 m m m E v O Nr v oX" G ° x
aV z m a a 3 m ¢ v m °. w
52
Y
� m
E
O
E
v
s
Y
C Ly
O M
h0 c
c O
T y�
N U
U)
T J
U N
C X
bD X
� N
bD
-6 U
� C
U) -6
L O Y
N C
Y �
Y
C -
y�i U
N L
Y
� 3
C Y
J C
_ N
U) =
N
O C
N O
3
o N
C C
Y O
T U
E Q
0 -0
C c
N C O
� � N
3
Y N 0
O CD
Y U)
c
Lu
o
a a 0 v m f0 v w
z J
O
i W L O m
(A v H N G
o O a o
H ro OC c 3 ° m v o y m
v
.f0. a (D f6 U) m m c c y
o x w °
° E G J N W y Q w m u r
mT ov LU
Lo d or>o °�¢O U
4 0 w
0]
c
c E w o f0N V W Y y y c W L C
-Eio y v
53
a
a
u;
M
C
O
.y
v
x
x
x
v
C
C
0
C
N
v
O
Q
v
t
Y
0
C
C N �
0 � 0
N � N
0 3 0
v
- v c
v v w v v o o
oL. v .>. N o y c
m E a v c o � v a v = v -
c W v v V Q C y .V > N v V
J O c m v
C Ul v ¢ O
Y c E m v m m m `-' 0L. `° N E a
y O N V L N W w T O. ' J �' O C C W d
m L m ¢ m W ¢ W �, O O v W E
L LE m n ¢ Lvc
�°> o E o Eo Q
E vc .am .5 o 0 o o o
3o
X oO
m C Q
m X " E m '.. C ry 2' C J -
- c c C x °-' 3 m Q o a V to m
O V 3 a o.� `u E m o m � � m u m
m C vi V
L QC O m o 0c o ,nyV mc C C w
m
v a V m u U.. m
y� 3 " m 2 O OO o o v O o O
O
O c O C O \ ¢ W O T - W •£ 'y, O V
W O.C W J C-L
•UL L.W. d C v W m y mLY v wV
O Vm >
u .
Q w E a E w w v > '° «� 0
54
0
p = 0 v O
L = O E >
w m N J v
d V p
Y v W O
-O O
d Y d =
Ln
N 0 UW1
—
Y Y �W W a+
� W
W J -gyp v O O
V = p N
= W
W h v N J
N W
0 v � O N 0 v
a ¢ v m d V O
Q L
O
d 0
W W
m = V O Q U C N
J E U U D J
U
Q O
=
O Q m X V c
� O
rl N N = y
v V v m
x m = O
m m N N N
o
X 3
X V 0 = J �` E >
v V M .V � Q _ y v
C Y O ° Q
0 Ov E E
E v V r v p-
N O O W y
O W ¢ .O O
p p L
v u
z
V 0 3
W - o m c W Y
O Y V ° W Y y ate+ L E
•� L O
W 3 3 y y > $ v E
w m'> v 'i' > ., m m m
0 0 .v. w .� ,= o o. E c o.
o v Q o v Q v v n g c 0
c Q N ¢a o Q L w m o vi
w
O = U C W m N i� Nm V N = _
O p M N N v N p E p p
0 a � `v E = r orc ¢
Q O. N `
E U C X O W J m
Q N X = M W y Q V D➢ N p U U1
r4 d X W C W L d V O = C W d
O W Ul N ~ Y W Y C N V L
Ew ry y c
c c 'p z O v = c u
U c m w N
v v L ate+ N 0 V V O m J " C N C
m
`-O Jv w
U W o� _ Lo
V oC o o N. aawEV Q fv `
o M 0m E v p pN
o x x 0-
cwx W c aw'mOmm�' w-0Q aEvJQ yv=Eov
W = N
c w W L mNQuO
O pcm pcm E Nv i mc
am+
LE
Ov N m V o m O ON O W N wa EZ Z C6 +
55
ATTACHMENT B
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
ECDC MEETING
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
1 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
56
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.
2 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
57
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.
3 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
58
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,
4 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
59
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, - Findinas. 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
5 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
60
impacts from development within the Mixed Use and Infill Development
Categorical Exemption Area ; and
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.
6 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
61
„AI�Qr��WN"IMA LA
V (IN P1
11j,If
RK
,,r , 'mwwna�wwr
a
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.
7 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
62
Growth Type Base Year(2006) Alternative 2 Moderate Alternative 2-Net
DSAP Study Area Growth Total(2031) Growth(2031)
Households 4,530 8,090 3,560
Jobs' 3,184 5,507 2,323
Total Activity Units 7714 13,597 5,883
(Jobs and Households)
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.
8 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
63
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.
9 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
64
Alternative 2 - Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip
Infill Exemption Area
Mitigation Measure 3,790 Trip Growth over Existing
Type
Cost Cost per Trip
Street $6,900' $1.82
Pedestrian $1,400,000 $369.39
Bicycle $1,428,000 $376.78
Tota 1 $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
10 KCC 15.02 — Infill exemptions
Ordinance
65
Categorical Exemption 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.
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.
11 KCC 15.02 - Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
66
F. Cultural Resources: The following mitigation measures shall
apply to infill exemption proposals:
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.
12 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
67
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
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.
13 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
68
6. Minimize work during periods of high winds when
practical.
7. Maintain the engines of construction equipment
according to manufacturers' specifications.
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.
14 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
69
L. Infill exemptions shall comply with the following noise
mitigation measures:
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).
15 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
70
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
subsections (13)(1) and (13)(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.
16 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
71
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
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
17 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
72
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
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:
18 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
73
ARTHUR "PAT" FITZPATRICK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 12013.
APPROVED: day of 12013.
PUBLISHED: day of 12013.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PL N_AMENDMENTS\2012\CPA-2012-1 Downtown\PAO_InFlll\FINAL_InFlllexemWrd.Docx
19 KCC 15.02 — Infiii exemptions
Ordinance
74
This page intentionally left blank.
75
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KENT
WASH INGTOe 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: Josh Hall, Economic Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Business Incubation Programs
For the meeting of November 12, 2013
MOTION: None. For Information Only
SUMMARY:
Staff has reviewed a few regional Business Incubation programs and will give an
overview of the programs and services, as well as the pros and cons of incubation
programs to spur economic development.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been requested to research Business Incubation as a tool in economic
development. Business incubation programs are designed to accelerate the
successful development of entrepreneurial companies through an array of business
support resources and services. The main goal of an incubation program is to
produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable and
freestanding.
]H/pm P:\P1anning\ECDC\2013\Packet Documents\11-12-13\IncubatorProgmms Memo.doc