No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development - 08/11/2014 • Economic & Community Development KENT wAsHINGToN Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins • Jim Berrios • Bill Boyce, Chair AGENDA August 11, 2014 5:00 P.M. Item Description ActionSpeaker(s) Time Pace 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of the July 14, 2014 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 5 min 1 5. Riverbend Surplus Property YES Erin George 15 min 5 Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Amendments 6. Green River Corridor District YES Erin George 15 min 103 Zoning Code Amendment 7. Meeker Street Underpass NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 115 (Informational Only) 8. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) NO Matt Gilbert 10 min 119 Code Amendments (Informational Only) 9. Short Plat Activity Update NO Matt Gilbert 10 min 211 (Informational Only) 10. Sound Transit Update NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 213 (Informational Only) 11. Economic Development Report NO Kurt Hanson 10 min (Informational Only) Unless otherwise noted, the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 2nd Monday of each month at 5:00 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, August 7, 2014 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. � KENT Wo ...... ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 14, 2014 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Boyce announced that he had to leave the meeting at 5:45 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes Berrios Moved and Higgins Seconded a Motion to approve the Minutes of June 9, 2014. Motion PASSED 3-0. 2. Sound Transit Lona Ranae Plan Update Chelsea Levy from Sound Transit Government Relations gave an update on Sound Transit's Long Range Plan (LRP), intended to be the vision for future regional transit. Sound Transit is gathering comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS); comments and responses will be incorporated into the Final SEIS. The goal is to adopt the updated LRP by the end of the year. The comment period ended July 28, 2014. Sound Transit conducted public outreach through an e-mail list, website announcement, and flyers. Levy spoke about public feedback, next steps, the importance of adopting the plan by December 2014 and planning for ST-3 in early 2015 by the Sound Transit Board. The time frame for ST-3 is early November 2016. About 30-60 people have attended the project meetings. There have been good on-line responses and e-mail comments which support the planning work for the rail transit spine from Everett, Tacoma, and Bellevue. Informational Only 3. Olympic Skyline Condominiums Neiahborhood Council Resolution Adopt Neighborhood Program Coordinator Toni Azzola introduced the Olympic Skyline Community Director Lisa Giuffre. The Olympic Skyline community is located on Kent's East Hill and is situated to the east of 1001h Avenue S.E., to the north of S.E. 2361h Street, to the west of 102nd Avenue S.E., and to the south of Turnkey Park. The community consists of 108 households. Azzola stated that people have been camping on the residential parking lots and that the community's board of directors discussed setting up a block watch, which has not yet been acted on. Giuffre addressed community building efforts, and being more actively involved to make the community a better place. Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which recognizes the Olympic Skyline Condominiums Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. Motion PASSED 3-0. 4. Phase II Economic Development Plan Economic and Community Development (ECD) Director, Ben Wolters advised of edits from the previous draft of the Economic Development Plan. Staff is exploring opportunities to work with growing immigrant communities to help meet economic development goals. The section on Designation 4.1.5, Creating Advance Manufacturing Center was removed because the main concern is building collaborations to improve manufacturing companies or build upon the work of C.A.M.P.S. Wolters stated that he represents the City as the lead member of C.A.M.P.S. Boyce questioned what measurements are being used to determine when a goal is complete. Wolters advised that he would add a column in the quarterly report that speaks to the percentage of completion. ECDC Minutes July 14,2014 Page 1 of 3 2 MOTION: Jim Berrios MOVED and Dennis Higgins SECONDED the motion to recommend to the full City Council APPROVAL of the proposed Economic Development Plan for the City of Kent as prepared by Community Attributes International. Motion PASSED 3-0. S. SEPA Threshold State Legislative Update Principal Planner Matt Gilbert gave an update on the new rules related to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) also known as environmental review. The SEPA process reviews the environmental impacts of a particular proposal or development. If environmental impacts are not addressed by existing regulations, conditions of approval may be added to the City's approval of a project. State legislators directed the Department of Ecology to update SEPA in 2012 and new SEPA rules took effect on May 10, 2014. Gilbert addressed threshold levels -- the amount of flexibility that jurisdictions are given to decide whether SEPA review is required. Nine times out of ten, there are no additional conditions needed for projects because the City determines that impacts are covered under existing regulations which have become very detailed. For that reason, the SEPA process has become less valuable to the City and more redundant to applicants. This provides opportunities for regulatory streamlining. With the Committee's concurrence, staff will bring a proposal forward at another meeting to raise thresholds so that fewer projects would need to go through the SEPA process. The SEPA process can take months to complete as the City must document notifications to the public, tribes and neighboring jurisdictions, determine what regulations are currently in place to cover environmental impacts of the project, and determine if conditions are needed to address impacts. If threshold levels are raised, it would save the City and the applicant time and money, and would streamline the process. Gilbert addressed categories where the SEPA threshold can change. A new threshold that Council may choose to adopt would be to eliminate the PM peak hour trip requirement currently handled by TIF. Under TIF, any new trips created by development incur an impact fee. The City could also consider SEPA exemption thresholds for a single family development with less than 30 units, multifamily less than 60 units, 30,000 square feet for commercial with less than 90 parking stalls, and 1,000 cubic yards of fill. Projects like the Amazon Warehouse, the Grandview Apartments, and the Levee projects would still go through SEPA as they are larger projects. Smaller projects that easily fall under code will not go through the SEPA process. If the City raised the threshold it would exempt around half of the projects that currently require SEPA review. Gilbert stated that he would report back to the Committee within 60 days. Informational Only 6. Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Services Manager Charlene Anderson discussed the Comprehensive Plan (CP) Update, including the public involvement, and documenting current conditions and trends. The update will include defining a vision, integrating that vision into the Land Use Element, and supporting the vision through Transportation, Capital facilities and public services. New planning initiatives also need to be incorporated into the update. One focus of the update is to make the Plan user friendly, relevant, and useful to the community. Furthermore, there will be consideration of measurements of successwith respect to the goals and policies in the Plan. Anderson spoke about effective implementation and new topics for consideration, such as healthy living, social equity, impacts on people of color and low income communities. Anderson anticipates adoption of the new CP by June 30, 2015. The CP will be processed through the Land Use and Planning Board, Economic and Community Development Committee and full City Council. Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen introduced the public outreach effort, stating that staff is reaching out through media and the website. Staff is working with Multimedia staff and ECDC Minutes July 14,2014 Page 2 of 3 3 communication officers to create the "Create Kent 2035; It's Your City" tagline. Gould- Wessen spoke about launching information through postcards stuffed into 2000 goody bags for the National Night Out event. She stated that business cards will be distributed at downtown concerts, concerts by the lake, and to neighborhood community groups. The survey and website will be available by August 5, 2014. The thrust of the outreach is based on the City Council's Strategic Plan and the branding effort. The public will be asked about economic and community development, housing, land use, parks, transportation and human services. The feedback will assist staff in understanding what people need in order to ensure a good quality of life in Kent, as well as what we are providing or lacking. Gould- Wessen touched on partnering with Futurewise to reach out to immigrant and refugee communities, to gain an understanding of their needs and definition of a good quality of life. The responses will assist in developing policies and goals in the Plan. Informational Only 7. Economic Development Update Economic and Community Development (ECD) Director Ben Wolters provided an update on the efforts to recruit new business. Wolters mentioned interest among health care providers for a new clinic in Kent and touched on the progression of the Amazon project in terms of construction. Wolters discussed moving along multiple fronts with regard to opportunities for sale of city properties to generate revenue. ECD received word from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that two sites being considered in Kent have passed the initial screening and have met requirements. The end of July is the deadline for submitting a preliminary proposal for the estimated 30 proposed sites around the region, including the two Kent sites. Permitting activity continues to increase and the Operations Committee approved the addition of both temporary staff and resource assistance for the ECD Department for the balance of this year, with one new Engineering Tech position for the Development Engineering Division. This will help the ECD Department catch up with the current work load and maintain the best level of service. There has been an increase of complaints related to lagging permits, and staff is working to address the issue. The primary lag is in residential areas with new plats and some commercial projects. Wolters spoke about the big projects of Grandview and Tarragon Phase III, advising that there is strong interest in Goodman's efforts to pre-lease the Platform. Grandview participated in the design review process for their project in the Midway area. They have been responsive to requests, guidance and direction in terms of design improvements. Wolters spoke about the new Trader Joes on 132nd and Kent Kangley, stating that new market interest is showing up. He stated that staff has stressed to the architect and owner of the shopping center that they should create a third place that can become a walkable destination. Wolters informed the Committee that downtown Meeker and First Avenue within the historic area, along with smaller businesses between Second and Fourth Avenues continue to struggle. Those areas will see a big boost as Airways Brewery moves along with their renovation, outdoor seating and patio space. Wolters spoke about new investments and opportunities that will generate new business as well as concerns raised by the Kent Downtown Partnership. Informational Only Adiournment Committee Member Higgins adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. in Boyce's absence. Pamela Mottram, Secretary Economic & Community Development Committee P:\Planning\EC \2014\Minutes\06-0 -14_Min.docx ECDC Minutes July 14,2014 Page 3 of 3 4 6 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone: 253-856-5454 WASH INGrou Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee Members FROM: Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone (CPA-2014-1 and CPZ-2014-1) For August 11, 2014 meeting MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval of Option 2, a comprehensive plan land use designation of MU, Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU, General Commercial Mixed Use for the Riverbend Surplus Property. SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on July 281h, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended changing the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map for the Riverbend Surplus Property, also known as the Par 3 golf course, to a land use designation of MU, Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC- MU, General Commercial Mixed Use. The Board voiced concerns regarding certain auto-oriented uses that are allowed in the GC-MU zoning district, such as auto repair and auto sales and explained that walkability, human scale design and public use spaces are important factors for a future development in this location. The Board also expressed a desire for a citizens' advisory process to review development proposals for this site. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The property is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as OS, Parks and Open Space and MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily and is currently zoned SR-1, Residential Agricultural. At their May 6th meeting, the City Council approved Resolution #1883, which authorized staff to move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment on the Riverbend Surplus Property site. If the property is approved for sale, the City Council envisions an urban, mixed use development which would require a change in zoning and comprehensive plan designations. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance was issued for these amendments on July 23, 2014. As described in the enclosed agenda packet for the July 281h Land Use & Planning Board public hearing, the Board considered four options. 6 ECDC Meeting August 11, 2014 Page 2 Regarding the Board's specific concerns, it is typical for the City to include one or more community members on the selection committee as part of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, as was done for the Platform project. Our typical RFP process has served us well and staff does not recommend establishing a second advisory process. Following selection of a development proposal from the RFP process, staff anticipates the drafting of a development agreement to be signed by the Mayor and the developer. It is customary to include various conditions relating to land use and design in the development agreement, as was done for the Platform and Kent Station. Prohibiting undesirable auto-oriented uses and ensuring walkability, human scale design and public use spaces can be included in the development agreement. Mixed Use Design Review will also be required for any mixed use development, which includes several standards relating to walkability, human scale design and open space. EG\pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2014\CPA-2014-1_Pa r3\ECDC\08-11-14_EC DC_Memo.doc Enc: Exhibit A - Comp Plan Ordinance with Map Exhibit B - Rezone Ordinance with Map Exhibit C - July 28, 2014 LUPB Public Hearing Packet with Minutes Exhibit D - July 28, 2014 LUPB Public Comment Letters - Exhibits 1-3 cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan to change the land use plan map designation for the Riverbend Surplus Property from Parks and Open Space (OS) and Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) to Mixed Use (MU). Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone (CPZ/CPA 2014-1). RECITALS A. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the City establish procedures governing amendments to the comprehensive plan that limit amendments to once each year unless certain circumstances exist. RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The City has established a procedure for amending the comprehensive plan in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code ("KCC) that permits amendments in addition to the standard annual update if an emergency exists. An emergency is defined as an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. KCC 12.02.010(A). B. On April 14, 2014, the Economic and Community Development Committee moved to request that staff move forward with the entitlement process for the Riverbend Surplus Property ("Property"), located at 2020 West Meeker Street (a portion of King County Parcel No. 2322049011), as depicted in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this 1 Par 3 Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance 8 reference. The Property has also been referred to as the "Par 3 golf course" site. C. On May 6, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1883, which authorized staff to move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment on the Property. The recitals of Resolution No. 1883 are incorporated herein by reference. D. The Property is currently operated as a "Par 3" golf course and is zoned Residential Agricultural (SR-1) and Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MR-M), and its land use designation in the comprehensive plan is Parks and Open Space (OS) and Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF). E. On June 4, 2014, the City provided via e-mail to the Washington State Department of Commerce the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The 60-day notice period has elapsed. F. On June 9, 2014 and July 14, 2014, the Land Use and Planning Board ("LUPB") held workshops to discuss four proposed land use plan map and zoning districts designation options. G. On July 23, 2014, the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the comprehensive plan land use map amendment for the Property. H. On July 28, 2014, the LUPB held a public hearing to consider the matter. At the close of the public hearing, the LUPB voted to recommend amending the comprehensive plan. 2 Par 3 Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance 9 I. The Economic & Community Development Committee considered the LUPB's recommendation at a meeting on August 11, 2014 and forwarded its own recommendation to the full City Council. J. On August 19, 2014, the City Council determined that the proposed amendment to the Riverbend Surplus Property (CPA-2014-1) is consistent with the standards of review for comprehensive plan amendments outlined in KCC Section 12.02.050 and approved the comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use map designation of the Riverbend Surplus Property from Parks and Open Space (OS) and Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) to Mixed Use (MU). NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1, — Recitals Incorporated as Findings. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2, — Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 3222, and as subsequently amended, is amended to establish a new land use plan map designation for the Riverbend Surplus Property. See Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated herein. SECTION 3, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. 3 Par 3 Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance 10 SECTION 4, — Severabilitv. 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 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and 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: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2014. APPROVED: day of 12014. PUBLISHED: day of 12014. 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. 4 Par 3 Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance 11 (SEAL) RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK P\a..1\o,d....®\Pa,3CImo P111 Ama,dm,,tF-ldoa 5 Par 3 Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance 12 13 % % \ & k \ ƒ /ƒ � 3 « B G . $ 2z f � � § E � E 6 / 0 � / f�N / �LL � � � \ � , � + 14 16 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, specifically the rezoning of the Riverbend Surplus Property consisting of approximately 24 acres of property located at 2020 West Meeker Street, from Residential Agricultural (SR-1) and Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MR-M) to General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU). Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone (CPZ/CPA 2014-1). RECITALS A. On April 14, 2014, the Economic and Community Development Committee moved to request that staff move forward with the entitlement process for the Riverbend Surplus Property ("Property"), located at 2020 West Meeker Street (a portion of King County Parcel No. 2322049011), as depicted in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. The Property has also been referred to as the "Par 3 golf course" site. B. On May 6, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1883, which authorized staff to move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone the Property. The recitals of Resolution No. 1833 are incorporated herein by reference. C. On June 4, 2014, the City provided via e-mail to the Washington State Department of Commerce the required sixty (60) day 1 Par 3 Rezone Ordinance 16 notification under RCW 36.70A.106 regarding the proposed rezone of the Property. The 60-day notice period has elapsed. D. On June 9, 2014 and July 14, 2014, the Land Use and Planning Board ("LUPB") held workshops to discuss four proposed land use and zoning designation options for the Property. E. On July 23, 2014, the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the rezone of the Riverbend Surplus Property. F. On July 28, 2014, the LUPB held a public hearing to consider the matter. At the close of the public hearing, the LUPB voted to recommend rezoning the Property. G. The Economic & Community Development Committee considered the LUPB's recommendation at a meeting on August 11, 2014 and forwarded its own recommendation to the full City Council. H. On August 19, 2014, the City Council determined that the proposed rezone of the Riverbend Surplus Property (CPZ-2014-1) is consistent with the standards of review for rezones outlined in Section 15.09.050.0 of the Kent City Code and approved the rezone to change the zoning map designation of the Riverbend Surplus Property from Residential Agricultural (SR-1) and Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MR-M) to General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU). NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 2 Par 3 Rezone Ordinance 17 ORDINANCE SECTION 1, — Recitals Incorporated as Findings. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2, — Amendment. Section 15.03.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to include the official zoning districts map designation and boundary for the Riverbend Surplus Property, as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated herein. SECTION 3, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4, — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and effect. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK 3 Par 3 Rezone Ordinance 18 APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 12014. APPROVED: day of 12014. PUBLISHED: day of 12014. 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 F AC vlpord,nzn®AP3r3 R—ne F-1 do- 4 Par 3 Rezone Ordinance 1@ % % \ & k \ - % 3 2z � � \ � \ § � . \�\2 f 11,6 � \ � , � + 20 EXHIBIT C 21 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD tcEtvT MINUTES NJAS HING'1'P P' July 28, 2014 Call to Order Ottini called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Roll Call Land Use & Planning Board Members: Chair Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Randall Smith, Barbara Phillips, Frank Cornelius, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, and Katherine Jones were in attendance. City Staff: Economic & Community Development Director Ben Wolters, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom; Planning Manager Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner Erin George, Assistant City Attorney David Galazin 3. Approval of Minutes Board member Smith Moved and Board member Gray Seconded a Motion to Approve the June 23, 2014 Minutes as corrected to reflect the adjournment time of 9:05 pm rather than 7:05 pm. Motion CARRIED 7-0. 4. Added Items None S. Communications Satterstrom stated that Erin George will introduce three letters, received by the City, into the record during the public hearing. 6. Notice of Upcomina Meetinas Not Addressed 7. Public Hearina Riverbend Surplus Property CPA-2014-1 / CPZ-2014-1 Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that staff would address concerns raised by the Board at their workshops concerning transitioning this site from a park to a commercial/urban environment, and associated zoning and economic development issues between this site and downtown. Economic and Community Development Director Ben Wolters stated that Kent City Council deliberated over whether or not to sell the Riverbend Surplus property, formerly described as the Par 3 Golf Course at the Riverbend Golf complex. Council considered the funding requirements necessary for the golf complex to continue to serve the community over the next 20 or 30 years. The decision was made to explore opportunities to sell the portion of the golf course called Par-3 in order to generate revenue that would sustain the golf course and allow for needed improvements over the coming years. Council directed the Economic and Community Development Department to explore market interests in the property. The Council and Mayor have expressed that they will not sell this property for anything other than a high quality project that will support the financial needs of the golf enterprise and be a major positive contributor to this community. Staff approached Council's vision for quality development by recommending a mixed use zoning designation that would allow for a mix of housing, variety of entertainment and other amenities, with some retail, commercial and office. Staff believes mixed-use development offers the best opportunity for what Council envisions for this site, with the potential to create a sense of place, a destination in its own right, and a positive symbiotic relationship with the golf course across the way. Wolters spoke about the opportunities for locating a marquee project at this end of Meeker Street, which is a gateway to Kent, and spoke of the City's long-term vision of connecting and anchoring the Meeker St. Corridor with centers on both ends. 22 Wolters spoke of additional Meeker St. Corridor projects. Economic Development is in the process of marketing the vacant eight-acre Naden property owned by the City which is one site being considered for possible FAA headquarters. The Naden site is located off of Meeker on the east side of SR 167 and would connect and contribute to the Meeker Street corridor. Furthermore, significant cosmetic and maintenance improvements are proposed for the Meeker Street underpass that will create a more attractive and improved pedestrian and bike connection between downtown east of SR 167 and the downtown area of Washington Avenue and Meeker Street. Wolters stated that the Parks and Operations Committees and Full Council heard a presentation from Oak Point Development (formerly Yarrow Bay), a company with a strong reputation in South County as a quality developer. Oak Point is moving from strictly single family residential to mixed use development following a development trend seen throughout the region. Wolters stated that Oak Point was interested in this site, volunteering their time to provide some conceptual design drawings of what might be possible for the site. Economic Development (ED) is preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) and Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Riverbend Surplus Property, which will set the stage for a competitive process in the coming months. Staff talked with two other developers interested in the site; both have mixed-use and other types of development experience. Wolters stated that environmental review of a proposal for development of the site will ultimately determine what mitigation will be needed to support the development. A preliminary survey determined that Kent has adequate sewer and water capacity to serve the site. Preliminary analysis of roadway capacities indicate that the road from 641h Avenue to the bridge will need to be addressed but that the bridge itself should not pose issues, as there are a number of alternative routes that can be accessed onto and off the site along Meeker Street. Senior Planner Erin George stated that the site is located in close proximity to freeways, is centrally located between I-5 and SR 167, has direct access to Meeker Street and SR-516, and is located on the Green River. This is a gateway site as one can drop down from I-5 and proceed down Meeker Street to the downtown area. In analyzing land use and zoning designations for the site, staff factored in access, topography, environmental constraints, surrounding zoning and uses. Staff considered the site's proximity to the downtown area (with nearby services and entertainment) which by adoption of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan was extended west to 641h. The Riverbend Surplus Property consists of 24 acres of flat topography with a lot of potential for mixed-use development such as retail, office, and multifamily, as well as 1500 feet of frontage along Meeker street making this site desirable for employees and customers. There is approximately 2000 feet of river and trail frontage on this site. Kent's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulates areas within 200 feet of the Green River wherein residential development is not allowed. Any uses within the 200 feet must be water related such as a restaurant with views or a boat rental facility. George stated that the current Comprehensive Plan Designation for most of the Riverbend Surplus Property is (OS)-Park and Open Space with a current zoning designation of SR-1 for low density development. The site is a split-zoned site; the eastern half of the site is zoned MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. George described four options for considering zoning and comprehensive plan land use plan map designations. The first two are mixed use options as envisioned by the City Council: Option 1 recommends (MCR) Midway Commercial Residential zoning, a zone recently created by the Midway Subarea Action Plan to allow a variety of uses. The MCR zoning district prohibits auto-oriented uses, is pedestrian focused and intended for Highway 99 in the Midway area, but the uses allowed could be appropriate for the subject site. The comprehensive plan land use map designation would be (MU) Mixed Use or (TOC) Transit 23 Oriented Community, with a 200-foot height limitation. Option 2 recommends (GC-MU) General Commercial-Mixed Use zoning, allowing a broad mix of uses and more commercial variety. The GC-MU zoning district allows auto-oriented uses, and in a mixed-use residential development requires a minimum of 5% commercial use. Buildings may be 65 feet in height. The comprehensive plan designation would be (MU) Mixed Use. Option 3 recommends (MR-M) Medium Density Multifamily Residential zoning which would allow stand-alone residential. The MR-M designation would be a natural extension of what exists on the east side of the site. The comprehensive plan designation would be (MDMF) Medium Density Multifamily. Option 4 recommends 'No Action', retaining the existing split zoning on the site. Staff recommends Option 2 which is consistent with the Council's goal for mixed use on the site and is a good first step towards a quality mixed-use development at this location. Staff believes the 65-foot height limit is reasonable given the market and is appropriate given the nearby GC-MU zoning which was extended through the recent adoption of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP). George submitted three (3) exhibits for the record identified as: Exhibit 1-a letter from Helen Owen, owner of Colony Park Apartments, requesting that a row of trees bordering the Par 3 property (buffering the apartments from the Par 3 site) will be retained. Exhibit 2- Email correspondence from Karen Walter with Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Fisheries Commission, concerned with protecting tribal fishing access and the River from unnecessary tree shading. Exhibit 3-a letter from Edward Lee Vargas, Superintendent of the Kent School District concerned about the impact on schools if housing is built on the site as the District does not have the capacity to absorb additional students. George noted that Kent City Code requires school impact fees for all new residential development in the amount of $3378.00 per multifamily residential dwelling unit. Smith MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept the Exhibits into the record. Motion PASSED 7-0. Ottini MOVED and Smith SECONDED a Motion to Open the Public Hearing. Motion PASSED 7-0. The following citizens spoke in opposition to implementing any zoning or comprehensive plan designation changes, urging the Board to retain current zoning and leave the site as open space for recreational opportunities: Chris Ulrich, 23850, 43b Ave S; Richard Burgess 23619 51" Avenue S; Thomas Brice, 6221 S 251" Place; Manuel Espinosa, 4110 S 243b Place; Richard Sample, 24725 43r' Avenue S; Robbie Cisney, 615 W Harrison St., Apt 301; John Bruns, 24815 42"' Avenue S; Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Avenue; and Bruce Merle, 23515 1281h Ct SE. The following citizens spoke in favor of development and implementing zoning and comprehensive plan designation changes: Charles Silver, 3531 S 263r' and Robert Loeliger, 4126 S 243b Place. Seeing no further speakers, Smith MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Motion PASSED 7-0. In response to concerns from the Board members, Satterstrom stated that the Board's responsibility is to consider rezoning options for the site were development to occur, explaining that it is not the act of rezoning that develops the property. He assured the Board that Parks can exist in any zone. He stated that traffic mitigation will be expensive and that developers will pay whether it includes bridge repair or replacement. Staff's vision is that it is a tremendous gateway location for development that the community will be proud of. It will front Meeker Street and begin to form a connection with the commercial center at the other end of the downtown Meeker Street area. 24 Jones spoke in support of Option Two, requesting that the city be given some flexibility to work with the developer; she mentioned she would like to see height restrictions in place. Phillips stated that she recommends a Board be established to involve citizens in the development process. She encouraged staff to consider a community center for youth activities and would like park space to be included as part of any potential development. Wolters responded to questions and concerns raised by the Board, stating that staff is still developing a process and retained a brokerage service to help Kent explore what the market potential is for this site. The analysis will inform, confirm or deny the potential for development on this site. Based upon the analysis report, staff will craft the type of quality development Kent envisions. Kent will then move forward with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the first step in a two-step selection process. Wolters assured the Board that City Council had the difficult decision of trying to balance an absolute need to generate revenue in order to secure the future of the golf complex for decades to come. The Council will not accept just any development. It has to be a positive quality project that will contribute to the city. Wolters stated that the RFQ is a general invitation for developers to submit information on whether they have the experience, the financial wherewithal, the staff or the development team to actually be a successful developer on this site. Those developers who respond to the RFQ will be reviewed by an advisory group who will winnow the list down to no more than three contenders from which the City Council will ultimately make their selection. From that point forward, the City would enter into negotiations with the apparent successor on a development agreement that would be tied to a purchase and sales agreement. Wolters added the City collects school impact fees that are redistributed back to the school district. The Kent School District (KSD) has grown tremendously in their school population so that it is likely the KSD will have to pursue a bond measure for new construction that goes beyond their own impact fees. Concluding deliberations, Ottini MOVED and Jones SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council Option Two - a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of MU Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU General Commercial Mixed Use for the Riverbend Surplus Property. After calling for discussion, Jones asked to add an amendment recommending inclusion of a citizen's advisory board with attention to walkability, human scale design, height restrictions, and public use. Motion Died for lack of a vote. After further discussion Ottini MOVED and Cornelius SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Option 2 - a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of MU, Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU General Commercial Mixed Use for the Riverbend Surplus Property, with an amendment to recommend that City Council use a citizen advisory process to address issues such as walkability, human scale design, height restrictions, and public use spaces. Motion PASSED unanimously 7-0 as amended. Green River Corridor District Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-2014-3 George stated that the LUPB discussed the proposed zoning code amendment at their July 141h workshop. This item traces back to the 70's with the Shoreline Management Act, followed by the Kent Shoreline Master Program that regulates areas within 200 feet of shorelines such as the Green River. In 1980 and 1981 a couple of studies were adopted studying the Valley and the Green River. In 1985 the Green River Corridor District 26 Regulations were passed by Kent City Council to regulate areas within 1000 feet of the Green River. Building height is regulated by three layers of regulations. The SMP limits height within 200 feet of the river to 35 feet if views are impacted. The zoning code limits building height according to each zoning district. Most zoning districts within the valley limit height to 35 or 40 feet. Building heights were increased to 65 feet within the GC-MU zone with the adoption of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. Building heights can be increased by 25 percent in any zoning district with Administrative Variances. This proposal seeks to eliminate the 35- foot height limitation in the Green River Corridor District. It is duplicative and staff would like to streamline and simplify the zoning code related to building heights. Building length is limited to 200 feet within 1000 feet of the river. Currently there is an exception in the zoning code for industrial properties so that buildings in the MA, M1, M2, M3 and MI-C zones may be longer if they provide vegetative screening. The proposal considers including GC-MU in that exception so that buildings in GC-MU could be potentially longer than 200 feet if they provide vegetative screening. Mixed Use Design Guidelines are required in the GC-MU zoning district. Aesthetic treatment is required to break up appearance of blank walls and bulk buildings. Shoreline regulations require a 15-foot landscape buffer where blank walls and parking abut the Green River trail. George described four options: Option 1 eliminates height restriction in the Green River Corridor District and adds GC-MU to the building length exception. Option 2 retains the height limit in that 1000 feet corridor, and exempts GC-MU from the height limit, then adds GC-MU to the building length exception. Option 3 retains the height limit except for GC-MU but does not change the building length exception. Option 4 is 'No Action'. Staff recommends Option 1 which resolves the inconsistency with the DSAP/GC-MU which allows 65 feet in height and the Green River Corridor District when a portion of that GC-MU area is within 1000 feet of the Green River. Option One avoids duplication between the Zoning Code and the SMP. Including GC-MU in the building length exception is appropriate given the overlapping regulations with shoreline, landscaping and design review. Ottini Opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no speakers, Ottini Closed the Public Hearing. Cornelius MOVED and ]ones SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Option 1 as recommended by staff amending the zoning code to eliminate the Green River Corridor District height restriction and adding the GC-MU to the building length exception. Motion PASSED unanimously 7-0. Adiournment Ottini adjourned the meeting at 9:25 pm. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager/Board Secretary P:\P1anning\LUPB\2014\Minutes\07-28-14 final.doc 26 27 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone: 253-856-5454 WAS Id INGTON Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING JULY 28, 2014 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: Jack Ottini, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray, Katherine Jones and Randall Smith CITY STAFF: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director; Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager; Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner; Assistant City Attorney David Galazin This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on MONDAY, JULY 28, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. The Hearing is held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 41h Avenue South, Kent, WA. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed Green River Corridor District zoning code amendment or the Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Erin George at: egeorge@kentwa.gov. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the June 23, 2014 Minutes 4. Added Items 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. RIVERBEND SURPLUS PROPERTY (CPA-2014-1/CPZ-2014-1) (EG/FS) This is a public hearing to examine four Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designation options for potential future development of the Riverbend Par 3 golf course site located along Meeker Street at the Green River, as discussed at the July 14, 2014 workshop. Options include Midway Commercial Residential (MCR), General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU), Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M) and Residential Agricultural (SR- 1). Optional Comprehensive Plan designations include Mixed Use (MU), Transit Oriented Community (TOC), Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) and Open Space (OS). Minor changes to the Zoning Code relating to the definition of MCR and application of Midway Design Guidelines (KCC 15.03.010 and 15.09.045) may be necessary if the MCR option is chosen. 2. GREEN RIVERCORRIDOR DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (ZCA-2014-3) (EG/FS) This is a public hearing to examine several options related to amending or eliminating height restrictions and revising the building length restriction within the Green River Corridor District (KCC 15.08.260) as discussed at the July 14, 2014 workshop. For further information or to obtain copies of the staff report or Agenda for the proposed amendment contact the Planning Division office at(253)856-5454. You may access the City's website for documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board by depressing the Control Key and left clicking on the following path: http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Defau/t.aspx?DepartmenLTD=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call 1-800-833-6388 or the City of Kent Economic & Community Development directly at(253) 856-5499 (TDD). 28 29 �� LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD w RC O T MINUTES wns Hirvcro�.. JUNE 23, 2014 Land Use & Plannina Board Members: Chair Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Barbara Phillips, Frank Cornelius, Navdeep Gill, Alan Gray (absent/excused), Katherine Jones, and Randall Smith. Ottini called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. City Staff: Planning Director Fred Satterstrom; Planner Katie Graves, Assistant City Attorney David Galazin 3. Approval of Minutes Board member Smith Moved and Board member Phillips Seconded a Motion to Approve the May 27, 2014 Minutes. Motion CARRIED 6-0. 4. Added Items None S. Communications Satterstrom stated that there are some further communications related to the public hearing topic that will be introduced later. 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. Public Hearing ZCA-2014-2 Recreational Mariivana Zoning Assistant City Attorney David Galazin handed the Board Members the latest version of the administrative rules adopted by the Liquor Control Board (LCB) and the LCB Notices of Emergency Rules. With passage of Initiative-502 the LCB approved the creation of a legalized marijuana production, processing and retailing structure within the state of Washington. This structure remains illegal under Federal Law as a Schedule One controlled substance. Galazin spoke about how Initiative-502 influences how Kent is allowed to provide for the local zoning and licensing for all types of businesses. An opinion from the Washington State Washington Attorney General confirmed that the authority of cities to provide for the local zoning and licensing for all types of businesses is inherent by virtue of the state constitution, as well as state statute. A special notice issued on June 121h by the Washington State Department of Revenue explained how the State will tax marijuana production. I-502 imposes an excise tax of 25% at each level of production, processing and retail sales with none of those revenues going to the City of Kent. Galazin recommended that the Board consider the various impacts to surrounding land uses associated with recreational marijuana production, processing and retail sales, and to identify the appropriate zoning districts within the city for any of those uses. Potential impacts include odors generated from marijuana production and processing that can be detectable from surrounding areas - whether it is the tenant space next door, adjacent properties or adjacent sidewalks. Some safety concerns may be warranted, since processors start with raw materials, and use solvents, chemicals, gases and other compounds to extract oils and create and process marijuana infused products. Crime is a third item to consider with Galazin referencing crime rate maps provided as part of the presentation. The LCB passed rules prohibiting marijuana uses from locating within 1000 feet of the elementary and secondary schools, playgrounds, recreational centers, childcare centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, and certain game arcades. Those buffer areas are subject to change depending on where and when certain facilities open up. 30 Planner Katie Graves described: 'marijuana production' presenting four zoning options defined as Options: A, B, C and D; 'marijuana processing' presenting three zoning options defined as Options A, B and C; and marijuana retail' presenting five zoning options defined as Options A, B, C, D, and E. Additional options proposed by staff includes: limiting how marijuana producers, processors and retailers operate; not allowing these uses to operate as an accessory to a primary use or as a home occupation; requiring all activities to occur indoors, mitigating for significant adverse impacts and requiring that marijuana uses be designed to include features that prevent odors from impacting other uses. Graves stated that indoor facilities may be more equipped to properly vent odors as well as address security concerns. Marijuana production and processing may create odor impacts to the surrounding area. Staff is recommending adoption of the following language: "Marijuana producers, processors, and retailers shall not operate as accessory to a primary use or as a home occupation. All activities shall occur within an enclosed structure and shall be designed, located, constructed, and buffered to blend in with its surroundings and mitigate significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the community, and special attention shall be given to minimize odor, noise, light, glare, and traffic impacts. Marijuana uses shall be designed to include controls and features to prevent odors from traveling off site and being detected from a public right-of-way, or other properties or uses." Graves stated that should the Board recommend allowing marijuana uses in Kent, staff recommends Option B to allow marijuana production only within the M-3 General Industrial District, as the M-3 zone is designed for industrial activity that have unusual or potentially negative or harmful operational characteristics. Staff recommends Option B for both the production and processing of marijuana as those two processes can be located together to benefit from tax breaks. Staff recommends Option B to allow retail sales only in the GWC (Gateway Commercial) zoning district, as this zone is not heavily impacted by those 1000 foot buffer restrictions imposed by the LCB, and the GWC district is generally not an area with higher crime rates, nor is the GWC located in close proximity to residential zoning districts. Galazin reported on a bill passed by Legislation on June 121h that dealt with the production of marijuana concentrates. Marijuana concentrates are developed through an extraction process to produce the kind of oils that may be used the same way as the E-cigarette vaporizer pens. The processes involved to extract those oils could be potentially dangerous and staff does not yet know what the impacts will be from that process. The law now allows marijuana processors to produce this type of product and sell it. Galazin spoke about the law and rules governing the issuance or approval process associated with licensing of marijuana production, processing and retail facilities, as controlled by the LCB. Galazin addressed questions raised by the Board with respect to LCB, Federal, State and local jurisdictional authorities, rules, regulations, tax revenues, and the technicalities associated with licensing of recreational marijuana facilities. Galazin cited the rules Section 314-55-104 that speaks to the marijuana processor license extraction requirements. Graves submitted for the record, an email received from Grant Girdner, dated June 23, 2014 and defined as Exhibit #3, commenting in support of marijuana production, processing and retail sales citing specific zones he would favor for those uses. WPB Minutes June 23,2014 Page 2 of 31 Ottini MOVED and Smith SECONDED a Motion to accept an email submitted for the record from Grant Girdner into the record, Motion PASSED 6-0, Ottini MOVED and Jones SECONDED a Motion to Open the Public Hearing whereupon Ottini declared the public hearing open, Paul Nickelson, 1217 E Walnut, spoke in favor of supporting the recreational marijuana processing, production and retail entities in Kent; recommending that the Production Option B and C be combined. He encouraged the Board to allow for more flexibility for both the distribution and retail aspects of the businesses. Jeff Piecewicz, 14100 SE 282"' St, spoke in opposition to recreational marijuana and stated that he supports a total ban on marijuana franchising based on business liability, economic development and social degradation issues. Kirsten Brown, 6123 S 242"' Place, Kent, WA spoke in opposition to recreational marijuana facilities and favors banning marijuana production, processing or retail within Kent. She spoke about research she conducted outlining the negative health and safety risks associated with the use of marijuana. Tyler Jones, 2826 103r' PI NE, Bellevue, WA stated that he is the owner and applicant of the Orchard View West, who has applied for a producer and processor license in Kent. He spoke of his food manufacturing background comparing the marijuana industry as similar in nature. Jones stated that he is proposing locating his facility in the M-2 zoning district, urging the Board to expand the zoning district beyond the M-3 zone. Jones stated that if the facility is sited in Kent, the business will be conducted professionally and responsibly. Donna Payne, PO Box 196, Auburn, WA stated that she lives on West Hill near Pacific Highway in one of the highest crime areas in town. She spoke in support of speakers two and three, stating that she is vehemently opposed to the use of marijuana and believes that Kent needs to take a stand against allowing these facilities in Kent. Gary D Jones, 12515 Bel Red Road, Bellevue, WA stated that he is advocating on behalf of the applicant to receive their production-processor license in Kent. He urged the Board to expand zoning to include the M-2 zoning district for production and processing of recreational marijuana. Jim Schack, 24615 142"' Ave SE, Kent, WA spoke in opposition to allowing Recreational Marijuana Facilities in Kent asking the Board to take a stand and vote for Option A to not permit marijuana use in Kent. Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion PASSED 6-0. Board Members Cornelius, Ottini, Smith, Phillips, Gill, and Jones expressed opinions on why they oppose recreational marijuana production, processing or retail facilities in Kent. Upon concluding deliberations, Cornelius MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council Option A for Recreational Marijuana Retail and Uses by Businesses Validly-Licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board to not allow marijuana retail sales in any zoning district. All members voted in favor, Motion PASSED 6-0, Jones MOVED and Gill SECONDED A Motion to recommend to the City Council Option 8 for recreational marijuana processing land uses by Businesses validly- licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board to allow marijuana WPB Minutes June 23,2014 Page 3 of 32 processing only in the M3 General Industrial District. MOTION FAILED 3-3 with Ottini, Phillips, and Cornelius voting in opposition, and Gill, Jones, and Smith voting in favor of the Motion. Galazin recommended the Board make a motion to reconsider; whereupon Cornelius MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Reconsider. MOTION PASSED 6-0. Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council Option B For recreational marijuana processing land uses by businesses validly- licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board Only in the M-3 General Industrial District. MOTION FAILED 4-2 with Ottini, Phillips, Cornelius and Smith voting in opposition, and Gill and Jones voting in favor of the Motion. Cornelius MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to recommend to the City Council Option A for recreational marijuana production land uses by businesses validly-licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board to not allow marijuana production in any Zoning District. MOTION PASSED 4-2 With Ottini, Phillips, Cornelius, and Smith voting in favor, and Gill and Jones voting in opposition to the Motion. Satterstrom stated that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a workshop on July 14thto consider the Riverbend Amendments. The Recreational Marijuana issue will tentatively go to City Council Workshop on July 151h. Adiournment Seeing no further business to come before the Board, Ottini MOVED and Gill SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Meeting. Motion PASSED. Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager/Board Secretary WPB Minutes June 23,2014 Page 4 of4 33 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager wAs�, ��.o� Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 July 23, 2014 TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone (CPA-2014-1 and CPZ-2014-1) For Public Hearing of July 28, 2014 MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Option 2, a comprehensive plan land use designation of MU, Mixed Use and a zoning designation of GC-MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use for the Riverbend Surplus Property. BACKGROUND: At their May 6th meeting, City Council approved Resolution #1883, which authorized staff to move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment on the Riverbend Surplus Property site. Currently, in light of its present use as a golf course, the site is zoned for low intensity land uses (SR-1) and its designation in the comprehensive plan is Open Space. Discussions with the City Council have envisioned a more urban, mixed use scenario which would require a change in zoning and comprehensive plan designations. At the June 91h and July 141h LUPB workshops, staff discussed four land use and zoning designation options with the Board. SEPA environmental review has been completed for this proposal and a Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 23, 2014. DISCUSSION: The location and physical characteristics of the Riverbend surplus site create opportunities as well as potential limitations that need to be considered when choosing land use and zoning designations (see map in Attachment 1). With 23 acres of flat property and 1,500 feet of frontage on Meeker Street, the site lends itself to a variety of potential land uses such as retail, office, hotel or multi-family residential. Located just east of a major intersection with State Route 516, the site enjoys easy access to Interstate 5 and State Route 167, which are desirable factors for commercial and office uses. MEMORANDUM: 34 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 2 Two thousand feet of river and trail frontage provide recreational and view opportunities, while also presenting limitations due to shoreline regulations. Developments within 200 feet of the river are limited to water-related commercial uses no higher than 35 feet and must provide public access to the shoreline. Residential uses are not permitted within 200 feet. Despite these constraints, such a large site could easily accommodate residential or office uses outside the 200 feet, with a water-related use such as a restaurant with views and outdoor dining areas closer to the river. Choosing the zoning for this site will shape what future development could be, and must consider not only the site characteristics but also community vision and market demand. With the recent Downtown Subarea Action Plan, the boundaries of downtown were extended west to 64th Avenue South, reflecting "the relevance of areas located west ... of the current boundaries to the economic vitality of, and synergy with what is traditionally considered the downtown." (DSAP page 4-1) Given this expansion, the Riverbend Surplus site could be considered a gateway to downtown Kent. The DSAP pursues a dense, mixed-use urban center and specifically seeks to increase the mix of uses by expanding GC-MU zoning further west to 64th Avenue South. With City Council's goal of urban, mixed use development in mind, staff will present four zoning options for the Board's consideration. Two of the options are mixed use, one is residential only and the last is a "no action" alternative. Refer to the tables in Attachment 2 for a detailed comparison of uses and standards for each zoning district, with a brief summary provided here: Option 1: MCR, Midway Commercial Residential Recently created by the Midway Subarea Plan Allows mixed use, retail, office, hotel, multifamily residential Prohibits auto-oriented uses such as auto repair, car sales and drive through Ensures quality development through Midway Design Guidelines Minor change to Zoning Code needed to ensure Midway Design Guidelines apply outside Transit Oriented Community (TOC) comprehensive plan land use designation 200 foot height limit allows design flexibility, but may not be appropriate in this location Mixed Use (MU) comprehensive plan land use designation is the natural choice to support this zoning designation TOC land use designation is an option, but was intended to surround a light rail station Option 2: GC-MU, General Commercial Mixed Use • Broad mix of uses allowed • Recent re-zoning in Downtown Strategic Action Plan brought GC-MU further west to 64th Avenue South MEMORANDUM: 35 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 3 65 foot height limit; may be extended to 81 feet with administrative variance Multifamily residential must include 5% commercial use (as a percentage of total square footage) A wide variety of commercial uses are allowed, including auto-oriented uses Mixed Use Design Review required Mixed Use (MU) comprehensive plan land use designation could support this zoning district Option 3: MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential • MR-M zoning exists on land located adjacent to the east • Multifamily residential is primary allowed use • No commercial use is allowed • Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MDMF) comprehensive plan land use designation could support this zone Option 4: No Action (SR-1, Residential Agricultural) • Allows low density single family residential (1 unit per acre) • Clustering required with 50% open space • Agricultural and open space uses allowed • No commercial use is allowed • Open Space (OS) comprehensive plan land use designation would remain Given Council's vision for a mixed use development, Options 1 and 2 are both good choices. Option 1 (MCR) would ensure quality, urban, pedestrian-friendly development but does not require residential projects to include commercial. While the highest building likely to be built on the site is 80 feet, the 200 foot height limit in the MCR district may not be appropriate in this location. Option 2 (GC-MU) could achieve similar quality through Mixed Use Design Review with a shorter height limit of 65 feet. With the recent extension of GC-MU as part of the DSAP, selecting Option 2 would ensure consistency with the surrounding area. The following criteria (KCC 12.02.050) are used by the City Council to evaluate a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these criteria: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Any future development on the site will have to meet applicable land development and building codes, including mitigation of environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kent. MEMORANDUM: 36 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 4 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. At the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and the subsequent update in 2004, the Par 3 golf course was not expected to change to any other use, so it was designated OS, Open Space. Since that time, the fiscal sustainability of the City's golf operations has come into question. City Council has directed staff to prepare the Riverbend surplus property (Par 3) for possible sale to a developer, with the goal of building a mixed use development on the site in the future. Furthermore, the Downtown Subarea Plan (DSAP) was adopted by City Council in 2013, which expanded the boundaries of downtown west of SR 167 to 64th Avenue South. The DSAP also expanded the mixed use overlay in the same area, bringing the GC-MU zoning boundary closer to the subject parcel and setting the stage for redevelopment along Meeker Street. Based on the above new information, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the land use plan map designation of the Riverbend surplus property. 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. The Par 3 golf course currently provides shorter fairways that are well suited to young or beginning golfers as well as senior golfers. Displacement of the Par 3 course will cause a loss of recreational golf opportunities that the City plans to mitigate by two means. First, by developing a golf training facility on the vacant two acre area next to the driving range; and second, by adding forward-tee boxes to the standard 18-hole Riverbend course. Improving the fiscal sustainability of the City's golf operations will be a long-term benefit for golfers and the community, by ensuring the continuing operation of the rest of the Riverbend Golf Complex. The proposed amendment would enable development of the site, which depending on the option chosen, would eventually generate jobs, housing units, property tax revenue and/or sales tax revenue for the City. Creation of jobs, housing and public revenue are also long-term benefits for the community as a whole. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Selection of option 1, 2 or 3 would support Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding mixed use development and housing: goals LU-6, LU-9, LU-10 and ED-3.2 and policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-9.1, LU-9.4, LU-10.1, LU- 10.2, ED-3.2 and ED-3.5. Concurrency will be ensured through requiring MEMORANDUM: 37 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 5 transportation and utility improvements and impact fees at the time of development. The following criteria (KCC 15.09.050.C) are used by the City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these criteria: REZONE CRITERIA 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates the subject property as OS, Open Space. As the proposed rezone is accompanied by a proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the rezone option chosen will be consistent with the relevant Comprehensive Plan land use designation. If option 1 or 2 is chosen, the corresponding land use designation will be MU, Mixed Use. If option 3 is chosen, the land use designation will be MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. As mentioned above, the proposed rezone is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. The Zoning Code allows a variety of uses in the GC-MU and MCR districts, including multifamily residential, retail, restaurant, office and service uses. The MR-M district allows multifamily residential uses. These potential uses would be compatible with the existing mix of multifamily housing, golf complex and service uses along Meeker Street. More specifically, the Riverbend 18-hole Golf Course is located directly across Meeker Street to the north, including a pro shop and restaurant. A Best Western hotel and several restaurants are located to the northeast. The Colony Park Apartments (24 units) are located immediately adjacent to the subject site, with the Riverbend driving range and miniature golf course east of that. Further east are two large garden-style apartment complexes. The City's Old Fishing Hole Park is located west of the site, across the Green River. Vacant property to the south, also across the Green River, is owned by King County and the City of Kent, and is planned for a salmon habitat restoration project. Any of the proposed zoning options will complement existing uses by providing services and potential employment for nearby residents (if commercial) and potential customers for nearby businesses (if residential). The Zoning Code prohibits incompatible uses, such as industrial, in the proposed zoning districts. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. MEMORANDUM: 38 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 6 The proposed rezone of this property will not generate additional trips onto the existing transportation system at this time. However, subsequent development will add trips depending on the type of development proposed. The specific traffic impact will be quantified at the time of development permit review, and appropriate mitigation will be identified at that time. Such mitigation will include payment of traffic impact fees, and likely construction of or financial contribution towards a Meeker Street widening project as identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. The subject parcel was annexed to the City of Kent in 1958 and was originally used for agriculture. The Colony Park apartments were constructed in 1968 along with the Par 3 golf course and driving range, which were part of the apartment complex. The City bought the Par 3 course from Colony Park Apartments in 1981. At the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and the subsequent update in 2004, the Par 3 golf course was not expected to change to any other use, so it was designated OS, Open Space. Since that time, the fiscal sustainability of the City's golf operations has come into question. City Council has directed staff to prepare the Riverbend surplus property (Par 3) for possible sale to a developer, with the goal of building a mixed use development on the site in the future. Furthermore, the Downtown Subarea Plan (DSAP) was recently adopted by City Council in 2013, which expanded the boundaries of downtown west of SR 167 to 64th Avenue South. The DSAP also expanded the mixed use overlay in the same area, bringing the GC-MU zoning boundary closer to the subject parcel. Based on the above new information, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the zoning designation of the Riverbend surplus property. S. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, subsequent development on the site will have to meet applicable codes and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of Kent. In addition to the above rezone criteria, the City Council shall also evaluate a request for expanding the mixed use overlay on the basis of the following criteria: REZONE TO MD(ED USE OVERLAY CRITERIA 1. The proposed rezone is contiguous to an existing mixed use overlay area, or is at least one (1) acre in size. MEMORANDUM: 39 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 7 The portion of the subject parcel proposed to be rezoned is 23 acres in size. An existing mixed use overlay area is also located nearby at the northeast corner of Meeker Street and Russell Road. 2. The proposed area is located within close proximity to existing residential uses and existing commercial uses which would support residential use. The Riverbend Surplus Property is located near several existing apartment complexes and a variety of retail, restaurant and service uses. More specifically, a restaurant is located directly across Meeker Street, within the Riverbend Golf Complex. A Best Western hotel and several restaurants are also located to the northeast. The Colony Park Apartments (24 units) are located immediately east of the subject site, and further east are two large garden-style apartment complexes. 3. The proposed area is located in close proximity to transit stops, parks, and community facilities. The Riverbend 18-hole Golf Course is located across Meeker Street to the north, including a pro shop and restaurant. A driving range and miniature golf course are also located to the east. The City's Old Fishing Hole Park is located west of the site, across the Green River. Metro bus routes 158, 159, 166 and 183 currently serve the site via a bus stop located on the south side of Meeker Street near the driving range. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 2: GC-MU zoning with an MU land use designation. This option meets the criteria for rezones and the criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staff feels that GC-MU is the most appropriate zoning district for this site, given the existing zoning and development nearby and given City Council's vision for a mixed use development. While MCR allows mixed use, the 200 foot height limit is not appropriate in the valley or near the Green River. GC-MU's 65 foot height limit is more reasonable. GC-MU allows auto-oriented commercial uses (while MCR does not); however, the City will use the RFP process and a development agreement to ensure a desirable use is selected and that the finished product is high quality and attractive. EG:pm \S:\Permit\Plan\COM P_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2014\CPA-2014-1_Pa r3\LUPB\07-28-14_Hea ri ngStaffRpt.doc Enc: Attach 1- Site Map Attach 2- Land Use Comparison Table cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner Kurt Hanson, Economic Development Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Project File CPA-2014-1 and CPZ-2014-1 40 ATTACHMENT 1 M i w i r o/r i u � 2 it '(i+ri r t„ u cr' v ' M � NiWr L ft a (r r r i w rp� er ; r r �� 42 ATTACHMENT 2 43 '^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '^ } zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > v } O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O } > > > z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z E v Z o O L c Q Y a N f0 f0 f0 U G U U U U Q 0 E E E E W 0 0 0 0 T Ln N O O O O O ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ON 0 0 O O h0 p V Z V } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } Z Z c Y t hn J VI VI VI VI � Q } } } } N hq } C C LU C W w N U a c � C U O L .2 v 2 ut ut ut ut d ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut ut d C u J V O N N N v 2 N N N N O N N N N v 2 O O O O O O O O v Z } } } } U } } } } Z } } } } } U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z _ O Ln p ` fl Ln U/ Y � p c Z N ` W s m VI .y U O_ Y O 0 W f0 Y E V` L 1 O E O i _ u vt Y * L C -0b0 M ++ O ++ O c w Q +' N vt 0 .O _ L In +u+ t _ y O N U/ C tlD wt L L N 'V W t pp v -O -O O vt .N GW ' 7 O N p W N 40 _ L 2 40 .i C ro N U 0 t E v L U Co \ U_ C LL v ++ i C VI U/ ++ C f0 vt L p \ '� O u 'N C N O W L vt N 1' O C C S �, W O tlll O W .N L l.L W CL O C ++ N = p N ++ Y > L tlq u C W .0.. i LL Y w y L u K G ccOA m a c O `� ) O L O vt y0+ i E " Y .v �ibD E o w 3 �° v 0) +0 CC 0) F N \ O a Q 0. c� Q °� 3 -0 CC G W 0) 3 L O. O U/ 'O O O L N 10 � Q Q O Cop 'N C F f6 c .. O O J 44 v o v v v {n V1 M z O V1 V1 M N c-I c-I X E Y Z U w O O Ln CL C_ O V M O N w Ln O o O Q c-I Z Q Ln F � � Z c c W v v U � 0E .x O O O O W V O E Z Z Z 0 Z 0 O O Y Y } v v F .2 .2 O O W N N a O CL Ln V] Y Y C C J a Ln Ln Y Y N U v v v v N v N Q V w O C w C Y C Y O O J O J Z O °O Z ON Z Z W N CO w W N (U w w y O O W x 0 V) Vn V) X 0 W i [O O MU X K N 45 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager wAs�, ��.o� Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 July 22, 2014 TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Green River Corridor District Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2014-3) For Public Hearing of July 28, 2014 MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Option 1, amending the Zoning Code to eliminate the Green River Corridor District height restriction and add GC-MU to the building length exception. BACKGROUND: At the July 14, 2014 LUPB workshop, staff discussed the possibility of eliminating the height restriction and revising the building length restriction within the Green River Corridor District (1,000 feet from the river), regulated by Kent City Code 15.08.260.0 (6) and (7). Building heights within the corridor would continue to be limited by development standards in the Zoning Code and Shoreline Master Program. SEPA environmental review has been completed for this proposal and a Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 23, 2014. While crafting the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) and expanding the downtown boundaries west of State Route 167, staff noted a Green River Corridor District requirement contained in the Zoning Code that limits building height to 35 feet and limits building length to 200 feet within 1,000 feet of the Green River. This standard conflicts with the new 65 foot height limit applied by the DSAP for the GC- MU zoning district, which includes portions of the downtown planning area that are also located within the Green River Corridor. The Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1971, which applies to areas within 200 feet of shorelines such as the Green River. As required by the Act, the City adopted the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 1974, which has been subsequently updated several times. Among other restrictions, the SMP restricts buildings within 200 feet of the Green River to 35 feet in height. Kent adopted the Green River Corridor District regulations in 1985 to provide an additional 800 foot corridor beyond the Green River shoreline zone protected from "land uses that would adversely affect the shoreline environment or MEMORANDUM: 46 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 2 produce high volumes of traffic, and to preserve features with historic, cultural or educational significance." The regulations also implemented policies contained in the Valley Studies Program Land Use Study (1981) and Green River Corridor Plan (1980). DISCUSSION: Zoning district regulations, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Green River Corridor District standards each contain building height regulations. These regulations overlap and create an opportunity for simplification. The Shoreline Master Program applies only to development within 200 feet of the Green River and limits building heights within this zone to 35 feet, if views are impacted. The Green River Corridor District effectively extends this height limitation out to 1,000 feet from the river. Zoning district development standards also apply to riverside lands, and contain height limitations that vary by zoning district. Most of the zoning districts located within the Green River corridor imposes similar restrictions. Only one zone, GC-MU, allows basic building heights over 40 feet. The table below compares the various height standards. Regulations Basic Building Height Limit Shoreline Master 35 feet Program (200 ft.) Green River 35 feet Corridor (1,000 ft. Zoning Code, by zoning district: A-10 35 feet AG 35 feet** CM-2 35 feet* GC 35 feet* GC-MU 65 feet* M1 35 feet** M2 35 feet** MA 35 feet** MHP N/A MR-G 40 feet MR-M 40 feet SR-1 35 feet SR-8 30 feet * One additional story may be granted by the Planning Director. Additional stories beyond that may be granted by the Land Use & Planning Board. ** Additional height up to 4 stories or 60 feet may be granted with one additional foot of yard for each one additional foot of height. One additional story may be granted by the Planning Director. Additional stories beyond that may be granted by the Land Use & Planning Board. MEMORANDUM: 47 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 3 As for building length, the Green River Corridor District regulations restrict buildings within the corridor to no more than 200 feet in length. However, buildings located in several industrial zones are allowed to exceed 200 feet in length if vegetative screening is provided. As development intensity in commercial zones is similar to that in industrial zones, also exempting GC-MU (the only commercial zone in the corridor) from this building length standard is logical. The Shoreline Master Program already requires a 15 foot landscape buffer between new buildings or parking lots and the Green River Trail. Furthermore, developments in the GC-MU zoning district must comply with design guidelines, which address blank walls. Staff will present four options for the Board's consideration: Option 1: Eliminate Green River Corridor District heiaht restriction; add GC- MU to building length exception • Resolves inconsistency with DSAP • Avoids duplication with Zoning Code and Shoreline Master Program (SMP) • Height within 200 feet of river will still be limited to 35 feet by SMP if views are impacted • Zoning Code will limit basic building height to 35 or 40 feet, except GC-MU, which is 65 feet • Buildings in GC-MU, M1, M2, M3, MA and M1-C could have walls over 200 feet in length if screened with plantings Option 2: Retain Green River Corridor District height limit except GC-MU; add GC-MU to building length exception • Resolves inconsistency with DSAP • Duplication with Zoning Code and SMP remains in zones other than GC-MU • Buildings in GC-MU, M1, M2, M3, MA and M1-C could have walls over 200 feet in length if screened with plantings Option 3: Retain Green River Corridor District height limit except GC-MU; no change to building length exception • Resolves inconsistency with DSAP • Duplication with Zoning Code and SMP remains in zones other than GC-MU • Buildings in M1, M2, M3, MA and M1-C could have walls over 200 feet in length if screened with plantings • Buildings in GC-MU could not exceed 200 feet in length Option 4: No action • Inconsistency with DSAP remains • Duplication with Zoning Code and SMP remains • All buildings within 1,000 feet of the river would continue to be limited to 35 feet in height • Buildings in M1, M2, M3, MA and M1-C could have walls over 200 feet in length if screened with plantings • Buildings in GC-MU could not exceed 200 feet in length RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1, eliminating the Green River Corridor District height limitation and adding GC-MU to the building length MEMORANDUM: 48 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2014 Page 4 exception. Given the zoning and shoreline height restrictions already in place and the recent adoption of the DSAP, maintaining the 35-foot limitation in areas up to 1,000 feet from the Green River is no longer appropriate. Also, in light of shoreline landscape requirements and design guidelines, amending the building length exception to include GC-MU is logical. EG:pm\S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE AMENDMENTS\2014\ZCA-2014-3GreenRiverCorridorDist\LUPB\07-28-14 HeanngaaffRpt doc Enc: Attach 1- Green River Corridor Map cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Project File ZCA-2014-3 ATTACHMENT Legend Green River Corridor i ���•���• City Limits � lrU''u r a V IIIIII°1;,GWi r �n �s e� r e iA ri ,f V 50 Planning ServiceV Location: 400 W. Gowe • Mail to: 220 41"Avenue South • Kent WA 98032-5895 Permit Center(253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.c i.kent.wa.us/perm itcenter WASHINGTON Environmental Checklist Application For Public Notice Board and Application Fee...See Fee Schedule TO BE COMPLETED'BY STAFF: - -y p APPLICATION #: FgQ - 2019" ZZ KIVA#: Z)18 �C�6u RECEIVED BY: �� DATE: S 3a i 0 PROCESSING FEE: A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: / Meets the categorically exempt criteria. v Has no probable significant adverse _environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has 'probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: C TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: Comprehensive Plan map amendment zoning map amend mentproperty sale zoning code amendment,., 52 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist— Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: "1." ` ' Name of Project: Riverbend Surplus Property sale 2. Name of Applicant: Kurt Hanson, Economic Development Manager Mailing Address: 400 W Gowe Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: Kurt Hanson, Economic Development Manager Telephone: 253.856.5454 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): agent 4. Name of Legal Owner: City of Kent Parks and Community Services Department Telephone: 253.856.5100 Mailing Address: 400 W Gowe Kent WA 98032 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The subject property is a 35 acre portion of Kent's Riverbend Golf Complex located at 2030 West Meeker Street in the SW quarter of section 23, township 22 range 4. This site includes the Riverbend golf driving range, mini-golf course and an 18 hole par-3 course. The par-3 portion of the site, which will be marketed for sale, is known as the Riverbend Surplus Property, a 24 acre area located on the western portion of the Riverbend Golf Complex parcel. Proposed amendments to Kent's zoning code will affectother properties in the city located along the banks of the Green River. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): PORTIONS GOUT LOTS 4 & 5 IN SW QTR STIR 23-22-04 AND PORTION SE QTR NW QTR SD SEC 23 ALL LYING SLY OF STATE HWY NO 5-A & WLY OF JOHN DOWNEY RD NO 722 (54TH PLACE S) EXC PORTION THEREOF PLATTED AS COLONY PARK CONDO (VOL 31, 'PG 57) & EXC PORTION THEREOF DAF:' BEG ON CENTERLINE'SECONDARY ST HWY NO 5-A AT ENGINEER'S STATION 163+00 BACK= 163+48.2''AHEAD AS SHOWN ON STATE HWY MAP REVISED 19 MARCH 1957 `TH N63-53-30EI ALONG CENTERLINE OF SD HIGHWAY 549.68 FT TH S14-51-10E 301.01 FT TH S75- 08-50W 60.00 FT TH S14-51-10E 119.73 FT TO TPOB TH'CONTG S14'-51- 53 City of Kent Planning Services ' Environmental Checklist— Page 3 10E 166.14 FT TH N06-23-25E 55.20 FT TH N14-51-10W 76.19 FT TH N42-18- 10W '43.39JFT TO TPOB (AS DELINEATEDPER CITY OF=-KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LL'-94-29 RECORDING NO 9502160277) b. Tax identification number: 2322049011 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, Natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). This checklist contemplates zoning and comprehensive plan map changes, as well as future short platting that will affect tax parcel 2322049011 (the Riverbend Golf site) as well as zoning code changes that will affect all riverfront properties along the Green River in Kent. The Riverbend Golf site is developed with a golf driving range, a miniature golf course, and an 18 hole par-3 golf course all owned and operated by the City of Kent Parks Department. A two acre area on the east side of the site part of the Riverbend Golf site, but is currently unused. The Riverbend Surplus Property is the par-3 portion of the larger Riverbend Golf site and is approximately 24 acres in area. This site is the area contemplated for sale, rezone and comprehensive plan map change. The Riverbend Surplus Property is generally flat, except along the sloped banks of the Green River,which runs along the south and west borders of the site.A portion of the Green River Trail is located on the site, adjacent to the riverbank. Vegetation in this area is primarily golf course turf with interspersed ornamental evergreen and deciduous trees. Soils on the site are primarily Ur, Urban Land. 8. Site Area: Riverbend Golf site 35 acres; Riverbend Surplus Property 24 acres Site Dimensions: Riverbend Golf site approx.. 2,096 feet x 696 feet Riverbend Surplus Property approx.. 1,350 feet x 675 feet 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): On April 14, 2014 the Economic and Community Development Committee of the Kent City Council directed staff to begin developing changes to the City's zoning and Comprehensive plans necessary to entitle the Riverbend Surplus Property for sale and future development. On May 6th 2014, the Kent City Council passed an emergency resolution (Res. 1883)authorizing update of the City's Comprehensive Plan outside of the standard annual update. Per this direction, the City of Kent is considering marketing for sale a portion of its Riverbend ` 54 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist— Page 4 Golf Complex, referred to as the Riverbend Surplus Property.The Riverbend Surplus Property is an approximately 24 acre portion of tax parcel 2322049011, located at 2030 West Meeker Street and is the current site of the City's Par-3 golf course. Prior to sale of the property, the City Council is considering rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property from its current designation of SR-1, Single Family to MCR, Midway Commercial Residential. In association with the contemplated rezone, the City Council is considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that will change the designation of the Riverbend Surplus Property from OS, Open Space to MU, Mixed Use. The City Council is also considering amendments to the zoning code that would remove building height and wall length limitations from section Kent City Code 15,08.260 Green River Corridor District'regulations. Height regulations and building aesthetics regulations are found in other parts of the zoning code and design standards. Additionally, the City Council is contemplating an amendment to the zoning code section 15,09.045 that would require Midway Design Review on all MCR zoned properties. This would change the current requirement which only callsfor Midway Design Reviewon properties zoned MCR, MTC-1 and MTC-2 and designated TOC on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. Finally, priorto sale of the property,the City is contemplating a short subdivision of the entire Riverbend Golf site (parcel 2322049011) into 8 separate lots and a tract for the Green River Trail.The Riverbend Surplus Property is part of this larger parcel, which also includes a golf driving range, mini-golf course, associated parking and two acres of unused land. These other areas are not part of the contemplated sale or rezone. The larger site may also be affected by related zoning code amendments being contemplated by the City Council. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule(include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Consideration of zoning and comprehensive plan map amendments as well as zoning code amendments is expected to occur during the summer of 2014. A short plat of the property will likely be processed by the City of Kent during the fall and winter of 2014/2015. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Kent plans to issue a request for development proposals in the summer/fall of 2014 then enter into purchase and sale negotiations with the selected developer. The City expects that the new owner will propose development consistent with the updated zoning of the site. In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for actual,development impacts, the City expects that additional environmental analysis will be required prior to approval of site development permits. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local,state,federal,or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. 55 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist—Page 5 DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 2008 City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None are currently known. i il' 66 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 6 AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one) Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The subject site is generally flat. Slopes of up to about 30%are located along the banks of the Green River. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 30%, located along the riverbank, between the OHWM of the Green River, and the Green River Trail. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, soils on the Riverbend site are primarily Ur, Urban Land d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. 57 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION-FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 7 AGENCY USE ONLY The MCR zoning district allows up to 80% building coverage, and does not include an impervious surface limitation. The City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual requires that stormwater quality and quantity control provisions be included with any development project. Future development will be subject to the requirements of this manual. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. N/A 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No emissions to the air are contemplated at this time. Any future emissions will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No emissions to the air are contemplated at this time. Any future emissions will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. NIA 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water.body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The Green River is a 93 mile long fresh water river that borders the western and southern edges of the site, portions of which are within the 200' jurisdictional area of the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. The Green River is a salmonid bearing river that conveys water from the Crystal Mountain area to the Duwamish River and into Puget Sound. Flows range from summer lows near 300 CFS up i- 58 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 8 AGENCY USE ONLY to 100-year flows at the project site near 12,000 CFS. The peaks of flood events up to the 100-year event are all.softened by operation of the Howard Hanson flood control dam near river mile 64. Historic flows in the Green River prior to construction of the dam in 1964 and rerouting of the tributary White River in the early 1900's were substantially higher. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. Future development of the site will likely include work within 260 feet of the Green River,which will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and compliance with the City's Shoreline Master Program. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities,if known. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required, to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are anticipated with future development. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, per the 1995 FIRM. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated 59 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 9 AGENCY USE ONLY volume of discharge. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. No discharge of waste materials is anticipated with future development as City Codes would prohibit such discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. No groundwater withdrawals or discharges are anticipated with future development. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. Future development will connect to the City's sanitary sewer system. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 60 Environmental Checklist— Page 10 AGENCY USE ONLY to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. Future development will generate stormwater runoff from new buildings and pavement. The City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual requires that stormwater quality and quantity control provisions be included with any site development. The requirements of this manual will be applied at the time of development plan review and will be part of any development project. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits. As city codes require connection to the public stormwater sewer system, no such discharges are anticipated. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A. No ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts prior to the issuance of development permits: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other _x_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs _x_Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other 61 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 11 AGENCY USE ONLY Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No removal of vegetation is currently contemplated. Future development will impact existing plants and will be analyzed during development permit review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known listed plant species are known to exist within the project boundaries. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No disturbance to existing plants is currently proposed. Kent's zoning code requires landscaping for new development projects, and will apply to any future development project. S. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rabbit, sguirrle Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: Threatened Chinook (Onchorynchus tschawyscha), steelhead (O. mykiss) and (possibly) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) may be found in the Green River adjacent to the project site. There is a known bald eagle nest located approximately 1 mile away from the project site, though this species has now been delisted. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes — Many species of anadromous salmon including those mentioned above as well as coho, pink and chum use the Green . 62 City of Kent Planning Services ( ( EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY River as a migration corridor. The Green River is also a major pathway within the Pacific Flyway migratory bird route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No wildlife disturbing activities are currently proposed. Future development within 200 feet of the Green River will be subject to the provisions of the Kent's Shoreline Master Program, which requires shoreline restoration planting where feasible, as well as zoning code standards, which will require landscaping throughout the site. All site development will be subject to the City's stormwater quality and quantity control requirements and best-management practice requirements. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A. No development is currently proposed. Future development under the MCR zoning designation could include a mix of uses that would use energy for a range of commercial, office and/or residential uses. c. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A d. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The entire City of Kent is located within the Department of Ecology's Tacoma Smelter Plume study area. Based on the map at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecyNmeltersearch/ the site is located within an area where arsenic levels were detected at a rate of less than 20 parts per million. DOE recommends soil testing in areas where arsenic levels have been detected at more than 20 parts per million. 63 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 13 AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The site is served by the Kent Regional Fire Authority and the Kent Police Department. Impacts to these services will be considered at the time of development plan review. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Noise from vehicles travelling along West Meeker Street and WA 516/Kent Des-Moines Road (located across the Green River from the site) may impact future development at the Riverbend Surplus site. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. NIA. Noise impacts will be considered at the time of development plan review. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A B. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Riverbend Golf site is developed with a golf driving range, a miniature golf course, and an 18 hole par-3 golf course.A two acre area on the east side of the site is vacant. Parcels that will be affected by contemplated zoning code amendments are located within the Green River Corridor District, which is defined in KCC 15.08.260 as: Two (2) strips of land each eight hundred (800) feet in width l,. 64 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 14 AGENCY USE ONLY which begin at the north city limit line, on March 4, 1985, and end at the south city limit line, which south line ends in Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Each strip shall be measured from each side of the Green River and the measurement shall be two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high-waterline of the river, all in King County, Washington;except any portions thereof lying outside of the city limits. Various uses are located on parcels within the Green River Corridor District, in accordance with the land use limitations of the various zoning districts. These districts include A-10,Agricultural; AG Agricultural/General; CM-2, Commercial Manufacturing; GC, General Commercial; GC-MU, General Commercial/Mixed Use; M1, Industrial Park; M2, Limited Industrial; MA, Industrial Agricultural; MHP, Mobile Home Park; MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily; MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily; SR-1, Residential Agriculture; SR-8, Single Family; O, Office. Land to the north of the Riverbend Golf site is also part of the larger Riverbend Golf Complex, and is used as the standard 18 hole golf course. Land to the south, across the Green River is ,vacant, owned by King County. Other land to the south will be used for the planned Downey Farmstead salmon habitat restoration project, which is planned for construction in the spring of 2015. The 16 acre site east of the Riverbend Golf site is developed as a garden-style apartment complex. The City's Old Fishing Hole Park is located to the west of the site, across the Green River. The Colony Park Apartments, a 24 unit development in two buildings are located on a parcel that is surrounded by the Riverbend Golf site. The apartments are allowed access to W. Meeker Street via an easement over the Riverbend Golf site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The par-3 golf course and driving range were constructed with the Colony Park apartments in 1968. Prior to that time, the site was used for agriculture. Various properties within the Green River Corridor District are used for agriculture, primarily along the left bank of the river. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures located on the Riverbend Golf site include an approximately 2,100 square foot pro-shop/club house building for the min-golf course and driving range, a shelter and netting poles for the driving range itself and an approximately 1,800 square foot clubhouse for the par-3 golf course. A 92 stall parking lot is also located near the driving range and mini-golf course. 66 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 15 AGENCY USE ONLY d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No buildings are currently proposed to be removed. However, future development will likely include removal of the par-3 clubhouse building. Numerous buildings are located within the Green River Corridor District, which includes all land within 1000 feet of the Green River, as it winds approximately 20 miles through Kent. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The western portion of the Riverbend Golf site is currently zoned SR-1, Residential Agriculture, and the eastern portion is zoned MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily. Various zoning districts are located within the Green River Corridor district. Kent City Code 15.04 includes development standards for each district,which include building height limitations. These limitations vary by zoning district. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The western portion of the Riverbend Golf site is currently designated OS, Open Space on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map, while the eastern portion is designated MDMF, Medium Density Multi-Family. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The Riverbend Golf site is designated Urban Conservancy-Open Space Properties located within the Green River Corridor District are designated High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity and Urban Conservancy-Open Space. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The Green River is a shoreline of state-wide significance located along the western and southern sides of the Riverbend Golf site, and within 1000 feet of all properties in the Green River Corridor District. No other sensitive areas have been identified on the Riverbend Golf site. Various stream, wetland and steep slope areas are located within the Green River Corridor District and are subject to Kent's Critical Area regulations. r 66 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 16 AGENCY USE ONLY i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No project is currently proposed. However, the City Council is contemplating rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property to MCR , Midway Commercial Residential. This zoning district allows multi-family townhomes and apartments, which would likely be part of a future redevelopment. Since the MCR zone also allows a number commercial uses in addition to multifamily residential,the precise mix of uses that will be part of future site development is difficult to know, and development scenarios could vary widely. Because of this uncertainty, additional environmental analysis will be required at the time a development proposal is submitted. For the purpose of the current analysis, Kent is relying on its recently completed portion of the forthcoming 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study which indicates that MCR zoned land is likely to build out with a mix of about 70%devoted to residential use and 30%devoted to commercial use. More detail on the housing build-out assumptions is included in section 9, below. HOUSING 2013 OFM estimates for Kent indicate that an average of 2.3 people reside in each unit in multifamily residential developments that include five units or more. Based on the assumptions in section 9, which assumes that 1,569 units will be built at this site, it is reasonable to expect that as many as 3,470 people might reside at this site if it is developed to MCR standards. JOBS A range of commercial uses are allowed in the MCR zoning district,these include hotels, grocery and drug stores, bulk retail stores,restaurants and bars, personal service shops, medical offices/facilities, business/professional offices, etc.A future development proposal could contain any mix of these uses (and others), in addition to residential uses. Again, following Kent's assumptions in its contribution to the King County Buildable Lands Study, 30% of the buildable land at the Riverbend Surplus Property is likely to be devoted to commercial use. Under the MCR zone, this area is about 5.5 acres, Since actual development scenarios may vary widely, for the purpose of _ this analysis, Kent is assuming that 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of retail shopping center might be located at the Riverbend Surplus site. Under this scenario, assuming job per 250 square feet of office space and 1 job per 500 square feet of retail space, approximately 1,200 office jobs and 200 retail jobs are likely to be located at the Riverbend Surplus site, if the zoning is changed to MCR. 67 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 17 AGENCY USE ONLY j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. N/A 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Approximately 1,509 housing units are likely to be located on the Riverbend Surplus Site. This conclusion rests on the following assumptions: 18.5 acres will be available for building at this site. This is based on the MCR zone allowing only 80% of the site to be occupied by building footprint. 1.) 70%of the buildable area on this site will be devoted to residential development and 30% to 'commercial development. This assumption is consistent with Kent's recently submitted portion of the forthcoming 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study,which reviewed likely development patterns for land in various zoning districts, including MCR. This yields approximately 12.85 acres residential land and 5.5 acres of commercial land. 2.) Residential buildings that will eventually be proposed on this site are likely to be similar to The Platform building, an apartment building currently under construction in Kent's downtown core. 3.) The floor-area-ratio (FAR)of The Platform project is 2.21,and the average unit is 820 square feet. 4.) Applying a 2.21 FAR to the 12.85 acres of the Riverbend Surplus Site likely to be developed with multi-family residential, at 820 square feet per unit yields 1,509 new multifamily units. ( ss City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 18 AGENCY USE ONLY b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No buildings are currently proposed at the Riverbend Surplus Property. All future proposed buildings will be subject to development standards found in the zoning code. These standards address elements such as setbacks, building height, maximum site coverage, etc. Also, the City Council is considering a change to the zoning code that will require Midway Design Review for development on all MCR, MTC-1 and MTC-2 parcels in the City. The Green River Corridor district was created by the Kent City Council in 1985 to provide additional protection to an 800 foot wide swath of land adjacent to the Green River beyond the 200 foot shoreline management zone. The regulations were to protect the area from land uses with adverse impacts, to preserve land features with historic cultural or educational significance and to ensure that urban development within this area was compatible with the open configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands. The original development regulations have been relaxed on multiple occasions when the City Council found that the intent of the regulations had been met and that flexibility in design was desirable. The City Council is now considering amendments the Green River Corridor district regulations that would remove the 35 foot height limitation from these standards. Currently zoning district development regulations, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Green River Corridor District standards contain building height regulations. These regulations overlap and create an opportunity to consider simplification. The Shoreline Master Program applies only to development within 200 feet of the Green River and limits building heights within this 'zone to 35 feet. The Green River Corridor District effectively extends this height limitation out to 1,000 feet from the river. Zoning district development standards also apply to riverside lands, and contain height limitations that vary by zoning district. Most of the zoning districts located within the Green River corridor impose similar building height restrictions. Only one zone, GC-MU allows 69 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 19 AGENCY USE ONLY building heights over 40 feet. The Riverbend Surplus Property is located within the Green River Corridor district. ° The contemplated zoning for this site is MCR, Midway Commercial Residential, which allows building heights up to 16 stoiries/200 feet. The table below compares the various height standards. Zoning Code, by zoning district: A-10 35 feet AG 35 feet CM-2 35 feet GC 35 feet GC-MU 65 feet M1 35 feet M2 35 feet MA 35 feet MCR 200 feet MHP N/A MR-G 40 feet MR-M 40 feet SR-1 35 feet SR-8 30 feet O 40 feet The proposed MCR designation for the Riverbend Surplus Property allows building heights up to 16 stories/200 feet. However, if future development resembles recent development in the Kent area, 5-6 stories is the tallest building likely to be proposed. Buildings proposed within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdictional area will continue to be limited to 35 feet in height b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The Green River is located along thewestern and southern boundaries of the site. An opportunity will exist for future development to take advantage of these views. Potential view impacts to surrounding properties will be considered at the time of development plan review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The City Council is contemplating revisions that would require any development of the Riverbend Surplus Property to comply with Midway Design Review Guidelines. The purpose of the Midway Design Guidelines is to establish a flexible framework of design options for creating interesting and high quality commercial, multi-family residential 70 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY and public projects. While these guidelines were developed for redevelopment projects in the City's Midway area, they reflect the 21 st century architectural standards, promote unique,walkable development. These guidelines require that new development address a range of aesthetic elements and specifically require reduction of the height, bulk and scale of new structures as needed to mitigate adverse impacts to adjoining public amenities, including sidewalks, parks, and open space and to achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. This site specific approach to analyzing the impacts of building height, with sensitivity to adjacent uses such as the Green River provides design flexibility and environmental protection as appropriate for each proposal. The impact of removing the 35 foot height limitation from the Green River Corridor district regulations would be mitigated by zoning district height standards, which would continue to apply. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is currently unknown as no development is proposed at this time. Light and glare impacts will be considered at the time of development plan review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Unknown at this time. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The Russell Road Sports Complex is located about'/mile to the north of the Riverbend Surplus site. Baseball and softball field lights from this facility may impact future development. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. NIA 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Green River Trail is located around the southern and western edge of the site; the Riverbend par-3 course is currently located on the 71 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 21 AGENCY USE ONLY Riverbend Surplus site; the 18 hole Riverbend Golf course is located north of the site along West Meeker Street; Riverbend golf driving range and mini-golf are immediately east of the Riverbend Surplus Site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The contemplated actions will allow for redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Site that will displace the 24 acre, 18 hole par-3 golf course. This golf course is operated by the City and supports the goal of providing golf opportunities for all ages and ability levels at the Riverbend Golf Complex. Par-3 golf courses feature shorter fairways that are well suited to young or beginning golfers as well senior golfers. These classes of golfers are the primary users of the course. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. " Displacement of the Par-3 course will cause a loss of recreational golf opportunities that the City plans to mitigate by two means. First, by developing a golf training facility on the vacant two acre area next to the driving range, the City will provide beginner and junior golfers with enhanced instructional facilities. Though specific plans have not been developed, this area will include a couple of short holes. Also, forward-tee boxes will be added to the standard 18 hole Riverbend course. These forward tee-boxes will provide beginning, younger and senior golfers with the opportunity to play shortened holes, in a manner similar to the existing par-3 course. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None are known. According to the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation's online database at hftps://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, no places or objects associated with the Riverbend Golf site are identified. b. Generally describe any landmarks orevidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. 72 City of Kent Planning Services ( EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 22 AGENCY USE ONLY During future development activities, should archaeological materials (e.g, bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity will stop to allow for consultation with state and tribal archaeological officials. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. West Meeker Street is a located along the northern border of the Riverbend Golf site.This road is classified as a minor arterial in the City's Transportation Master Plan., Russell Road South is located on the eastern boundary of the site, and is classified as a local street. There are currently two driveways along West Meeker Street and no access points on Russell Road South. Future site development will likely include additional and/or relocated driveway access points. d. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Metro bus routes 158, 159, 166 and 183 currently serve the site via a bus stop located on the south side of West Meeker Street near the Riverbend driving range. e. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many , would the project eliminate? No specific site development proposal is currently contemplated for the site. Parking will be provided as required by the Kent zoning code. f. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The City's 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) includes an analysis of existing and projected demand, as well as required mitigation along the 2601^St/Reith Road/!Meeker St corridor between SR 99 to the west and Washington Avenue to the east. The TMP analysis concluded that the PM peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) along this corridor was at D in 2006, when traffic data was collected. The City's LOS standard for this corridor is E, as shown in table 5.5 of the TMP. This plan concluded that by 2030, traffic operations were expected to degrade along the 2601h St/Reith 73 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 23 AGENCY USE ONLY Road/W Meeker St corridor, and that road widening and signal improvements are necessary if the corridor is to operate at LOS E in the future. Two street widening projects are identified in the City's 2008 Transportation Master Plan to meet this goal. Future development of the Riverbend Surplus Property will likely be required to participate financially and/or construct portions of the widening project. Based on an assumed development scenario of 1,509 mid-rise apartment units, 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of shopping center space (as discussed in sections 8 and 9 above), approximately 13,935 new daily and 1,557 new p.m. peak hour trips could be generated (based on ITE trip generation study numbers for mid-rise multi-family, office and shopping center land uses). This level of impact could require additional mitigation beyond that identified in the TMP. This traffic impact is based on a possible future development that could be allowed under MCR zoning limitations, but is necessarily very speculative at this early stage in the planning process. Market demand, financial feasibility, physical limitations of the site, as well as limitations that may result from application other development standards are all factors that may further limit scope, scale and impact a future development project. Further environmental analysis will be required to identify impacts and determine appropriate mitigation measures associated with a future development proposal. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 74 Environmental Checklist— Page 24 AGENCY USE ONLY f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Based on an assumed development scenario of 1,509 mid-rise apartment units, 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of shopping center space, approximately 13,935 new daily and 1,557 new p.m. peak hour trips could be generated. As this potential impact rests on speculative assumptions, further environmental analysis will be required to.identify impacts and determine appropriate mitigation measures when future development of the site is proposed. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Future development of the Riverbend Surplus Property will be required to identify project-specific traffic impacts, and consider the need for mitigation measures beyond those identified in the TMP. The future development project will likely financially participate in and/or construct improvements along W Meeker Street. Future development will be subject to Kent's Traffic Impact Fee ordinance. When a 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)?If so, generally describe. Rezoning the Riverbend Surplus us site from SR-1 to MCR would allow for more intensive use, which would ultimately increase demand for public services in accordance with the ultimate use of the site. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None at this time. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities 75 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 25 AGENCY USE ONLY providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. City water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage lines are located along W Meeker Street and Russell Road S. A 24" King County Metro sanitary sewer line, a 12' City of Kent Water line and a 15" storm sewer line provide ample capacity to serve a future mixed use development at the Riverbend Surplus Site. Other utilities nec essary to serve future redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus site will be the responsibility of the future owner. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: 17 Date: �' l 76 City of Kent Planning Services l EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 26 AGENCY USE ONLY DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, orthe types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property from SR-1 to MCR will allow for intensive mixed-use development. Emissions and noise from vehicle trips and site activity that would be allowed at the site could increase. Zoning code changes are not likely to increase these impacts. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The Riverbend Surplus Property is well served by transit that will be available to future users of the site. This service will help to limit the need for automobiles at the site. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed actions will enable redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Property. Redevelopment of the site will result in removal of golf course vegetation and the habitat that it creates. Planting requirements associated with the Kent's Shoreline Master Program will be applied if any development is proposed within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction area.Additional plantings within the shoreline area will have a beneficial effect on marine life in the Green River. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Future developmentwill complywith Kents landscaping, open space,and shoreline development regulations. 77 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 27 AGENCY USE ONLY 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Redevelopment enabled by the proposed actions would allow for more intensive use of the Riverbend Surplus Property, as well as other sites riverfront lots affected by changes to the Green River Corridor District height and wall length regulations. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: All future new buildings will be subject to the Washington State Energy code. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Not likely. No parks or wilderness areas are part of the proposed actions. According to hftp://www.rivers.gov/washington.php,the Green River is not identified as a Wild and Scenic River, and no other rivers are located in Kent. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Development within 200 feet of the OHWM of the river is subject to the provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Future development on the site, regardless of zoning classification,will be subject to Kent's Critical Area Ordinance, which regulates development near wetlands, streams and steep slopes. Also, Kent City Code 14,09 regulates development activities in and around floodplain and floodway areas. Contemplated changes to building height and wall length along the Green River will not exempt future development from City standards that protect these resources. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed actions will not enable more intensive development within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdictional area. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 78 Environmental Checklist— Page 28. AGENCY USE ONLY The proposed sale, rezone, comprehensive plan amendment,future short plat and zoning code changes will allow for more intensive land use primarily at the Riverbend Surplus Property, and to a lesser extent as at some other riverside properties. One of the proposed zoning code changes is to remove the blanket 35 foot height limitation for the area 200 to 1000 feet away from the Green River on riverside parcels. Removing this height limitation will allow the zoning district based height limitation to control development within this area. The zoning district height limitations are as follows: Zoning Code, by zoningdistrict: A-10 35 feet AG 35 feet CM-2 35 feet GC 35 feet GC-MU 65 feet M1 35 feet M2 35 feet MA 35 feet MHP N/A MR-G 40 feet MR-M 40 feet SR-1 35 feet SR-8 30 feet O 40 feet A separate zoning code amendment would allow buildings on riverfront lots within the MCR and GC-MU zones to construct buildings with walls parallel to the river that are 200 feet long or greater. This allowance currently applies to riverfront lots in the MA, M1, M1-C, M2,and M3 districts. This allowance may allow a slight increase in land use intensity on riverfront lots. Sale of the Riverbend Surplus Property and the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would allow more intensive land use on the site. The MCR zone allows a range of commercial and residential activities that are not allowed under the site's current SR-1 zoning designation. The proposed zoning changes, and actions that affect the Riverbend Golf site and Riverbend Surplus site are not expected to conflict with existing plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 79 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 29 AGENCY USE ONLY Future development of the Riverbend Surplus Property, as well as other riverfront lots is subject to a range of adopted regulations that address impacts that may increase as more intensive land-use is allowed. These regulations address shoreline impacts, stream, wetland and steep slope protection, floodplain protection, stormwater management, building height, setbacks and lot coverage, architectural aesthetics, landscaping, signage limitations, traffic impacts, access management, utility system impacts, school impacts, light and glare, smoke, dust and odor impacts, hazardous material storage, building safety, fire protection requirements, etc. These regulations are applied during development plan review. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Based on an assumed development scenario of 1,509 mid-rise apartment units, 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of shopping center space, approximately 13,935 new daily and 1,577 new p.m. peak hour trips will be generated. Fire and Police services are provided by Kent Regional Fire Authority and the City of Kent respectively. The increased intensity land use may add demand for these services. Stormwater sewer, water service and sanitary sewer systems will be impacted by increased development intensity, but have adequate capacity to support commercial development at the Riverbend Surplus Property. Utility impacts resulting from the proposed zoning changes are expected to be negligible. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Future development of the Riverbend Surplus Property will financially participate in and/or construct improvements to W Meeker Street. Future development will be subject to Kent's Traffic Impact Fee ordinance. 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts are known. 80 City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 30 AGENCY USE ONLY S: Perm it\Plan\ENV\2014\RIVERBEND SEPA_CHECKLIST.doc 81 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Community Dev. Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 KENT Fax 253-856-6454 WASHINGToN Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document CITY OF KENT RIVERBEND SURPLUS PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP AMENDMENT & GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR DISTRICT REGULATION AMENDMENT ENV-2014-22 KIVA# 2141804 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP Prepared by: Matt Gilbert, AICP I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent is considering amendments to its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Districts Map and zoning code amendments necessary to entitle the Riverbend Surplus Property for sale and future development. Comprehensive Plan amendments can be analyzed outside of the annual cycle as authorized by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) and Kent City Code Chapter 12.02. On May 6, 2014, the Kent City Council passed an emergency resolution (Res. 1883) authorizing consideration of these amendments. The Riverbend Surplus Property is an approximately 24-acre portion of a larger tax parcel 2322049011, located at 2030 West Meeker Street and is the current site of the City's par-3 golf course. Prior to sale of the property, the City Council is considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that will change the designation of the Riverbend Surplus Property from OS, Parks and Open Space and MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily to MU, Mixed Use. Furthermore, the City Council is considering rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property from its current designation of SR-1, Residential Agricultural. New zoning designations under consideration include MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily, GC-MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use, and MCR, Midway Commercial Residential. The Zoning Districts Map amendment contemplated in the submitted environmental checklist would rezone the Riverbend Surplus Property from SR-1, Residential Agricultural to MCR, Midway Commercial Residential. Potential future impacts of this change were identified, but no other zoning options that are under consideration were discussed. MCR was discussed because of the zoning districts under consideration; it allows the most intensive development while GC-MU and MR-M are more restrictive. This approach is useful when identifying environmental impacts, because the less 82 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 intensive zoning options would allow for less intensive development that would generate less environmental impact. Identifying the potential environmental impacts of this most intensive zoning option covers the other options that the Council might select for this site. The MCR zoning option and the associated potential for future impacts is included in this analysis. However, the intensity of future site development is unlikely to rise to the levels allowed under MCR. In order to inform policy-makers, stakeholders and the public of the more likely impacts, this analysis also contemplates development allowed under the GC- MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use zoning option. The GC-MU zone has a height limit of 65 feet and building coverage limitation of 60% and represents a more likely scenario for future site development and impacts. This approach is based primarily on the intensity of recent development in the Kent Valley and the physical limitations of valley soils to support tall buildings. Both MCR and GC-MU zones allow service, retail, office and hotel uses as well as a range of attached residential uses. In terms of development intensity, the MR-M Medium Density Multifamily option would allow for the least intensive redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Site. Contemplated amendments to the zoning code would remove building height and wall length limitations from section Kent City Code 15.08.260 Green River Corridor District regulations. Height regulations and building aesthetics regulations are found in other parts of the zoning code and design standards. Finally, prior to sale of the property, the City is contemplating a short subdivision of the entire Riverbend Golf site (parcel 2322049011) into no more than 8 separate lots and a tract for the Green River Trail. The Riverbend Surplus Property is part of this larger parcel, which also includes a golf driving range, mini-golf course, associated parking and two acres of unused land. These other areas are not part of the contemplated sale, comprehensive plan land use map amendment or rezone. The larger site may also be affected by related zoning code amendments being contemplated by the City Council. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning code and zoning districts map and marketing a city-owned property for sale are considered "non-project" actions under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Amendments to comprehensive plans are not project permit applications under ESHB 1724 and Kent City Code Chapter 12.01. The broad environmental impacts of the proposed action will be analyzed in this document. Future development proposals on the applicable sites will likely require subsequent environmental review in conjunction with construction permits and other appropriate project permit applications. The contemplated short plat is considered a project action, but is a categorically exempt land use decision per WAC 197.11.800. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094. Page 2 of 14 83 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The Riverbend Surplus Property is generally flat, though slopes of up to about 30% are located along the banks of the Green River. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, soils on the Riverbend Surplus Property are primarily Ur, Urban Land. Sites located in the Green River Corridor District are also generally flat, but vary by site. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. None of the zoning designations under consideration for the Riverbend Surplus Property contain impervious surface limitations, though any stormwater runoff created by future development will be handled in accordance with City stormwater management requirements. Future site grading work will require development permits and will be subject to City and Department of Ecology grading and erosion control standards. B. Air Development under the contemplated actions could increase localized air pollutant emissions from new commercial uses, new residential uses (both of which contribute to regional vehicle travel and tailpipe emissions), and from construction activities. Construction emissions include dust from excavation and grading activities, diesel-powered engine emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, odors detectable to people in the vicinity of construction activities (such as paving operations) and increases in general traffic-related emissions due to delays caused by construction equipment and material hauling activity. Construction related emissions will be minimized through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust such as spraying bare soil during times of active construction, covering soil piles and preventing track-out of mud onto public streets. Construction activity and equipment must comply with relevant Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. However, despite compliance with such regulations, local construction-related emissions could cause temporary, localized impacts on air quality. Emissions from commercial operations could cause air pollution issues at nearby residential and recreation properties unless properly controlled. However, all new commercial facilities are required to register pollutant-emitting equipment with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) and comply with PSCAA standards to minimize emission. Therefore, it is unlikely that new commercial operations would cause significant air quality issues. Potential air quality impacts caused by increased tailpipe emissions are divided into two general categories: Carbon Monoxide (CO) hot-spots caused by localized emissions at heavily congested intersections and regional photochemical smog caused by combined emissions throughout the Puget Sound region. With respect to localized hot-spot air quality, it is unlikely that increased vehicle travel on existing public roads would cause significant localized Page 3 of 14 84 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 air pollutant concentrations at local intersections, forming a hot-spot. PSCAA has not indicated any exceedances over the past several years, and EPA's ongoing motor vehicle regulations have provided steady decreases in tailpipe emissions from vehicles, which possibly could more than offset the increase in vehicle traffic. In terms of regional impacts, although population and vehicle travel from the Riverbend Surplus Property would increase as a result of the contemplated actions, the increase in tailpipe emissions would be very small relative to the overall regional tailpipe emissions within the Puget Sound air basin. Based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC's) air quality conformity analysis, forecasted regional emissions for its 2030 planning year are far below the allowable budgets. C. Water Subsequent development pursuant to the contemplated actions may increase the amount of impervious surface when development occurs. However, no ground disturbing or other water impacting work is currently contemplated. The Riverbend Surplus Property is located along the Green River. Portions of this site are within the 200 foot jurisdictional area of the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. Properties within 1,000 feet of the Green River will be affected by contemplated changes to the Green River Corridor District regulations. The Green River is a salmonid bearing river that conveys water from the Crystal Mountain area to the Duwamish River and into Puget Sound. Flows range from summer lows near 300 CFS up to 100-year flows at the project site of nearly 12,000 CFS. The peaks of flood events up to the 100-year event are all softened by operation of the Howard Hanson flood control dam near river mile 64. Historic flows in the Green River, prior to construction of the dam in 1964 and rerouting of the tributary White River in the early 1900's, were substantially higher. Any future development proposal will be required to analyze and mitigate for water related impacts in conformance with local, state and federal standards. Future development proposed within 200 feet of the Green River will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. D. Plants The Riverbend Surplus Property is currently landscaped with typical golf-course plantings such as deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and turf grass. Future development would likely result in removal of some existing plants. The landscape requirements of the GC-MU zoning district will require new landscaping in conjunction with future development. Changes to the Green River Corridor District Regulations related to wall length and building height are unlikely to cause impacts to plants beyond what is currently allowed. Any development located within 200 feet of the Green River will be subject to the Shoreline Master Program, which requires shoreline restoration planting where feasible. Page 4 of 14 85 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 E. Animals The Riverbend Surplus Property, as well as other land within the Green River Corridor district is adjacent to the Green River, and future development might have an effect on animals. Species that have been observed on or around the Riverbend Surplus Property include: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, rabbit and squirrel. Threatened Chinook (Onchorynchus tschawyscha), steelhead (O. mykiss) and (possibly) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) may be found in the Green River adjacent to the project site. Coho, pink and chum salmon are also known to use the Green River as a migration route. The Green River is a major pathway within the Pacific Flyway migratory bird route. No wildlife disturbing activities are currently proposed. Future development within 200 feet of the Green River will be subject to the provisions of Kent's Shoreline Master Program, which requires shoreline restoration planting where feasible, as well as compliance with zoning code standards, which will require landscaping throughout the site. F. Environmental Health The entire City of Kent is located within the Department of Ecology's Tacoma Smelter Plume study area. Based on the map at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/smeltersearch/ the Riverbend Surplus Property is located within an area where arsenic levels were detected at a rate of less than 20 parts per million. Other areas located in the Green River Corridor District are shown to contain arsenic levels of 20-40 parts per million. DOE recommends soil testing in areas where arsenic levels have been detected at more than 20 parts per million. Redevelopment at the Riverbend Surplus Property could increase noise impacts on the Colony Park Apartments, located to the east. Impacts will be assessed at the time of a specific development proposal. Traffic noise from Meeker Street and WA 516/Kent Des-Moines Road (located across the Green River from the site) could impact the Riverbend Surplus Site. G. Energy and Natural Resources While the contemplated actions will allow for more intense development than is currently allowed, the changes are unlikely to generate demand for energy or natural resources beyond what is typical within an urban area. The increase of residential densities and increase of land use intensity within the city limits serves as an alleviating factor on consumption of rural and natural resource lands outside of the urban growth boundary. H. Land and Shoreline Use CURRENT LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF PROPOSAL SITES The contemplated zoning districts map and comprehensive plan land use map amendments are for the western portion of parcel 2322049011. This western portion is known as the Riverbend Surplus Property and is currently designated OS, Parks and Open Space and MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily on the Page 5 of 14 86 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The western portion is zoned SR-1, Residential Agricultural and MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily. The eastern portion of the parcel is designated MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily and is zoned MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily. The eastern portion of the parcel contains a golf driving range, a miniature golf course, and two acres of vacant land. The western portion is developed with a nine-hole par-3 golf course. The contemplated amendments would rezone the Riverbend Surplus Property to a more intensive multifamily or mixed-use zoning district and redesignate the site MU, Mixed Use on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Parcels that will be affected by contemplated zoning code amendments for the Green River Corridor District encompass an area within 1,000 feet of the river, defined in KCC 15.08.260 as: Two (2) strips of land each eight hundred(800) feet in width which begin at the north city limit line, on March 4, 1985, and end at the south city limit line, which south line ends in Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Each strip shall be measured from each side of the Green River and the measurement shall be two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high- water line of the river, all in King County, Washington, except any portions thereof lying outside of the city limits. Various uses are located on parcels within the Green River Corridor District, in accordance with the land use and development limitations of the various zoning districts. The zoning districts include: A-10, Agricultural; AG Agricultural/General; CM-2, Commercial Manufacturing; GC, General Commercial; GC-MU, General Commercial/Mixed Use; M1, Industrial Park; M2, Limited Industrial; MA, Industrial Agricultural; MHP, Mobile Home Park; MR-G, Low Density Multifamily Residential; MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential; SR-1, Residential Agricultural; SR-8, Single Family Residential and O, Office. CURRENT LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF SURROUNDING SITES Land to the north of the Riverbend Surplus Property across West Meeker Street is also part of the larger City-owned Riverbend Golf Complex, and is used as the standard 18-hole golf course. Most of the land to the south, across the Green River is vacant and owned by the City of Kent. The Downey Farmstead salmon habitat restoration project, which is planned for construction in the spring of 2015, is located in this area. The 16 acre site east of Russell Road is developed as a garden-style apartment complex known as the Riverbend Apartment Homes. The City of Kent-owned Old Fishing Hole Park is located to the west of the site, across the Green River. The Colony Park Apartments, a 24 unit development in two buildings is located on a parcel that is surrounded by the Riverbend Golf site. These apartments take access to W. Meeker Street via an easement over the Riverbend Golf site. One of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map/code amendment process is to assess whether the contemplated actions will result in land uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 6 of 14 87 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 Issues of compatibility will be analyzed by staff, the Land Use and Planning Board, and the City Council in determining whether or not to adopt the contemplated changes. SHORELINE The Green River is a shoreline of state-wide significance located along the western and southern sides of the Riverbend Golf site, and within 1000 feet of all properties in the Green River Corridor District. No other sensitive areas have been identified on the Riverbend Golf site. Various stream, wetland and steep slope areas are located within the Green River Corridor District and are subject to Kent's Critical Area regulations. Development located within 200 feet of the Green River is subject to the provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program. POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT No development is currently proposed. However, the City Council is contemplating rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property to either MCR-Midway Commercial Residential; GC-MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use or MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily. Each of these zoning districts allows multifamily townhomes and apartments which would likely be part of a future redevelopment. Because the MCR and GC-MU zones also allow a number of commercial uses in addition to multifamily residential, the precise mix of uses that will be part of future site development is difficult to know, and development scenarios could vary widely. Because of this uncertainty, additional environmental analysis will be required at the time a development proposal is submitted. The most likely-case scenario for future development intensity of the Riverbend Surplus Site is assumed to be consistent with the limitations of the GC-MU zone. This approach is being used primarily because, regardless of the development intensity allowed by zoning, market demand (as reflected by recent development in Kent) and the physical limitations of valley soils to support tall buildings will likely result in development less intense than the 200 foot tall buildings and 80% building coverage allowed in the MCR zone. Kent's recently completed portion of the forthcoming 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study indicates that GC-MU zoned land is likely to build out with a mix of about 70% devoted to commercial use and 30% devoted to residential use. This same study indicates that properties located in the MCR zone are likely to build out with mix of about 30% commercial and 70% residential. More detail on the housing build-out assumptions is included in section I. below. SOLAR ACCESS/SHADING The contemplated actions will allow the use of the Riverbend Surplus Property to change from open space to a more intensive mix of commercial and residential buildings that could be up to about 80 feet tall, given local soil conditions. The eastern-adjacent Colony Park Apartments are two-story buildings, and given their proximity to the Riverbend Surplus site are vulnerable to shadowing impacts from future buildings. Buildings that are significantly taller than nearby structures or that fail to provide upper-story setbacks have the potential to cast perpetual shadows on those properties, blocking solar access for any public and pedestrian spaces in these locations. In urban environments, solar access and shading Page 7 of 14 88 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 conditions are intrinsically linked to many factors including building height and bulk of buildings, the presence of trees on or near the property, and local topography. While some shading of adjacent structures is unavoidable in dense urban environments, it is desirable to reduce these effects as much as possible, particularly in relation to sensitive public and pedestrian spaces. Future development will be subject to additional environmental review, and the application of measures for the preservation of solar access, such as upper story setbacks and siting of buildings to avoid excessive shading should be considered at the time. HOUSING 2013 Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates for Kent indicate that an average of 2.3 people reside in each multifamily unit, when the development includes five units or more. The Housing element of the submitted checklist uses this assumption in conjunction with assumptions about future development in the MCR zone from the forthcoming 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study. The checklist concluded that 1,509 housing units could be built on the Riverbend Surplus Property, resulting in 3,470 new residents. However, using assumptions from the Buildable Lands Study for the GC-MU zone, a more likely future development would result in 422 new residential units and 970 people residing at the site. According to the same report, the MR-M zone would likely yield about 250 units and 575 residents. JOBS A range of commercial uses is allowed in both the MCR and GC-MU zoning districts. These include hotels, grocery and drug stores, bulk retail stores, restaurants and bars, personal service shops, medical offices/facilities, business/professional offices and so forth. A future development proposal could contain any mix of these uses (and others), in addition to residential uses. Following Kent's assumptions in its contribution to the 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study, 70% of the buildable land at the Riverbend Surplus Property is likely to be devoted to commercial use under the GC-MU zone. This area is about 10.8 acres. Because actual development scenarios may vary widely, for the purpose of this analysis, Kent is assuming that 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of retail shopping center might be located at the Riverbend Surplus site. Under this scenario, assuming 1 job per 250 square feet of office space and 1 job per 500 square feet of retail space, approximately 1,200 office jobs and 200 retail jobs could be expected at the Riverbend Surplus Property if the zoning is changed to GC-MU. The City of Kent is currently preparing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, which will incorporate the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) targets of 13,490 jobs and 9,360 households by 2031. The City expects to meet these targets and has incorporated this level of growth into its planning efforts. The increase in jobs and households that will result from the contemplated actions at the Riverbend Golf site is within the City's expected level of 2031 growth. Page 8 of 14 89 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 I. Housing No housing units are located on the Riverbend Surplus Property, so none will be displaced. The Colony Park Apartments are located on a separate parcel immediately east of the Riverbend Surplus Property and will remain. Up to 1,509 units could be located at the Riverbend Surplus Property under MCR zoning, 422 units under the GC-MU zone and about 250 units under the MR-M zone. If a mixed use zone is selected, the GC-MU level of development intensity is the most likely to occur. The conclusion that 422 units will be built rests on the following assumptions: 1.) 14.4 acres will be available for building at this site. This is based on the GC- MU zone allowing only 60% of the site to be occupied by building footprint. 2.) 70% of the buildable area on this site will likely be devoted to commercial development and 30% to residential development. This assumption is consistent with Kent's recently submitted portion of the forthcoming 2012 King County Buildable Lands Study, which reviewed likely development patterns for land in various zoning districts, including GC-MU. This yields approximately 10.8 acres of commercial land and 3.6 acres of residential land. 3.) Residential buildings that will eventually be proposed on this site are likely to be similar to The Platform, an apartment building currently under construction in Kent's downtown core. 4.) The floor-area-ratio (FAR) of The Platform project is 2.21, and the average unit is 820 square feet. 5.) Applying a 2.21 FAR to the 3.6 acres of the Riverbend Surplus Site likely to be developed with multi-family residential, at 820 square feet per unit yields 422 new multifamily units. J. Aesthetics Construction of buildings or site development at any of the specific sites affected by the contemplated actions is not within the scope of this review, and no proposals are currently known to be pending. All future proposed buildings will be subject to development standards found in the zoning code. These standards address aesthetic elements such as setbacks, building height, maximum site coverage, etc. For the Riverbend Surplus Site, aesthetic impacts of future development within the GC-MU zoning district will be addressed prior to construction through mixed use or multifamily design review standards of Kent City Code 15.09. If the MCR zone is selected for this site, the City Council will likely also implement minor code changes to require Midway Design Review for any future development. Multifamily developments proposed within the MR-M zoning district are subject to the City's multifamily design review standards. Regardless of the zoning district, any buildings proposed within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdictional area will continue to be limited to 35 feet in height. Page 9 of 14 90 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 The Green River Corridor district was created by the Kent City Council in 1985 to provide additional protection to an 800 foot wide swath of land adjacent to the Green River beyond the 200 foot shoreline management zone. The regulations were to protect the area from land uses with adverse impacts, to preserve land features with historic cultural or educational significance and to ensure that urban development within this area was compatible with the open configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands. The original development regulations have been relaxed on multiple occasions when the City Council found that the intent of the regulations had been met and that flexibility in design was desirable. The City Council is now considering amendments to the Green River Corridor district regulations that would remove or amend the 35 foot height limitation from these standards. Currently zoning district development regulations, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Green River Corridor District standards contain building height regulations. These regulations overlap and create an opportunity to consider simplification. The Shoreline Master Program applies only to development within 200 feet of the Green River and limits building heights within this zone to 35 feet. The Green River Corridor District effectively extends this height limitation out to 1,000 feet from the river. Zoning district development standards also apply to riverside lands, and contain height limitations that vary by zoning district. Most of the zoning districts located within the Green River Corridor District impose similar building height restrictions. Only one zone, GC- MU, currently allows building heights over 40 feet; the MCR zone, which is being considered for the Riverbend Surplus Property, allows for buildings up to 200 feet tall. The Riverbend Surplus Property is located within the Green River Corridor district. The staff recommended zoning for this site is GC-MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use, which allows building heights up to 65 feet. Table 1 below compares the various height standards. Zoning Code, by Allowed height zoning district: A-10 35 feet AG 35 feet CM-2 35 feet GC 35 feet GC-MU 65 feet M1 35 feet M2 35 feet MA 35 feet MCR 200 feet MHP N/A MR-G 40 feet MR-M 40 feet SR-1 35 feet SR-8 30 feet O 40 feet Table 1:Height limitations of zoning districts located within the Green River Corridor District Page 10 of 14 91 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 K. Light and Glare Commercial projects or projects to be located in proximity to commercial uses are anticipated to create and receive light impacts due to the nature of commercial enterprise during evening hours. Glare impacts might be anticipated as well. Any impacts from light and glare would be more appropriately addressed during the review of development plans, when measures such as full-cutoff or hooded fixtures and strategically located landscaping may be required to minimize impacts. L. Recreation The Green River Trail is located around the southern and western edge of the site and will remain as is. The contemplated actions will facilitate redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Property that will displace the 24 acre, nine hole par-3 golf course. This golf course is operated by the City and supports the goal of providing golf opportunities for all ages and ability levels at the Riverbend Golf Complex. Par-3 golf courses feature shorter fairways that are well suited to young or beginning golfers as well as senior golfers. These classes of golfers are the primary users of the course. Displacement of the Par-3 course will cause a loss of recreational golf opportunities that the City plans to mitigate by two means. First, by developing a golf training facility on the vacant two-acre area next to the driving range, the City will provide beginner and junior golfers with enhanced instructional facilities. Though specific plans have not been developed, this area will include a couple of short holes. Also, forward-tee boxes will be added to the standard 18 hole Riverbend course. These forward tee-boxes will provide beginning, younger and senior golfers with the opportunity to play shortened holes, in a manner similar to the existing par-3 course. In 2010, the City updated the Parks and Open Space element of its Comprehensive Plan. This element indicates that when level of service (LOS) is measured in purely quantitative terms (square feet per resident, or golf holes per resident), the City's Park and Open Space level of service (LOS) has declined over the last twenty years. Sale of the 24-acre Riverbend Surplus Property would remove it from the City's park inventory and advance the trend of declining LOS. However, the Park and Open Space element considers that based on Kent's growing population, urbanizing nature and changing demographics, a LOS standard that combines both qualitative and quantitative elements might more fully capture how Kent's parks and open space are meeting the community's needs. The goals and policies contained in this update reflect both quantitative, qualitative and economic aspects that the City uses to determine adequacy of its park and open space system. M. Historic and Cultural Preservation No impacts are anticipated. According to the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation's online database at Page 11 of 14 92 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, no places or objects associated with the larger Riverbend Golf site are identified. During future development activities, should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity will stop to allow for consultation with state and tribal archaeological officials. N. Transportation Changes to the Green River Corridor District regulations are primarily aesthetic and not likely to result in traffic impacts that can be reasonably ascertained at this time. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone however will enable development that is likely to increase demand on the City's transportation system. West Meeker Street is located along the northern border of the Riverbend Golf site. This road is classified as a minor arterial in the City's Transportation Master Plan. Russell Road South is located on the eastern boundary of the site, and is classified as a local street. There are currently two driveways along West Meeker Street and no access points on Russell Road South. Future site development will likely include additional or relocated driveway access points. Metro bus routes 158, 159, 166 and 183 currently serve the site via a bus stop located on the south side of West Meeker Street near the Riverbend driving range. The City's 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) includes an analysis of existing and projected demand, as well as required mitigation along the S 260`h St/Reith Road/W Meeker St corridor between SR 99 to the west and Washington Avenue to the east. The TMP analysis concluded that the PM peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) along this corridor was at D in 2006, when traffic data were collected. The City's LOS standard for this corridor is E, as shown in table 5.5 of the TMP. This plan concluded that by 2030, traffic operations were expected to degrade along the 260`h St/Reith Road/W Meeker St corridor, and that road widening and signal improvements are necessary if the corridor is to operate at LOS E in the future. Two street widening projects are identified in the City's 2008 Transportation Master Plan to meet this goal. Future development of the Riverbend Surplus Property will likely be required to participate financially or construct portions of the widening project. Based on an a GC-MU development scenario of 422 mid-rise apartment units, 300,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of shopping center/retail space (as discussed in section H above), approximately 9,688 new daily and 1,008 new p.m. peak hour trips could be generated (based on ITE trip generation study numbers for mid-rise multi-family, office and shopping center land uses). P.M. peak hour trips could be as high 1,557 under the MCR development scenario discussed in sections H and I above. The actual level of impact resulting from a future development project is necessarily very speculative at this early stage in the planning process. Market demand, financial feasibility, physical limitations of the site, as well as limitations that may result from Page 12 of 14 93 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 application of other development standards are all factors that may further limit the scope, scale and traffic impact of a future development project. Further environmental analysis will be required to identify specific impacts and determine appropriate mitigation measures associated with a future development proposal, which may include additional mitigation beyond that identified in the TMP. O. Public Services Rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property from SR-1 to a more intensive zoning district amending the Green River Corridor District regulations would increase demand for public services in accordance with the ultimate use of the site. Impact fees and mitigation payments for school, transportation and utility impacts will be assessed at the time of development. P. Utilities City water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage lines are located along W Meeker Street and Russell Road S. A 24" King County Metro sanitary sewer line, a 12' City of Kent Water line and a 15" storm sewer line provide ample capacity to serve a future mixed use development at the Riverbend Surplus Property. Other utilities necessary to serve future redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Property will be the responsibility of the future owner. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; Page 13 of 14 94 Decision Document City of Kent CPA and Implementing Zoning Map Amendments #ENV-2014-22 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility; 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan; 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and 20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this non-project action. KENT PLANNING SERVICES July 23, 2014 MG:pm :S:/Permit/Plan/Env/201 4/21 41 804decision.doc Page 14 of 14 95 T W PSHINLTON CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2014-22 Project: City of Kent Riverbend Surplus #RPSA-2141804 Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Districts Map Amendment & Green River Corridor District Regulation Amendment Description: The City of Kent is considering amendments to its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Districts Map and zoning code amendments necessary to entitle the Riverbend Surplus Property for sale and future development. Comprehensive Plan amendments can be analyzed outside of the annual cycle as authorized by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) and Kent City Code Chapter 12.02. On May 6, 2014, the Kent City Council passed an emergency resolution (Res. 1883) authorizing consideration of these amendments. The Riverbend Surplus Property is an approximately 24-acre portion of a larger tax parcel 2322049011, located at 2030 West Meeker Street and is the current site of the City's par-3 golf course. Prior to sale of the property,the City Council is considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that will change the designation of the Riverbend Surplus Property from OS, Parks and Open Space and MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily to MU, Mixed Use. Furthermore, the City Council is considering rezoning the Riverbend Surplus Property from its current designation of SR-1, Residential Agricultural. New zoning designations under consideration include MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily, GC- MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use, and MCR, Midway Commercial Residential. The Zoning Districts Map amendment contemplated in the submitted environmental checklist would rezone the Riverbend Surplus Property from SR-1, Residential Agricultural to MCR, Midway Commercial Residential. Potential future impacts of this change were identified, but no other zoning options that are under consideration were discussed. MCR was discussed because of the zoning districts under consideration, it allows the most intensive development while GC-MU and MR-M are more restrictive. This approach is useful when identifying environmental impacts, because the less intensive zoning options would allow for less intensive development that would generate less environmental impact. Identifying the potential environmental impacts of this most intensive zoning option covers the other options that the Council might select for this site. The MCR zoning option and the associated potential for future impacts is included in this analysis. However, the intensity of future site development is unlikely to rise to the levels allowed under MCR. In orderto inform policy-makers, stakeholders and the public of the more likely impacts, this analysis also contemplates development allowed under the GC-MU, General Commercial-Mixed Use zoning option.The GC-MU zone has a height limit of 65 feet and building coverage limitation of 60% and represents a more likely scenario for future site development and impacts. This approach is based primarily on the intensity of recent development in the Kent Valley and the physical limitations of valley soils to support tall buildings. Both MCR and GC-MU zones allow service, retail, office and hotel uses as well as a range of attached residential uses. Density Multifamily option would allow for the le ast In terms of development intensity, the MR-M Medium y y p intensive redevelopment of the Riverbend Surplus Site. Contemplated amendments to the zoning code would remove building height and wall length limitations from section Kent City Code 15,08.260 Green River Corridor District regulations. Height regulations and building aesthetics regulations are found in other parts of the zoning code and design standards. 96 Determination of Nonsignificance City of Kent Riverbend Surplus Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Zoning Districts Map Amendment & Green River Corridor District Regulation Amendment ENV-2014-22/RPSA-2141804 Finally, prior to sale of the property, the City is contemplating a short subdivision of the entire Riverbend Golf site (parcel 2322049011) into no more than 8 separate lots and a tract for the Green River Trail. The Riverbend Surplus Property is part of this larger parcel, which also includes a golf driving range, mini-golf course, associated parking and two acres of unused land. These other areas are not part of the contemplated sale, comprehensive plan land use map amendment or rezone. The larger site may also be affected by related zoning code amendments being contemplated by the City Council. Location: The Riverbend Surplus Property is an approximately 24-acre portion of a larger tax parcel 2322049011, located at 2030 West Meeker Street and is the current site of the City's par-3 golf course. Applicant: Kurt Hanson, City of Kent Economic and Community Development Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. There is no comment period for this DNS. _ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14-day comment period. Comments must be submitted by This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official Charlene Anderson AICP Position/Title Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (-253) 856-5454 Dated July 23 2014 Signature APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: None MG\pm 5:iPermitiPlan�Env�2014i2141804dns.doc 2of3 EXHIBIT D 97 RECEIVED CITY OF KENT JUL 2 8 2014 June 27, 2014 LAND USE&PLN DOARD EXHIBIT„.m,. To: Erin George ' City of Kent From: Helen Owens Owner, Colony Park Apartments As you know, there is a row of very large, healthy, mature trees between Colony Park Apartments and the par 3 golf course property. I know you plan to sell the par 3 golf course and that the property will be developed. I am hopeful that the City would consider preserving these beautiful trees. It seems to me that this would mitigate the impact of the development and the rezone on the environment and wildlife. Perhaps the City could dedicate these trees as a green belt. Regardless of how they are preserved, it seems that these majestic trees are critical habitat for wildlife and should be protected. I will be meeting with the planning department on Friday,June 271", and we can discuss this further. I look forward to working with you and am hopeful the City has already decided that removing these trees would be an unnecessary loss. I would like to receive notice of, and participate in, any hearings on this application and would like to receive copies of any decisions. Please send notices to me at 4842 East Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Thankyou Cl O'cVE"te.- 98 RECEIVED 99 CITY OF KENT George, Erin JUL 2 8 2014 EXHIBIT From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> ' Sent: Tuesday,July 22, 2014 11:45 AM p To: George, Erin Subject: Riverbend Surplus Property Sale, ENV2014-22; CPA-2014-1; CPZ-2014-1 and ZCA-2014-3 Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance Attachments: 2141804envchklist.pdf; 2141804noa-optdns.pdf; Shade map for Green River River Bend Golf site.pdf Importance: High Erin, My apologizes but I realized that had an internal communications error and I thought we sent comments timely. It appears we neglected to send comments and I am now sending you comments in response to the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance for Kent's proposed Riverbend Surplus Property Sale project referenced above. As you know this is a 24 acres site located at 2030 West Meeker Street along the right bank of the Green River near the Meeker Street Bridge. We understand that the City is considering selling this property, as well as rezoning it from SR-1 to MCR and changing the land use designation to Mixed Use to potentially allow a short subdivision here and a tract for the Green River Trail. We have some comments as noted below: Muckleshoot Tribal members fish in this location. As we have experienced with recent Kent projects along the Green River, fishing access must be protected and should be improved where possible regardless of the future land use at this location. We will need to closely coordinate with Kent planning, public works, and parks staff on this issue. This site should be enhanced to create juvenile salmon rearing habitat by setting the levee back in this location and creating in-river habitat conducive to juvenile salmon use along with an enhanced riparian area to provide a variety of functions but most importantly shade and a source of future wood recruitment. Portions of this site near the Meeker Street bridge are important to provide shade to the Green River. Trees in this area must be protected and additional trees should be planted that will be left to grow and provide shade to the river to help reduce existing stream temperatures that exceed State Water Quality Standards for temperature (see red areas in attached map). We appreciate the opportunity to comment and I apologize for our error and delay. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Mottram, Pamela [mailto:PMottram@kentwa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'Washington State Dept of Ecology'; 'King County Wastwater Treatment Division (bibiana.ocheke- ameh@kingcounty.gov)'; 'rhonda.kaetzel@kingcounty.gov'; 'King County Transit Division (Metro)'; 'Century Link/Qwest'; 'Century Link/Qwest'; 'Puget Sound Energy - Douglas Corbin'; 'Puget Sound Energy '; 'Escher-Derdowski, Gwendolyn'; 'richard.laboyne@kent.kl2.wa.us'; 'dts@gwestoffice.net'; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy; 'LARRY.FISHER@ D FW.WA.GOV'; 'bolotii@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'hugo.flores@DNR.WA.GOV'; 'King County Dev. & Env Svcs (Paul Reitenbach)' Subject: RE: NOA and SEPA Checklist Importance: High i 100 RECEIVED 9� r �// , CITY OF KEPIT RAND USE LNG BOAR[ p u/`'�r/V'�V%/rf��� %ir� �I ����lr �(I. 'll" /io, ,d1V/, �6 �' // /d ✓��/� (� f � rw , lr✓ { /l / f ' Y. CD f ribYdJN1"�N�g,^�Yh{rdY/1,7r /�°r( ��,�i",I�%" 7J, JII IIIII ull III/,'�'J x W / j% V, l��<1/�; �f��- VIl'I ii9fJ1 ,�IiOVi " Jrn lYrliii // /,, � r° rg M1M1�r .. 0 ' Ill O /%� � U/ lef / CD QD CD e /// wm N/ f Oii @W y/ �'%' �� �fu �Yl;, r rr�"a M 2 / i , IIge l �, fiat„*" Ybr "'X'V, J�nry �' OM /d'0 1u1� �rlr /%m r� 4>w W, /11Y (�� ; WJ�>/ rm", �9 C, ,l/H{�N,y rr �i c d� '/1✓i '� (D M 0 y 011���a slaI r�,rr � ��� � 'N' �'���G�y/ " f �" ' �,Nr M / /ri a , lW,iw / off r i` tD (D =r/o U r/n (D cs or /// / pIPP pi /, �l /af,i Al, y r ,rx V a� a J 1 /i %� 4i ' � � / hr.rr �a/1, lS9 ipi jgpi a / /i„ , /l Al" I II�Vu I "Om N r� „ 2 P or�f rl /OJ/iJfj'la/'! YN/iL.. RECVE CRY OF K NT 101 JUL 2 8 2014 Office of the Superintendent LAND US EXHID1, ,M >; July23,201; �, � KENT 4 SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT'' Mr.Jack Ottim,Chair JUL 25 2014 City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board c/o Economic and Community Development Department Q,„B 9 Y OF KEN I B`C�C:NOMIC7 AND Kent, W. A 98 Street 4"<P��r<CNB.JA�Il�E"Y DEVELOPMEN1 Kent, W032 RE: Rezoning of Riverbend Golf Complex Dear Mr. Ottim: The Kent School District is aware of the City Council's need to resolve the financial situation of the golf course and move forward with development of the area for the betterment of the City of Kent. The purpose of this letter is to communicate to the Land Use and Planning Board and the Kent City Council the Kent School District's concern regarding the possible impact to the District of the rezoning of the Riverbend Golf complex. The possible impact is based on the potential redevelopment of multi and/or single family residential housing. The existing growth,and potential growth,has resulted in no classroom space available at Kent and Neely-O'Brien Elementary Schools to accommodate the increasing student enrollments coming from the Kent Valley, the same area that the Riverbend Golf complex is located. The existing need for additional classrooms in the Kent Valley has required the District to reopen the former Kent Elementary School on Fourth Street to accommodate the kindergarteners who would be attending Kent and Neely-O'Brien Elementary Schools and to comply with class-size reduction legislation in the coming school year. The District requests that the Kent City Council and the Land Use and Planning Board consider the potential impact that redevelopment of the Riverbend Golf complex could have on the Kent School District's ability to house the potential increase in student enrollment.The District would welcome working jointly with the Kent City Council in developing options to address the potential enrollment growth that could be generated with the redevelopment of the Riverbend Golf complex. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you.Please let me know if I can be of any assistance or support. Sincerely, � - vA 5 Dr. Edward Lee arga Superintendent cc Kent School District Board of Directors Mayor Suzette Cooke Kent City Council Members Dr. Eduard Lee Vargas 1 12033 SE 25611,Strect I Suite. A200 Kent, Washington 98030 Pit: 253-373-7701 1 Fax: 253-373-7231 102 103 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone: 253-856-5454 WASH INeTou Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee Members FROM: Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Green River Corridor District Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2014-3) For August 11, 2014 meeting MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Option 1, amending the Zoning Code to eliminate the Green River Corridor District height restriction and add GC-MU to the building length exception. SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on July 2811h, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended revising the Green River Corridor District regulations to eliminate the 35-foot height restriction and add GC-MU to the exception allowing building lengths over 200 feet with vegetative screening. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Green River Corridor District regulations were adopted by the City Council in 1985 to provide an additional 800 foot corridor along the Green River beyond the first 200 feet already regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Among other restrictions, the Green River Corridor District limits building height to 35 feet and limits building length to 200 feet within 1,000 feet of the Green River. The Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program already regulate building height. The 35 foot height limitation conflicts with the new 65 foot height limit applied by the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) for the GC-MU zoning district, a portion of which is located within the Green River Corridor. The industrial zoning districts allow buildings to exceed 200 feet in length if vegetative screening is provided. Exempting GC-MU, the only commercial zone in the corridor, from this building length standard is logical. The Shoreline Master Program requires a 15 foot landscape buffer between new buildings or parking lots and the Green River Trail. Developments in the GC-MU zoning district must also comply with design guidelines, which address blank walls. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal was issued on July 23, 2014. As described in the enclosed agenda packet for the July 281h Land Use & Planning Board public hearing, the Board considered four options regarding this proposal. EG:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE AMENDMENTS�2014�ZCA-2014-3GreenRiverCorridorDist\ECDC\08-11-14_ECDC_Memo.doc Enc: Attach A: Ordinance Note: Minutes, Packet and Public Comment Exhibits 1-3 for July 28t LUPB Public Hearing is attached to the Item 5 Staff Report on Riverbend Surplus Property 104 106 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending Section 15.08.260 of the Kent City Code to revise development standards of the Green River Corridor District relating to building height and length. Green River Corridor District Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2014-3). RECITALS A. In 1981, the Kent City Council approved the Valley Studies Program creating the Green River Corridor Special Interest District to protect, conserve and manage areas generally located on both sides of the Green River, and to ensure that urban development within the district is compatible with the open nature configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands. B. On March 19, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2544 in order to provide definitions, regulations and standards for the Green River Corridor Special Interest District. C. Since 1985, significant changes to development regulations on environmentally sensitive lands and the creation of the Green River Natural Resources Enhancement Area have resulted in the protection of a substantial portion of the east side of the Green River Corridor Special Interest District from future urban development. 106 D. The purpose of the Green River Corridor Special Interest District has been met by a land use pattern which is compatible with the open natural configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands, and few undeveloped industrial properties remain within the Green River Corridor. E. On May 17, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3750, which applied building height limitations only to riverfront lots in the corridor and changed the name of the Green River Corridor Special Interest District to the Green River Corridor District. F. While crafting the Downtown Subarea Action Plan ("DSAP") and expanding the downtown boundaries west of State Route 167, staff noted that Green River Corridor District requirements contained in Section 15.08.260 of Kent City Code ("KCC") limit building height to 35 feet and limit building length to 200 feet within 1,000 feet of the Green River. The height standard conflicts with the new 65 foot height limit applied by the DSAP to the GC-MU zoning district, which includes portions of the downtown planning area that are also located within the Green River Corridor District. G. Among other restrictions, the City's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") restricts buildings within 200 feet of the Green River to 35 feet in height, if views are impaired. H. Zoning district development standards contained in Chapter 15.04 KCC also apply to riverside lands, and contain height limitations that vary by zoning district. Most zones, except GC-MU, limit height to 35 or 40 feet. I. Zoning districts, the SMP, and the Green River Corridor District standards contain overlapping building height regulations, creating 107 an opportunity for simplification and elimination of inconsistencies within the code. J. The Green River Corridor District regulations restrict buildings within the corridor to no more than 200 feet in length; however, buildings located in several industrial zones are allowed to exceed 200 feet in length if vegetative screening is provided. K. As development intensity in commercial zones is similar to that in industrial zones, also exempting GC-MU (the only commercial zone in the corridor) from this building length standard is logical. L. The SMP already requires a 15 foot landscape buffer between new buildings or parking lots and the Green River Trail. M. Development in the GC-MU zoning district also must comply with mixed use design guidelines, which address blank walls. N. In light of shoreline landscaping requirements and design guidelines, amending the building length exception to include GC-MU is logical. 0. On June 16, 2014, notice was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce requesting expedited review for an amendment to the development regulations. On July 2, 2014, the City was granted expedited review and was informed that it had met the Growth Management Act (GMA) notice requirements under RCW 36.70A.106. P. On June 9, 2014 and July 14, 2014, the Land Use and Planning Board ("LUPB") held workshops to discuss revisions to the Green River Corridor District regulations. 108 Q. On July 23, 2014, the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for revisions to the Green River Corridor District regulations. R. The LUPB held a public hearing on July 28, 2014, and moved to recommend revisions to the Green River Corridor District regulations to the City Council. S. The Economic & Community Development Committee considered the LUPB's recommendation at a meeting on August 11, 2014 and forwarded its own recommendation to the full City Council. T. The City Council concurs with the LUPB and finds that amendments to the Green River Corridor District regulations would eliminate duplication and inconsistencies within the Kent City Code and assist the public by allowing more flexibility in site design for the few remaining developable sites near the Green River. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 15.08.260 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.08.260. Green River Corridor district regulations. A. Purpose. The Green River Corridor district is hereby created to protect, conserve, and manage areas generally located on both sides of the Green River, and to ensure that urban development within the district 109 is compatible with the open natural configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands. B. Location. 1. The Green River Corridor district is that area of the city one thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the Green River; provided, that the shoreline master program shall govern development within the first two hundred (200) feet of the ordinary high- water line of the river. The district is more particularly described as follows: Two (2) strips of land each eight hundred (800) feet in width which begin at the north city limit line, on March 4, 1985, and end at the south city limit line, which south line ends in Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Each strip shall be measured from each side of the Green River and the measurement shall be two hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the river, all in King County, Washington; except any portions thereof lying outside of the city limits. 2. Property exemption. Property platted in accordance with the city subdivision code, Ordinance No. 1840, before March 2, 1981 (adoption of the Valley Studies), shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. C. Development standards. 1. Green River access. No building or lot within the district shall be constructed or created without providing access to the Green River via public sidewalks or a private trail system. Such sidewalks or private trail systems shall connect to riverside public trails or scenic drives at intervals of one thousand (1,000) feet or less in industrial developments, and intervals of five hundred (500) feet or less in residential developments. 110 2. Pedestrian access in residential development. In residential developments, pedestrian access to the Green River shall be accomplished without crossing streets or roads, except scenic and recreational roads, unless clearly shown to be infeasible. 3. Parking facilities. Parking facilities for access to the Green River shall be located as near as practicable to riverfront parks or historic sites and shall be clustered in lots not exceeding thirty (30) cars. Every public parking area shall be visible from a street accessible to the public and be situated so that the public can clearly see riverfront open space and gain access to the public portion of that open space. 4. Payment in lieu of parking facilities. The city may accept or require payment in lieu of providing parking facilities which are required as a condition of the issuance of development permits. 5. Loading dock location. Loading docks shall not be constructed on river-facing sides of buildings unless a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer of native vegetation is provided to screen the loading docks from the shoreline, unless otherwise required by the Kent shoreline master program. Other design and landscaping requirements may be imposed by the planning manager to meet the purpose of the Green River Corridor district. �. r�✓u`"riui�rg-I'feigir-'rt. fl KI-� Lff to dE' cri-rc7=rrt- v -76. Exterior walls of buildings. No building on any riverfront lot shall have an exterior wall parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length, 111 except as follows: buildings on riverfront lots in the MA, M1, MI-C, M2, GC-MU and M3 zoning districts may have exterior walls parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river which exceed two hundred (200) feet in length, provided they are screened by a vegetative buffer per subsection (C)(9)(c) of this section. -87. Lots. a. Each riverfront lot within a subdivision shall contain area sufficient to comply with minimum lot size requirements of Ch. 15.04 KCC and provide a public access easement and building setback line as required by this section. b. No subdivision of professional and office (0), general commercial (GC), industrial agricultural (MA), industrial park (M1), and limited industrial (M2) zoned land shall be approved unless each lot within the subdivision has an upland boundary at least five hundred (500) feet from the ordinary high-water line of the river. 98. Vegetation buffer. a. A permanent vegetation buffer, in accordance with KCC 15.07.050(C) pertaining to landscaping type III, shall be maintained or established for each building or use within the district. Any materials storage yard, truck maneuvering area, equipment parking area, junkyard, refuse storage, or similar use within the district shall install such a permanent vegetative buffer between the use and the Green River within two (2) years of the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived. b. Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted in order to be harmonious with those already planted on adjacent 112 properties and consistent with the city landscaping requirements as set out in Ch. 15.07 KCC. C. Buildings on riverfront lots in industrial zoning districts which have exterior walls exceeding two hundred (200) feet in length parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river must be screened by a vegetation buffer. This vegetative buffer shall be located along the length of the property line located parallel to, or within forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river, for a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet in accordance with type III, visual buffer landscape standards pursuant to KCC 15.07.050(C). In addition, an earth berm of a minimum of forty-eight (48) inches in height must be provided for. 109. Rail lines. No rail lines shall be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of the Green River; provided, however, rail lines shall be permitted to within three hundred (300) feet of the Green River in those locations specified on Exhibit B attached to the ordinance from which this section is derived and by this reference incorporated in this section, such locations having been found to be best suited to rail. 14:10. Road access. All new lots and buildings shall be designed with primary street access to streets other than scenic and recreational roads, unless no other access is available. -1-211. Street connections. Development shall include no street connections to scenic and recreational roads, unless no other access is available. -1-312. Utilities. Utilities shall be installed in accordance with Ch. 7.10 KCC. 113 13. Surface drainage facilities. Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be designed to applicable city standards and shall be integral parts, if possible, of any common trail and open space system connections to the riverfront. D. Performance standards. 1. Fish and game requirements. The applicant shall comply with applicable requirements of the State Department of Fisheries and State Department of Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and enhancing wildlife habitat. 2. Flood control works. If city funds are used in the construction of flood control works such as dikes, levees, or floodwalls, public rights of access to such works shall be dedicated prior to construction, where practicable. SECTION 2, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 3, — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and that remaining portion shall maintain its full force and effect. 114 SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and 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: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2014. APPROVED: day of 2014. PUBLISHED: day of 2014. 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 F AC vlltArdlneneetGrddm River¢rridor Gi4m¢Zonln9¢Le Amendment PlndIdo- 116 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASH INGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director RE: Meeker Street Underpass — INFO ONLY For Meeting of August 11, 2014 MOTION: None SUMMARY: An interdepartmental team instituted by the Mayor's Office developed a conceptual plan to assess potential capital improvements to the Meeker Street underpass. The team focused on features that would improve safety, cleanliness, functionality and aesthetics. Both the Public Works and Parks Committees have been briefed on this potential project. Staff will present this proposed project to the ECD Committee to stress the importance of these types of projects in improving the City's economic conditions and quality of life. BUDGET IMPACT: No BACKGROUND: The Meeker Street corridor is a gateway to downtown and key to connecting the west and east sides of Kent's urban center. The marketability of properties in this corridor improves as the corridor becomes more walkable, safe and inviting, as well as a pleasant driving and biking experience. Improvement of the Meeker Street underpass is reflected in proposed actions of both the Downtown Subarea Action Plan as well as the new Economic Development Plan. Staff is very excited about proposing Meeker Street as the first of what we hope are several interdepartmental efforts to improve Kent's gateways. CA:BW:pm/P:�Planning�EC=2014�Pkt Documents�8-11-14�Meeker Street Underpass_ECDC Memo.doc Enc: Presentation cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney File 116 117 8/7/2014 Hwy 167&.Meeker St. i � r 'f G1r` r P t p: lrf vkxl y ff 1 118 8Z %, a too > �} 2 119 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION KENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director WASH,vGro„ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Bill Boyce, Chair and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, Principal Planner RE: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) State Legislative Update For August 11, 2014 ECDC Meeting MOTION: Information Only SUMMARY: At the July 2014 committee meeting, staff presented an overview of updated rules regarding the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) found in WAC 197-11. This update makes a number of changes to SEPA rules and allows local agencies to increase the base exemption thresholds under which environmental review for minor new construction is not required. The legislation and subsequent rule-making were undertaken to streamline the regulatory process and achieve program efficiencies while maintaining current levels of natural resource protection; allow increased SEPA exemption thresholds; and integrate the SEPA process with provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The new rules took effect on May 10, 2014. The new exemption thresholds must be formally adopted by the City Council before the City can utilize them. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to exempt certain minor new construction projects from the environmental review process, subject to maximum thresholds for different types of projects. The base exemption thresholds were clarified but otherwise were maintained. However, the maximum thresholds were increased during the recent DOE rulemaking process, allowing jurisdictions to exempt a wider range of development projects from SEPA review as follows: 120 Kent's Existing and Potential Thresholds for Minor New Construction Project Type Existing City of Kent Adopted maximum flexible exemption flexible exemption threshold threshold Single family 12 dwelling units 30 dwelling units Multifamily 12 dwelling units 60 dwelling units Office, school, 12,000 square feet and 40 30,000 square feet and 90 commercial, parking spaces parking spaces recreational, service, storage building, parking facilities Agricultural structures 30,000 square feet 40,000 square feet Landfill or excavation 500 cubic yards 1000 cubic yards For all development Less than 10 p.m., peak- n/a hour traffic trips As DOE concluded, and staff concurs, minor new construction less than the flexible exemption threshold has a relatively low chance of significant impact when appropriate mitigations are provided in the rules and regulations implemented through the permit process. A list of these rules and regulations is provided in Exhibit A. OTHER REOUIRMENTS FOR ADOPTING NEW THRESHOLDS: Public Notice: Prior to adopting new thresholds, the City shall notify local tribes, agencies with expertise and affected jurisdictions, the Department of Ecology and the public, providing a 60-day comment period. The new SEPA rules also require the City to document its public notice and comment procedures for projects included in the increased exemption levels. These procedures are found in Kent City Code 12.01, which is attached as Exhibit B. Public notice and comment is most commonly provided for those applications requiring SEPA review as well as land use applications such as conditional use permits, subdivisions and shoreline substantial development permits. Cultural Resources: The City must also document how specific adopted development regulations and applicable state and federal laws provide adequate protections for cultural and historic resources. As noted in Exhibit A, Kent City Code 14.12 addresses Landmark Designation and Preservation. This section adopts by reference portions of King County Code 20.62 that provide procedures and criteria for designation of historically significant resources in Kent. Landmarks already designated under this program include the Bereiter House, Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks and the Saar Pioneer Cemetery. Development activities in Kent are also subject to a number of state administered regulations that address archaeological resources. When adopting the increased thresholds, the City shall include language that directs permit review staff and applicants to use pre-project review tools such as predictive models and inventories 121 provided by the state and tribes, as well as databases of known and likely cultural and historic resources (ref. Section 11.03.210. c of the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit C). ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF NEW SEPA RULES: In addition to allowing the increased thresholds described above, the SEPA rules update includes other changes to Chapter 197-11 WAC. These changes are adopted by reference in the Kent City Code and do not require further council action. Among these rule changes are the following: • Use of a web-based SEPA register. • Expanded use of NEPA documentation by lead agencies. • Update of definition for "lands covered by water'. • Expanded minor new construction exemptions for installation or removal of tanks (10,000 gallons/60,000 in agricultural and industrial zones) and solar energy projects. • New exemption for maintenance dredging projects of 50 cubic yards or less. • Update of exemption for land use decisions to provide that most land use decisions will be exempt for otherwise exempt projects, with some limited exceptions. • New exemption for text amendments of ordinances or codes that do not change environmental standards. • Update of utility exemption for water, storm water, and sewer pipe size to align with industry standards. • Update of the environmental checklist. BENEFITS OF INCREASED THRESHOLDS TO THE PUBLIC, APPLIANTS AND THE CITY: The existing rules and regulations shown in Exhibit A are implemented through regular permitting processes administered by city, state and federal agencies. Staff believes they are sufficient to adequately address the environmental impacts of common development projects. Prior to SEPA being adopted by the state of Washington in 1971, the public had voiced concern that government decisions did not reflect environmental considerations. SEPA was created as a regulatory framework to address environmental issues. As experience with environmental analysis increased, many jurisdictions adopted development rules and regulations. SEPA increasingly became a 'backstop' process to add mitigation measures to projects when the cities determined existing requirements were insufficient to address anticipated impacts. For example, prior to adoption of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance in 2011, Kent lacked an adopted system of requiring developers to pay for system-wide road impacts. To address this gap, Kent would regularly add SEPA conditions to require mitigation payments for various corridor projects. Once the TIF ordinance was adopted, SEPA was no longer the primary framework for addressing transportation impacts. 122 Other recent examples of regulations to address impacts of a project include the Critical Areas Ordinance in 2005 and Public Works Construction Standards in 2009 With these and other rules and regulations listed in Exhibit A, fewer and fewer projects have required mitigation measures through SEPA. Since 2004, the City has processed an average of 44 SEPA reviews per year for development projects. Of these, about 40% would be exempt under the new maximum thresholds. COST OF SEPA REVIEW TO APPLICANTS AND THE CITY: The typical SEPA application requires preparation of an environmental checklist. In this checklist, applicants discuss the potential impacts of the project to a wide variety of environmental elements (i.e. wildlife, plants, transportation, aesthetics, air quality, earth, water and so forth). An efficient professional is able to prepare the checklist in about eight hours. A local engineering firm charges clients about $1,000 to prepare this document. City fees for reviewing the checklist and completing SEPA review are around $2,100. Additionally, SEPA review typically adds about one month to the permit review timeline. When a SEPA application is submitted with a project, City staff distribute the review materials to various internal departments and outside agencies with expertise, publish and post required public notices, review and address comments, write a detailed record of decision and archive the review. In all, about eight different City staff is involved with each SEPA review and spends an average total of 14 hours on the various technical and administrative tasks. Based on the hourly rates for each reviewing department, multiplied by an average of 44 reviews each year, the cost of administering SEPA could be estimated at about $88,000 annually. Staff will be present at the August 11th meeting to discuss the new SEPA rules and determine direction for moving forward with adopting the new thresholds. MG:pm P:\P1annjng\ECDC\2014Vgenda Pkts\SEPA update 2014 DRAFT.docx Enc: Exhibit A: SEPA authority by element of the environment and list of existing codes/rules Exhibit B: Kent City Code 12.01 Exhibit C: Draft updated ordinance cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager 123 EXHIBIT A SEPA AUTHORITY BY ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Kent City Code 11.03.510 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment (from 11.03.510 KCC) Codes/Rules* Earth Critical Areas code (11.06), Best Management Practices, and Impervious Surface Maximums (15.04.170) provide protection to steep slope areas, control of erosion, and restrictions on site coverage by impervious surfaces. Design and Construction Standards provide mitigation of impacts to slopes (Standard 6-63) Air Quality Regional air quality oversight addresses policies and rules on air quality attainment status. Additional authority is provided by Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Act, and the state Department of Ecology. Performance standards provide protection from dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable elements such as dust, odor, smoke, hazardous substances and wastes (15.08.050). Air Quality — Construction Impacts . Building code contains provisions for the removal of hazardous and combustible materials (Section 3303). • PSCAA rules and best practices apply to mitigate impacts from fugitive dust and other potentially hazardous demolition waste materials, such as lead. • PSCAA permit required for asbestos removal and includes survey and mitigation measures for dust control techniques and use of toxic air control technologies. 124 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment from 11.03.510 KCC Codes/Rules* Water Critical Areas Code and Flood Hazard regulations provide for mitigation of impacts to landslide hazards, steep slopes, unstable soils, wetlands, streams, flood prone areas, aquifer recharge areas, and fish/wildlife habitat areas (Chapters 11.06 and 14.09). Shoreline Master Program contains regulations for preservation and enhancement of shorelines. (Chapter 11.04) • The Stormwater and Drainage ordinances (Chapters 7.02, 7.05, 7.07, and 7.09) include environmental and water quality protections. • Best Management Practices from King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and NPDES permitting provide stormwater pollution prevention measures. • State Hydraulic Project Approvals provide protection to freshwater resources. Plants and Animals . Tree preservation and landscaping regulations provide protections for natural areas and wildlife habitat, and promote use of native plants (15.08.240, 15.07.010, and 15.07.040.Q). • Federal and state regulations provide protection to endangered species (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. and Chapter 77.12 RCW). 126 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment from 11.03.510 KCC Codes/Rules* Energy and Natural Resources . Energy Codes required by the City and the State mandate high levels of energy efficiency. • Puget Sound Energy provides service to new development. • Solar access setback code encourages preservation of solar access opportunities in residential zones (15.08.230 through .234). • Various City policies, programs and rules address energy conservation (Ord. 3809; 15.07.040.Q and S; 15.08.240; 15.08.400.D.1, .3 and .4; 7.05.130). Environmental Health Federal, state and regional regulations, as well as local Fire and Building Codes, are the primary means of mitigating risks associated with hazardous and toxic materials. Noise The Noise Control code provides for daytime/nighttime noise level limits, exemptions, variances and public nuisances and authority to mitigate impacts related to exceeding noise level limits and specific noise generating activities. (Chapter 8.05 Land and Shoreline Use Green River corridor district regulations (15.08.260) address bulk and scale for properties within 1000 feet of the Green River. Review criteria for PUDs address height, bulk and scale and require design review (15.08.400.C.14 and 15.08.400.G). Zoning and Development standards, Shoreline Master Program, Subdivision Code, Design and Construction Standards, and Critical Areas code address the height and scale of development and other aspects related to compatibility, environmental protection and agricultural uses. 126 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment from 11.03.510 KCC Codes/Rules* Housing Zoning and development standards provide for a broad range of housing types in the City, zoning for a range of densities, and flexible development standards to achieve the allowable density. Mobile Home Park code provides for continued use of nonconforming parks, as well as requires relocation planning prior to change of use or changes to land use designations (Chapter 12.05). Aesthetics The Design Review process applies to downtown, multifamily, mixed-use, PUDs, clustered subdivisions, and residential subdivisions, providing the venue for addressing height, bulk, and scale (15.08.400.C.14, 15.09.045, 15.09.046). View corridor protection regulations on hillside development mitigate for impacts to views (15.08.060). View considerations, such as along specific streets, is best addressed during area planning and rezoning efforts. Commonly used approaches include upper- level setbacks incorporated into new zoning. Light and Glare Zoning code standards for screening and landscaping, shading of lighting for gasoline service stations, and performance standards related to glare provide mitigation (15.07.040.3; 15.08.020.13.6; 15.08.050.D.3). Design Review can address this topic as well. Recreation . Subdivision code addresses open space/recreation needs (12.04.060 through .070; 12.04.263 and .264). Shoreline Master Program addresses public access to 127 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment from 11.03.510 KCC Codes/Rules* shoreline (Chapter 3.13.7). PUD approval criteria require common open space and provide a density bonus for active recreational areas (15.08.400.C.5 and .D.2). Historic and Cultural Preservation . The Landmark Designation and Preservation code is in place for landmark preservation (Chapter 14.12) Federal and state regulations address protection of cultural/archaeological resources (including RCW Chapters 27.34, 27.53, and 27.44 RCW; and WAC Chapter 25.48) Transportation . Street and Curb Cut and Street Use Permits codes (Chapters 6.06 and 6.07) and Design and Construction Standards include mitigation authority for: access point control, street/ intersection configuration, and signage. Street and Curb Cut, Street Use Permits, and Traffic Codes (Chapters 6.06, 6.07,and 9.36) contain authority to regulate: o Pedestrian safety measures, o Street and sidewalk closures, o Truck traffic timing and haul routes, o Any planned use of the street for construction purposes (material, equipment storage). Transportation impact fees are assessed at the time of building permit or change of use applications. (Chapter 12.14) Required Infrastructure Improvements code (Chapter 6.02) provides mitigation for impacts to infrastructure, including transportation. Commute Trip Reduction code 128 SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Environment from 11.03.510 KCC Codes/Rules* (Chapter 6.12) requires affected employers to make a good faith effort to develop and implement a CTR program that will encourage employees to reduce VMT and drive-alone commute trips. • Zoning Code (Chapter 15.05) includes authority to requires or reduce parking requirements according to land use, considering unique circumstances and temporary parking needs. Public Services/Facilities and . Authority for requiring utility Utilities improvements is identified in rules, codes and policies and applied during permit reviews. This includes water, sewer, storm drain, electrical improvements and communication facilities. (Chapter 6.02, 7.04, 7.05, 7.07, 7.10, and 7.12) • Permit applications not undergoing SEPA review can be referred to other departments for comments, if facilities or services might be affected, such as police or fire protection. (15.08.205) • School impact fees are assessed on behalf of the school districts at the time of permit application. (Chapter 12.13) • Fire codes mitigate impacts of built environment on emergency services (Chapter 13.01). • Solid waste code also addresses recycling and yard waste collection (7.03.040 and 045). • Public service and utility impact analyses to address growth impacts are most appropriately addressed through area planning initiatives in conjunction with supporting area-wide SEPA reviews, as is done for subarea rezones. *All citations are from the Kent City Code, unless otherwise indicated. RCW = Revised Code of Washington. WAC= Washington Administrative Code. 129 EXHIBIT B Chapter 12.01 ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS* Sections: .12.0.1. fj 1.0, Purpose and applicability. 12 01 020 Definitions. ............................. .1 0 fM,0 Application processes and classification. 1.2 f 040 Project permit application framework. 1, f 1 fj'2C.) Exemptions from project permit application processing. 12 01 0Y Fees. ............................. .1 0 f)ff,0 Joint public hearings. .12.01.0.L0 Process VI legislative actions. .1 01 O8.), Pre-application conference. .1 0 fM0 Project permit applications. .12.0.1 1.0.0 Submission and acceptance of application. 1, f 1 1 f)!, Application vesting. 12,( 1,1,1_( Procedure for complete but incorrect applications. 12 01 1 1; Procedure for ready-to-issue permits. 1, f 12. Referral and review of project permit applications. 1, f 1 Notification of proximity to agricultural resource lands. 1.2 01 i _( Public notice —Generally. .12.0.1 1!{), Notice of application. .12.0.1 1 i!, Notice of open record hearing. .12.0.1 1 i J Notice of city council meetings on project permit applications. 1, f 11,,( Consistency with development regulations and SEPA. 12 01 1,Y, Code of conduct. ............................. .1 01 1f,,O, Open record hearings. 12 01 '1 7O Notice of decision. ............................. 12 01 '180 Time limitations. ............................. Expiration of permits. .1 01 11i{), Open record appeal. .12.0.1 Closed record appeal. Judicial appeals. *Editor's note—Ord. No. 3169, § 3, adopted May 16, 1994, repealed former ch. f1,1 §§ 12.01.080, which pertained to the board of adjustment. 130 12.01.010 Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a set of processes to be used for land use and development proposals subject to review under the following portions of the Kent City Code: A. Chapter 2„S.2 KCC, Office of Hearing Examiner, B. Chapter,l,1M KCC, Environmental Policy, C. Chapter„1,2 04 KCC, Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments, D. Chapter„1, ,,,,,0]. KCC, Building Codes, and E. KCC Title 1,'„ Zoning. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.020 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. A. Closedrecord appeals are administrative appeals under Chapter ; M RCW which are heard by the city council or hearing examiner, following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal arguments allowed. B. Judicial appeals are appeals filed by a party of record in King County superior court. C. Open record hearing means a hearing held under Chapter M /f�l RCW and conducted by the Kent hearing examiner who is authorized by the city to conduct such hearings, that creates the city's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the city by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing."An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit. D. Parties of record means: 1. The applicant, 2. The property tax payer as identified by the records available from the King County assessor's office, 3.Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application, and/or 131 4.Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or has submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or form letters). E. Project permit means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the city of Kent for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, site development permits, site plan review, land use preparation permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, development plan review, or site-specific rezones authorized by the comprehensive plan, but excluding adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan and development regulations, zoning of newly annexed land, area-wide rezones, and zoning map amendments except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. F. Planning director means the director of the planning department of the city of Kent or his/her designee. G. Public meeting means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of persons to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the city's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review meeting, a special committee meeting, such as the short subdivision committee, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the city's project permit application file. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3801, § 1, 6-6-06, Ord. No. 4044, § 1, 8-21-12) 12.01.030 Application processes and classification. A. Application processes. Project permit applications for review pursuant to this chapter shall be classified as a Process I, Process II, Process III, Process IV, or Process V action. Process VI actions are legislative. Project permit applications and decisions are categorized by type as set forth in KCC B. Determination of proper process type. The planning director shall determine the proper process types for all applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate process type, the planning director shall resolve it in favor of the higher process type number. Process I is the lowest and Process VI is the highest. C. Optional consolidated permit processing. An application that involves two (2) or more process types may be treated collectively under the highest numbered process type required for any part of the application or treated individually under each process type identified by this chapter. An applicant may ask that his or her application be treated collectively or individually. If the application is administered under the individual process option, the highest numbered process procedure must be finalized prior to the subsequent lower numbered process being finalized. If the application is processed under the individual procedure option, there shall be no more than one 132 (1) open record hearing and no more than one (1) closed record appeal for all application processes. Open record hearings and closed record appeals must be consolidated under the higher process type number. An application for rezone may be processed separately from an application for another project permit. D. Decision maker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (C) of this section which have the same highest numbered process type but are assigned different hearing bodies shall be heard collectively by the highest decision maker(s). The city council is the highest, followed by the hearing examiner, and then the short subdivision committee and the downtown design review committee. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to KCC .1.2 fj .060, Joint public hearings. E. Environmental review. Process I, II, III, IV, and V permits which are subject to environmental review under SEPA (Chapteri ..21 j,; RCW) are subject to the provisions of this chapter. An environmental checklist shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of a project permit application. One (1) environmental threshold determination shall be made for all related project permit applications. The city will not issue a threshold determination, other than a DS, prior to the submittal of a complete project permit application and the expiration of the public comment period for the notice of application pursuant to KCC i,G, but may utilize the public notice procedures as outlined in KCC i ,0 i j,0(A)(1)to consolidate public notice. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3760, § 1, 9-6-05, Ord. No. 4044, §2, 8-21-12) 12.01.040 Project permit application framework. A. Process types. The following table lists the process types, the corresponding applications, and, parenthetically, the corresponding final decision maker and appellate body. Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V Applications: Zoning permit review Administrative Conditional use Planned unit Final Zoning of newly (1) (7) design review(1) permit(5) (10) development plat (6) annexed lands (7) (6) (10)with (10) (6) (10) change of use Performance Shoreline Sign variance Special use Area-wide standards substantial (5) (10) combining rezones to procedures (1) (7) development district (6) implement new permit(1) (9) (10) city policies (6) (10) 133 Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V Sign permit(1) (7) Accessory Special home Rezone (6) Comprehensive dwelling unit occupation (10) plan permit(1) (7) permit(5) (10) amendments (6) (10) Lot line adjustment Administrative Variance (5) Development (1) (7) variance (1) (7) (10) regulations (6) (10) Administrative Downtown Shoreline Zoning map interpretation (1) (7) design review, all conditional use amendments (6) except for minor permit(5) (9) (10) remodels (3) (7) Application Downtown Shoreline Zoning text conditional design review, variance (5) (9) amendments (6) certification only minor (10) multifamily tax remodels (1) (7) exemption (12) (8), all other multifamily tax exemption (12) (7) Development plan Midway design Preliminary plat review(planning review(1) (7) (5) (10) director, building official, or public works director) (7) Site plan review Midway design (planning director, review(1) (7) building official, or public works director) (7) Administrative Binding site plan 134 Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V approvalNVTF (1) (7) (2) (7) Mobile home park Short subdivision Planned unit closure (11) (7) (4) (7) development (5) (10)without a change of use (1) Final decision made by planning director. (8)Appeal to city council. (2) Final decision by binding site plan committee. (9)Appeal to shoreline hearings board. (3) Final decision made by downtown design review committee. (10) No administrative appeals. (4) Final decision made by short subdivision committee. (11) Final decision made by manager of (5) Final decision made by hearing examiner. housing and human services. (6) Final decision made by city council. (12) Final decision made by economic (7)Appeal to hearing examiner. and community development director. B. Process procedures. The following table lists the process types and the corresponding procedures. Project Permit Applications (Processes 1— V) Legislative Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V Notice of Yes, for Yes, for Yes No No application: projects projects requiring requiring SEPA review SEPA review, short plats, and shoreline substantial development permits Recommendation N/A N/A N/A Hearing examiner N/A Land use and made by: planning board 136 Project Permit Applications (Processes 1— V) Legislative Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V Final decision Planning Planning Hearing City council, City City council made by: director, director, examiner based upon council building downtown record made official, public design review before hearing works director, committee, examiner economic and binding site community plan development committee, or director, or short manager of subdivision housing and committee, as human noted in services as subsection (A) applicable of this section Open record Yes, if Yes, if No No No No appeal: appealed, then appealed, before hearing then before examiner hearing examiner Open record No No Yes, before Yes, before No Yes, before land hearing: hearing hearing examiner use and planning examiner to to make board to make make final recommendation recommendation to decision to council city council, and/or before city council Reconsideration: No No Yes, of Yes, of hearing No No hearing examiner's examiner's recommendation decision Closed record Only if appeal Only if Only if No No No 136 Project Permit Applications (Processes 1— V) Legislative Process 1 Process 11 Process 111 Process IV Process Process VI V appeal: of denial of appealed, appealed, multifamily then before then before conditional the shoreline the certificate, then hearings shoreline before the city board if hearings council applicable board if applicable Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3614, § 1, 9-17-02, Ord. No. 3801, §2, 6-6-06, Ord. No. 4011, §2, 12-13-11, Ord. No. 4044, §3, 8-21-12) 12.01.060 Exemptions from project permit application processing. A. General exemptions. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the notification and procedural requirements set forth in this chapter: 1. Landmark designations. 2. Street vacations. 3. Street use permits. 4. Pursuant to RCW M /01, 1,40(2), boundary line adjustments, building permits, and other construction permits, which are categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA or that do not require street improvements or for which environmental review under SEPA has been completed in connection with other project permits. For example, if public notice and environmental review for a project was completed with an initial application for a project permit, a subsequent application for a different permit for the same project is specifically excluded from the public notification and procedures set forth in this chapter and would be subject to the procedures and regulations related specifically to that subsequent permit, for example, Chapter,l_,,( 1, KCC for an application for building permit. 5.Administrative approvals which are categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter i �1 j .RCW) and the city's SEPAlenviron mental policy ordinance, Chapter.i L KCC, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. 137 (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §4, 8-21-12) 12.01.066 Fees. The city council shall, by resolution, establish the fees to be assessed to implement and operate the regulations adopted in this chapter. The resolution may require that certain fees be pre-paid and/or designated to be nonrefundable because staff time and materials will be expended whether or not the permit applied for is approved by the city or pulled by the applicant. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity regarding any fees authorized under this chapter and established by council resolution, the planning director is authorized to interpret the fee schedule(s)to resolve that conflict or ambiguity. (Ord. No. fJ,1_f), § 11, 12-13-11) 12.01.060 Joint public hearings. A. Planning director's decision to hold joint hearing. The planning director may combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency on the proposed action, as long as: 1. The other agency consents to the joint hearing, 2. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so, 3. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule, 4. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing, and 5. The hearing is held within the Kent city limits. B. Applicant's request for a joint hearing. The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §5, 8-21-12) 138 12.01.070 Process VI legislative actions. A. Legislative actions. The following process VI actions are legislative, and are not subject to the notification and procedural requirements in this chapter, unless otherwise specified: 1.Zoning newly annexed lands, 2.Area-wide rezones and zoning map amendments to implement city policies, 3. Comprehensive plan text amendments, 4. Comprehensive plan map amendments, 5. Development regulations and zoning text amendments, and 6. Other similar actions that are non-project related. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §6, 8-21-12) 12.01.080 Pre-application conference. A. Applicability. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to provide city staff with a sufficient level of detail about a proposal prior to submittal of a project permit application so that the city staff can acquaint the applicant with the requirements of the Kent City Code. Pre-application conferences are encouraged for Process I, II, III, and IV permits which require environmental review and for projects that are complex or where applicants are unfamiliar with city codes, ordinances, and procedures. B. Pre-application conference initiation. To initiate a pre-application conference, an applicant shall submit a completed form provided by the city and all information pertaining to the proposal as prescribed by administrative procedures of the planning services office. Failure to provide all pertinent information may prevent the city from identifying all applicable issues or providing the most effective pre-application conference. C. Scheduling. A pre-application conference may be conducted at any point prior to application for a project permit. A pre-application conference shall be scheduled by the city at the time of submittal of a completed pre- application conference request. The pre-application conference shall be held within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of a completed request, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of this time period in writing. D. At the conference the applicant may request the following information be provided: 1.A form which lists the requirements of a complete project permit application, 2.A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application, 139 3. The references to the relevant code provisions on development, and 4. The city's design guidelines. E. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussion at the conference or the form sent to the applicant under subsection (D)(1) of this section shall not bind or prohibit the city's future application or enforcement of the applicable law. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §7, 8-21-12) 12.01.090 Project permit applications. A. Required materials. Applications for all project permits shall be submitted upon forms provided by the city. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.100 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of completeness. A project permit application consistent with instructions for a complete application is deemed complete upon acceptance by the permit center. Acceptance of a project permit application means that the application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. Acceptance of a project permit application shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies if new information is required or where there are substantial changes in the proposal. B. Project review. Following a determination that an application is complete, the city shall begin project review. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §8, 8-21-12) 12.01.106 Application vesting. A project permit application shall vest upon acceptance of a complete project permit application, as defined in KCC f fj,( provided, that the applicant also includes a concurrent submittal of a fully completed application for any known code deviations or variances required for the proposed project. A project permit application that contains a knowing misrepresentation or an omission of material fact shall not vest any development rights. Vesting shall apply to land use regulations in effect on the land at the time a fully completed project permit application has been accepted as complete pursuant to KCC (Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, §9, 8-21-12) 140 12.01.110 Procedure for complete but incorrect applications. A. Following submittal of a complete application and the commencement of project review, the city may make a determination in writing that some information is incorrect, and that corrected information be submitted. The applicant shall have up to one hundred eighty (180) calendar days to submit corrected information (deemed the "resubmittal period"). The applicant shall submit concurrently all of the corrected information that was requested. The planning director may, in writing, extend the resubmittal period for up to an additional one hundred eighty (180) days if the applicant can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the resubmittal request. Evidence of an applicant's good faith efforts shall include the following: 1. Length of time since the initial permit application, 2. Time period the applicant had to submit corrected information, 3. Availability of necessary information, 4. Potential to provide necessary information within the extended resubmittal period, 5. Reason for the applicant's delay, and 6. Applicant's reasonable reliance on an expectation that the application would not expire. The economic and community development director may authorize additional time extensions of the resubmittal period in rare or unique circumstances when the inability of the applicant to comply within the resubmittal period is due solely to factors outside of the applicant's control, including but not limited to unusual delay in obtaining permits or approvals from other agencies or jurisdictions. B. The city shall have fourteen (14) calendar days to review the submittal of corrected information. If the corrected information is still not sufficient, the city shall notify the applicant in writing that the submitted information is incorrect, and the resubmittal period set forth in subsection (A) of this section shall be repeated. This process may continue until complete or corrected information is obtained. C. If the applicant within the resubmittal period either refuses in writing to submit corrected information, does not submit the corrected information within the resubmittal period, or submits only a portion of the corrected information that was requested, the application shall lapse. This does not preclude the applicant from working with individual divisions of the city for informal review of a portion of the requested corrected information within the resubmittal period. D. If the requested corrected information is sufficient, the city shall continue with project review, in accordance with the time calculation exclusions set forth in KCC '12 01 '180. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3914, § 1, 4-21-09, Ord. No. 4044, § 10, 8-21- 12) 141 12.01.116 Procedure for ready-to-issue permits. A. Following the end of project review, the city will notify the applicant that the permit is ready to issue. The applicant shall have up to one hundred eighty (180) calendar days to obtain the permit after notification that it is ready to issue (deemed the "period for permit pickup"). The planning director may, in writing, extend the period for permit pickup for up to an additional one hundred eighty (180) days if the applicant can demonstrate a good faith effort to pick up the permit. Evidence of an applicant's good faith efforts shall include the following: 1. Length of time since the initial permit application, 2. Reason for the applicant's delay, and 3. Applicant's reasonable reliance on an expectation that the application would not expire. The economic and community development director may authorize additional time extensions of the period for permit pickup in rare or unique circumstances when the inability of the applicant to comply within the period for permit pickup is due solely to factors outside of the applicant's control, including but not limited to unusual delay in obtaining permits or approvals from other agencies or jurisdictions. B. If the applicant within the period for permit pickup either refuses in writing to pick up the permit or does not pick up the permit after notification by the city that the permit was ready to issue, the application shall lapse. (Ord. No. 404,4, § 11, 8-21-12) 12.01.120 Referral and review of project permit applications. Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting a complete application, the planning director shall do the following: A. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state, federal, and county requirements. The affected agencies and city departments shall have fifteen (15) calendar days to comment. The referral agency or city department is presumed to have no comments if comments are not received within the specified time period. The planning director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual circumstances. Any extension shall only be for a maximum of three (3) additional calendar days. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, § 12, 8-21-12) 142 12.01.126 Notification of proximity to agricultural resource lands. For all plats, short plats, development permits, and substantial building permits for residential development activities on or within five hundred (500)feet of land designated as agricultural resource lands within the city of Kent, or the comparable land use designation within unincorporated King County, the city shall inform the project permit applicant of the proximity to agricultural resource lands on which commercial agricultural activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration. (Ord. No. 3720, § 1, 11-2-04, Ord. No. 4044, § 13, 8-21-12) 12.01.130 Public notice - Generally. The available records of the King County assessor's office shall be used for determining the property taxpayer of record. Addresses for mailed notice shall be obtained from the county's real property tax records. All public notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to provide the public notice as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.140 Notice of application. A. Notice of application. A notice of application shall be issued for Process I and Process II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats, shoreline substantial development permits, and all Process III and Process IV applications within fourteen (14) calendar days following submittal of a complete application, provided, that if any open record hearing is required for the requested project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the open record hearing. One (1) notice of application will be done for all permit applications related to the same project at the time of the earliest complete permit application. B. SEPA exempt projects. A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required. C. Contents. The notice of application shall include: 1. The case file number(s), the date of application, and the date of the notice of application, 2.A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested by the review authority pursuant to RCW :16,___.0.[ DL and WAC 1_/ .?.i i.�, 143 3. The identification of other permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the city, 4. The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed, 5.A statement of the limits of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen (14) nor more than thirty (30) calendar days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights, 6. The tentative date, time, place, and type of hearing. The tentative hearing date is to be set at the time of the date of notice of the application, 7.A statement of the preliminary determination of consistency, if one has been made at the time of notice, and of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in KCC 01 1'2(1 8. The name of the applicant or applicant's representative and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any, 9.A description of the site, including current zoning and nearest road intersections, reasonably sufficient to inform the reader of its location, and 10. Any other information determined appropriate by the city, such as a IDS, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of application, or the city's statement of intent to issue a DNS pursuant to the optional DNS process set forth in WAC D. Mailing of notice of application. The city shall mail by hard copy or e-mail a copy of the notice of application to the following: 1.Agencies with jurisdiction, and 2.Any person who requests such notice in writing delivered to the planning services office, and 3. Applicant. E. Public comment on the notice of application. All public comments received on the notice of application must be received by the planning services office by 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the comment period. Comments may be mailed, personally delivered, or sent electronically. Comments should be as specific as possible. 144 F. Posted notice of application. In addition to the mailed notice of application, the city will post notice of application at Kent City Hall, and in the register for public review at the planning services office. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the property for site-specific proposals with notice boards provided by the city. Public notice shall be accomplished through the use of a four(4) by four(4)foot plywood face generic notice board to be issued by public works operations following payment of the public notice board fee at the time of application submittal. 1. Posting. Posting of the property for site-specific proposals shall consist of one (1) or more notice boards as follows: a. A single notice board shall be placed by the applicant in a conspicuous location on a street frontage bordering the subject property. b. Each notice board shall be visible and accessible for inspection by members of the public. c. Additional notice boards may be required when: i. The site does not abut a public road, or ii. Additional public notice boards are required under other provisions of the Kent City Code, or iii. The planning director determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice. d. Notice boards shall be: i. Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the notice period, ii. In place prior to the start of the public comment period, and iii. Removed by the applicant after expiration of the applicable notice period or the last public meeting or last public hearing on the application, whichever is later. e. Notice boards that are removed, stolen, or destroyed prior to the end of the notice period may be cause for discontinuance of the departmental review until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for the specified time period. The city shall notify the applicant when it comes to their attention that notice boards have been removed prematurely, stolen, or destroyed. 146 f. An affidavit of posting shall be submitted by the planning director at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing. If the affidavits are not filed as required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the public may comment on the application may be postponed in order to allow compliance with this notice requirement. g. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with specifications determined by the planning director. h. SEPA information shall be added by the city to the posted sign within applicable deadlines. An affidavit of posting shall be submitted by the planning director. G. Published notice of application. Published notice of application in the city's official newspaper or an appropriate substitute as provided for in Resolution No. 1747 or as subsequently amended is required for Process I and II permits requiring SEPA review, short plats, and Process III, IV, and V permits, except subdivision final plat applications. Published notice shall include at least the following information: 1. Project location, 2. Project description, 3. Type of permit(s) required, 4. Comment period dates, and 5. Location where the complete application and notice of the application may be reviewed. H. Shoreline master program permits. Notice of the application for a permit under the purview of the city's shoreline master program shall be given in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 1„104 KCC, the Kent shoreline master program. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3511, §2, 5-16-00, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, § 14, 8-21- 12) 146 12.01.146 Notice of open record hearing. A. Notice of open record hearing for all types of applications. The notice given of an open record hearing required in this chapter shall contain: 1. The name of the applicant or the applicant's representative, 2. Description of the affected property, which may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or written description, other than a legal description, 3. The date, time, and place of the hearing, 4. The nature of the proposed use or development, 5.A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony, 6.When and where information may be examined, and when and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing body may be submitted, 7. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained, 8. That a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at the cost of reproduction, and 9. That a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing and copies will be provided at the cost provided for in the city's public record disclosure policy. B. Mailed notice of open record hearing. Mailed notice of the open record hearing shall be provided by the city in hard copy or e-mail as follows: 1. Process 1, 11, and V actions. No public notice is required because an open record hearing is not held. Notice for short plat meetings is mailed to property owners within two hundred (200)feet. Shoreline permit notices shall be in accordance with the requirements of WAC i`, 2, 1 1,(. 2. Process 111 and IV actions. The notice of open record hearing shall be mailed to: a. The applicant, 147 b. All owners of real property as shown by the records of the county assessor's office within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, and c. Any person who submits written comments, delivered to the planning services office, regarding the project permit. 3. Process lV preliminary plat actions. In addition to the general notice of open record hearing requirements for Process IV actions above, additional notice shall be provided as follows: a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision located adjacent to the right-of- way of a state highway or within two (2) miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the Secretary of Transportation, who must respond within fifteen (15) calendar days of such notice. b. Special notice of the hearing shall be given to adjacent land owners by any other reasonable method the city deems necessary. Adjacent land owners are the owners of real property, as shown by the records of the King County assessor, located within three hundred (300)feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW '„(�„ / f)��{J„(1)(b) shall be given to owners of real property located within three hundred (300)feet of such adjacently owned parcels. 4. Process VI actions. For Process VI legislative actions, the city shall publish notice as described in subsections (C) and (D) of this section, and use all other methods of notice as required by RCW ,!:f For privately proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, notice of the open record hearing shall be mailed to: a. The applicant, b. All owners of real property as shown by the records of the county assessor's office within three hundred (300) feet of the affected property, and c. Any person who has requested notice. For revised geographic scope of the privately proposed land use plan map amendments, notice of the open record hearing shall be given by notification of all property owners within the revised land use plan map amendment area. 148 C. Procedure for posted or published notice of open record hearing. 1. Posted notice of the open record hearing is required for all Process III and IV actions. The posted notice of hearing shall be added to the sign already posted on the property pursuant to KCC 2. Published notice of the open record hearing is required for all Process III and IV procedures. The published notice shall be published in the city's official newspaper or appropriate substitute as provided for in Resolution No. 1747 or as subsequently amended and contain the following information: a. Project location, b. Project description, c. Type of permit(s) required, d. Date, time, and location of the hearing, and e. Location where the complete application may be reviewed. 3. Published notice of the open record hearing is required for all Process VI procedures. The notice shall be published in the city's official newspaper or appropriate substitute as provided for in Resolution No. 1747 or as subsequently amended and, in addition to the information required in subsection (C)(2) of this section, shall contain the project description and the location where the complete file may be reviewed. D. Time of notice of open record hearing. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing date. Any posted notice and notice boards shall be removed by the applicant within seven (7) calendar days following the conclusion of the open record hearing(s). (Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3801, §3, 6-6-06, Ord. No. 4044, § 15, 8-21-12) 12.01.147 Notice of city council meetings on project permit applications. The city shall mail notice by hard copy or e-mail of city council meetings on Process IV and VI project permit applications to parties of record. (Ord. No. 3801, §4, 6-6-06, Ord. No. 4044, § 16, 8-21-12) 149 12.01.160 Consistency with development regulations and SEPA. A. Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application, consistency between the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan should be determined through the process in this chapter and the city's adopted SEPA ordinance, Ch. 1, 1 (; KCC. B. Consistency. During project permit application review, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this section are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project. In the absence of applicable development regulations, the city shall determine whether the items listed in this section are defined in the city's adopted comprehensive plan. This determination of consistency shall include the following: 1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied, 2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density, 3.Availability and adequacy of infrastructure, including public facilities and services identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter,S, ,; f f,, RCW, and 4. Characteristics of the development, such as development standards. 5. In deciding whether a project is consistent, the determinations made pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall be controlling. 6. Nothing in this section limits the city from asking more specific or related questions in subsections (13)(1)through (5) of this section. C. Initial SEPA analysis. The city shall also review the project permit application under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter i RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 1�.3;i 1„1,WAC, and Ch. 'JJ.L) KCC. ................ 1. This SEPA analysis shall: a. Determine whether the applicable federal, state, and local regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit application's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, 160 b. Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts, c. Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the project permit application should be conditioned with additional mitigation measures, and d. Provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level. 2. In its review of a project permit application, the city may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan, and/or in other applicable local, state, or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application. 3.A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state, or federal law provides adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of an application when: a. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated, or b. The city has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, or other land use planning required or allowed by Chapter,(r ,;,W,, RCW. 4. The city's determination of consistency with the items identified in subsection (B) of this section shall not prohibit the city from denying, conditioning, or mitigating impacts due to other aspects of the project. 5. In its decision whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the city shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the city shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws. 6. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the city in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter .21( .RCW. 7. The city shall also review the application under Ch. 1_..L, KCC, the city's environmental policy provisions. 161 D. Categorically exempt actions. Actions categorically exempt under RCW i 21(, 1 1,0(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter„1, 3;(.,:::1..:1.WAC) may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA. E. Planned actions. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA. 1. A"planned action" means one (1) or more types of project action that: a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the city, b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with: i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter;;3,F,,,;/fj, ;RCW, or ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development, or a phased project, c. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in subsection (E)(1)(b) of this section, d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW ,Fi,„,/ft/ f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter„F3 /,p, ,RCW. 2. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or in the ordinance or resolution designating the planned action under RCW M iW, f1,40 3. During project review, the city shall not re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on the items identified in subsection (B) of this section except for issues of code interpretation, the process for which is outlined in KCC I; Oi) 060. 162 4. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.166 Code of conduct. A. General. The following shall apply to open record hearings in KCC:1, f 1 F,f open record appeals in KCC � 01 i�r) and the closed record appeals in KCC 12f)1 i_ B. Conflict of interest. The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics and prohibitions on conflict of interest as set forth in RCW !,/ !2 02,0,and Chapter!2 �2,; RCW, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. C. Ex parte communications. 1. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications necessary to procedural aspects of maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, except as provided in this section: a. The hearing body may receive advice from legal counsel, or b. The hearing body may communicate with staff members (except where the proceeding relates to a code enforcement investigation or prosecution). 2. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in KCC,1, 0 1 ff),(D)(3). 3. If the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record: a. All written communications received, b. All written responses to the communications, c. The substance of all oral communications received and all responses made, and 163 d. The identity of each person from whom the hearing body received any ex parte communication. The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record. D. Disqualification. 1.A member of the hearing body who is disqualified may be counted for purposes of forming a quorum. Any member who is disqualified may be counted only by making full disclosure to the audience, abstaining from voting on the disqualification, vacating the seat on the hearing body, and physically leaving the hearing. 2. If all members of the hearing body are disqualified, all members present after stating their reasons for disqualification shall be re-qualified and shall proceed to resolve the issues. 3. Except for Process VI actions, a member absent during the presentation of evidence in a hearing may not participate in the deliberations or decision unless the member has reviewed the evidence received. (Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.160 Open record hearings. A. General. Open record hearings shall be conducted in accordance with this section. B. Responsibility of the planning director for hearing. The planning director shall: 1. Schedule an application for review and public hearing, 2. Give notice (applicant responsible for some of the notice requirements), 3. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report stating all of the decisions made as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the city's authority under SEPA. If the threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination. In the case of a Process I or II project permit application, this report may be the permit, and 164 4. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and/or mail by hard copy or e-mail a copy of the notice of decision to those required by this code to receive such decision. C. Burden and nature of proof. Except for Process VI actions, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The project permit application must be supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations, comprehensive plan and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. D. Order of proceedings. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as appropriate: 1. Before receiving information on the issue, the following shall be determined: a. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and, if there is objection, the hearing body has the discretion to proceed or terminate, and b. Any abstentions or disqualifications shall be determined. 2. The presiding officer may take official notice of known information related to the issue, such as: a. A provision of any ordinance, resolution, rule, officially adopted development standard, or state law, and b. Other public records and facts judicially noticeable by law. 3. Matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered by the hearing body in its determination. Parties requesting that a matter be officially noticed shall do so on the record, however, the hearing body, on its own accord, may take notice of matters listed in subsections (D)(1) and (D)(2) of this section if stated for the record. Any matter given official notice may be rebutted. 4. The hearing body may view the area in dispute with or without notification to the parties, but shall place the time, manner, and circumstances of such view on the record. 5. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may approve or deny a request from a person attending the hearing to ask a question. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, if the request to ask a question is approved, the presiding officer will direct the question to the person submitting testimony. 166 6.When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the hearing, the hearing body shall openly discuss the issue and may further question a person submitting information or the staff if opportunity for rebuttal is provided. 7.When the hearing body is unable to formulate a recommendation on a project permit, the hearing body may decide to forward the project permit to the city council to render a decision without a recommendation. E. Recommendation/decision. The hearing body shall issue a recommendation or decision, as applicable, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the record being closed. F. Reconsideration by hearing examiner. Reconsideration is not authorized for Process I and Process II applications. A party of record may ask for a reconsideration of a decision by the hearing examiner for a Process III action or a recommendation by the hearing examiner for a Process IV action. A reconsideration may be requested if either: 1.A specific error of fact or law can be identified, or 2. New evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. A request for reconsideration shall be filed by a party of record within five (5)working days of the date of the initial decision/recommendation. Any reconsideration request shall cite specific references to the findings and/or criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. The hearing examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration request and within five (5)working days issue a written response, either approving or denying the request. For purposes of rights to appeal pursuant to Chapter M ifi(,a RCW only, if a request for reconsideration is timely filed by a party of record, the decision of the hearing examiner is not final until after a decision on reconsideration is issued. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, § 17, 8-21-12) 12.01.170 Notice of decision. A. Following a decision on a project permit by the applicable decision-maker, the city shall provide a notice of decision that also includes a statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA (Chapter i , �1;.RCW) and the procedures for appeal. B. The notice of decision shall be issued within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, as calculated by KCC after the city notifies the applicant that the application is complete. 166 C. The notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application. D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public as set forth in KCC 01,,14! (B)(2)(a) and (c). Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes. The city shall provide notice of the decision to the county assessor's office in which the property is located. E. Pursuant to RCW M /01, l 0(1), building permits, grading permits, and civil construction permits are exempt from the requirements in subsection (C) and (D) of this section, except for notice to the applicant. F. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the parties of record. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 12.01.180 Time limitations. A. Calculation of time periods for issuance of notice of final decision. In determining the number of calendar days that have elapsed after the city has notified the applicant that the application is complete for purposes of calculating the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit in KCC 1 f 1,1 (,( for issuance of the notice of decision, the following periods shall be excluded: 1.Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, provide additional required information, or otherwise required to act. The period shall be calculated from the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the local government determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or fourteen (14) calendar days after the date the information has been provided to the city, 2.Any period during which the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under KCC 12,,,01 1 f f and„1 f 1 10 is insufficient or incorrect and has requested the applicant to provide sufficient or correct information, 3.Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter .`3,,.:.'i.1::.RCW, if the city by ordinance has established time periods for completion of environmental impact statements, or if the city and the applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an environmental impact statement, 167 4.Any period for administrative appeals of project permit applications, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed: a. Ninety (90) calendar days for an open record appeal hearing, or b. Sixty (60) calendar days for a closed record appeal. The parties may agree to extend these time periods, and 5.Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city. B. Time limit exceptions. The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application: 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation, 2. Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW ,F,,,/f�/ Yf),f); or 3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete pursuant to KCC 1.21).l... C. Failure to meet time limit. If the city is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of a final decision. The city is not liable for damages due to the city's failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 4044, § 18, 8-21-12) 12.01.186 Expiration of permits. A. Absent statute or ordinance provisions to the contrary, Process I and II project permit applications listed in KCC that are not subject to the notification and procedural requirements of this chapter and for which no substantial steps have been taken to meet approval requirements including permit issuance or final decision for a period of three hundred sixty-five (365) days after submittal of the initial application will expire and become null and void. The application and instruction forms will reference the expiration standards of this section, where applicable. Substantial steps include, but are not limited to, due diligence in submitting complete and correct resubmittals or due diligence in satisfying the requirements for recordation of lot line adjustments. The planning director may grant a one hundred eighty (180) day extension in writing on a one-time basis if the failure to take a substantial step was due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Provisions of 168 this section do not exempt the city from the time periods for actions under RCW ;;3,(, /f�l, f)tS,fj,and KCC 12.01.1r.0. ............................ B. Absent statute or ordinance provisions to the contrary, permits or land use approvals listed in KCC !,G for which the use is not begun or the work is not completed within three hundred sixty-five (365) days after permit issuance or final decision will expire and become null and void. The issued permit or land use approvals will clearly state this requirement for expiration, where applicable. The planning director may grant a one hundred eighty (180) day extension in writing on a one-time basis if the failure to begin the use or complete the work was due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. C. Site plan review approvals will expire and become null and void one hundred eighty (180) days after approval unless: 1. Project permit applications for development of a substantial portion of the site plan remain valid, or 2. Project permits for development of a substantial portion of the site plan remain valid. D. The economic and community development director may authorize additional time extensions in rare or unique circumstances when the delay is outside of the applicant's control, including but not limited to unusual delay in obtaining permits or approvals from other agencies or jurisdictions. (Ord. No. 404,4, § 19, 8-21-12) 12.01.190 Open record appeal. A. This section allows for open record appeals as provided in the framework in KCC 12 01 04 . Open record appeals are heard by the hearing examiner. B. Consolidated appeals. 1.All open record appeals on a project permit application decision, other than an appeal of determination of significance (DS), shall be considered together in a consolidated open record appeal. 2.Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, Ch. :1.:1.,..M KCC, including administrative appeals of a threshold determination, shall proceed as provided in that chapter. C. Initiation of appeal. Only parties of record may initiate an appeal on a project permit application. 169 D. Time to file. An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days following issuance of the notice of decision. Appeals must be delivered to the planning services office by mail, personal delivery, or received by fax before 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. E. Computation of time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the notice of decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW„11,B.D,2,(, or by the city's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day (RCW ',A 1,8 0)0). F. Content of appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council, and contain the following information: 1. Appellant's name, address, and phone number, 2. Appellant's statement describing his or her standing to appeal, 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal, 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based, 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent, and 6.A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. G. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is adjudicated by the hearing examiner. H. Notice of appeal. Public notice of the appeal shall be given as provided in KCC ! (13)(2)(a) and (c). I. Burden of proof The burden of proof is on the appellant. (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3600§ 1, 5-7-02) 12.01.196 Closed record appeal. A. This section shall allow for closed record appeals as provided in the framework of KCC j. f f)!,f. A closed record appeal hearing shall be on the record before the hearing body and no new evidence may be presented, unless the new evidence is limited to information that could not have been placed on the record previously. 160 B. Administrative appeals. Only parties of record may initiate an administrative appeal on a project permit application. C. Time to file. An appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days following issuance of the notice of decision. Appeals must be delivered to the planning services office by mail, personal delivery, or electronically before 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. D. Computation of time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the notice of decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a day designated by RCW or by the city's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day (RCW ',A 21 fj,80). E. Content of appeal. Appeals shall be in writing on forms provided by the city, be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council, and contain the following information: 1. Appellant's name, address, and phone number, 2. Appellant's statement describing his or her standing to appeal, 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal, 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based, 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent, and 6.A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. F. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is adjudicated by the hearing examiner or city council. G. Order of proceedings. The closed record appeal shall only be open for oral argument by the parties to the appeal. H. Burden of proof The burden of proof is on the appellant. (Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01, Ord. No. 3801, §5, 6-6-06, Ord. No. 4044, §20, 8-21-12) 161 12.01.200 Judicial appeals A. Appeal. The city's final decision or appeal decision on a Process I, II, III, IV, or V application maybe appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in King County superior court. B. Petition period. A land use petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of issuance of the notice of decision or appeal decision. C. Filing and content of a land use petition. A land use petition shall be filed according to the procedural standards outlined in Chapter M if c. RCW, Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, also known as the "Land Use Petition Act." (Ord. No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98, Ord. No. 3574, §3, 9-18-01) 162 EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 11.03 of the Kent City Code related to categorical exemptions for minor new construction under the State Environmental Policy Act and minor housekeeping updates consistent with WAC 197- 11. RECITALS A. In 2012 the State Legislature passed 2ESSB 6406, the Natural Resources Reform Bill, in order to streamline regulatory processes and achieve program efficiencies while at the same time maintaining current levels of natural resource protection. B. The Washington State Department of Ecology, in response to 2ESSB 6406, completed administrative updates to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules aimed at improving both the quality and efficiency of the environmental review process. C. The amendments to the SEPA rules set forth in WAC 197-11- 800 include an increase to flexible thresholds for categorically exempt actions which governmental entities may adopt. The City desires to amend its code for consistency with the updated state regulations. D. The requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation for impacts to elements of the environment are adequately 1 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 163 addressed for the development exempted by existing codes and ordinances listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto. E. Project-level public comment opportunities for development projects are described in Chapter 12.01 KCC, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Furthermore, projects subject to the Construction Storm Water General Permit shall provide public notice under WAC 173-226. F. Adoption of these amendments; are exempt from environmental review pursuant to WAC 197-11=$00(19). , G. On July 14 and August .11, 2014, the Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC);,of the City Council considered the proposed amendments and on xxxxxx recommended xxxxxxxxx. H. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(,1)(c)(iii)', on xxxxxx the City provided a sixty (60) day comment: period for the proposed amendments to the State Department of Ecology, affected tribes, agencies with expertise and the public. This sixty-day comment period has expired. I. After considerfrig the ECDC recommendation, on xxxxxxx, the City Council xxxxxxx. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1, — Amendment. Chapter 11.03 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: 2 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 164 PART I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Sec. 11.03.010 Purpose and authority. The city adopts this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120(3) and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904 as the same may be amended. Sec. 11.03.020 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part contains the basic requirements .that apply to the SEPA process. The city adopts the following sections and subsections of Chapter 197-11 WAC by reference: 197-11-040 Definitions. 197-11-050 Lead agency. 197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process, . 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process. 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information. 197-11-090 Supporting documents. 197-11-100Information required of applicants. 197-11-158 5-EPAIGMA project review — Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulation$. 197 11 164 Planned actions — Definition and criteria. 197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned actions — Procedures for-adoption. 197-11-172 Planned actions — Project review. 197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration. 197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions. 197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures. 197-11-230 Timing of an analysis, and expanded seelaftintegrated GMA/SEPA process. 3 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 166 197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary planning, environmental analysis, and expanded scoping. 197-11-235 SEPA/GMA intearation $documents. 197-11-238 SEPA/GMA intearation Mmonitoring. Sec. 11.03.030 Designation of responsible official. A. For those proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the responsible official shall be the planning director or the director's designee. B. FOF a" PFOpesals fOF which the eity is the ead agency, the i , , sbIpeFVise and peFfOFng anyetheF functions assigned - to the "lead agency" er GB. The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAG and make them available in accordance with Chapter 42—.17 2.56 RCW. Sec. 11.03.040 Lead agency determination and responsibilities. A. The department within the city receiving an application for or initiating a proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11- 922 through 197-11-944G, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the department is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency. 4 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 166 B. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal, the planning director shall determine the responsible official who shall supervise compliance with the threshold determination requirements and, if an environmental impact statement is necessary, shall supervise preparation of the environmental impact statement. C. When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city shall use and consider, as appropriate, either the determination of nonsignificance or the final environmental impact statement of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a determination of nonsignificance or environmental impact statement in addition to that prepared by the lead agency, unless required under WAC 197-11-600. The city may conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11- 6020. D. If the city or any of its departments receive a lead agency determination made by another agency, that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-9448, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the, determination and resolved within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the determination, or the city must petition the State Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the fifteen (15),day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated by the planning director. E. Departments of the city are authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944. The responsible official and any department that will incur responsibilities as the result of such agreement must approve the agreement. 5 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 167 F. Any department making a lead agency determination for a private project shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal (that is, which agencies require nonexempt licenses). Sec. 11.03.050 Threshold determinations. A. If the city has made a determination of significance (DS) under Chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application shall be combined with the DS and scoping notice. Nothing in this section prevents a DS and scoping notice from being issued prior to a notice of application. B. The responsible official shall, by administrative rule, adopt and make available to the public-written standards for determining when an application and supporting documentation are complete. The standards adopted by the responsible official shall be consistent with any rules adopted by the State Department of Ecology pertaining to the issuance of a threshold determination. C. Except; fora DS, and except as expressly allowed by RCW 36.70B,110, Laws of 1997 Ch: 429, the city shall not issue its threshold determination until the expiration of the public comment period on a notice of application subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. Sec. 11.03.060 Same — Submission of determination of nonsignificance, draft environmental impact statement, final environmental impact statement. A. For nonexempt proposals, the determination of nonsignificance or final environmental impact statement for the proposal shall normally accompany the city's staff recommendations to the planning 6 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 168 eeFnrn0ss0e+9land use and plannina board or hearing examiner. The draft environmental impact statement for a proposal may accompany the city's staff recommendations when a hearing pursuant to WAC 197-11-535 is held. B. For any nonexempt proposal, the applicant must submit a completed environmental checklist. A checklist shall be submitted in conjunction with a permit application and detailed plans and specifications. PART 2. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS AND THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS Sec. 11.03.200 Purpose of this part, and adoption by reference. This part contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a "probable significant, adverse environmental impact" requiring an environmental impact statement to be prepared. This part also contains rules for evaluating the impacts of proposals not requiring an environmental impact statement and rules applicable to categorical exemptions. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 197 11 300 Purpose of this part. 19741-305 Categorical exemptions. 197-11-310 Threshold determination required. 197-11-315 Environmental checklist. 197-11-330 Threshold determination process. 197-11-335 Additional information. 197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. 197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping. 197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination. 7 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 169 197-11-800 Categorical exemptions. 197-11-880 Emergencies. 197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions. The city adopts the following section of the Revised Code of Washington by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 43.21C.410 Battery charging and exchange station installation. Sec. 11.03.210 Thresholds for categorical exemptions. A. The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction under WAC 197-11-800(1)( c) based on local conditions when located outside of the residential mixed use and residential infill development boundaries depicted in Section 11.03.215.A and the Downtown Planned Action Area adopted by Ordinance No. 4096: 1. For ,sinale family residential dwelling units in WAC 197- 11-800(1){ i)LcjT elve-iWjbirty (30) dwelling units or less. 2. For multifamily,residential dwelling units in WAC 197- 11-800(1)iH�(c): Sixty (60) dwellina units or less. 32. For , agricultural structures in WAC 197-11- 800(1).(" , i4)Lc Forty thousand (40,000) square feet or less. 34. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197 11 800(1)f : Buildings of tie thousandthirty thousand (30,000) square feet or less and €arty {4%ninety (90) or less parking spaces. 8 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 170 (49) OF less PaFl(ing spaces. 5. For fill at-rdor excavations in WAC 197-11- 800(1){b}MLcj: Five ",,.., Fed (SG One thousand (1,000) cubic yards or less. B. Whenever the city establishes, new exempt levels under this section, it shall , 'HeadqblaFteFS provide the documentation and notification; under WAC 197-11-800(1)(c). , C. For exempted projects, the city shall follow the cultural resource protection procedures of 11.03.215.1' whether or not the proposal is considered an infill exemption. 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 sixty-five thousand (65,000) square feet in size, and mixed use developments under RCW 43.21C.229 in the following boundary. 9 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 171 Downtown Subarea Action Plan Legs nk! fir "M F,xwjpfnn JWIF'rM y K k'A�uG:nRLIY,VII++Wtr,�;d y � p '.•. .� Ye9d Y�nM�{F dV'�I'u^ Y � �� %r d ��d �l� f�� f 1 � F /F 1i E j^ 1 ✓ /. vr, r N/1 it tt ".9 k 4 re we qq '' L W a ry �p Ny ..,. .... ... ....� 1 , +v urwgt�dbnJ� .il B. Exempt levels of construction and trips. In order to accommodate I 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 sixty-five thousand (65,000) square feet in size. 10 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 172 Alternative Base Year Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Type (2006) DSAP Growth Total 2 — Net Growth Study Area (2031) (2031) Households 4,505 7,978 3,473 Jobs' 3,184 5,507 2,323 Total Activity Units 7,689 13,485 5,796 (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 three (3) percent of the job totals. For the purposes of this section: a. Infill means residential: developments, non-retail commercial developments less than sixty-five thousand (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. 11 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 173 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. 3. For infill residential and mixed use development in the area designated in subsection (A) of this section, the city may permit up to three thousand seven hundred forty (3,740) new trips .over the existing trips, consistent with Alternative 2, as established by the SEPA responsible official in the City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Draft and Final SEIS issued June 21; 2013 and October 4, 2013, respectively. C. Traffic analysis, concurrency, ,impact 'fees. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the SEPA responsible official shall consider a traffic analysis-based on the quantity of development units and the related applicable trip generation. 1. Goncurrency. 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, Chapter 12.14 KCC, Transportation Impact Fees. 12 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 174 Alternative 2 — Mitigation Measure Cost Estimates per Trip Infill Exemption Area Mitigation 3,740 Trip Growth Over Existing Measure Type Cost Cost Per Trip Street $7,000' $1.87 Pedestrian $1,400,000 $374.33 Bicycle $1,428,000 $381.82 Total $2,835,000 $758.02 Notes: 1 The total cost of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is shared proportionately between the Planned Action. and Infill Exemption Areas according to the number of trips generated (thirty (30) percent by the Planned Action Area and seventy (70)„ percent by the Infill Exemption Area). Source: Fehr,& Peers, 2013 3. ImpAct fees. Chapter 12.14 KCC requires development to pay its -fair share for capital improvement projects in the city's Transportation Master Plan and provides guidance for how impact fees are to be assessed. 4. Discretion. The public works director or the director's designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual, accepted at the director's sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this section. 13 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 175 D. Development will be allowed under this exemption up to the point that development levels of housing, jobs, and trips have been achieved, unless denied by concurrency. E. Parks and open space. Until such time as the city adopts a new parks and open space plan, and adopts Kent City Code amendments addressing public and private open space and recreation standards and requirements applicable to the mixed use and infill development categorical exemption area, the following mitigation,measures shall apply. Following adoption of a new parks and open space plan and Kent City Code amendments such standards shall supersede the measures below. 1. Urban park space. Each -infill exemption proposal shall dedicate onsite two hundred fifty (250) square feet of public park area per dwelling unit or provide a fee in lieu of dedication consistent with subsection (E)(3) 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 aratio of two hundred (200) square feet per dwelling unit. Each residential or mixed-use development is required to provide the private space in one (1) 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. 14 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 176 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: (a) accomplished offsite as approved by the parks and community services director ,or (b) a fee in lieu of providing the space onsite following the procedures in KCC 12.04.065. F. Cultural resources. The following mitigation measures shall apply to infill exemption proposals: 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 is Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 177 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)(1) and (F)(2) of this section. 4. If impacts cannot be avoided on a historic resource that is determined eligible for listing on either state or national historic registers, the applicant shall consult with DAHP regarding mitigation options and shall provide documentation of.consultation to the city. 5. To include DAHP in the review of historic properties within the infill exemption area, the city will notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding proposals involving eligible or designated historic properties through the evaluation of proposals consistent with Chapter 12.01 KCC. G. Water 'qualify, .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. 16 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 178 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. 61 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. 17 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 179 I. Greenhouse gas reduction. Infill exemption applicants shall identify the greenhouse gas reduction measures that are being implemented in their projects, and explain why other measures listed in the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS are not included or are not applicable. The city shall, as appropriate, condition infill exemption applications to incorporate reduction measures determined by the city to be feasible and appropriate for site conditions, based on the development application. J. Solar access for public pedestrian spaces, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parks, schools and other areas sensitive to shading ;shall be preserved by requiring upper-story or ground-level setbacks for adjacent development. To the greatest extent possible, new development shall minimize casting shadows on public spaces during"their primary hours of daytime use. K. The city "may condition infill exemption proposals to incorporate site design measures that, preserve significant public views from public areas. L. Infill exemptions shall comply with the following noise mitigation measures: 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. 18 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 180 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. I To address traffic and transit noise, the city may, at its discretion, require new residential development to install triple-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (KCC 14.01.010). M. Exemption procedure. Upon approval of the proposal according to the provisions of Chapter 12.01 KCC, the SEPA responsible official shall remove dwellings, jobs, and trips from the levels specified in 19 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 181 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. Sec. 11.03.220 Use of exemptions. A. Each department within the city that receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department initiating the proposal, shall determine whether- the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The department's determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt none of the procedural requirements of this chapter apply to the proposal. The city shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal. B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the department shall make ,certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the department shall 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: 20 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 182 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-retail commercial space, and residential infill development for specifically designated portions of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan area pursuant to KCC 11.03.215. Sec. 11.03.230 Environmental checklist. A. A completed environmental checklist or a copy in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960 shall be filed in conjunction with an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically exempted in this chapter; except, a checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree that an environmental impact statement is 21 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 183 required, SEPA compliance has been completed or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for determining the responsible official and for making the threshold determination. B. For private proposals, the city will require the applicant to complete the environmental checklist, providing assistance as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. C. The city may assist the applicant in completing the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: 1. The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or 2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. D. For projects submitted as planned actions under WAC 197-11- 164, the city shall use its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental checklist form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. If a modified form is prepared, it must be sent to the Department of Ecology to allow at least a thirty (30) day review prior to use and the city shall: 1. Develop a modified environmental checklist form and adopt it along with or as part of a planned action ordinance; or 22 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 184 2. Develop a modified environmental checklist form and send it to the Department of Ecology. Sec. 11.03.240 Mitigated determination of nonsignificance. A. As provided in this section and in WAC 197-11-350, the responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarifications of the proposal made by the applicant. B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a determination of significance is likely under WAC 197-11-350;The request must: 1. Follow submission of a project permit application and an environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is the lead agency and include detailed site plans and a description of the proposal; or 2. Follow a pre-application conference; 3. Precede :the city's actual threshold determination for the,proposal; and 4. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or project permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. 5. The responsible official should respond to the request for early notice within thirty (30) working days. The response shall: a. Be written; 23 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 186 b. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific area(s) of concern that is/are leading the city to consider a DS; and C. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. C. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures. D. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal and should make the determination in accordance with the timing requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 1. If the city indicates in writing specific mitigation measures which will allow it to issue a determination of nonsignificance in its response.to the request for early notice, and the applicant changes or clarifies the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2). This section shall not be construed so as to interfere with the city council's ability to impose conditions on a project or application for which it is the final decision maker. 2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a determination of nonsignificance, the city shall make the threshold 24 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 186 determination, issuing a determination of nonsignificance or determination of significance, as appropriate. 3. The applicant's proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes or conditions) must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals to "control noise" or "prevent storm water run-off" are inadequate, whereas proposals to "muffle machinery to X decibel" or "construct two hundred (200) foot storm water retention pond at Y location" are adequate. 4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance may be incorporated in the determination of nonsignificance by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. E. A mitigated DNS is issued under either WAC 197-11-340(2), requiring a fourteen (14) calendar day comment period and public notice, or WAC 197-11-355(5), which may require no additional comment period beyond the comment period on the notice of application. F. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated determination of nonsignificance shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and :may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. G. If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11- 340(3)(a) regarding withdrawal of determination of nonsignificance. 25 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 187 H. The city's written response under subsection (D)(2) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarifications or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. PART 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) Sec. 11.03.300 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part contains the rules for preparing environmental impact statements. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference, as supplemented by this part: 197-11-400 Purpose of EIS. 197-11-402 General requirements; 197-11-405 EIS types. 197-11-406 EIS timing. 197-11-408 Scoping. 197-11-410 Expanded"scoping. 197-11-420 EIS prep;,aration. 197 11 425 Style and size. 1974.1-430 Format. 197-11-4s35 Cover letter or memo. 197-11-440 EIS contents. 197-11-442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals. 197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS. 197-11-444 Elements of the environment. 197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations. 197-11-455 Issuance of DEIS. 197-11-460 Issuance of FEIS. 26 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 188 Sec. 11.03.310 Preparation of environmental impact statements — Additional considerations. A. Preparation of draft and final environmental impact statements (DEISs and FEISs) and draft and final supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) is the responsibility of the economic and community development department under the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an environmental impact statement, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC. B. The DEIS and FEIS or draft and final SEIS shall be prepared by city staff, the applicant, a consultant, selected by the city at the applicant's request, or a consultant selected by the applicant with confirmation of the planninaeconomic and community development department. The responsible official shall notify the applicant of the city's procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the DEIS and FEIS prior to distribution.' C. The city may require an applicant to provide information the city does not possess, including specific investigations. However, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter,or that is being requested from another agency. This does not apply to information the city may request under another ordinance or statute. D. A DEIS and FEIS shall be completed within one (1) year of the scoping meeting or as otherwise agreed to by the applicant. Sec. 11.03.320 Using existing environmental documents. The rules for using and supplementing existing environmental documents prepared under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) or the National 27 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 189 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the city's own environmental compliance are contained in this section. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference: 197-11-600 When to use existing environmental documents. 197-11-610 Use of NEPA documents. 197-11-620 Supplemental environmental impact statement - Procedures. 197-11-625 Addenda - Procedures. 197-11-630 Adoption - Procedures. 197-11-635Incorporation by reference - Procedures. 197-11-640 Combining documents. PART 4. COMMENTING Sec. 11.03.400 Adoption by reference. This part contains rules for consulting, commenting, and responding on all environmental documents under the State Environmental Policy Act, including rules for public notice and hearings. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative 'Code by reference, as supplemented in this part: 19741-500 Purpose of this part. 197-11-502 Inviting comment. 197-11-504 Availability and cost of environmental documents. 197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings. 197-11-545 Effect of no comment. 197-11-550 Specificity of comments. 197-11-560 FEIS response to comments. 197-11-570 Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency. Sec. 11.03.410 Public notice. 28 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 190 A. Whenever the city issues a determination of nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2), a determination of significance under WAC 197-11-360, an addendum to any existing environmental document or any existing environmental document as defined in KCC 11.03.320, the city shall give public notice as follows: 1. If a SEPA document is issued concurrently with the notice of application, the public notice requirements for the notice of application will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirements. 2. If no public notice is otherwise required for.the permit or approval, the city shall give notice of the DNS or DS by: a. Posting the property for site specific proposals; b. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, ,city or general area where the proposal is located; and c, Notifying all parties of record, any individual or group which has appeared at a city of Kent public hearing relating specificallyto the issue: of environmental review or submitted comments on a certain proposal. 3. Whenever the city issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360, the city shall state the scoping procedure of the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408 and in the public notice. B. Whenever the city issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455 or a SEIS under WAC 197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents 29 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 191 shall be given by indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a nonexempt license, and the following additional methods: 1. Posting the property for site specific proposals; 2. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located; and 3. Notifying all parties of record, any individual or group which has appeared at a city of Kent public hearing relating specifically to the issue of environmental review or has expressed interest in a certain proposal. C. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under this section with existing notice procedures for the city's nonexempt permits or approvals required for the proposal. D. If any costs are incurred beyond the initial notice of the department's action, as provided in subsection (A)(2) above, the city may require an ;applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the applicant's proposal at his expense. Sec. 11.03.420 :Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities for the city. A. The planning director shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping or reviewing a draft environmental impact statement. B. The planning director shall be responsible for the city's compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever the city is a consulted agency 30 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 192 and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the city. PART S. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND AGENCY DECISIONS Sec. 11.03.500 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part contains the rules and policies for the State Environmental Policy Act substantive authority, such, as decisions to mitigate or reject proposals as a result of State Environmental Policy Act. This part also contains procedures for appealing State Environmental Policy Act determinations to agencies or the courts,, The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference: 197-11-650 Purpose of this part. 197-11-655 Implementation. 197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation. 197-11-680 Appeals, Sec. 11.01.510 Substantive authority. A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. B. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as: 1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter; 31 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 193 2. Such conditions are in writing; 3. The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; 4. The city has considered whether other local, state, or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and 5. Such conditions are based on one (1) or more laws or regulations as provided in this chapter and subsection (D) ,of this section and identified in writing in the license or other decision document. C. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of the State Environmental Policy Act so long as: 1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final environmental impact statement or final supplementary environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to this chapter; 2. A finding" is made that there are no reasonable mitigation, measures capable of being accomplished that are sufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and 3. The denial is based on one (1) or more policies identified in subsection (D) of this section and identified in writing in the license or other decision document. D. The city designates and adopts by reference the following additional policies as the basis for the city's exercise of authority pursuant to this section: 32 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 194 1. The city shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; b. Assure for all people of the state safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; C. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety or other undesirable and unintended consequences; d. Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage; e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; f. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. 2. The city recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has 33 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 196 a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. 3. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, and resolutions: a. The citywide comprehensive plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management. Act and adopted on April 18, 1995, by the Kent city council by Ordinance 3222 and its specific components and elements, and including all amendments thereto. b. Shoreline master program as adopted: by the Washington State Department of Ecology; on June 16, 1992, and as adopted by the Kent city council on July 21,'1992, by Ordinance 3056 and including all amendments thereto, C. The surface water and drainage code, Ch. 7.07 KCC and including all amendments thereto. d. Underground installation of electrical or communications facilities; ,Ch. 7.10 KCC and including all amendments the:reto, . e. Transportation master plan (Resolution 1014 and amended by Resolution 1032) and Green River Valley transportation action plan (Resolution 1127) as may hereafter be amended and including all amendments thereto. f. Wastewater facilities master plan, Ch. 7.09 KCC and including all amendments thereto. 34 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 196 g. Comprehensive water plan (Ordinances 2829 and 2960) and conservation element (Resolution 1361) and including all amendments thereto. h. Construction standards for public works, KCC 6.02.010 and 6.02.020 (Ordinance 3117) and including all amendments thereto. i. Street use permit requirements, Ch. 6.07 KCC and including all amendments thereto. j. Flood hazard protection, Ch. 1409 KCC and including all amendments thereto. k. Subdivisions, Ch. 12.04: KCC and including all amendments thereto. i. Mobile home; parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. M. Valley studies (as adopted in Resolutions 920, 921, 922, 923, and 924). n. Noise control, Ch. 8.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. o. State building code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 14 and including all amendments thereto. P. State fire code, together with the local implementing ordinances, KCC Title 13 and including all amendments thereto. 35 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 197 q. Zoning, KCC Title 15 and including all amendments thereto. r. Recreational vehicle park, Ch. 12.06 KCC and including all amendments thereto. S. Water shortage emergency_regulations, Ch. 7.13 KCC and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227 and including all amendments thereto. t. Required public improvements, Chs, 6.02 and 6.03 KCC and including all amendments thereto. U. Storm and surface water drainage utility, Ch. 7.05 KCC and including all amendments thereto. V. Storm drainage policies (Ordinance 2547) and including all amendments thereto. W. Six (6) year transportation improvement plan (Resolution 1444) and including all amendments thereto. X. Comprehensive sewerage plan (Resolution 915) and including all amendments thereto. Y. Fire master plan (Ordinance 2511) and including all amendments thereto. Z. Critical areas, Ch. 11.06 KCC and including all amendments thereto. 36 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 198 Sec. 11.03.520 Appeals. A. Administrative appeals. The city establishes the following administrative appeal procedures under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197- 11-680: 1. Procedural appeals. a. Any party of record may appeal the city's procedural compliance with Chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of the following: (1) A final determination of nonsignificance: Appeal of the DNS must be made to the hearing, examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the determination of nonsignificance is final. Notice of the issuance of a final DNS shall be provided in accordance with KCC 11.03.410(A)(2). Except as provided in subsection (A)(1)(a)(3) of this section, the appeal shall be consolidated with any hearing or appeal of the underlying permit. (2) A determination of significance: Appeal of the DS must be made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the determination of significance is issued. Notice of the issuance of a determination of significance shall be provided in accordance with KCC 11.03.410(A)(2). An appeal is not required to be consolidated with a hearing;or appeal on the underlying permit. (3) Agency action: An appeal is not required to be consolidated with a hearing or appeal on the underlying permit if it is an appeal (i) of a procedural determination made by the city when the city is the project proponent, or is funding a project, and chooses to conduct its review under SEPA, including any appeals of its procedural determinations, prior to submitting an application for a project permit; (ii) of a procedural 37 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 199 determination made by an agency on a nonproject action; and (iii) to the city council under RCW 43.21C.060 or other applicable state statute. b. The decision of the land use hearing examiner shall be final, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3)(a). No right to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner is granted by this section. C. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. 2. Substantive appeals. There shall be no ,administrative appeal when any proposal or action is conditioned or denied on-the-basis of State Environmental Policy Act by a nonelected official. 3. No other appeal, provided. Except as provided in subsection (A)(1) of this section, or as otherwise provided by law, no right to appeal is created by this section. B. Judicial appeals. 1. No right to judicial review or appeal, which does not now exist, is created by this chapter. The decision by the city to issue or deny nonexempt permits or licenses shall be final. As authorized in RCW 43.21C.075(5), judicial review with superior court must be sought within twenty-one'(21) calendar days of the issuance or denial of the permit or license, if at all, by an aggrieved party or person. RCW 43.21C.075(5). 2. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11- 680(5) whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial review. 38 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 200 Sec. 11.03.530 Record on appeal. Any judicial appeal under this chapter shall be on the record. The city shall provide for a record consisting of the following: 1. Findings and conclusions; 2. Testimony under oath; and 3. A taped or written transcript. The cost of providing a taped or written transcript,shall be borne by an appellant. Sec. 11.03.540 Notice of action. A. The city, applicant or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. B. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-990. The :notice shall be published by the city clerk or the responsible official pursuant ' to RCW 43.21C.080. An applicant's request, for publication shall` include payment of the costs associated with such notice. PART 6. DEFINITIONS Sec. 11.03.600 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This, part contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under State Environmental Policy Act. The city adopts the following sections by reference, as supplemented by WAC 173-806-040. 197-11-700 Definitions. 197-11-702 Act. 197-11-704 Action. 197-11-706 Addendum. 39 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 201 197-11-708 Adoption. 197-11-710 Affected tribe. 197-11-712 Affecting. 197-11-714 Agency. 197-11-716 Applicant. 197-11-718 Built environment. 197-11-720 Categorical exemption. 197-11-721 Closed record appeal. 197-11-722 Consolidated appeal. 197-11-724 Consulted agency. 197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis. 197-11-728 County/city. 197-11-730 Decision maker. 197-11-732 Department. 197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS). 197-11-738 Environmental impact statement (EIS). 197-11-740 Environment. 197-11-742 Environmental checklist. 197- 1-744 Environmental document. 197-11-746:Environmental review. 197 11 750 Expanded scoping. 19741-752 Impacts. 197-11-754 Incorporation by reference. 197-11-756 Lands covered by water. 197-11-758 Lead agency. 197-11-760 License. 197-11-762 Local agency. 197-11-764 Major action. 197-11-766 Mitigated DNS. 197-11-768 Mitigation. 197-11-770 Natural environment. 40 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 202 197-11-772 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 197-11-774 Nonproject. 197-11-775 Open record hearing. 197-11-776 Phased review. 197-11-778 Preparation. 197-11-780 Private project. 197-11-782 Probable. 197-11-784 Proposal. 197-11-786 Reasonable alternative. 197-11-788 Responsible official. 197-11-790 State Environmental Policy Act'(SEPA). 197-11-792 Scope. 197-11-793 Scoping. 197-11-794 Significant. 197-11-796 State agency, 197-11-797 Threshold determination.. 197-11-799 Underlying governmental 'action. Sec. 11.01.610 Additional definitions. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799, when used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context"indicates otherwise: Department means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established,by ordinance, rule, or order. State Environmental Policy Act rules means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the State Department of Ecology. Ordinance means the ordinance, resolution, or other procedure used by the city to adopt regulatory requirements. 41 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 203 Early notice means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal (mitigated DNS procedures). Day or calendar day. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this chapter, if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Site plan means a vicinity map and #eve-(2) diagram_, =-_ at the showing north arrow, scale, any,significant man-made or natural features such as creeks, wetlands or steep slopes, dimensions of the lot, shape of the lot, location and size of existing and proposed buildings and development, adjacent, streets, and points of ingress and egress. PART 7. AGENCY COMPLIANCE Sec. . 11.03.700, Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This, part contains rules for the city's compliance with the State" Environmental Policy Act, including rules for charging fees, categorical, exemptions that do not apply within critical areas, listing agencies with -environmental expertise, selecting the lead agency and applying these rules to current agency activities. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference: 197-11-900 Purpose of this part. 197-11-902 Agency State Environmental Policy Act policies. 197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions. 197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise. 197-11-922 Lead agency rules. 42 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 204 197-11-924 Determining the lead agency. 197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals. 197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals. 197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one (1) agency with jurisdiction. 197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one (1) agency, when one (1) of the agencies is a county/city. 197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, not a county/city, and one (1) or more state agencies. 197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses #erfrom more than one (1) state agency. 197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals. 197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency. 197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency, status. 197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties. 197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes. 197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status. Sec. 11.03.710 Responsibility of agencies — State Environmental Policy Act public information. 'A. The city shall retain all documents required by the State Environmental Policy Act rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and make them available in accordance with Chapter 7-42.56 RCW. B. The following location constitutes the city State Environmental Policy Act public information center:— "Economic and Community Development Department, Permit Center Kent City Hall Centennial Center 4th and 400 West Gowe Street Kent, WA 98032-5895 43 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 206 Telephone: (-2253) 859 3398856-5300 C. All reasonable means will be used to make the existence and location of the city's State Environmental Policy Act public information center known to both the public generally and the employees of the city. D. The State Environmental Policy Act public information center shall contain the documents and provide the services required by this section. Sec. 11.03.720 Critical areas. Critical or environmentally sensitive areas as defined in Ch. 11.06 KCC A. WAC 197-11-908 is hereby adopted by,reference. B. Wetlands, as defined :under KCC 11.05.02011.06.530, the wetlands inventory, the , maps filed under' KCC 1�-08.22211.06.050, entitled critical areas mars 15.GS-.224,and the special flood hazard areas as described in 14.09.060 KCC designate the location of critical,areas within the city and are adopted by reference. Within those critical areas, the exemptions of WAC 197-11-800 which are inapplicable are (1), (2)(a) through (ki), (3), (6)(ad), (2423)(a) through (g). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within critical areas of the city. C. The scope of environmental review of actions within these areas shall be limited to: 1. Documenting whether the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the critical areas ordinance; and 44 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 206 2. Evaluating potentially significant impacts on the critical area resources not adequately addressed by GMA planning documents and development regulations, if any, including any additional mitigation measures needed to protect the critical areas in order to achieve consistency with SEPA and with other applicable environmental review laws. 3. All other categorical exemptions,apply whether or not the proposal will be located in a critical area. Sec. 11.03.730 Fees. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: 1. Threshold determination. For every, environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency,,the city shall collect a fee as established by the city council from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination. The time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of: the fee, and receipt of the checklist by the plannfteconomic and community deyelooment department. When the city completes the environmental checklist at the applicant's request, an additional fee shall be collected. This fee shall be based on the actual preparation time and rate of salary, and benefits for staff time. 2. Environmental impact statement. a. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an environmental impact statement and the environmental impact statement is prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the city in preparing the environmental impact statement. 45 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 207 Costs will be determined based upon the costs of staff assigned to the preparation of the environmental impact statement, including hourly salary and benefits. The responsible official shall advise the applicants of the projected costs for the environmental impact statement prior to actual preparation. The applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. b. The city reserves the right under WAC 197-11-420 to contract directly with a consultant for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, or a portion of an environmental impact statement, at the determination of the city. Consultants shall be selected by the city after a call for proposals. Consultant actions in preparing an environmental impact statement or portions thereof shall be exclusively managed and administered by the city to assure that the environmental impact statement is prepared in a professional manner, and with appropriate interdisciplinary methodology. The applicant shall post a deposit with the city, according to the established fee schedule, to ensure payment of consultant costs and the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Further, the costs incurred in the preparation of an environmental impact statement shall be paid by the applicant to the city, who shall then make payment to the consultant. C. If a proposal is modified so that an environmental impact statement is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) of this section which remain after incurred costs are paid. 3. State Environmental Policy Act appeals. For every appeal filed under KCC 11.03.520, the city shall collect a fee as established by the city council. 46 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 208 4. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. 5. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW. SECTION 2, — Corrections by City Clerk or Cade Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 3, — Severability> If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and that remaining portion shall 'maintain its full force and effect. SECTION 4, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage and publication, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: 47 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 209 TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 12014. APPROVED: day of 12014. PUBLISHED: day of 12014. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK P AC vlporE nzn®A11.03 Amendment do- 48 Environmental Policy Amend KCC 11.03 Ordinance 210 211 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION KENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director WASH,vGro„ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Bill Boyce, Chair and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, Principal Planner RE: Short Plat Activity Update For August, 2014 ECDC Meeting MOTION: Information Only SUMMARY: Over the years the City Council has adjusted the expiration period for short plats in consideration of the applicant's ability to finalize the short plat and change in direction from a flexible expiration to a firm expiration time frame. In 2009 the City Council extended the validity period for preliminary short plats from two years to four years in response to the housing market collapse. Since that time a number of new short plat projects have been initiated and a number of older short plats have expired. Staff will provide the committee with an update on short plat projects. BACKGROUND: Short plats (aka short subdivisions) are divisions of land that create nine lots or fewer and are usually infill projects. Like other development projects, short plats require infrastructure improvements and sometimes stream and wetland mitigation in order to comply with City requirements. Short plats are reviewed administratively and granted preliminary approval early in the development process. Under Kent's current rules, applicants have four years to complete required improvements and record a final short plat before the preliminary approval expires. In 2009 the City Council changed Kent's short plat expiration timeline from two years (one year plus a one year extension) to four years, with no allowable extension. This was done in response to the housing market collapse where short- plat applicants found themselves without funding necessary to complete the City's requirements. This time extension benefitted 44 short plat projects that were active at the time. Of those active projects, six went on to record, while the remaining 38 expired. 212 Since the four-year timeline was enacted in 2009, 35 new preliminary short plats have been filed. Of these, nine have recorded, five have expired, and 21 remain active. As with any development project, there are numerous reasons why expirations occur or development plans are abandoned. State law prescribes time limitations for long-plats (aka long subdivisions), but not for short plats. Depending on when the project was filed, long plats are allowed between six and 11 years to record (with no extensions). Because state law is silent on short plats, local jurisdictions are able to determine their own expiration periods. As shown below, other local jurisdictions have adopted a wide range of timelines. Jurisdiction Short plat expiration timeline Kent 4 years King County 9 years Issaquah 2 years + 1 year extension Renton 2 years + 1 year extension Federal Way 5 years Tukwila 1 year + 1 year extension Kirkland 7 years for projects initiated pre-2015 5 years for projects initiated in 2015 and later Auburn 10 years for projects initiated pre-2008 7 years for projects initiated pre-2015 5 years for projects initiated in 2015 and beyond As short plats approach the end of their preliminary validity period, owners frequently approach staff to inquire about possible time extensions. Because Kent's current regulations do not allow for extensions some owners express interest in a legislative solution. Staff will be available at the August 11th meeting to discuss this matter and answer questions. MG:pm P:\P1annjng\ECDC\2014\Pkt Documents\S-11-14\short plat update 2014.docx cc: Ben Wolters, Director, E&CD Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager 213 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASH INGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 7, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager RE: Sound Transit Update - INFO ONLY For Meeting of August 11, 2014 MOTION: None SUMMARY: As Sound Transit continues to move forward on the Federal Way Link Extension (FWLE), including a station in the Kent-Des Moines area, staff will provide monthly updates to the Committee on the status of the project. At the August meeting, staff will update the Committee not only on the station of the FWLE project, but also on the Urban Land Institute Technical Panel which will provide guidance on the various station locations being analyzed by Sound Transit. Furthermore, attached is a copy of the comment letter sent by the City to Sound Transit on their Long Range Plan Update. The Committee heard a presentation by Sound Transit on the Plan at their July meeting. CA/pm P:�Planning�South_Corndor�City_Council�08112014_ECDCMemo_Update.doc Att: Letter to Karin Ertl, Sound Transit cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney File 214 216 ! PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public.Works Director 400 WestGowe . © Kent,WA 98032 KE� T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH i vc+on PHONE: 253-856-SSOD July 28, 2014 I Sound Transit Attn: Karin Ertl 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104 RE, Comments on the Sound Transit Long Range Plan Update Dear Ms. Ertl, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Sound Transit's Long Range Plan Update. With light rail extending to Kent by 2023 and the continued expansion of Sounder service and regional express transit service, the City looks forward to continuing our partnership with Sound Transit to help meet our region's many diverse transportation j needs. We appreciate the significant planning and outreach efforts Sound Transit has put into this update. With that in mind, the City of Kent offers the following comments. Capital Improvements — HOV Direct Access ramps on SR 167 in Kent (for example, at Smith St.), included in the current plan alternative, continues to be a high priority of the City. Downtown Kent's first mixed use development will be completed this summer, consisting of 172 urban-style apartments and 3,100 square feet of retail. Additionally, Amazon will be joining leading global companies including REI, Starbucks and Boeing that have located in Kent, bringing hundreds of new jobs in 2015. These are just a few examples of the significant development occurring within the City. A direct access ramp would improve speed and reliability and thereby dramatically reduce drive time for Sound Transit and Metro buses that access Kent Station, a critical connection for Kent residents and employees traveling to and from our designated urban center. j While parking was included in the analysis, the City recommends that Sound Transit specifically analyze the benefits of structured parking as it relates to Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Kent Station is already over capacity. The Kent-Des Moines Light Rail Station will be a terminus station for a period of time, which will increase parking > demand. The City strongly supports structured parking in order to accommodate TOD m in the near term. 3 The City's Transportation Master Plan, Downtown Subarea Action Plan, and Midway Y Subarea Plan all include elements of mixed use TOD. Improved access to transit 3 through expanded park and ride facilities, bicycle and pedestrian connections, and 3 0 MAYOR SUZETTE COOKE --... - - City of Kent Public Works Department Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director 216 direct access improvements in and around future and existing TOD's will maximize transit ridership. As part of ST3 the City encourages Sound Transit to consider capital improvements in support of TOD, beyond transit. Transit Investments- The City is encouraged by the efforts underway to increase integration and efficiencies across Sound Transit and Metro. East-West connections have historically been underserved in our region. The City is supportive of the proposed regional bus service between Kent and SeaTac Airport included in the potential plan modification alternative. The City requests that Sound Transit also consider connections that will connect our urban center with the Kent-Des Moines station opening in 2023 as well as the 272nd station in later years. The City is also supportive of the additional North- South connections proposed along SR 167. There will continue to be a high demand for extended weekday Sounder service. A number of the industrial and manufacturing work sites located in Kent operate multiple shifts per day. There continues to be an increased need for extended Sounder hours to meet this demand. General Comments- Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered, includes a description and illustration of typical light rail guideways. For a typical trench station, the City requests that the description and illustration include pedestrian crossings. Providing pedestrian access across any proposed alignment is critical, particularly trenches. i License plate data collected at Kent Station in 2013 indicate that more than half of the users of the Kent Station garage live outside the Sound Transit district. The City encourages Sound Transit to consider expanding the district boundaries to address regional equity and transit access concerns, while keeping within the guidelinesof the regional growth strategy. Appendix F references local plans and polices. In November 2013, the Kent Council adopted the Downtown Subarea Action Plan, available online www.kentwa.gov/planning. This plan should be taken into consideration when developing the framework for Sound Transit's long range planning policies. While the City understands that a number of projects were accounted for in the 2005 long range plan, once the update is adopted, it would be helpful to receive a crosswalk of projects will be completed with ST2 funding versus those that will require additional funding. This tool will help support our public outreach efforts. The City looks forward to continued expansion of the region's transit system, building on the significant investments that have already been made. We also look forward to continuing to work with you on this significant planning effort, ce el , Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director i i