Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development - 09/14/2015 Economic & Community Development KETITeN� � Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins - Jim Berrios - Bill Boyce, Chair September 14, 2015 5 P.M. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Call to order Chair Boyce 1 2. Roll Call Chair Boyce 1 3. Changes to the Agenda Chair Boyce 1 4. Approval of Minutes, dated August 24, 2015 YES Chair Boyce 2 1 5. Countywide Planning Policies Amendment, YES Haylee Bonsteel 10 7 School Siting Process 6. International Property Maintenance Code Yes Matt Gilbert 10 25 7. Sound Transit Paid Parking No Charlene 10 35 Information Only Anderson 8. Economic Development Update NO Ben Wolters 5 Information Only 9. ShoWare Update No Ben Wolters 5 Information Only Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 41h Ave S, Kent, 98032. For additional information please contact either Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. 1 /ter • T M'ENl"�R Nx siur.yx ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING & HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2015 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce called the meeting to order at 4:40 pm. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of August 10, 2015. Motion PASSED 3-0. S. Public Hearing-Comprehensive Plan • Land Use Plan and Zoning district Map and Text Amendments • Comprehensive Plan Elements and Background Reports Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that she will present the Land Use and Zoning District Maps amendments, then text amendments to Kent City Code, and finally the entire C omprehensive Plan E lements, Goals, Policies, and Text; to include map amendments presented at the August 10, 2015 meeting before the Eco nomic and Community Development Committee (ECDC). Anderson submitted Exhibits #41-49 for the record related to the Land Use and Zoning Map Amendments; plus three (3) additional exhibits submitted at the meeting from Mr. Singh and Mr. Sahota, Mr. Basmajian, and Norma Yonce and Russell Everly. Anderson described previously considered zoning designation and land use designation map amendment proposals for the following locations: • Property North of 272"' next to Star Lake Park-N-Ride • The CVS Pharmacy Site properties at Kent Kangley Road and 1161h Ave and including two additional properties along 272"' • L-shaped property at the northeast corner of 2641h and 1041h • The Devore Property located at Kent Kangley Road and 2201h. • The KOA campground site located at 2121h and Frager Road. Five additional options before the Commi ttee for consideration include text amendments that were included in the ECDC's August loth packet and condensed into the following nine bullet points: • Deleted reference to and associated notes for Office (0), Office/Mixed Use (O-MU), Industrial Agricultural (MA) and Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning Districts. • For Community Commercial/Mixed Use zo ned properties, allowed a reducti on in minimum required commercial uses when residential uses are proposed: for parcels two acres or less in size the minimum is 5% commercial rather than 25%. • Added Secure Community Transition Facilities as a separate li ne in the Use Tables, with a note that they are allowed only as a Conditional Use Permit and only within the boundaries of the former GWC zoning district. • Provide for sales of product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or warehousing use on sites within the M1, MI-C, M2 and M3 zoning districts. • Clarified that in the Limited Industrial (M2) Zoning District, the 25% limitation on retail and services uses is a com bined total for a mu Itiple-building business park, and an individual limitation for single building parcels. • Broadened the uses in the Industrial Park/Commercial zoning district: 2 a. Allow retail sal es of tires, batteries an d accessories for bo th industrial and personal vehicles and equipment. b. Allow convenience and deli marts without limitation. • Clarified that design review is required for mixed use development in the Community Commercial/Mixed Use (DD-MU) Zoning District. • Clarified that for rezones to Industrial Park/Commercial, citywide mapping proposals may be speculative in nature. • Incorporated housekeeping am endments such as correcting incorrect code reference, clarifying verbiage and syntax, adding a definition of mini-warehouses. Anderson entered into the record Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 12-15. The Comprehensive Plan (CP) Amendments will refresh the demographics and trends of the City. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates new goals and policies related to healthy living, social justice, food policies, climate change and promote a variety of housing options, good design, including street scape, and promotes protection of the environment. The CP supports Human Services and access to opportunities. The CP shows there is adequate capacity to accommodate our growth target and forecast to the year 2035. It uses growth ce nters approach to accommodate growth. Kent is both an urban center and a manufacturing industrial center in the region. Kent Do wntown, the Industrial Center and in the future the Midway area will be des ignated as a center as envisioned the Midway Subarea Plan for growth. The CP emphasizes safe and multi-model transportation systems and provides a real istic picture of the needs for Parks and Recreation. The CP promotes conservation of natural resources and supports connectivity of Information Technology, promotes the action plan of the Economic Develo pment Strategic Plan as well as incorporates other master plans within it. Growth Management requires 8 elements or chapters. Kent has added a Human Servi ce Element and an introductory chapter. At the foundation of the plan it incorporates the City Council's Strategic Goals and looks at Place Making as a key element of those goals. The Capital Facilities Element requires adequate funding to meet the needs fo r accommodating growth, with the first 6 years of the plan constrained, and with a realistic but yet aspirational goal for the remainder of the 20 year plan. Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a motion to incorporate exhibits #12-15 into the record and also moved to include exhibits #41-52 into the record for the Land Use and Zoning District Text Amendments. Motion PASSED 3-0. Chair Boyce opened the public hearing Amy Gore with Future Wise highlighted two issues from Kent residents. 1) Affordable Housing and the i ncreasing prices of housi ng in Kent. She was happy to see affordable housing addressed in the CP. Ms . Gore suggested changes to Policy H4.3 that would point out the tools which can be used to support housing development in this policy and that these tool should be used to support both affordable housing and market rate housing. 2) Would like Kent to include a policy to include working with other South King County City's to plan for affordability together as well as to share resources. Workforce development was highlighted as a need as 1 in 4 residents in Kent is an immigrant; suggested that the City add a goal or policy 6.2.5 regarding workfo rce development programs and strategies targeting these wide ranges of users. Penny Ackerson - DKT 2014-6; is asking the Committee to consider including her property which borders neighboring properties on Kent-Kangley and 116 th in the zoning change. This is part of the recommendation to the Committee to vote on. ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 2 of 5 3 David Konen - DKT 2014-6; stated he is Penny Ac kerson's brother-in-law and owns property on Kent-Kangley Road. As part of the staff recommendation to be re-zoned, we are trying to include Ackerson's property. We are in a position where we have to learn to li ve with more noise or move on and sell the property. We would like to have both properties re-zoned together as it will make it much more attractive as a commercia I development area with an overall acreage of about 1.76 acres. David Devore - Stated he presented to the Commi ttee on August 18, 2015 a proposed agreement discussed with Chair Boyce and Ben Wolters. Mr. Devore referenced letters from residents around the area who are in agreem ent with the development. Within the letters was a letter voicing interest from a builder but retail would kill the deal. Mr. Devore stated that his proposal basically was that the City would agree that the northern part front on Kent-Kangley Road to high density without any of the 25% retail required. As an agreement with the City and Mr. Devore there would be a zero lot line set back and 100% lot coverage. The City would cooperate with up to 7 stories over underground parking. This would protect the back of the property and the wetland as well as allow for more density. Mr. Devore said as long as the Ci ty agrees to that he would agree to th e back portion being zoned single family SR-6. Mr. Devore wanted to submit his proposal at this time and ask the Committee to make a motion to accept and forward this to Kent City Council. Chair Boyce asked for Mr. Devo re's understanding of the zoning changes made to the Devore property in the proposed Zoning Ma p Amendments. Chair Boyce asked for furthe r clarification from the City Attorney on what is being agreed on has been included in the packet. Assistant City Attorney, David Galazin stated that what is being agreed on is what has been presented pertaining to the rezoning and land use map changes. Any kind of an agreement that would coincide with those changes would be separate and not consi dered by thi s committee at this time. Anderson responded to Devore's concerns, stating that what is before the Committee is Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations. Any issues related to variance in height or lot coverage or any of the development standards, if appropriate, would go through an Administrative Variance process or t hrough the Hearing Examiner, which is not what is before the Committee at this time. Richard McPherson, Real E state Broker, representi ng Mr. Devore, asked Charlene Anderson to clar ify her statement where she talks about bo th medium density and hig h density in the same sentence. Anderson directed attention to page 90 of the packet, stating that this takes all of the designations for the Land Use Plan Map designations and indicates what zoning districts areal lowed in those designations. Looking at Multifamily Residential MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. That designation accommodates Duplex, Medium Density, High Density, Multifamily Residential, Townhouse 12 & 16. McPherson commented what we have been trying to do is market this property, which has a lot of constrai nts due to wetl ands, and be ing compressed up to Kent-Kangley. This property's highest probability for marketing is for low income Senior Housing. McPherson asked for clar ification that on the front part of the property the I and use and zoning would allow a residential facility to be built on it and not include commercial/retail along with the highest density available within the City of Kent. McPherson commented that the back part of the property is not an issue at this point. Chair Boyce asked Anderson to clarify McPherson's question of the front part of the land for multifamily residential housing (MRH). Anderson stated that MRH is the highest density for zoning and the commercial component; Multifamily does not have a commercial component requirement. ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 3 of 5 4 Scott & Debbie Ward - stated that across the street a d eveloper has logged, developed, and built houses. The trees on their 3 acre property on the border of Kent and Covington, have fallen as a result of the I ogging. The Wards questioned how they co uld get thei r property rezoned to SF-6. Chair Boyce stated that Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert would assist them. Hyung Seo - requested that her property be rezo ned to Commercial, with Chair Boyce explaining that Matt Gilbert would also assist with her request. David Malik - DKT 2014-6, commented on C VS Pharmacy going in on 116 th and Kent- Kangley. He stated that no public notice board has been posted on the property which has a wetland and creek on it. He questioned how the City of Kent did a wetland delineation. The intersection is a high accident area and will create a problem for police. He asked that the Council deny the zoning change on the CVS property. Chair Boyce asked City Attorney David Galazin about the wetland comment on the property; Galazin stated that changing the land use designation on the land use map and cha nging the zoning would change what is allowable, but would not necessarily preempt anything. Wetland delineation would have to be comp leted before any projec t would be done and would have to con form to t he standards when a complet a application was submitted. Traffic impact studies will be looked at typically for development. Richard Leonard - DKT 2014-4, stated that he owns one of the properties adjacent to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride. Leonard stated that he has submitted comments by email requesting the zoning not be changed to commercial. He is concerned about people coming off t he highway creating congestion when there are already ga s stations less than half a mi le on the east side of the highway. With possible light rail coming to the Park-N-Ride he suggests no changes be made till further information is known about the Park-N-Ride and the Light Rail Station. Phil Kitzes - Dkt 2014-4, PK Enterprises; spoke in support of the zoni ng change for the property next to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride. George Basmajian - Dkt 2014-6, stated that he represents Norma Yonce, that he sent an exhibit to Charlene Anderson and would like the committee to take a look at the documents provided by Barghausen Engineers showing the potential use of the property. The property across the street is already zoned Commercial and they are in support of the zoning change. Chair Boyce asked for further speakers. With no further speakers, the Public Meeting was closed. Berrios MOVED, to recommend to the Full City Council approval of the four ordinances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Update to include amending comprehensive plan text, goals and policies, amending Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map Designations, and amending Kent City Code as recommended by staff, and as amended below: 1. For Dkt-2014-4, parcel number 768280-0195, maintain the northern half of the parcel as Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) and change the southern half of the parcel from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 2. For DKT-2014-6, change parcel number 7697900070 from Single Family Residential/Single Family Residential (SF6/SR-6) to Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 3. For B1.b East Hill South, change parcel 292205-9094 from Office (0) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 4. For B1.c East Hill Eat, parcel number 282205-9164, change the area north of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Medium ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 4 of 5 5 Density Multifamily (MDMF)/High Density Multifamily (MR-H) and change the area south of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Single Family Residential (SF6)/Single Family Residential (SR-6); S. For 132.a Valley West, parcel number 112204-9065, change the parcel's split designations of Mobile Home Park (MHP)/ Industrial Agricultural (MA) to Industrial (I)/Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) in its entirety. Higgins SECONDED the Motion Chair Boyce opened for discussion; Anderson had a clarification for #4 to be south of the southernmost stream. Higgins added a proposed a friendly amendment that the motion be as written on the paper it was read from and not as spoken. Berrios agreed. Higgins, Berrios, and Boyce thanke d staff, the LUPB Me mbers, land owners and parties of interest for all their work on this project. Boyce directed a thank you to Charlene Anderson for a great job in being consiste nt and fair. He stated that th is is the Committee' s recommendation to the Full City Council. MOTION than Passed 3-0 6. Fire Impact Fees Captain Larry Rabel presented an overview of the process that has already taken place. Fire Impact fees are about level of service for the Fire Department into the future. He stated that the service area of the RFA has experienced growth rate of 9.3% on average, and have grown from 700 people per squar e mile to 3000 people per square mile. The impacts of traffic and development have really spread the fire stations apart a nd increased traffic has increased the response time by 5 9 seconds since 2001. The most notable change the Fire Department has seen is in EMS calls. The RFA does not get to col lect revenue from Sales Tax, Permit Fee, or Real Estate tax. Impact Fees are set annually by the RFA Governance Board, and then presented to the Kent C ity Council for review, providing input to choose to accept or reject the proposal. Matt Gilbert continued with the review of the annual update of the Capi tal Facilities Plan, which will be accompanied with an analysis as to where the fees should be and which is largely contained within the document the Committee has in front of them. The analysis was not attached in the information only packet committee received earlier. A formula has been developed by the RFA to calculate the impact fees. The ordinance is similar to the ordinance committee saw at the August loth meeting. Changes consolidate and eliminate repeated language. No major content changes have been done since presented on August loth. Similar changes have been made to the Interl ocal Agreement. ECD is recommending that the Committee approve and pass on to Full Council. Higgins MOVED to recommend to the City Council to authorize adoption of the Ordinance, amending Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter 12.15, entitled "Fire Impact Fees",: and authorizing the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement between the City and Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the fire impact fee program, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Economic and Community Development Director. Berrios SECONDED. Motion Passed 3-0 Adiournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Julie Pulliam, Secretary, Economic &Community Development Committee jp�P:�Planning�ECDC�2015�Minutes�8-24-15_Min.doc ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 5 of 5 6 7 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION * Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager twt Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 8, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Planner and GIS Coordinator RE: Countywide Planning Policies Amendments, School Siting Process Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: Recommend/not recommend to the full City Council ratification of amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to outline a process for school districts and jurisdictions to work together to identify future school sites within the Urban Growth Area. SUMMARY: Initially adopted in the early 1990's, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. While the CPPs have been amended periodically to address specific issues or revisions required by the GMA, the first thorough update of the CPPs was adopted and ratified by the cities in 2013 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION 2040, the GMA and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. For that update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) also directed that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new policy areas: climate change, healthy communities and social equity. The GMPC convened the School Siting Task Force in 2011 to address the issue of whether public schools serving primarily urban populations should be sited in rural areas. The Task Force created a set of recommendations to address the issue, and the CPPs contain policies pertaining to school siting. On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning for school facilities in King County. The CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities are essential in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use and facility planning. A new policy would also be added, PF-19A, which would 8 require collaborative planning between school districts and local jurisdictions regarding school facility needs. This process would include consideration of cooperative strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls. The policy would also require periodic review of whether the goals of the policy are being met, and calls for corrective actions should they be necessary. PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation of school siting CPPs that were created as a result of recommendations from the GMPC's School Siting Task Force. The coordination called for in PF-19A was also a recommendation from the Task Force, and its proposed language was drafted in collaboration with representatives from the school districts, cities and county. On July 23, 2015, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 18084 which ratified GMPC Motion 15-1. Now, the new policies are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in this case is October 31, 2015. Staff will be available at the September 14th meeting to discuss the policy amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None HB: S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2015\Countywide_Planning_Policies\CPP_PF-19A_School Siting_ECDC_Memo.doc Encl: Resolution, 8/2/15 King County transmittal letter, King County Ordinance No. 18084, GMPC Motion No. 15- 1, 6/3/15 King County Council transmittal letter, 7/7/15 King County Council Staff Report cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Long Range Planning Manager 9 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report and amendments of the Countywide Planning Policies defining countywide greenhouse gas reduction targets and establishing greenhouse gas measurement and reporting commitments adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to the Growth Management Act. RECITALS A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. B. On December 15, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the Buildable Lands Report and amendments of the countywide planning policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction targets, measurement and reporting by Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion Nos. 14-4 and 14-5 as follows: 1 Countywide Planning Buildable Lands Report Resolution 10 1. GMPC Motion No. 14-4: Approves the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report. 2. GMPC Motion No. 14-5: Amends the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies EN-17 and EN-18A defining countywide greenhouse gas reduction targets and establishing greenhouse gas measurement and reporting commitments. Now the 2014 Buildable Lands Report and policy amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King County for Ratification. C. Although supporting the new greenhouse gas reduction target, the City questions the practicality of achieving an increased greenhouse gas reduction target given the uncertainty about whether or not even the existing reduction target can be met. D. The King County Council approved and ratified the report and policy amendments on behalf of King County pursuant to King County Ordinances No. 17951 and 17952. The Kent Economic & Community Development Committee reviewed the report and policy amendments at its meeting on March 9, 2015. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the 2014 Buildable Lands Report and proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as 2 Countywide Planning Buildable Lands Report Resolution 11 adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinances No. 17951, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A and King County Ordinance No. 17952, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit B. SECTION 2, — Public Inspection. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the public. SECTION 3, — Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2015. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 2015. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: 3 Countywide Planning Buildable Lands Report Resolution 12 RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY P\a..I\R...1,t...\m-ty,,daola....9ool.a....afy9ma,no...G-��—D- 4 Countywide Planning Buildable Lands Report Resolution i 13 EXHIBIT A King County. CEBVED AUG 03 2090 ECON OMICAND COh iMUNITY DEVEi OPMENT August 2, 2015 The Honorable,.Suzette.Cooke City.of Kent 220-4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Cooke: We are pleased,to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning-Pollcies (CPP): On July 20,.2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will become effective Sunday, 'August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King County.Council staff report; ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment. In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes 'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015. if you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, St.:uie, WA 98104. If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County 14 EXHIBIT A i Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702. ' Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive Enclosures Zc: King County City Planning Directors Sound Cities Association Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy Committee (TREE) 15 EXHIBIT A - KING COUNTY - 1200 King County Courthouse - - - 516 Third Avenue Slgnature.Report seatue.wA9a1o4 July 21, 2015 Ordinance18084 Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dembowski 1. AN ORDINANCE ado�tmg and ratrfymg,Growth 2 man agementPlanniug CounciIIvlotion 15=1. 3 " BE IT ORDATNEI)BY THE'COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 4 "SECTION i Find ngsi 5 A, Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new 61 policy be added.to the 2012 King County,Countywide Planning Policies to outline a 7 process for school:districts and Junsdictions.to-work together to iden*future school 8 sites with the Urban Growth Area. 9 B, On April 22,10t5,the Growth Management Planning Council t 10 `overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County 11. Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add new text and a new policy;Policy 19A;. 12 SECTION 2i The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 1: - 1 EXHIBIT A Ordinance 18084 13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance,is hereby adopted by King County. . 14 .and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County: 15 Ordinance 18�84 Was mfro luc'a on'6/22;/2015 and pessecl by the Metropolitan King County Council on 7/20/2015,by the following vote Yes 5 Iu1r Phillips,Mr Gossett,Mr McDermotR„M Dembowski and Mr Upthegrove; r.: , . No: 4'-Mr.don.Reichbauer,Ms.Hague,_Ivls,Lambert and Mr:Dunn . Excused-,0' KING COUN1 Y COLiNCII KIN, Co WAS TO r 1 ATTEST: Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this .L�' day of J�~I 2015: Dow Constantine,County Executive Attachrnents:'A GMBC Motion No, 154 17 . EXHIBIT A 18084 12/17/14 ATTAC>1MENT A Sponsored By; Executive Committee . 2 . . 3 ' -i, GMPC,MOTTON.N0:.15A 4 . 5 - , =A MOTION amending-th62012 Kmg County Countywide_ 6 ' Planting Policies;outlining a process:foraurisdiCtions working together to identify future school sites within the VGA 8 ; 9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GW Q convened the 10 `_ SchoolSiting'Task Foree,in 2011 to:address the.issue ofwliether public school serving primarily urban populations`should be'sited inrural areas and"whether such facilities _ . 12 " '_`. should be served by sewer's;;and, _ 13 14 VJEIEREAS,tfie Task Force comple- , -tlietr work on March 31,2012,issuing a 15 final report and al'recorrimendation9 toAhe King Courtly Executive;and l7 . WHEREAS, as a reault of the work of the Task Force,two new policies.were added 18 ''' % #o th'e 2b12 King County Countywide'Plannifig Policies(C)7Ps)-PF-i 8 and 1`$49; and 20 " WHEREAS,tfi "2013 GMPC workprogram mclud'ed an itemto implement the 21 arem``Ainder-of the;Tosk Force-recommendations,_including_="The Growth Management 22 Planning Council.'(GMPC)should ide4tify policies and adopt a work'program that 23 comrmitsjurisdictlbns to working together to identify future school sites within the UGA. 24 These policies shall directjurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure, 25 sufficient supply,of landfor,siting schools", and 26 _ 27 WHEREAS,at the'May 21,2014 GMPC meeting,staff proposed a policy to 28 directly respond to the Task Force's direction. GMPC,members reviewed the'drm policy 29 and identified the;necd to'mgre fully;address the issues of breadth,coordination between 30' .. jurisdictions and public:school districts, and the,workload impacts to the respective. .31 - jurisdictions and school districts. GMPC members also wanted to ensure that the proposed 32 policy fully addressed the planning needs of the junsdtctions/school districts while being . 33 sedsifiVe to the impact of siting parameters anil land use regulations on curriculum needs; 34 " and 6 35 36 WHEREAS,to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at 37 . the May 21,2014 GMPC meeting, a new.policy,PF-19A is being proposed. 38 18 EXHIBIT A lsosa 39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide' 41 Planuing Policies be amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows: . 43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential part 44 of the public infrastructure. Coordination between each jurisdiction's land use plan and 45 ±egg lions and their respective school districtjsl facility needs are essential for public ' 46 school capacity needs to be met The following policy applies countywide and requires 47 en amment between each school-district and each city that is served by the school 48 district The policy also applies to'Kib¢County as a iurisdiction for areas of .49 unincorporated:Kies County that are within a schooLdistriet's service boundary: The 50 policy initiatesa periodie procedureao identify ifthere are:individual school district 51 sitimi issues.and=if so a process forthe school district and iurisdiction to cooygoa ely 52 mare strategies for resolving the issue. 53 '' 54 , PF-19A ^Plan through a cooperative process between-i�urisdictions and school 55 `districts; that public:school facilities are available;"to meet the.needs of.exis6ng and_ 56. projected residential development consistent withadopted comprehensive plan 57 policies and growth forecasts. . Cooperatively-work with each school district located within iunsdiction's 59 , boundaries to evaluate the schoohdistriafs:610 to site school facilities 60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use 61 scfiooldistrict cauaci and enrollment data and-the-exowth forecasts and ty.' ' 62 develoument data ofeach-iiid dietiomloeated witlijn the'schooI district's. 63 service boundaries By January 2016 and every two years thereafter:determine 64 it there is development capacity and the sup-portine infrastructure to site ttie = 65 needed school facilities If not. cooperatively nrepare.a strategy to address the .: 66 aoity shoiifall Potential-sirate'leg s_ma include: 67 0".'Shared public facilities such asplay fields parkmP areas and access v : .: 68 - 69, o Sch681ac6i4 on or lease of appropriate public lands 70 ® . Regulatory changes such as allo-Mng schools to locate in additional 71 zones orsevised development standards 72 F a.;: School desi¢n standards that reduce laudsreq_uirements (such as multi story'striictures or reduced footprint)-whileatill:meeflng programmatic 74 75 ", 1n 2017 and every two years thereaftet Kmt?County shall report to the GMPC •96 ' .. on wlretlier the'goals of this policy are benig met'The CMPC shall identify 77 corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy,. 7$ 79 80 81 82t � 83 Dow Constantine, Chair,Growth Management Planning Council EXHIBIT 4 King County:' RECEIVED Dow Constantine 7.015 JUN 10 PM 3: 49 King County Executive 401 FIfthAvAnUe;Suite 800 --- c^}rr. ,, . ' Seattle,w ClA 9s104-late y USI=Y COU4C11 206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194 w"Relay: 711 w . ww.kingcounty,gov June 3,2015 The Honorable Larry Phillips Chair,King County Council' ' Room 1200 - COURTHOUSE Dear Councilmember Phillips' This Ietter transmits an ordinance that-will enable King County to amend the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school districts and the jurisdictions within their bouadaiies,.as recomrrlendedby the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 15-1=that was overwhelmingly approved by the GMPC'on April 22;2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of unincorporated King County. Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the School Siting Task Force Report,which;is included•as an appendix to.the CPPs. The new policy states thatpublic schools are an essential and integral part of public infrastructure that is needed to achieve successful-growth inanagement plans by:all jurisdictions inking County. Further,this new policy sets up a'plan to facilitate colIalioration Between the jurisdictions and the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacityneeds, and identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified. This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic Plan by recognizing the role of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustainable and econonlically viable future for. all people in King County. The Countys role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working togethonfor"One King County' :.y actively participating in regional organizations arid defusing King County's role in regional issues. , There are no fiscal impacts to King Comity government as a result of adoption of this ordinance. 'King County is as Equal Opportanity/Afftnnative Action Employer �'®�' and complies with the Americans ivith Disobit$ites Act 20 EXHIBIT A The Honorable Larry Phillips June 3,2015 Page 2 If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Smith,Deputy Director for Regional PlanninOfef Perfomance;=Strategy and Budget, at 206463-9606 Sincerely,.- i. j Dow Constantine King County Executive Enclosures ' cc: . King County Couucilmembers, ATTN: Carolyn Busch, Chief of Staff AnneNoris,CIerk of the Council Carrie S. Cihak, Chief of Policy.Development;King County Executive Office Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance,Strategy and.Budget(PSB) Lauren Smith,Deputy Director,_Regional Planning,PSB . 3 III 21 EXkM A ` King.County Met ropolitan;.King"County Council Transportation, Economy and,.Environment Committee STAFF REPORT Agenda`Itein: 10 . Name:.. -. Christine-Jensen - Proposed No.: 2015-0231 ' Date: July 7, 2015 SUBJECT A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning: Council Motion 151, which recommends adding a, new Countywide Planning Policy regarding planning for school facifities in King County. SUMMARY Proposed Ordinance 2015 0231 would amend_ the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to_state that,public schoo!facilities are essential.in meeting the needs "of growing communities,,and that it is,jmportant;t6 coordinate on. land gse 'and,facility ,planning..-Anew CPP would also.be added„PF-19A, which would requir�_collaborative, planning.between.school districts and.local iurisdictions,iregarding school:facilify;needs.. This process would include consideration `of cooperative strategies to address any facility. capacity;and-siting:,shortfalls.,, The policy would also. requ ire,periodic.review of whether the goals'of the policy are being met; and calls for corrective actions should they be necessary. If.adopted, all localjurMictions, including Kihig'Ccunfy, would be_required,to collaborate on land use and facility planning with the school districts) within,its boundaries. The County would_also_;be required to report back to the Growth, Management.Planning Council (GMPC)- on behalf of the school districts and local Jurisdictions on the effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. According to Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within existing County resources. BACKGROUND The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from Kmg County, Seattle Bellevue, `other cifie^ Viand"towns in King County, and spec ial'purpose"`districts. The GMPC was created ;n' 1992 by intsdocal agreement' in response to a provision.in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt CPPs.z Under-the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each Motion 8733 - z RCW 36.70A.210 ' EXHIBIT A 22 local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan which ensures countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPE•developed: and recommended , the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council3 and ratified by.the cities in'1992. Subsequent'`amendments to:`the'GPPs follow the 'sairie adoption process, which is now outlined in CPP ,G-14 and includes: recommendation by the. GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent:of the city and county governments representing at least:70 percent of the population of King County. A city shall be 11 deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CIPPs unless the city-disapprove`s it by legislative acfion within 90 days'of adoption by King County. ANALYSIS -GMPC'Mofion 95 9"` Proposed `Ordhan'ce 2015=0231' would adopt -'and ratify GMPC Motion 15-11 which recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning for'schooFfacilittes in'King County. If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities_ are essential. in meeting'the needs of growing communities and that it is irop'ortant ao coordinate on land use and facility planning A new policy would also be.added, PF- 19A, which would 'require c_olla, oratibe planning between school districts and local . jurisdicfions regarding school fad i needs This process woultl inclutle consideration'of cooperative-strategies to addYessany'facllity capacity and siting shortfalls rThe policy would also require periotllc review ofiwiiether tMe goats'of the policy are being met,-and ' calls for corrective actions should they!f?'e heoessary � • ` � ' PF'19A is intended to facilitafe implementation of school'stting GPPs thatwere adopted in 201`2,6'whlch wefe`creafed'as'a result of recommendations from'the GMPC's School Siting Task. Force. These 2012 policies, PF-18.and PF-19, prohibit schools serving primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require schools serving rural populations to be located`in neighb6nng cities and rural towns s Tfie coordinafion called for 1n PF 19A was also a recommentlation'from the Task Force; and its proposed language was drafted in-collaboration'wlth Pepresentatves'from the school districts, cities, and county 3 Ordinance 10450 '2012 King County.Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: . http:l/www.kinocounty gov/property/permits/codes/growtlUGMPC/GPPs aspx . .'Including: shared public facilities; school acquisition/lease'of public lands, regulatory or development standard chap`,-; dbsign;changes:= ' Ordmance`1'T•186 ' ?Created by the GMPC-in 2011 to address theJssue 4fwhetherpublicschools serving primarily urbane populations'should be sited In,rural,areas and whethersuch facilities should be served by sewers. Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report: http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/media/exec/constantine/documents/2012/SchoolSitingTaskForce/FinaID6c(i ments/Fi nalRepoMnd Recommendations 23 EXHIBIT A If adopted, PF-1.9A would apply to the cities and school districts in King_County, as well as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two. years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of -the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation. GMPC action On April 22, 2015, the .GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding recommendation to the County Council to-adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC,recommendation to the County.Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities. There is no deadline for Council action 'on the proposed CPP amendment; however, both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting . policies.in 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231 2. Transmittal Letter 3. Fiscal Note 4. GMPC Staff Report dated-April 22, 2015 INVITED 1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget 24 25 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION K NT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 9, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager RE: International Property Maintenance Code Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: Recommend adoption of the ordinance amending title 14 of the Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code together with the City's local amendments depicted in this ordinance. SUMMARY: In July of 2015, members of the Law and ECD offices presented information on the City's Code Enforcement program at a council workshop. Part of this presentation covered tools that would help make code enforcement in Kent more efficient and more effective. One of these tools is the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Staff now presents this code for the committee's consideration. BACKGROUND: When buildings are constructed or altered, ECD staff reviews plans and inspects the work to ensure the buildings are safe, sanitary and meet applicable codes. However, when an owner or occupant fails to maintain a building, problems that impact public health, safety and welfare can arise, and code enforcement is required. The IPMC is useful in resolving these problems. The IPMC is unique from other building codes in its use of very clear and direct language to address common maintenance problems. The code does not impose significant new responsibilities on building owners, as most of the maintenance requirements can be inferred from other adopted codes. The clarity provided in the IPMC is valuable however because when code requirements must be inferred, enforcement efforts are hampered. With the IPMC, maintenance violations are easy to cite and communicate to responsible parties. Examples of requirements in the IPMC include: protecting the exterior of a building from the elements with paint or other covering; keeping structural members of a building free from deterioration, replacing broken windows, and fixing cracks in a building's foundation. In addition to buildings, the IPMC addresses the exterior property around a building. The IPMC is developed and updated every three years by the International Code Council (ICC), the same group who develops other building-related codes that the City has adopted by reference (i.e. International codes for building, plumbing, mechanical systems, etc.). The codes are designed to work together to address 26 public health safety and welfare while not unnecessarily increasing construction costs or limiting innovation in construction methods and materials. Like these other codes, the IPMC is written so as to be adopted by reference by local jurisdictions. Local amendments are included in the attached ordinance that clarify administrative roles, eliminate conflicts with the City's enforcement process and eliminate references to rubbish and garbage, which are addressed elsewhere in City code. Staff recommends adoption of this useful code and will be available at the September 14th meeting to answer questions. BUDGET IMPACT: None 27 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 14 of the Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code to regulate and govern the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings, and structures and to provide standards for utilities, facilities, and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary, and fit for occupation and use. RECITALS A. As set forth in Title 14 of the Kent City Code, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 4081 on May 21, 2013, which adopted the 2012 edition of the International Building Code. B. Section 101.4.4 of the International Building Code adopts the International Property Maintenance Code in a limited capacity, only to the extent the International Property Maintenance Code is referenced within the International Building Code. C. It is necessary to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code in its entirety, with local amendments, to ensure that all 1 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 28 property, buildings and structures within the City of Kent are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 14.01.010 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Building Codes — Adopted," is amended as follows: Sec. 14.01.010. Building Codes — Adopted. In accordance with Chapter 19.27 RCW, the following codes (collective, the "building codes") together with any additions, deletions, and exceptions currently enacted or as may be amended from time to time by the state of Washington through its Building Code Council pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC), and as further amended in this chapter, are adopted by reference: A. The International Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-50 WAC. B. The International Existing Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., but its application is limited as provided for in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code, and as amended pursuant to WAC 51-50-480000 through 51-50-481500. C. The International Residential Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-51 WAC. 2 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 29 D. The International Mechanical Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-52 WAC. E. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, including the Uniform Plumbing Code Standards (Appendices A, B, and I to the Uniform Plumbing Code) as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-56 WAC. F. The Uniform Housing Code, 197 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. G. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. H. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapters 51-11C and 51-11R WAC. I. The International Property Maintenance Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., including the Boarding Standard (Appendix A to the International Property Maintenance Code). One (1) copy of each of these codes is on file with the city's building official. SECTION 2. — New Section. Chapter 14.01 of the Kent City Code is amended to add a new section 14.01.087, entitled "Amendments to the International Property Maintenance Code," as follows: Sec. 14.01.087. Amendments to the International Property Maintenance Code. The following local amendments to the International 3 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 30 Property Maintenance Code are adopted and incorporated into the International Property Maintenance Code: A. All references to the "code official" in the International Property Maintenance Code shall be substituted with the words "building official." B. Fees. Section 103.5 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Fees," is amended by substituting Section 103.5 with the following: Sec. 103.5. Fees shall be assessed as set forth in Section 14.01.090 of the Kent City Code. C. Violations. Section 106 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Violations," is amended by substituting Section 106 with the following: Sec. 106. Violations. 106.1. Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code. 106.2. Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of its requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as set forth in Chs. 14.08 and 1.04 KCC or as otherwise provided by law. 4 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 31 D. Notices and Orders. Section 107 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Notices and Orders," is amended by substituting Section 107 with the following: Sec. 107. Notices of Violation. Whenever the building official or his designee determines that there has been a violation of this code or has grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the code enforcement officer may issue a notice to any person responsible for the violation, pursuant to Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code. E. Board of appeals. Section 111 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Means of Appeal," is amended by substituting Section 111 with the following: Sec. 111. Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section 14.01.100 of the Kent City Code. F. Failure to comply. Section 112.4 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Failure to Comply," is amended by substituting Section 112.4 with the following: Sec. 112.4. Failure to Comply. Any failure to comply with a stop work or stop use order shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed 5 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 32 by the court of not more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, pursuant to KCC 1.04.090, 1.04.100, and 1.04.110. G. Rubbish and Garbage. Section 308 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled, "Rubbish and Garbage," is deleted in its entirety. H. Electrical Facilities. Section 604 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Facilities," is deleted in its entirety. I. Electrical Equipment. Section 605 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Equipment," is deleted in its entirety. 3. Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters. Section 606 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters," is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 3, — 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 the same shall maintain its full force and effect. SECTION 4, — 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; 6 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 33 or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 7 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 34 PASSED: day of 2015. APPROVED: day of 2015. PUBLISHED: day of 2015. 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'.ACivilAOrdinanceAIntematlonal Property Maintenance Code.doc: 8 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 35 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 8, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager RE: Sound Transit Paid Parking Program Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: None Required — Information Only SUMMARY: After testing permits during a 2014 pilot project, Sound Transit is considering offering reserved parking permits at its busiest facilities, including the Kent Station parking garage. The permits would work as follows: • Transit customers must have and use a valid ORCA card to apply for a permit. • Permit parking would be reserved for permit holders until 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. • On weekends and after 9:30 a.m. on weekdays, transit riders would be able to park in permit spaces without a permit. • Permits would be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. • Permits would be reviewed and renewed quarterly or semi-annually. • Renewal would require the permit holder's ORCA records to show they rode transit at least three times per week during the previous permit term. Flexibility will be allowed for time away (such as vacation). • Carpool permit holders must arrive with at least two transit riders in the permitted vehicle. • At least 50% of parking spaces at each location would remain free and available for transit riders on a first-come, first-served basis. Staff will be available at the September 141h meeting to further discuss the program. In the meantime, staff encourages everyone to complete a survey at www.soundtransit.ora/permitparkina EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None CA: P:�Planning�South_Corridor�City_Council�09142015_ECDCMemo_Update.doc cc: Ben Wolters, Economic&Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney File Economic & Community Development KETITeN� � Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins - Jim Berrios - Bill Boyce, Chair September 14, 2015 5 P.M. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Call to order Chair Boyce 1 2. Roll Call Chair Boyce 1 3. Changes to the Agenda Chair Boyce 1 4. Approval of Minutes, dated August 24, 2015 YES Chair Boyce 2 1 5. Countywide Planning Policies Amendment, YES Haylee Bonsteel 10 7 School Siting Process 6. International Property Maintenance Code Yes Matt Gilbert 10 25 7. Sound Transit Paid Parking No Charlene 10 35 Information Only Anderson 8. Economic Development Update NO Ben Wolters 5 Information Only 9. ShoWare Update No Ben Wolters 5 Information Only Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 41h Ave S, Kent, 98032. For additional information please contact either Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. 1 /ter • T M'ENl"�R Nx siur.yx ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING & HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2015 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce called the meeting to order at 4:40 pm. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of August 10, 2015. Motion PASSED 3-0. S. Public Hearing-Comprehensive Plan • Land Use Plan and Zoning district Map and Text Amendments • Comprehensive Plan Elements and Background Reports Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that she will present the Land Use and Zoning District Maps amendments, then text amendments to Kent City Code, and finally the entire C omprehensive Plan E lements, Goals, Policies, and Text; to include map amendments presented at the August 10, 2015 meeting before the Eco nomic and Community Development Committee (ECDC). Anderson submitted Exhibits #41-49 for the record related to the Land Use and Zoning Map Amendments; plus three (3) additional exhibits submitted at the meeting from Mr. Singh and Mr. Sahota, Mr. Basmajian, and Norma Yonce and Russell Everly. Anderson described previously considered zoning designation and land use designation map amendment proposals for the following locations: • Property North of 272"' next to Star Lake Park-N-Ride • The CVS Pharmacy Site properties at Kent Kangley Road and 1161h Ave and including two additional properties along 272"' • L-shaped property at the northeast corner of 2641h and 1041h • The Devore Property located at Kent Kangley Road and 2201h. • The KOA campground site located at 2121h and Frager Road. Five additional options before the Commi ttee for consideration include text amendments that were included in the ECDC's August loth packet and condensed into the following nine bullet points: • Deleted reference to and associated notes for Office (0), Office/Mixed Use (O-MU), Industrial Agricultural (MA) and Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning Districts. • For Community Commercial/Mixed Use zo ned properties, allowed a reducti on in minimum required commercial uses when residential uses are proposed: for parcels two acres or less in size the minimum is 5% commercial rather than 25%. • Added Secure Community Transition Facilities as a separate li ne in the Use Tables, with a note that they are allowed only as a Conditional Use Permit and only within the boundaries of the former GWC zoning district. • Provide for sales of product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or warehousing use on sites within the M1, MI-C, M2 and M3 zoning districts. • Clarified that in the Limited Industrial (M2) Zoning District, the 25% limitation on retail and services uses is a com bined total for a mu Itiple-building business park, and an individual limitation for single building parcels. • Broadened the uses in the Industrial Park/Commercial zoning district: 2 a. Allow retail sal es of tires, batteries an d accessories for bo th industrial and personal vehicles and equipment. b. Allow convenience and deli marts without limitation. • Clarified that design review is required for mixed use development in the Community Commercial/Mixed Use (DD-MU) Zoning District. • Clarified that for rezones to Industrial Park/Commercial, citywide mapping proposals may be speculative in nature. • Incorporated housekeeping am endments such as correcting incorrect code reference, clarifying verbiage and syntax, adding a definition of mini-warehouses. Anderson entered into the record Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 12-15. The Comprehensive Plan (CP) Amendments will refresh the demographics and trends of the City. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates new goals and policies related to healthy living, social justice, food policies, climate change and promote a variety of housing options, good design, including street scape, and promotes protection of the environment. The CP supports Human Services and access to opportunities. The CP shows there is adequate capacity to accommodate our growth target and forecast to the year 2035. It uses growth ce nters approach to accommodate growth. Kent is both an urban center and a manufacturing industrial center in the region. Kent Do wntown, the Industrial Center and in the future the Midway area will be des ignated as a center as envisioned the Midway Subarea Plan for growth. The CP emphasizes safe and multi-model transportation systems and provides a real istic picture of the needs for Parks and Recreation. The CP promotes conservation of natural resources and supports connectivity of Information Technology, promotes the action plan of the Economic Develo pment Strategic Plan as well as incorporates other master plans within it. Growth Management requires 8 elements or chapters. Kent has added a Human Servi ce Element and an introductory chapter. At the foundation of the plan it incorporates the City Council's Strategic Goals and looks at Place Making as a key element of those goals. The Capital Facilities Element requires adequate funding to meet the needs fo r accommodating growth, with the first 6 years of the plan constrained, and with a realistic but yet aspirational goal for the remainder of the 20 year plan. Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a motion to incorporate exhibits #12-15 into the record and also moved to include exhibits #41-52 into the record for the Land Use and Zoning District Text Amendments. Motion PASSED 3-0. Chair Boyce opened the public hearing Amy Gore with Future Wise highlighted two issues from Kent residents. 1) Affordable Housing and the i ncreasing prices of housi ng in Kent. She was happy to see affordable housing addressed in the CP. Ms . Gore suggested changes to Policy H4.3 that would point out the tools which can be used to support housing development in this policy and that these tool should be used to support both affordable housing and market rate housing. 2) Would like Kent to include a policy to include working with other South King County City's to plan for affordability together as well as to share resources. Workforce development was highlighted as a need as 1 in 4 residents in Kent is an immigrant; suggested that the City add a goal or policy 6.2.5 regarding workfo rce development programs and strategies targeting these wide ranges of users. Penny Ackerson - DKT 2014-6; is asking the Committee to consider including her property which borders neighboring properties on Kent-Kangley and 116 th in the zoning change. This is part of the recommendation to the Committee to vote on. ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 2 of 5 3 David Konen - DKT 2014-6; stated he is Penny Ac kerson's brother-in-law and owns property on Kent-Kangley Road. As part of the staff recommendation to be re-zoned, we are trying to include Ackerson's property. We are in a position where we have to learn to li ve with more noise or move on and sell the property. We would like to have both properties re-zoned together as it will make it much more attractive as a commercia I development area with an overall acreage of about 1.76 acres. David Devore - Stated he presented to the Commi ttee on August 18, 2015 a proposed agreement discussed with Chair Boyce and Ben Wolters. Mr. Devore referenced letters from residents around the area who are in agreem ent with the development. Within the letters was a letter voicing interest from a builder but retail would kill the deal. Mr. Devore stated that his proposal basically was that the City would agree that the northern part front on Kent-Kangley Road to high density without any of the 25% retail required. As an agreement with the City and Mr. Devore there would be a zero lot line set back and 100% lot coverage. The City would cooperate with up to 7 stories over underground parking. This would protect the back of the property and the wetland as well as allow for more density. Mr. Devore said as long as the Ci ty agrees to that he would agree to th e back portion being zoned single family SR-6. Mr. Devore wanted to submit his proposal at this time and ask the Committee to make a motion to accept and forward this to Kent City Council. Chair Boyce asked for Mr. Devo re's understanding of the zoning changes made to the Devore property in the proposed Zoning Ma p Amendments. Chair Boyce asked for furthe r clarification from the City Attorney on what is being agreed on has been included in the packet. Assistant City Attorney, David Galazin stated that what is being agreed on is what has been presented pertaining to the rezoning and land use map changes. Any kind of an agreement that would coincide with those changes would be separate and not consi dered by thi s committee at this time. Anderson responded to Devore's concerns, stating that what is before the Committee is Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations. Any issues related to variance in height or lot coverage or any of the development standards, if appropriate, would go through an Administrative Variance process or t hrough the Hearing Examiner, which is not what is before the Committee at this time. Richard McPherson, Real E state Broker, representi ng Mr. Devore, asked Charlene Anderson to clar ify her statement where she talks about bo th medium density and hig h density in the same sentence. Anderson directed attention to page 90 of the packet, stating that this takes all of the designations for the Land Use Plan Map designations and indicates what zoning districts areal lowed in those designations. Looking at Multifamily Residential MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. That designation accommodates Duplex, Medium Density, High Density, Multifamily Residential, Townhouse 12 & 16. McPherson commented what we have been trying to do is market this property, which has a lot of constrai nts due to wetl ands, and be ing compressed up to Kent-Kangley. This property's highest probability for marketing is for low income Senior Housing. McPherson asked for clar ification that on the front part of the property the I and use and zoning would allow a residential facility to be built on it and not include commercial/retail along with the highest density available within the City of Kent. McPherson commented that the back part of the property is not an issue at this point. Chair Boyce asked Anderson to clarify McPherson's question of the front part of the land for multifamily residential housing (MRH). Anderson stated that MRH is the highest density for zoning and the commercial component; Multifamily does not have a commercial component requirement. ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 3 of 5 4 Scott & Debbie Ward - stated that across the street a d eveloper has logged, developed, and built houses. The trees on their 3 acre property on the border of Kent and Covington, have fallen as a result of the I ogging. The Wards questioned how they co uld get thei r property rezoned to SF-6. Chair Boyce stated that Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert would assist them. Hyung Seo - requested that her property be rezo ned to Commercial, with Chair Boyce explaining that Matt Gilbert would also assist with her request. David Malik - DKT 2014-6, commented on C VS Pharmacy going in on 116 th and Kent- Kangley. He stated that no public notice board has been posted on the property which has a wetland and creek on it. He questioned how the City of Kent did a wetland delineation. The intersection is a high accident area and will create a problem for police. He asked that the Council deny the zoning change on the CVS property. Chair Boyce asked City Attorney David Galazin about the wetland comment on the property; Galazin stated that changing the land use designation on the land use map and cha nging the zoning would change what is allowable, but would not necessarily preempt anything. Wetland delineation would have to be comp leted before any projec t would be done and would have to con form to t he standards when a complet a application was submitted. Traffic impact studies will be looked at typically for development. Richard Leonard - DKT 2014-4, stated that he owns one of the properties adjacent to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride. Leonard stated that he has submitted comments by email requesting the zoning not be changed to commercial. He is concerned about people coming off t he highway creating congestion when there are already ga s stations less than half a mi le on the east side of the highway. With possible light rail coming to the Park-N-Ride he suggests no changes be made till further information is known about the Park-N-Ride and the Light Rail Station. Phil Kitzes - Dkt 2014-4, PK Enterprises; spoke in support of the zoni ng change for the property next to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride. George Basmajian - Dkt 2014-6, stated that he represents Norma Yonce, that he sent an exhibit to Charlene Anderson and would like the committee to take a look at the documents provided by Barghausen Engineers showing the potential use of the property. The property across the street is already zoned Commercial and they are in support of the zoning change. Chair Boyce asked for further speakers. With no further speakers, the Public Meeting was closed. Berrios MOVED, to recommend to the Full City Council approval of the four ordinances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Update to include amending comprehensive plan text, goals and policies, amending Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map Designations, and amending Kent City Code as recommended by staff, and as amended below: 1. For Dkt-2014-4, parcel number 768280-0195, maintain the northern half of the parcel as Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) and change the southern half of the parcel from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 2. For DKT-2014-6, change parcel number 7697900070 from Single Family Residential/Single Family Residential (SF6/SR-6) to Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 3. For B1.b East Hill South, change parcel 292205-9094 from Office (0) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU); 4. For B1.c East Hill Eat, parcel number 282205-9164, change the area north of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Medium ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 4 of 5 5 Density Multifamily (MDMF)/High Density Multifamily (MR-H) and change the area south of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Single Family Residential (SF6)/Single Family Residential (SR-6); S. For 132.a Valley West, parcel number 112204-9065, change the parcel's split designations of Mobile Home Park (MHP)/ Industrial Agricultural (MA) to Industrial (I)/Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) in its entirety. Higgins SECONDED the Motion Chair Boyce opened for discussion; Anderson had a clarification for #4 to be south of the southernmost stream. Higgins added a proposed a friendly amendment that the motion be as written on the paper it was read from and not as spoken. Berrios agreed. Higgins, Berrios, and Boyce thanke d staff, the LUPB Me mbers, land owners and parties of interest for all their work on this project. Boyce directed a thank you to Charlene Anderson for a great job in being consiste nt and fair. He stated that th is is the Committee' s recommendation to the Full City Council. MOTION than Passed 3-0 6. Fire Impact Fees Captain Larry Rabel presented an overview of the process that has already taken place. Fire Impact fees are about level of service for the Fire Department into the future. He stated that the service area of the RFA has experienced growth rate of 9.3% on average, and have grown from 700 people per squar e mile to 3000 people per square mile. The impacts of traffic and development have really spread the fire stations apart a nd increased traffic has increased the response time by 5 9 seconds since 2001. The most notable change the Fire Department has seen is in EMS calls. The RFA does not get to col lect revenue from Sales Tax, Permit Fee, or Real Estate tax. Impact Fees are set annually by the RFA Governance Board, and then presented to the Kent C ity Council for review, providing input to choose to accept or reject the proposal. Matt Gilbert continued with the review of the annual update of the Capi tal Facilities Plan, which will be accompanied with an analysis as to where the fees should be and which is largely contained within the document the Committee has in front of them. The analysis was not attached in the information only packet committee received earlier. A formula has been developed by the RFA to calculate the impact fees. The ordinance is similar to the ordinance committee saw at the August loth meeting. Changes consolidate and eliminate repeated language. No major content changes have been done since presented on August loth. Similar changes have been made to the Interl ocal Agreement. ECD is recommending that the Committee approve and pass on to Full Council. Higgins MOVED to recommend to the City Council to authorize adoption of the Ordinance, amending Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter 12.15, entitled "Fire Impact Fees",: and authorizing the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement between the City and Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the fire impact fee program, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Economic and Community Development Director. Berrios SECONDED. Motion Passed 3-0 Adiournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Julie Pulliam, Secretary, Economic &Community Development Committee jp�P:�Planning�ECDC�2015�Minutes�8-24-15_Min.doc ECDC Minutes August 24,2015 Page 5 of 5 6 7 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION 00 twt:' Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager rw..� „ Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 8, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Planner and GIS Coordinator RE: Countywide Planning Policies Amendments, School Siting Process Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: Recommend/not recommend to the full City Council ratification of amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to outline a process for school districts and jurisdictions to work together to identify future school sites within the Urban Growth Area. SUMMARY: Initially adopted in the early 1990's, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. While the CPPs have been amended periodically to address specific issues or revisions required by the GMA, the first thorough update of the CPPs was adopted and ratified by the cities in 2013 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION 2040, the GMA and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. For that update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) also directed that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new policy areas: climate change, healthy communities and social equity. The GMPC convened the School Siting Task Force in 2011 to address the issue of whether public schools serving primarily urban populations should be sited in rural areas. The Task Force created a set of recommendations to address the issue, and the CPPs contain policies pertaining to school siting. On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning for school facilities in King County. The CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities are essential in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use and facility planning. A new policy would also be added, PF-19A, which would 8 require collaborative planning between school districts and local jurisdictions regarding school facility needs. This process would include consideration of cooperative strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls. The policy would also require periodic review of whether the goals of the policy are being met, and calls for corrective actions should they be necessary. PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation of school siting CPPs that were created as a result of recommendations from the GMPC's School Siting Task Force. The coordination called for in PF-19A was also a recommendation from the Task Force, and its proposed language was drafted in collaboration with representatives from the school districts, cities and county. On July 23, 2015, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 18084 which ratified GMPC Motion 15-1. Now, the new policies are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in this case is October 31, 2015. Staff will be available at the September 14th meeting to discuss the policy amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None HB: S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2015\Countywide_Planning_Policies\CPP_PF-19A_School Siting_ECDC_Memo.doc Encl: Resolution, 8/2/15 King County transmittal letter, King County Ordinance No. 18084, GMPC Motion No. 15- 1, 6/3/15 King County Council transmittal letter, 7/7/15 King County Council Staff Report cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Long Range Planning Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the amendment of the King County Countywide Planning Policies outlining a process for school districts and jurisdictions to work together to identify future school sites within the Urban Growth Area adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to the Growth Management Act. RECITALS A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. B. On July 23, 2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion No. 15-1, adopted by the GMPC on April 22, 2015, to add new text and a new policy PF-19A to the existing CPPs, outlining a process for jurisdictions working together to identify future school sites within the Urban Growth Area. 1 Countywide Planning Public Schools Resolution C. Now the amendment and new policy are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. D. The King County Council approved and ratified the new policy on behalf of unincorporated King County pursuant to King County Ordinance No. 18084. E. The Kent City Council's Economic and Community Development Committee reviewed the text and policy amendments at its meeting on September 14, 2015, and recommended approval to the full City Council. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinance No. 18084, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2, — Public Inspection. The amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the public. 2 Countywide Planning Public Schools Resolution SECTION 3, — Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2015. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 2015. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY FpOvIIAPaso I uton\County-d,Flz nnln9 Pu y=18®4D.. 3 Countywide Planning Public Schools Resolution EXHIBIT A 9 King County RECEIVED AUG 03 2015 (;!—(OF KENT �ONOICCO?+I"�fuNITY DEV_E ND OPh.-0ENT August 2, 2015 The Honorable.Suzette Cooke City.of Kent 220-4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Cooke: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP): On July 20, 2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will become effective Sunday, August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King County Council staff report, ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment. In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes 'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015. If you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County EXHIBIT A Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive Enclosures Lob: King County City Planning Directors Sound Cities Association Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy Committee (TREE) EXHIBIT A KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse LQ - -516 Third Avenue - S Signature Report eatOe,WA 98104 3CmgCounRy July 21, 2015 , Ordinance 18084 . Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dembowski 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting and ratifying Growth 2 Management Planning Council Motion 15-1. 3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 4 SECTION-1. Findings: 5 A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new 6 policy be added to the 20.12 King,County.Countywide Planning Policies to outline a 7 process for school,districts and jurisdictions.to work together to identify future school 8 ; sites with the Urban Growth Area, 9 B. On April 22, 2015,the Growth Management Planning Council 10 overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County 11 Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add new text and a new policy, Policy. i 9A:. 12 SECTION 2: The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 1 EXHIBIT A Ordinance 18084 13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by King County 14 and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King-County. 15 Ordinance 18084 was introduced on'6/22/2015 and passed by the Metropolitan King. County Council on 7/20/2015, by the following vote: Yes: 5 -Mr. Phillips, Mr. Gossett,Mr: McDermott, Mr. Dembowski and Mr. TJpthegrove No: 4 Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Hague,Ms. Lambert and Mr.Dunn Excused: 0 . KING COUNTY COUNCIL KIN CO WAS TO Phillips, it-ATTEST- Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this day of�L—� 2015: Dow Constantine,County Executive Attachments: A.GMPC Motion No. 15-1 2 EXHIBIT A 18084 12/17/14 ATTACHMENT A " Sponsored By; Executive Committee 2 3 GMPC MOTION NO. 15-1 4 5 A MOTION amending the 2012 King.County Countywide 6 Planning Policies; outlining"xprocessifor jurisdictions working 7 together to identify future school sites'within the UGA. 8 9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC) convened the 10 School-Siting`Task Force.in2011toaddress:the.issue of whether public school serving 11 primarily urban populations should be sited in rural areas and whether such facilities " 12 should be served by sewers;and 13 14 WHEREAS,the Task Force completed.their.work-on March 31,2012,issuing a 15 f report and final recommendations wthe King County--Executive;and 17 WHEREAS, as a result of the work of the Task Force,two new policies were added 18 to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies::(CPPs)-PF-18 and PF-19; and 19 20 WHEREAS,the 2013 GMPC work program included an item to implement the 21 remainder of the Task Force recommendations;including: "The Growth Management 22 Planning Council(GMPC}should identify policies and adopt a workprogram that 23 . commits jurisdictions to working together to.identfy future school sites within the UGA. 24 These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure a 25 suffic ent"supply of landfor siting schools'; and 26 27 WHEREAS,at the May 21,2014 GMPC meeting, staff proposed a policy to 28 directly respond to the Task Force's direction:' GMPC members reviewed the draft policy 29 and identified the need to inofe fully address the issues of breadth, coordination between 30 jurisdictions and public school districts, and the workload impacts to the respective .31 jurisdictions and school districts. GMP.0 members also wanted to ensure that the proposed 32 policy,fully addressed the.planning needs of the jurisdictions/school districts while being 33 serisitive to the impact of siting parameters and land use regulations on curriculum needs; 34 and 35 36 WHEREAS, to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at 37 the May 21, 2014 GMPC meeting, a new policy,PF-19A is being proposed. 38 EXHIBIT A 18084 39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide 41 Planning Policies be,amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows: . 42 43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential wart 44 of the public infrastructure Coordination between each jurisdiction's land use plan and 45 regulations and their respective school districts] facility needs are essential for public 46. school capacity needs to be met. The following policy applies countywide and requires 47 engagement between each school district and each city that is served by the school 48 district the policy also applies to King County as a jurisdiction for areas of .49 unincorporated King County that are within school:district's service boundary. The 50 policy initiates a periodic procedure to identify if there are individual school district 51 siting-issues=and if so a process-for the school district and jurisdiction to cooperatidely 52 prepare strategies for resolving the issue. 53 54 PF719A Plan through a cooperative process between iurisdictions and school 55 districts-that public school facilities are available,to meet the needs of existing and 56 projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan 57 policies and growth forecasts. . 58 C ogperatively work with each school district located within the jurisdiction's 59 boundaries to evaluate the school:district's abiljty to,site school facilities 60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use 61 school district capacity and enrollment data.and the growth forecasts and 62 development:data of each.jurisdiction:located within the school district's. 63 service boundaries.By January 2016 and every two years thereafter, determine 64 if,there is development and the supporting infrastructure to site the -65 needed school facilities.If not. operatively prepare a strategy to address the 66 capacity shortfall.Potential strate`ieg s_may include: 67 • ' Shared public facilities such as play fields,parking areas and access 68 drives 69 • School acquisition or lease of appropriate public lands 70 • Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional 71 zones or revised development standards 72 • :School design.standards that reduce land requirements (such as multi- story structures or reduced footprint)while still meeting programmatic 74 needs " 75 In 2017 and every two years thereafter, King County shall report to the GMPC 76 on whether the goals of this.policy are being met. The GMPC shall identify, 77 corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy 78 79 80 81 82 83 Dow Constantine, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council EXHIBIT A a King County R E C E I V E D Dow Constantine 7.�15 JUN 10 PM 3��th. 49 8 � �. King County Executive 401 Fifth Avenue;suite Boo St -i^ Seattle,WA98104-1818, IJ!il�Y coociI. 206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194 www.kingcounty,gov June 3, 2015 The Honorable Larry Phillips Chair;King County Council Room 1200 . COURTHOUSE Dear Councilniember Phillips: This letter transmits an ordinance that will enable King County to amend the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school districts and the jurisdictions within their boundaries, as recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 154that was overwhelmingly approved by the GMPC on April 22, 2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of unincorporated King County. Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the School Siting Task Force Report, which is included as an appendix to the CPPs. The new policy states that public schools are an essential and integral part of public infrastructure that is needed to achieve successful growth management plans by jurisdictions in King County. Further, this new policy sets up a plan to facilitate collaboration between the jurisdictions and the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacityneeds, and identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified. This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic.Plan by recognizing the role of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustainable and economically viable future for all people in King County, The County's role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working together for"One King County"by actively participating in regional organizations and defining King County's role in regional issues. . There are no fiscal impacts to King County government as a result of adoption of this ordinance. King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affrtnative Action Employer �'®"®' and complies with the Americans with Disabilitites Act EXHIBIT A The Honorable Larry Phillips June 3,2015 Page 2 If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Smith, Deputy Director for Regional Planning, Office-of Perfonnanee, Strategy and Budget,at 206-263-9606. Sincerely,.. Dow Constantine King County Executive Enclosures cc: - King County.Councilmembers ATTN: Carolyn Busch,Chief of Staff Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Carrie S. Cihak, Chief of Policy Development, King County Executive Office Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget,(PSB) - Lauren Smith, Deputy Director, Regional Planning,PSB _ EXtg A King.County Metropolitan :King 'County Council Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 10 Name: Christine Jensen Proposed No.: 2015-0231 Date: July 7, 2015 SUBJECT A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a new Countywide Planning .Policy regarding planning for school facilities,in King County. SUMMARY Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 would amend the King County Countywide Planning Policies,(CPPs) to state that,public.school facilities are essential in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it• s�-Jmportant to coordinate on land use and facility planning. A new CPP wouldr also be:added, PF-19A, which would require collaborative planning between:school districts and local jurisdictions regarding school facility needs.. This process would include consideration of cooperative strategies to address any facility capacity.and-siting:-shortfalls. The. policy would also: require ..periodic ;review of whether the goals of the policy are being met, and calls for corrective actions.should they be necessary. If adopted, all local jurisdictions, including King County, would be required to collaborate on land use and facility planning with the school district(s) within its boundaries. The County would also be. required,to report back to the Growth Management.Planning Council (GMPC) on behalf of the school districts and local jurisdictions, on the effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. According. to Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within existing County resources. BACKGROUND The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County,'Seattle, Bellevue, other cities and towns in King County, and special purpose districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement' in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt CPPs.Z Under the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each Motion 8733 2 RCW 36.7oA.210 :. EXHIBIT A local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, which ensures countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal,agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended , the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County CounCi13 and ratified by the cities in '1992. Subsequent amendments-..to the CPPs follow the same adoption process, which is now outlined in CPP G-14 and includes: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County-'Co,uncil, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing at Ieast.70,percent of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless the city'disapproves 'it by legislative 'action within 90 days of adoption by King County. ANALYSIS GMPC Motion 15-1 Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 would adopt and ratify GMPC. Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a new CRP regarding planning for school facilities in King County. If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities are essential in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use and facility planning: . A new policy would also be added, PF- 19A; which would require collaborative "planning between "school districts and local jurisdictions regarding school`facility need's. This process would include consideration`of cooperative`strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls: The policy would also require periodic review of whether the goals`of the policy are being met, and calls for corrective actions should theybe necessary. PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation'of school siting•CPPs that Were adopted in 2012,6 which were created as a result of recommendations from the'GMPC's`School Siting Task Force.7 These 2012 policies, PF-18 and PF-19, prohibit schools serving primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require schools serving rural populations to be located in neighboring`cities and rural towns8 The coordination called for in`PF-19A was also recommendation from theTask'Force, and its proposed language was drafted in-collaboration'.with `representatives'from the school districts, cities, and county. 3 Ordinance 10450 42012 King County Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: . http://www.kinacounty.gov/property/permits/codes/growth/GMPC/CPPs.asox s Including: shared public facilities, school acquisition/lease of public lands, regulatory or development standard changes, design changes: 6 Ordinance 17486 7 Created bythe GMPC in 2011 to address the issue of whether public-schools serving primarily urban populations should be sited in rural areas and whether such facilities should be served by sewers. Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report: http://www.kingcounty gov/—/medialexec/constantine/documents/2012/Schoo]SitingTaskForce/FinaiDocu ments/FinalReportAnd Recommendations EXHIBIT A If adopted, PF-19A would apply to the cities and school districts in King County, as well as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two . years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation. GMPC action On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding recommendation to the County Council to adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC ,recommendation to the County Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities. There is no deadline for Council action on the proposed CPP amendment; however, both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting policies in 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231 2. Transmittal Letter 3. Fiscal Note 4. GMPC Staff Report dated.April 22, 2015 INVITED 1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget i 13 EXHIBIT A King County. CENED AUG 03 2090 ECOIvOMIC AND COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 2, 2015 The Honorable,Suzette.Cooke City.of Kent 220-4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Cooke: We are pleased,to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning-Policies (CPP): On July 20,.2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will become effective Surnday, 'August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King County.Council staff report; ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment. In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes 'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015. if you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, St,:uie, WA 98104. If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County 14 EXHIBIT A i Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702. ' Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive Enclosures -X'c': King County City Planning Directors Sound Cities Association Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy Committee (TREE) 15 EXHIBIT A - - KING COUNTY 1 _ h1200 King County Courthouse - La _.. 516 Third Avenue, ` Seattle,WA 98104 Signature.Report Wittig�o4lnty ; July 21, 2015 Ordinance18084 Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dethbowski 1. AN ORDINANCE adop,tmg and ranfymg,Growth 2 Management Planning Connc1l Motion 15=1. 3 " BB IT ORDATNEI)BY TT 'COUNCIL OF KIND COUNTY: 4 "SECTION E Findings: 5 A, Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new 61 policy be added.to the 2012 Kg.-County-Countywide Planning Policies to outline a 7 process for school:districts andlunsdictions.to-work together to identify fature school W . 8 sltes with the Urban Groyzth Area.� '_ ' 9 B. On April 22,10t5,the Orowth Management Planning Council 10 `overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County 11. Countywide Pl*ning Policies be amended to add-new text and anew policy;Policy 19A . 12 SECTION 2i The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 1: - 1 EXHIBIT A Ordinance 18084 13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance,is hereby adopted by King Co my. . 14 .and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County: Ordinance 18�84 Was ffi6*c'a 0n'6/2?;/2015 and passe by the Metropolitan King County Council on 7/20/2015,by the followrug vote Yes 5 Iu1r Phillips,Mr Gossett,Mr McDermottMr Dernbowski and Mr Upthegrove No. 4'-Mr.don.Reichbauer,Ms.Hague,_Ivls, Lambert and Mr.Dunn Excused-,0' KING COUNTY CIL KIN, CO V✓A$ TO r 1 PhilLP's u ATTEST: Ariue Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this .C 1 day 2015. Dow Constantine,County Executive Attachments:A GMFC Motion No. 154 17 . EXHIBIT A 18084 12/17/14 ATTACIIMENT A Sponsored By; Executive Committee . 2 . . 3 ' -i, GMPC,MOTION NO.,154 4 . 5 - , =A MOTION arnending-the 2012 Knig County Countywide_ 6 ' planning Policies;outlining a proeess:foraunsdiefions working 7 "`> together to identify future school sites within the UGA 8 . 9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GW Q convened the 10 Schoo2 Siting Task Force in 2011 to:addressahe.isso ofwllether public school serving primarily urban p6j ulations`should bvsited in rural areas and"whether such facilities 12 ' ' `. should be served bysewers;;and, 13 14 VJEIEREAS,the Task Force completed.therrwork on March 31,2012,issuing a 15 report and final'recommendations tothe King Courriy Executive; and T7 WHEREAS, as a result ofthe work of the T- ask Force,two new policies'.were added #oth'e2012 King County Countywide`Plannifig Policies(Q.pPs)-PF-18 and PE-19; and 19 20 " VJIIEREAS,the"2013 GMPC workprogram mclud'ed an item to implement the 21 areniainder'of the;Task Force recommendations,_including "The Growth Management 22 Planning Council.(GMP0;should rdetzttfy policies and adopt a work'program that 23 cominitsjurisdict ons to working together to identify future school*sites within the UGA. 24' These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure a 25 suffrcientsupply,of landfor siting schools , and 26 _ 27 WHEREAS,at the May 21,2014 GMPC`meeting,staff proposed a policy to 28 directly respond to the TaskForce's direction. GMPC,members reviewed the draft policy 29 and identified the;need to'more W.address the issues of breadth,coordination between 30' .jurisdictions andpublic school districts, and tha,workload impacts to the respective. .31 - jurisdictions and'school districts. GMP.0 members also wanted to ensure that the proposed olicy fully addressed tfie planning needs of the junsdictions/school districts while being 32 p 33 sedsitive to the impact of sit ng pazameters and land use regulations on curriculum needs; 34 " and 6 35 36 WHEREAS,to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at 37 . the May 2T,2014 GMPC meeting, a new policy,PF-T9A is being proposed. 38 18 EXHIBIT A lsosa 39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide' 41 Planning Policies be amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows 43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential part 44 of the public infrastructure. Coordination between each Jurisdiction's land use plan and 45 rega"ns and their respective school distdctjsl facility needs are essential'for public ' 46 school capacity needs to be met The following policy ayplies countywide and requires 47 en aeement between each school-district and each city that is served by the school 48 district Ae policy also applies to King County as a jurisdiction for areas of .49 unincorporated:Kies County that are within a schoolidistriet's service boundary: The 50 policy initiatesa pariodie procedureao.identify if-there are:individual school district 51 siting issues.and=if so a process forthe school district and iurisdiction to cooygoa ely 52 mare strategies for resolving the issue. 53 54 PF-19A ^Plan through a cooperative process between-i�urisdictions and school 55 districts;,that public:school:facilities are available;"to meet thomeeds of.exis ing and_ 56. projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan 57 policies and zr•owth forecasts. . Cooperatively-work with each school district located within the jurisdiction's 59 , boundaries#o evaluate the school:district's:abrlity to site school facilities 60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use 61 school district cgki and enrollment data and-tlie-gxowth forecasts and ty.' ' 62 development data of each-j6didretiomlocated witliin the'schooI district's. 63 service boundaries Sy January 2016 and every two years thereafter:determine 64 it there is development capabity and'the sup-portine infrastructure to site ttie 65 needed school facilities If not cooperafiYely nrenare.a strategy to address the .: 66, ca &city shortfall Potential-sirate'ieg S mamclude: 67 Shared public facilities such as play fields�parktnP areas and access 68drives 69 o Scho81ac6isrtton or lease of appiopriatep ic,lands 70 a . Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional zones or revised development standards 72' School desi¢n standards that reduce land sre nirements (such as multi-, i 73 story'sttuctures or reduced footprint)-whileatill:meeflng prosrarnmatic 74 needs 75 In 2017 and every two years thereafter tKms Coumy shall report to the GMPC 76 `on wlietlzer the`goals of th s policy are beurg met The'Q&TC shall identify 77 coriective,actions as necessary to implement this policy., 7$ 79 80 81 f 82 83 Dow Constantine, Chair,Growth Management Planning Council EXHIBIT 4 LIM - King County. RECEIVED Dow Constantine 7. 3 G King County Executive 015 JUN 10 PM 9 401 Fifth gvmde,Suite a0p Seattle, WA98104-1e1a. - - is.. �QITST_y COUNCIL - 206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194 '.. 7TY'Relay: 711 - . www.kingcourtty,gov oun # t June 3,2015 The Honorable Larry Phillips Chair,King County Council' ' Room 1200 COURTHOUSE . 71 Dear Councilmember Phillips' This letter"transmits an ordinance that-will enable King County to amend the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school districts and.the jurisdictions within their boundaries,.as recomrttendedby the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 15-1 that was overwhelmingly approved by the GMPC'on April 22,2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of . unincorporated King County. Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the School Siting Task Force Report,which is included•as an appendix to. CPPs. The new Policy states that public schools are an essential and integral part of public infiastructure that is needed to achieve successful-growth inanagement plans by:all jurisdictions in King County. Further,this new policy sets up a plan to facilitate collaboration between the jurisdictions and the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacity needs, and identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified. This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic Plan by recognizing the role of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustaihablg and economically viable future for. all people in King County. The County's role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working together.for"One King County':.y actively participating in regional organizations and -defining King County's role in regional issues. . There are no fiscal impacts to King Comity government as a result of adoption of this ordinance. 'King County is an Equal Opportuaity/Affirmative Action Employer "®"m' and complies with the Americans with Disabilitites Act 20 EXHIBIT A The Honorable Larry Phillips June 3,2015 Page 2 If you have any questions,please contae' Lauren Smith,Deputy Director for Regional PIammng; b&cc of Performari6c;,Strategy and Budget, at 206463-9606 Sincerely,.- i. j Dow Constantine King County Executive Enclosures ' cc: . King County Councilmembers, AT TN Carolyn Busch;Chief of Staff AnneNoris, Clerk of the Council Caine S. Cihak Chief of Policy Development;King County Executive Office Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance,Strategy, and,Budget(PSB) Lauren Smith,Deputy DirectorRegional Planning,PSB r III 21 EXkM A ` King.County Met ropolitan;.King"CountyCouncil Transportation, Economy and,.Envirornment Committee STAFF REPORT Agenda`Itein: 10 . Name: -. Christine Jensen .. Proposed No.: 2015-0231 bate: July 7, 2015 SUBJECT A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning: Council Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a, new Countywide Planning Policy regarding planning for school facilities in King County. SUMMARY Proposed Ordinance 2015.0231 would amend_ the King County Countywide Planning Policies (.CPPs)tostate that,p:ublic school,facilities are essential.in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is_ m,portant;to coordinate on. land use `and,facility planning.,A new CPP would also.be added„PF719A, which would require_cofiaborative planning.between.school districts and,,aocal jurisdictions,regarding school facility needs.: This process would include consideration `of'cooperative strategies to "address any facility. capacity;and=siting:;shortfalls.,, The,policy would also. require,beri9di .review of whether the 'goals'of,the policy are being met; and calls for corrective actions .should they be necessary. If adopted, all localjunsdictio,ns, including King'County, would be_ egwred;to collaborate on land use and facility planning with the school districts) within,its boundaries. The County would also requked_to report back to.the Growth: Management.Planning Council (GMPC) on behalf of the school districts and local Jurisdictions on the effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals.` According to Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within existing County resources. BACKGROUND The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle Bellevue, other cities 'and"towns in King County, and"special purpose`districts:' The GMPC was created ;n' 1992 by int--rlocal agreement' in response to a provision.in the Washington State GrowthManagement Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt CPPs.z Under-the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each Motion 8733 z RCW 36.70A.210 ' EXHIBIT A 22 local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan which ensures countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts As provided for in .the interlocal agreement, the GMPE•developed: and recommended , the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council3 and ratified by the cities in'1992. ''Subsequent`amendmenfs to:`the°CPP8 follow`thb`tame adoption process, which is now outlined in CPP ,G-14 and includes: recommendation by the. GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent:of the city-and county governments representing at least:70 percent of the population of King County..A city shall be 11 deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless the city disapproves it by legislative aetion within' 90 days'of adoption by King County. ANALYSIS -GMPC Mofion 15-9-:` Proposed `Ordtna fde 2015=0231' would adopt and ratify GMPC-:Motion 15-11 which recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning fdr,scho01' a ilitles in'KingCounty. If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities_ are essential. in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use and facility planning . A new policy would also be .added, PF- 19A, which'would 'require collaborative planning between school districts and local . jurisdicfions regarding school facility needs This process would include cori iMeration'of cooperative-strategies5 to addYess any'facility capacity acid siting shortfalls r The policy would also require periotlic review ofiwiiether aMe goats'of the policy are being met,-and calls forcorrective actions should they'!f?'e necessary PF'19A is intentled to facilitate implemerrfation of school'siting GPPs thaf+nere adopted in 201`2,6'which wefe`creafed'as'a result of recorr mendafions from'the GMPC's School Siting Task. Force.7 These 2012 policies, PFA8.and PF-19, prohibit schools serving primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require sehools serving rural populations to be located`in neighboring cities and aural towns s The coordination called for in:PF 19A was also a recomrfiendatiomm'fro th-e Task Force, and its proposed language was drafted imcollaborafion`wit h 'representatives'from the school districts, cities, and county 3 Ordinance 10450 2012 King County.Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: . http:l/www.kinocounty gov/property/permits/codes/growtlUGMPC/CPPs aspx . 'Including: shared public facilities;achool acod sition/lease`of public lands, regulatory or development standard chars`, ; dasigri;changes. Ordin2nce-17.186 ?Created by;the GMPC-in 2011 to address theJssue ofwhether public-schoolsserving primarily urbane ; populations should be:sited hrural,areas and whether;such facilities should be served by sewers. Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report: http://www.kingcou ntv.gov/-/med ia/exec/constantine/documents12012/School SitingTaskForce/FinaIDoeu ments/Fina lReportAndRecommendatlons 23 EXHIBIT A If adopted, PF-1.9A would apply to the cities and school districts in King_County, as well as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two. years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of -the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation. GMPC action On April 22, 2015, the .GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding recommendation to the County Council to-adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC recommendation to the County.Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities. There is no deadline for Council action 'ori the proposed CPP amendment; however, both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting . policies in 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231 2. Transmittal Letter 3. Fiscal Note 4. GMPC Staff Report dated_April22, 2015 INVITED 1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget 24 25 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION KE T � Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager .5 . ,.R.. > Ea�. Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 9, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager RE: International Property Maintenance Code Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: Recommend adoption of the ordinance amending title 14 of the Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code together with the City's local amendments depicted in this ordinance. SUMMARY: In July of 2015, members of the Law and ECD offices presented information on the City's Code Enforcement program at a council workshop. Part of this presentation covered tools that would help make code enforcement in Kent more efficient and more effective. One of these tools is the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Staff now presents this code for the committee's consideration. BACKGROUND: When buildings are constructed or altered, ECD staff reviews plans and inspects the work to ensure the buildings are safe, sanitary and meet applicable codes. However, when an owner or occupant fails to maintain a building, problems that impact public health, safety and welfare can arise, and code enforcement is required. The IPMC is useful in resolving these problems. The IPMC is unique from other building codes in its use of very clear and direct language to address common maintenance problems. The code does not impose significant new responsibilities on building owners, as most of the maintenance requirements can be inferred from other adopted codes. The clarity provided in the IPMC is valuable however because when code requirements must be inferred, enforcement efforts are hampered. With the IPMC, maintenance violations are easy to cite and communicate to responsible parties. Examples of requirements in the IPMC include: protecting the exterior of a building from the elements with paint or other covering; keeping structural members of a building free from deterioration, replacing broken windows, and fixing cracks in a building's foundation. In addition to buildings, the IPMC addresses the exterior property around a building. The IPMC is developed and updated every three years by the International Code Council (ICC), the same group who develops other building-related codes that the City has adopted by reference (i.e. International codes for building, plumbing, mechanical systems, etc.). The codes are designed to work together to address 26 public health safety and welfare while not unnecessarily increasing construction costs or limiting innovation in construction methods and materials. Like these other codes, the IPMC is written so as to be adopted by reference by local jurisdictions. Local amendments are included in the attached ordinance that clarify administrative roles, eliminate conflicts with the City's enforcement process and eliminate references to rubbish and garbage, which are addressed elsewhere in City code. Staff recommends adoption of this useful code and will be available at the September 14th meeting to answer questions. BUDGET IMPACT: None 27 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 14 of the Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code to regulate and govern the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings, and structures and to provide standards for utilities, facilities, and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary, and fit for occupation and use. RECITALS A. As set forth in Title 14 of the Kent City Code, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 4081 on May 21, 2013, which adopted the 2012 edition of the International Building Code. B. Section 101.4.4 of the International Building Code adopts the International Property Maintenance Code in a limited capacity, only to the extent the International Property Maintenance Code is referenced within the International Building Code. C. It is necessary to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code in its entirety, with local amendments, to ensure that all 1 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 28 property, buildings and structures within the City of Kent are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 14.01.010 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Building Codes — Adopted," is amended as follows: Sec. 14.01.010. Building Codes — Adopted. In accordance with Chapter 19.27 RCW, the following codes (collective, the "building codes") together with any additions, deletions, and exceptions currently enacted or as may be amended from time to time by the state of Washington through its Building Code Council pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC), and as further amended in this chapter, are adopted by reference: A. The International Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-50 WAC. B. The International Existing Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., but its application is limited as provided for in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code, and as amended pursuant to WAC 51-50-480000 through 51-50-481500. C. The International Residential Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-51 WAC. 2 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 29 D. The International Mechanical Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-52 WAC. E. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, including the Uniform Plumbing Code Standards (Appendices A, B, and I to the Uniform Plumbing Code) as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-56 WAC. F. The Uniform Housing Code, 197 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. G. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. H. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapters 51-11C and 51-11R WAC. I. The International Property Maintenance Code, 2012 Edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., including the Boarding Standard (Appendix A to the International Property Maintenance Code). One (1) copy of each of these codes is on file with the city's building official. SECTION 2. — New Section. Chapter 14.01 of the Kent City Code is amended to add a new section 14.01.087, entitled "Amendments to the International Property Maintenance Code," as follows: Sec. 14.01.087. Amendments to the International Property Maintenance Code. The following local amendments to the International 3 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 30 Property Maintenance Code are adopted and incorporated into the International Property Maintenance Code: A. All references to the "code official" in the International Property Maintenance Code shall be substituted with the words "building official." B. Fees. Section 103.5 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Fees," is amended by substituting Section 103.5 with the following: Sec. 103.5. Fees shall be assessed as set forth in Section 14.01.090 of the Kent City Code. C. Violations. Section 106 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Violations," is amended by substituting Section 106 with the following: Sec. 106. Violations. 106.1. Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code. 106.2. Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of its requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as set forth in Chs. 14.08 and 1.04 KCC or as otherwise provided by law. 4 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 31 D. Notices and Orders. Section 107 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Notices and Orders," is amended by substituting Section 107 with the following: Sec. 107. Notices of Violation. Whenever the building official or his designee determines that there has been a violation of this code or has grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the code enforcement officer may issue a notice to any person responsible for the violation, pursuant to Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code. E. Board of appeals. Section 111 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Means of Appeal," is amended by substituting Section 111 with the following: Sec. 111. Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section 14.01.100 of the Kent City Code. F. Failure to comply. Section 112.4 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Failure to Comply," is amended by substituting Section 112.4 with the following: Sec. 112.4. Failure to Comply. Any failure to comply with a stop work or stop use order shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed 5 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 32 by the court of not more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, pursuant to KCC 1.04.090, 1.04.100, and 1.04.110. G. Rubbish and Garbage. Section 308 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled, "Rubbish and Garbage," is deleted in its entirety. H. Electrical Facilities. Section 604 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Facilities," is deleted in its entirety. I. Electrical Equipment. Section 605 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Equipment," is deleted in its entirety. 3. Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters. Section 606 of the International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters," is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 3, — 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 the same shall maintain its full force and effect. SECTION 4, — 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; 6 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 33 or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 7 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 34 PASSED: day of 2015. APPROVED: day of 2015. PUBLISHED: day of 2015. 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'.ACivilAOrdinanceAIntematlonal Property Maintenance Code.doc: 8 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt International Property Maintenance Code 35 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager 'Ti acwt. Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 8, 2015 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager RE: Sound Transit Paid Parking Program Meeting of September 14, 2015 MOTION: None Required — Information Only SUMMARY: After testing permits during a 2014 pilot project, Sound Transit is considering offering reserved parking permits at its busiest facilities, including the Kent Station parking garage. The permits would work as follows: • Transit customers must have and use a valid ORCA card to apply for a permit. • Permit parking would be reserved for permit holders until 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. • On weekends and after 9:30 a.m. on weekdays, transit riders would be able to park in permit spaces without a permit. • Permits would be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. • Permits would be reviewed and renewed quarterly or semi-annually. • Renewal would require the permit holder's ORCA records to show they rode transit at least three times per week during the previous permit term. Flexibility will be allowed for time away (such as vacation). • Carpool permit holders must arrive with at least two transit riders in the permitted vehicle. • At least 50% of parking spaces at each location would remain free and available for transit riders on a first-come, first-served basis. Staff will be available at the September 141h meeting to further discuss the program. In the meantime, staff encourages everyone to complete a survey at www.soundtransit.ora/permitparkina EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None CA: P:�Planning�South_Corridor�City_Council�09142015_ECDCMemo_Update.doc cc: Ben Wolters, Economic&Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney File