The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3222Ordinance No. 3222 (Amending or Repealing Ordinances) CFN-377 = Comprehensive Plan Passed - 4/18/1995 Adoption of Kent's Comprehensive Plan Amended by Ords. 3412; 3436; 3437; 3440, 3441, 3442; 3472, 3473, 3482; 3504; 3505;3544;3551;3558;3589;3590;3995 2 ORDINANCE NO. 21c-)- o- AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the adoption of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. ® WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act (GMA), which was subsequently I amended by the legislature in 1991 and 1993; and O WHEREAS, the GMA requires jurisdictions throughout the State of Washington, including the City of Kent, to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans which contain, at a minimum, elements relating to land use, transportation, capital facilities, housing, and utilities; and which must be both internally consistent and consistent with comprehensive plans from surrounding jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the GMA, the City of Kent began work on its comprehensive plan in 1990, and this work included the adoption of Framework Planning Goals and the establishment of an Interim Urban Growth Area boundary in 1992, and adoption of development regulations protecting critical areas and the establishment of an Interim Potential Annexation Area boundary in 1993; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires that jurisdictions shall provide for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive plans (RCW 36.70A.140) and accordingly, the City of Kent has undertaken an extensive public participation process for the comprehensive plan, including the establishment of several citizen advisory committees, the Kent Community Forum on Growth Management and Visual Preference Survey in 1992, neighborhood open houses in 1993, and a second Community Forum in 1994; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance on the comprehensive plan and conducted three Scoping meetings in October, 1993, prepared and distributed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in July, 1994, and, based on comments received on the DEIS, issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in January, 1995; and WHEREAS, based on citizen input received, and the policy direction established in state, regional, and local growth management planning goals, the City of Kent prepared a Draft Comprehensive Plan, dated July 18, 1994, and made this draft plan available for public review and input; and WHEREAS, in ten public meetings and hearings conducted between July and December, 1994, the Kent Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Comprehensive Plan dated July 18, 1994, the Comprehensive Plan Map, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the land use policies, the capital facilities element, the transportation element, and on December 12, 1994, the Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Draft Comprehensive Plan as amended by the Planning Commission to the Kent City Council; and WHEREAS, the Mayor transmitted the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Draft Comprehensive Plan to 2 the City Council in January, 1995, and that upon receipt of the draft plan the Council referred it to the City Council Planning Committee to conduct such meetings as deemed necessary to develop a recommendation for consideration by the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee conducted three public meetings in February, March, and April, 1995 during which they heard public testimony and deliberated on the draft plan as submitted by the Planning Commission, and considered further amendments thereto, and on April 4, 1995, the Committee developed a recommendation for the full City Council consisting of the Draft Comprehensive Plan dated July 18, 1994, the Land Use Plan Map dated April 11, 1995, the Policy Revisions dated April 4, 1995, the Capital Facilities Element dated December 12, 1994, the Transportation Element dated April 4, 1995, and the Non - motorized Vehicles Policy dated April 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee recommended that the City's land use map designations be named consistently with those land use map designations used by King County where the unincorporated areas of King County overlap with the City's comprehensive plan boundaries; WHEREAS, on April 18, 1995, the City Council reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning Committee on the Draft Comprehensive Plan as amended; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 3 f Section 1. Based on work proposed by City Staff, Consultants, Citizen input received at public hearings, and the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, the City adopts the Kent Comprehensive Plan recommended by the Planning Committee and consisting of the following documents: 1. The Draft Comprehensive Plan dated July 18, 1994, identified as Exhibit A hereto, which exhibit is on file with the City Clerk's Office and incorporated by reference as if set forth herein in full, and 2. The Land Use Plan Map dated April 11, 1995, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and 3. The Policy Revisions dated April 4, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and 4. The Capital Facilities Element dated December 12, 1994 attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and 5. The Transportation Element dated December 12, 1994 attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and 6. The Non -motorized Vehicles Policy dated April 18, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 4 Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as providedAby law. WHITE; MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOB , CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROVER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTEOR�NEY 5 PASSED day of APPROVED day o PUBLISHED day 1995. 1995. 1995. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. A , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. gma.ord a (SEAL) 4BRENDA JACO R, CITY CLERK R I a EXHIBIT.L CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APRIL 4, 1995 The following amendments and additions have been made by the City Council Planning Committee to the goals and policies in the July 18, 1994 Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan. The Committee's recommended text additions are underlined, while recommended text deletions are lined ou . Please refer to the Executive Proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan for the complete text of each element. KENT PLANNING GOALS URBAN GROWTH 8. The City shall define neighborhoods to foster a strong sense of community. The City and each neighborhood shall cooperatively develop neighborhood plans addressing land use, mobility, parks, sa fet y, and public facilities and services. TRANSPORTATION 1. The City shall develop a saa transportation network which promotes a variety of mobility options, including private automobile, public transit, bicycling, and walking. HOUSING 3. Encourage an adequate and balanced supply of saa housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Assure that opportunities for a diversity of housing is available to all income levels. PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. The City shall protect the rights ofrip vate property owners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions, while continuing to make land use and zoning decisions which regulate the use of land to promote the public health saLeU and general welfare of the citizens of Kent. LAND USE ELEMENT Goal LU -2 - Establish a land use pattern throughout the urban growth area that will facilitate a multimodal transportation system and provide efficient public facilities. Ensure that overall densities in the urban growth area are adequate to support a range of urban services. April 4, 1995 City Council Planning Committee Recommended Goal and Policy Amendments Page 2 Goal LU -5 - Emphasize the importance of good design: historic preservation, and aesthetics for development in the downtown area. Policy LU -5.1 -Require design review for development projects in the downtown area. Review projects for site design, effects upon historic pro ep rties• landscaping design, and pedestrian orientation. Goal LU -8 - The City of Kent adopts a 20 -year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area within Kent's potential annexation area. Policy LU -8.1 - Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets within the potential annexation area. Average net residential densities throughout the potential annexation area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES The natural environment of the Green River valley and adjacent hillsides provide unique and distinctive character to the City of Kent. The City is identified by the Green River system which consists of the river and associated creeks and wetlands. Some of the creeks in the Green River system, such as Mill Creek, Springbrook Creek, and Garrison Creek, flow through steep ravines. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within this system support local and regional fish and wildlife resources. The principal sources of water supply for the City's waters stem Kent Springs, Armstrong Springs and Clark Springs are located in the east hill region of Kent and within the urban growth boundary. In 1985 the City of Kent in conjunction with the establishment of the City stormwater drainage utility, adopted the following water quality goal• "Reduce the environmentally detrimental effects of present and future runoff in order to maintain or improve stream habitat and wetlands, particularly water quality, and protected water -related uses. " Since 1986 the Green River Community College has analyzed samples each month from 11 stream locations in Kent for 24 water quality parameters Analysis of the data collected indicates that water quality problems exist at most of the 11 sampling stations The City of Kent Water Quality Program was drafted in 1991, and the Ci1y isrep sently workingto implement the recommendations of the program. A wellhead protection plan is being prepared for these water sources The plan will identify aquifer recharge areas and propose strategies for protection of aquifers through preservation and protection of groundwater. City Council Planning Committee Recommended Goal and Policy Amendments April 4, 1995 Page 3 Lake Fenwick, Panther Lake, Star Lake, and Lake Meridian are located within the growth area of the City. Since 1980, Kent has completed several projects to protect the waterualityoof Lake Fenwick. The City is currentiv evaluating measures to further improve water qualfty. Native plants and shrubs and mature evergreen and deciduous trees are found throughout the City. Preservation and planting of trees and shrubs on individual properties and in parks and other public spaces will protect and enhance environmental quality. Historically, the commercial agricultural lands in the valley have added to the City's economic support. Protection and enhancement of these natural resources is vital to maintaining a sustainable community. Goal LU -19 - , Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-term, sustainable relationship among natural resource protection, future growth, and economic development through enhancement of wildlife,,_fisheries. and recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection of water quality in aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green River; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve life, property, and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention of the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's natural features. Policy LU -19.1 - Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance with environmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education among City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the effectiveness of incentives by establishing monitoring programs. Goal LU -22 - Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous materials, and noise, and wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement programs, code enforcement, implementation programs, development regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals. Policy LU -22.3 - Indemnify the City from damages resulting from development in naturally constrained areas. To the extent possible or feasible require that developers provide to the City accurate and valid environmental information. Policy LU -22.4 - Initiate a periodic storm drainage%nvironmental inspection program to ensure e� constant maintenance and upkeep of storm systems and on-going compliance with general environmental processes. City Council Planning Committee Recommended Goal and Policy Amendments April 4, 1995 Page 4 Policy LU -22.5 - Ensure that decisions regarding fundamental site design are made prior to the initiation of land surface modifications. Grade and fill permits which do not include site development plans may be issued by the City where such activities do not disturb sensitive areas such as wetlands. , Goal LU -23 - Protect and enhance water resources for multiple benefits, including recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water supply, and open space. Policy LU -23.3 - When jurisdictional boundaries are involved coordinate wetland protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent jurisdictions and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Policy LU -23.5 - On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the existing building setback and stream buffer requirements in relation to goals for water resource and fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessary, modify the requirements to achieve goals. Policy LU -23.6 - Coordinate with King County to produce critical area maps of the unincorporated portion of the potential annexation area which are consistent with the City of Kent maps which identify critical areas within the existing city limits Policy LU -23.7 - Protect the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies in accordance with the Cily of Kent Water Quality Program recommendations Policy LU -23.8 - Update the City of Kent Hazard Area Development Limitations Map as new information about recharge areas and wellhead protection areas becomes available Goal LU -24 - Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values, and support the goals and policies of the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green- Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Policy LU -27.4 - Coordinate with King County to provide for purchasing or transferring he development rights of agricultural land identified as having -term commercial significance. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy TR -8.8 - As a means for accommodating new development mode split goals should be established in each of the 22 transportation zones that work towards a 50% increase in transit share by the year 2001, and a 100% increase by the year 2010 --within the limitations of the City being able to request service from METRO. April 4, 1995 City Council Planning Committee Recommended Goal and Policy Amendments Page 5 Policy TR -8.9 - Transit priority measures such as "queue -jump " lanes "traffic signal Pre- emption ", and "transit only lanes " should be incorporated into the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan, consistent with achieving a significant mode shy away from continued SOV growth. PARKS ELEMENT Policy P&R-17.3 - Where possible in landsMiing parks encourage the use of low maintenance flowering plants, working toward a landscape that is colorfyIyear--round CHAPTER EIGHT' CAPITAL FACILITIE ' ELEMENT EXHiiT CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The capital facilities element contains a summary of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) for the City of Kent. The element consists of the following information: (1) statements of requirements, level -of -service (LOS) standards, guidelines, and criteria that are used to develop and implement the CFP; (2) inventories of existing facilities; (3) maps showing the locations of existing facilities; and (4) a list of proposed capital projects, including a financing plan, future operating costs, and reconciliation of project capacity and LOS standards. The complete CFP and supporting documents are available for review at the City of Kent Planning Department. The CFP is a required element of the City's comprehensive plan, mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities and counties to approve and maintain a CFP which includes requirements for specific types of capital facilities, LOS standards, financial feasibility, and assurance that adequate facilities will be provided as development occurs. As required by the GMA, the CFP is a 6 -year plan for capital improvements that support the City's current and future population and employment growth. It contains LOS standards for each public facility, and requires that new development is served by adequate facilities. The CFP also contains broad goals and specific policies that guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities. The capital facilities element is the element that makes real the rest of the comprehensive plan. By establishing LOS as the basis for providing capital facilities and for achieving concurrency, the CFP determines the quality of life in the community. The requirement to fully finance the CFP provides a reality check on the vision set forth in the comprehensive plan. The capacity of capital facilities that are provided in the CFP affects the size and configuration of the urban growth area. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-1 r CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities in a manner consistent with the land use element and at a time concurrent with (or prior to) the impacts of development. These capital facilities propose to achieve and maintain adopted standards for LOS in order to maintain the quality of life for existing and future development. The plan fulfills the GMA requirement for facilities planning; but, in addition, the plan serves as a base for good city management and establishes eligibility for grants and loans. It provides coordination among the City's many plans for capital improvements, including other elements of the comprehensive plan, master plans of departmental service providers, and facilities plans of the state, the region, and adjacent local jurisdictions. Requirements of the Growth Management Act The GMA requires the CFP to identify public facilities that will be required during the six years following adoption of the new plan (1994 through 1999). The CFP must include the location and cost of the facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be used to fund the facilities. The CFP must be financially feasible; in other words, dependable revenue sources must equal or exceed anticipated costs. If the costs exceed the revenue, the City must reduce its level of service, reduce costs, or modify the land use element to bring development into balance with available or affordable facilities. Other requirements of the GMA mandate forecasts of future needs for capital facilities and the use of standards for levels of service of facility capacity as the basis for public facilities contained in the CFP [see RCW 36.70A.020 (12)]. As a result, public facilities in the CFP must be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity, such as traffic - volume capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita. One of the goals of the GMA is to have capital facilities in place concurrent with development. This concept is known as concurrency (also called "adequate public facilities"). In the City of Kent, concurrency requires 1) facilities which serve the development to be in place at the time of development (or for some types of facilities, a financial commitment to be made to provide the facilities within a specified period of time) and 2) facilities which serve the development to have sufficient capacity to serve the development without decreasing LOS below minimum standards adopted in the CFP. The GMA requires concurrency for transportation facilities. The GMA also requires all other public facilities to be "adequate" [see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020, 36.70A.030, 8-2 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITI9S ELEMENT and 58.17.110]. Concurrency management procedures will be developed to ensure that sufficient public facility capacity is available for each proposed development. After the CFP is completed and adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, the City must adopt development regulations to implement the plan. The development regulations will provide detailed regulations and procedures for implementing the requirements of the plan. Each year, the City must update the CFP. The annual update will be completed before the City's budget is adopted in order to incorporate into the budget the capital improvements from the updated CFP. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS LOS (SCENARIO -DRIVEN) METHOD OF ANALYSIS Explanation of Levels of Service Levels of service usually are quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities that are provided to the community. Levels of service also may measure the quality of some public facilities. Typically, measures of LOS are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). The following chart lists examples of LOS measures for some capital facilities. Type of Capital Facility Corrections Fire and Rescue Hospitals Law Enforcement Library Parks Roads and Streets Sample LOS Measures Beds per 1,000 population Average response time Beds per 1,000 population Officers per 1,000 population Collection size per capita Building square feet per capita Acres per 1,000 population Ratio of actual volume to design Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-3 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT r Schools Sewer Solid Waste Surface Water & River Levees Transit Water capacity Square feet per student Gallons per customer per day Effluent quality Tons (or cubic yards) per capita or per customer Design storm (i.e., 100 -year storm) Runoff water quality Ridership Gallons per customer per day Water quality Each of these LOS measures needs one additional piece of information: the specific quantity that measures the current or proposed LOS. For example, the standard for parks might be 5 acres per 1,000 population; but the current LOS may be 2.68 acres per 1,000, which is less than the standard. In order to make use of the LOS method, the City selects the way in which it will measure each facility (i.e., acres, gallons, etc.). It also identifies the amount of the current and proposed LOS standard for each measurement. There are other ways to measure the LOS of many of these capital facilities. The examples in the previous chart are provided to give greater depth to the following discussion of the use of LOS as a method for determining the City's need for capital facilities. Method for Using Levels of Service The LOS method answers two questions in order to develop a financially -feasible CFP. The GMA requires the CFP to be based on standards for service levels that are measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the plan. The CFP must meet the City's capital needs for the fiscal years 1994 through 1999. The two questions that must be answered in order to meet the GMA requirements are: (1) What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the 6th year (i.e., 1999)? 8-4 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 r CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES' ELEMENT (2) Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of the 6th year (i.e., 1999)? The answer to each question can be calculated by using objective data and formulas. Each type of public facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately from parks). The costs of all the types of facilities then are added together in order to determine the overall financial feasibility of the CFP. A detailed explaination of the formulas used is contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. One of the CFP support documents, Capital Facilities Requirements, contains the results of the use of this method. Setting the Standards for Levels of Service Because the need for capital facilities is determined largely by the adopted LOS, the key to influencing the CFP is to influence the selection of the LOS standards. LOS standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should be based on the community's vision of its future and its values. Traditional approaches to capital facilities planning rely on technical experts (i.e., staff and consultants) to determine the need for capital improvements. In the scenario -driven approach, these experts play an important advisory role, but they do not control the determination. Their role is to define and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to analyze data, and to make suggestions based on technical considerations. The final, legal authority to establish the LOS rests with the City Council because the City Council enacts the LOS standards that reflect the community's vision. The City Council's decision should be influenced by recommendations of the 1) Planning Commission; 2) providers of public facilities (i.e., local government departments, special districts, private utilities, the State of Washington, tribal governments, etc.); 3) formal advisory groups that make recommendations to the providers of public facilities (i.e., community planning groups); 4) the general public through individual citizens and community civic, business, and issue -based organizations that make their views known or are sought through sampling techniques. The scenario -driven approach to developing the LOS standards provides decision -makers and anyone else who wishes to participate with a clear statement of the outcomes of various LOS for each type of public facility. This approach reduces the tendency for decisions to be controlled by expert staff or consultants, opens up the decision-making Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-5 Y CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT process to the public and advisory groups, and places the decisions before the City Council. Selection of a specific LOS to be the "adopted standard" ultimately will be accomplished by a 12 -step process: (1) The "current" (1993), actual LOS are calculated. (2) Departmental service providers are given national standards or guidelines and examples of LOS from other local governments. (3) Departmental service providers research local standards from City studies, master plans, ordinances, and development regulations. (4) Departmental service providers recommend a standard for the City of Kent's CFP. (5) The first draft of Capital Facilities Requirements forecasts needed capacity and approximate costs of two LOS scenarios (e.g., the 1993 actual LOS and the department's recommended LOS) (6) The City Council reviews and comments on the first draft of Capital Facilities Requirements. (7) The Operations department prepare a follow-up Capital Facilities Level of Service/Cost Options report which identifies five alternative LOS options, or scenarios, to forecast the amount of capital facilities that would be most appropriate for the City of Kent during the 6 -year growth period 1994-1999. This report complements Capital Facilities Requirements, which was reviewed with the City Council November 30, 1993, and not only identifies LOS options but also includes specific recommendations from the Operations department.' (8) The City Council reviews and comments on Capital Facilities Level of Service/Cost Options and indicates their preferences for LOS and noncapacity capital projects to be included in the first draft of the CFP. (9) Departmental service providers prepare specific capital improvements projects and estimates of related maintenance and operating costs to support the City Council's preferred LOS and noncapacity projects. (10) The first -draft CFP is prepared using the City Council's preferred LOS and noncapacity projects. The LOS in the first -draft CFP serves as the basis for capital projects, their costs, and a financing plan necessary to pay for the costs. 8-6 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT' CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT (11) The draft CFP is reviewed/discussed during City Council and Planning Commission workshop(s) prior to formal reading/hearing of the CFP by the City Council. (12) The City Council formally adopts LOS as part of the CFP. (13) Every year, as required by the Growth Management Act, department service providers reassess land use issues, level of service standards, and projected revenues to determine what changes, if any are needed. CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORIES CORRECTIONAL FACILITY The Kent Correction Center is managed by the Kent Police Department. The current inventory of the Correctional Faclity totals 130 beds. The Center is located at 1201 Central in the City. An intergovernmental contract with the Federal Marshall's Office currently commits the City to provide 30 beds for Federal prisoners. The geographic location of the Correctional Facility is found on Figure 8.1. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES The Kent Fire Department is responsible for delivering fire protectiion and emergency medical services to the City, and to the geographic area within King County fire District #37.The City owns 4 fire stations: Station 71 (south); Station 73 (west); Station 74 (east); and Station 76 (north). Each station is equipped with one fire/aid unit which consists of a pumper truck with emergency medical service/rescue equipment and manpower, and each station has a future capacity for three units. The table below lists each station, fire/aid units in service, total capacity, and average response time: Name of Fire/Aid Units Total Capacity Location Station in Service (Bays) Station 71 1 3 South Station 73 1 3 West Station 74 1* 3 East Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-7 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT Station 76 1 3 North *Ladder Truck King County Fire District #37 owns three fire stations: Station 72 (Meridian), with two fire/aid units in service and capacity for three; Station 74 (Covington), with one fire/aid unit and capacity for three, and Station 77 (Kentridge), with one fire/aid unit in service and capacity for two. , The geographic locations of the Fire and Emergency Services facilities are found on Figure 8.1. POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER The Police/Fire Training Center is located on East Hill at 24611 116th Avenue SE. The Center, housed in an 8,000 square foot building, provides audio and visual equipment and other facilities for in-service training for City of Kent police officers and fire fighters. Instruction is conducted by Kent Police and Fire Department personnel, and by nationally known instructors from the International Association of Police Chiefs and the State Fire Service. In addition to providing a facility for training city of Kent personnel, the training center also accomodates a satelite training program sponsored by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training commission. The geographic locations of the police/fire training facilities are found on Figure 8.1. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT The City of Kent Operations Department manages several facilities and buildings necessary to the administrative and maintenance funcetions of the City. These include City Hall and the City Council Chambers, leased offices in the Centennial Center, the Municipal Court facility, and City maintenance shops. The table below lists the name, location and capacity of each facility: Name Location Capacity (Square Feet) City Hall 220 4th Ave S 33,100 8-8 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEBJENT Centennial 400 W Gowe 26,460 Center (Leased) Municipal 302 W Gowe 4,251 Court (Leased) The geographic locations of the City administrative facilities are found on Figure 8.1. CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES - POLICE HEADQUARTERS The inventory of City administrative offices for the Police Department headquarters totals 18,000 square feet, and is located at 232 4th Avenue South in downtown Kent. The geographic location of the Police Headquarters is found on Figure 8.1. CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES The total area of city government maintenance facilities totals 22,558 square feet, and includes the Public Works maintenance shops (17,173 square feet) and Park and Recreation Department maintenance shops (5,385 square feet). The Police Vehicle Storage facility (3,600 square feet), which is an open, uncovered yard is not included in this inventory. The geographic location of the City Maintenance facilities is found on Figure 8.1 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES The City of Kent owns and manages 128.8 acres of neighborhood park land and 779.7 acres of community park land within the current City limits. King County owns 6.1 acres. Within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Kent, King county owns 807.8 acres of park land, and the City of Kent owns 7.2 acres. the Park and Recreation Department manages a wide variety of facilities located on park land, including the Senior Center, Kent Commons, Special Populations Resource Center, playfields, and trails. A detailed inventory of current parks and recreation facilities is contained in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. The geographic locations of the parks and recreational facilities are found on Figures 10.1 and 10.2 of the parks element. GOLF COURSES The inventory of current City golf courses includes the following: Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-9 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT Name Location Capacity (Holes) Par 3 Golf 2030 W 9 Course Meeker 18 Hole Golf 2019 W 18 Course Meeker The geographic locations of the golf course facilities are found on Figure 10.1 of the parks element. SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES The sewer service area of the City of Kent encompasses 23 square miles, and includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within inoorporated King County. Since the existing collection system facilities already exist throughout the City's service area, expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local improvement districts. In general, the existing sewer system is sized basedon existing standards which will carry peak flows which will be generated by the service area for ultimate development. However, the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitiation. A complete inventory of Sanitary Sewer facilities is found in the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) has assumed the responsibility for interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and its neighboring communities. Therefore, the City does not incur any direct capacity -related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. The voluminous inventory of current Sanitary Sewer facilities is on file with the City's Department of Public Works. The geographic locations of the sanitary sewer facilities are found on Figure 8.2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The City of Kent lies primarily within the Green River Watershed, which encompasses 480 square miles and the total drainage area of the City is 23 square miles which 8-10 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 • CHAPTER EIGHT` CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT includes most of the incorporated city, as well as the adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. The eight major watershed areas include (1) Green River; (2) Lake Fenwick; (3) Midway; (4) Mill Creek (Kent); (5) Mill Creek (Auburn); (6) Mullen Slew; (7) Springbrook-Garrison Creek; (8) Star Lake. To the east, the service area boundary coincides with Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. To the north, it coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and Kent/Tukwila City Limits. to the west, the service area boundary coincides with Des Moines Sewer District at Interstate 5. Portions of the City of Kent west of I-5 are served by Des Moines. To the south, the boundary coincides with the service area boundary of the City of Auburn and Federal Way Sewer and Water District. Conveyence systems in both the "hillside" and "valley" areas must convey at minimum the 25 year storm event. The standards include requirements to provide water quality control recommended by the "State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual". The voluminous inventory of current stormwater management facilities is on file with the City's Department of Public Works. The geographic locations of the stormwater management facilities are found on Figure 8.3. WATER SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE FACILITIES The water service area of the City encompasses 27 square miles. This area includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. To the east, the service area boundary coincides with the boundary of Water District No. 111 and Soos Creek Sewer and Water District. To the north, the service area boundary coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and Kent/Tukwila city limits. to the west, it coincides with Highline Water District's boundary, and to the south, the City's service area boundary coincides with the City of Auburn, and Federal Way Sewer and Water District. The principal sources of water supply for the City's water system are Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, the capacity of these two sources is exceeded, and suplemental well facilities are activated. These sources are adequate to meet peak day demands; however, during an extreme dry/hot spell, the City purchases water from adjacent purveyors. Water system interties are presently available with Highline Water District, Tukwila, and Renton during such emergency situations; however, these sources are not considered to be dependable for meeting lone -term demand requirements. A new open storage reservoir is proposed to be located on a site near 124th Avenue SE and SE 300th Street. The City also plans a future intertie with Tacoma's pipeline 5 project. The water distribution system exists Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-11 a CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT throughout most of the City's service area, expansion will take place almost entirely through infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extentions. Most of the remaining projects in the City's most recent water system Plan consist primarily of water main replacements and upsizing in older portions of the system. A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) every five years. The City's most recent Water System Plan (completed in 1988 and amended in 1990) has been approved by DSHS. This plan was completed in conjunction sith the Critical Water Supply Plan for the South King County area. A detailed inventory of current water system facilities, and City water rights records are on file with the City's Department of Public Works. The voluminous inventory of current stormwater management facilities is on file with the City's Department of Public Works. The geographic locations of water distribution facilities are found on Figure 8.4. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The City's road system current inventory consists of approximately 164 total land miles for 4 major categories of roads; 7 miles of principal arterials; 23 miles of minor arterials; 12 miles of collector arterials, and 122 miles of local roads. There are 9 bridges in Kent. Transportation networks for pedestrians include: Widened shoulder gravel paths 19.35 miles it it it if it " if it 28.31 miles Asphalt sidewalks 4.69 miles Concrete sidewalks 108.56 miles Pathways 21.01 miles The geographic locations of major transportation facilities are found on Figure 9.1 of the transportation element. 8-12 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District. the Renton School District serves students from an area of Kent near the north City limits, and Kent students from a section of the West Hill of Kent attend Federal Way Schools. Detailed inventories of school district capital facilities are contained in the capital facilities plan of each school district The geographic locations of schools in Kent are found on Figure 8.1. PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES The City of Kent is served by the King County Library system in the Kent Library building at 212 2nd Avenue West, which was built in 1992. Detailed information regarding the King County Library System is contained in the King County Library System, The Year 2000 Plan, September 1992. The geographic location of the Kent Library building is found on Figure 8.1. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-13 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS CAPITAL COSTS SUMMARY NON UTILITY PROJECTS TRANSPORTATION Corridors Artenals Intersection Improvements Other Improvements Subtotal Transportation PUBLIC SAFETY Correctional Facility Fire & Emergency Services Police / Fire Training Facility Police Administrative Offices 'Subtotal Public Safety Parks & Recreation Neighbrhd Park/Rec Land Community Park/Rec Land Neighborhood Rec Facilities Community Rec Facdlities Golf Courses Subtotal Parks & Recreation General Government Facilities City Administrative Offices City Maintenance Facilities Subtotal General Government Total Non Utility UTILITY PROJECTS Sanitary Sewer Stormwater Management Water Supply & Distribution Total Utility Projects Total CIP 1994 - 1999 Capital Facditie: Project Cost Statistics (In 000's) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TOTALI 1,982 7,511 8,877 3,734 13,529 13,163 48,796 115 6,550 2,189 11 3,040 2,200 14,105 2,344 265 244 350 150 1,775 765 584 100 510 792 425 2,411 5,206 14,298 4,782 5,017 4,817 5,117 39,237 2,681 14,426 11,576 4,887 17,144 15,363 66,077 35 105 90 230 63 185 231 479 60 577 637 274 55 145 474 95 1,019 330 145 231 1,820 100 100 200 200 600 814 5,086 1,836 86 86 886 8,794 80 101 207 432 410 563 1,793 745 866 320 3,267 254 107 5,559 1,000 300 200 1,500 1,639 7,153 2,763 4,185 750 1,756 18,246 400 675 200 200 200 200 1,875 60 55 60 1,765 125 2,065 4,815 23,333 14,924 9,332 20,003 17,675 90,082 1 200 769 175 250 260 270 1,924 2,662 11,265 4,363 3,013 2,793 3,072 27,168 2,344 2,264 244 1,754 1,764 1,775 10,145 5,206 14,298 4,782 5,017 4,817 5,117 39,237 10,021 37,631 19,706 14,349 24,820 22,792 129,319 REVISED 11/16/94 8-14 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FINANCING The revenue sources that are available to the City of Kent for capital facilities include taxes, fees and charges, and grants. Some sources of revenue for capital facilities can also be used for operating costs. A comprehensive list of revenue sources and a discussion of limitations on the use of each revenue source is contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. Existing City revenues are not forcast, nor are they diverted to capital expenditures from maintenance and operations. The financing plan for these capital improvements includes the revenues listed in the pie chart below. The chart lists the major categories of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) revenue sources and the amount contributed by each source. Golf & Utility Fees 31,7 Sale of Property 4,763 3 60,0 Bonds & Grants Total $131,292 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (In 0o0's) REVENUES BY SOURCE 1994-1999 TOTAL REVENUES (in 000's) m 20,975 16 0% General CIP Revenue 9,959 76% s 22,058 16 8% REVISED 11/16/94 Detailed project lists and financing plans are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-15 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT S ` CHAPTER EIGHT LEVEL OF SERVICE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP The CFP will enable the City of Kent to accomodate 15.1 % growth during the next 6 years (48,144 people in 1999) while maintaining the 1993 LOS for the following public facilities: Facility LOS Units Fire/Emergency Services Units/1,000 pop. Neighborhood Rec. Facilities Investment/Capita Community Rec. Facilities Investment/Capita Sanitary Sewer Per DOE and METRO Correctional Facility Regulations Stormwater Management Per State Regulations/King Police/Fire Training Center County Stds. Transportation N/A Water System Per DSHS Regulations/King 1,525.0 County Stds 1993 LOS CFP LOS PROPOSED 0.096 0.096 $151.52 $151.52 $496.26 $496.26 The level of service for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP: Facility LOS Units City Maintenance Facilities Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 1993 LOS CFP LOS PROPOSED 539.0 625.0 The level of service for the following facilities will be reduced as a result of the CFP: Facility LOS Units 1993 LOS CFP LOS PROPOSED Correctional Facility Beds/1,000 pop. 3.11 2.70 Police/Fire Training Center Sq. Ft. /Employee 32.5 28.3 City Admin. Offices Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 1,525.0 1,325.0 - General Government City Admin. Offices Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 430.0 396.0 - Police Headquarters Neighborhood Park/ Acres/1,000 pop. 2.59 2.53 Recreational Land Community Park/ Acres/1,000 pop. 18.80 18.19 Recreational Land Golf Courses Holes/1,000 pop. 0.65 0.56 8-16 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES Goal CFP -1 - As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public health, safety, and quality of life. Goal CFP -2 - Encourage and support patterns of growth and development which are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan by concentrating capital facilities spending in those areas where growth is desired. Goal CFP -3 - Define types of public facilities, establish standards for levels of service for each type of public facility, and in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, determine what capital improvements are needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards for existing and future populations, and to repair or replace existing public facilities. As growth and additional development occur in the City and adjacent growth areas, consistently reassess land use, update the capital facilities data, and use these data as a basis for making financial decisions regarding capital facilities investment. Identify alternatives to spending and establish priorities. Policy CFP -3.1 - Establish and maintain definitions of terms which apply throughout this Capital Facilities Plan and related documents. Place the definitions in the introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan and update them as necessary. Policy CFP -3.2 - The capital facilities provided within the City of Kent are defined in the introduction and categorized below as A., B., and C. facilities. Establish standards for levels of service for Categories A and B public facilities, and coordinate with providers of Category C public facilities. Apply the standards for Category A and B facilities and coordinate Category C facilities as follows: (i) Category A: Capital facilities owned or operated by the City of Kent. Apply the standards for levels of service of each type of public facility in Category A to development permits issued by the City (as set forth in the City's Concurrency Ordinance) after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City's annual budget beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, the City's Capital Improvements Program beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, and other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-17 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT {CHAPTER EIGHT (ii) Category B • Capital facilities owned or operated by the City of Kent, but not sub ect to requirements for concurrency. Apply the standards for levels of service of each type of public facility in Category B to the City's annual budget beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, the City's Capital Improvements Program beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, and other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. The standards for levels of service in Category B are for planning purposes only, and shall not apply to development permits issued by the City. (iii) Category Q Capital facilities owned or operated by federal, state, countv. independent district, and private organizations. Coordinate levels of service and capacity with other entities who provide capital facilities within the City, such as libraries, Washington State Department of Transportation, school districts, and transit service providers. Policy CFP -3.3 - Provide standards for levels of service according to the following: (i) Category A Public Facilities Transportation facilities: Sanitary Sewer: State DOE and Metro Regulations Stormwater Management: State Regulations and King County Standards Water: DSHS Regulations and King County Standards (ii) Category B Public Facilities Fire and Emergency Services: 0.096 fire aid units per 1,000 population Law Enforcement: Correctional facility: 2.70 beds per 1,000 population Parks: Neighborhood Park/Recreational Land: 2.53 acres per 1,000 population Community Park/Recreational Land: 18.19 acres per 1,000 population Neighborhood Recreational Facilities: $151.52 investment per capita 8-18 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEAIENT Community Recreational Facilities: $496.26 investment per capita Golf Courses: 0.56 holes per 1,000 population City Administrative Offices: City Hall: 1, 325 square feet per 1, 000 population Police Headquarters: 396 square feet per 1,000 population City Maintenance Facilities: 625 square feet per 1,000 population City Training Facilities: Police/Fire training center: 28.3 square feet per employee Policy CFP -3.4 - Determine the needed quantity of capital improvements as follows: The quantity of capital improvements needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to meet the needs of future growth shall be determined for each public facility by the following calculation: Q = (S x D) - L Where Q is the quantity of capital improvements needed, S is the standard for level of service, D is the demand, such as the population, and I is the inventory of existing facilities. Use the calculation for existing demand in order to determine existing deficiencies. Use the calculation for projected demand in order to determine needs of future growth. Policy CFP -3.5 - Consider the standards for levels of service to be the exclusive determinant of need for a capital improvement except in the following circumstances: (i) Repair, remodeling, renovation, and replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities shall be determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Mayor. (ii) Capital improvements that provide levels of service in excess of the standards adopted in this Comprehensive Plan may be constructed or acquired at any time as long as the following conditions are met: Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-19 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT i CHAPTER EIGHT (a) The capital improvement does not make financially infeasible any other capital improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain the standards for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan, and (b) The capital improvement does not contradict, limit, or substantially change the goals or policies of any element of this Comprehensive Plan, and (c) The capital improvement meets one of the following conditions: The excess capacity is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain standards for levels of service (i.e., the minimum capacity of a capital project is larger than the capacity required to provide the level of service), or .. The excess capacity provides economies of scale making it less expensive than a comparable amount of capacity if acquired at a later date, or The asset acquired is land that is environmentally sensitive, or designated by the City as necessary for conservation or recreation, or ... The excess capacity is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds approved by referendum. Policy CFP -3.6 - Encourage non -capital alternatives to achieve and maintain the adopted standard for level of service. Non -capital alternatives, which use programs, strategies, or methods other than traditional "brick and mortar" capital facilities to provide the level of service standards, may include, but are not limited to the following: (1) programs that reduce or eliminate the need for the capital facility; (2) programs that provide a non -capital substitute for the capital facility; (3) programs that reduce the demand for a capital facility, or the service it provides; (4) programs that use alternative methods to provide levels of service ; (S) programs that use existing facilities more efficiently in order to reduce the need for additional facilities. Policy CFP -3.7 - Include in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" contained in the Capital Facilities Plan any capital improvement that is determined to be needed as a result of any of the factors listed in Policy CFP -3.5. Approve all such capital improvements in the same manner as the capital improvements that $-20 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILI77ES ELEMENT are determined to be needed according to the quantitative analysis described in Policy CFP -3.4. Policy CFP -3.8 - Assign relative priorities among capital improvements projects as follows: (i) Priorities Among apes of Public Facilities. Legal restrictions on the use of many revenue sources limit the extent to which types of facilities compete for priority with other types of facilities because they do not compete for the same revenues. All capital improvements that are necessary for achieving and maintaining a standard for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan are included in the financially feasible "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. The relative priorities among types of public facilities (i.e., roads, sanitary sewer, etc.) were established by adjusting the standards for levels of service and the available revenues until the resulting public facilities needs became financially feasible. Repeat this process with each update of the Capital Facilities Plan, thus allowing for changes in priorities among types of public facilities. (ii) Priorities of capital improvements within a !Xpe of public facility. Evaluate and consider capital improvements within a type of public facility using the following criteria and order of priority. Establish the final priority of all capital facility improvements using the following criteria as general guidelines. Use any revenue source that cannot be used for a high-priority facility by beginning with the highest priorityfor which the revenue can be expended legally. (a) Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, or replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan. (b) New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in levels of service for existing demand. (c) New public facilities, and improvements to existing public facilities, that eliminate public hazards if such hazards were not otherwise eliminated by facility improvements prioritized according to (a) or (b), above. (d) New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted levels of service for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years, as updated by the annual review of the Capital Facilities Plan. The City may acquire land Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-21 CAP4TAL FACILITIES ELEMENT ,CHAPTER EIGHT or right of way in advance of the need to develop a facility for new development. Ensure that the location of facilities constructed pursuant to this policy conform to the Land Use Element, and that specific project locations serve projected growth areas within the allowable land use categories. (e) Capacity of public facilities to serve anticipated new development and applicants for development permits shall be addressed in the City's concurrency ordinance. (f) Improvements to existing facilities, and new facilities that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of public facilities on future operating budgets. (g) New facilities that exceed the adopted levels of service for new growth during the next six fiscal years by either Providing excess public facility capacity that is needed by future growth beyond the next six fiscal years, or Providing higher -quality public facilities than are contemplated in the City's normal design criteria for such facilities. (h) Facilities not described in policies (a) through (g) above, but which the City is obligated to complete, provided that such obligation is evidenced by a written agreement the City executed prior to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan. (iii) Evaluate all facilities scheduled for construction or improvement in accordance with this policy in order to identify any plans of state or local governments or districts that affect, or will be affected by, the City's proposed capital improvement. (iv) Include in the project evaluation additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Goal CFP -4 - To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the authority to require others to provide. 8-22 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Policy CFP -4.1 - In the estimated costs of all needed capital improvements, do not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the City pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. Conservative estimates need not be the most pessimistic estimate, but cannot exceed the most likely estimate. Revenues for transportation improvements or strategies must be "financial commitments" as required by the Growth Management Act. Policy CFP -4.2 - Pay for the costs of needed capital improvements in the following manner: (i) Existing development shall pay for the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies and for some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities. Existing development may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. Payments may take the form of user fees, charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. (ii) Future development shall pay its fair share of the capital improvements needed to address the impact of such development. Transportation impact fees, water, sewer, storm water infrastructure fees, and the fee in lieu of parks shall continue as established "fair share" payments. Upon completion of construction, "future "development becomes "existing "development and shall pay the costs of the replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities as described above. Payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, mitigation payments, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, public/private partnerships, voluntary funding agreements, future payments of user fees, charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any public facility that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. (iii) Both existing and future development may have part of their costs paid by grants, entitlements, or public facilities from other levels of government and independent districts. Policy CFP -4.3 - Finance capital improvements and manage debt as follows: (i) Finance capital improvements from City enterprise funds by: Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-23 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT (a) Debt to be repaid by user fees and charges and/or connection or capacity fees for enterprise services, or (b) Current assets (i. e. , reserves, equity or surpluses, and current revenue, including grants, loans, donations and interlocal agreements), or (c) A combination of debt and current assets. (ii) Finance capital improvements by non -enterprise funds from either current assets (i.e., current revenue, fund equity and reserves), debt, or a combination thereof. Consider in the financing decisions which funding source (current assets, debt, or both) will be a) most cost effective, b) consistent with prudent asset and liability management, c) appropriate to the useful life of the project(s) to be financed, and d) the most efficient use of the City's ability to borrow funds. (iii) Do not use debt financing to provide more capacity than is needed within the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" for non -enterprise public facilities unless one of the conditions of Policy CFP- 3.5(ii)(c) is met. Policy CFP -4.4 - Do not provide a public facility, nor accept the provision of a public facility by others, if the City or other provider is unable to pay for any planned subsequent annual operating and maintenance costs of the facility. Policy CFP -4.5 - In the event that sources of revenue listed in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" require voter approval in a local referendum that has not been held, and a referendum is not held, or is held and is not successful, revise this Comprehensive Plan at the next annual amendment to adjust for the lack of such revenues, in any of the following ways: (i) Reduce the level of service for one or more public facilities; (ii) Increase the use of other sources of revenue; (iii) Decrease the cost, and therefore the quality of some types of public facilities while retaining the quantity of the facilities that is inherent in the standard for level of service; (iv) Decrease the demand for and subsequent use of capital facilities; (v) A combination of the above alternatives. 8-24 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Policy CFP -4.6 - Condition all development permits issued by the City which require capital improvements that will be financed by sources of revenue which have not been approved or implemented (such as future debt requiring referenda) on the approval or implementation of the indicated revenue sources, or the substitution of a comparable amount of revenue from existing sources. Goal CFP -5 - Provide adequate public facilities by constructing needed capital improvements which (1) repair or replace obsolete or worn-out facilities, (2) eliminate existing deficiencies, and (3) meet the needs of future development and redevelopment caused by previously -issued and new development permits. The City's ability to provide needed improvements will be demonstrated by maintaining a financially feasible "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" in the Capital Facilities Plan. Policy CFP -5.1 - Provide, or arrange for others to provide, the capital improvements listed in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" portion of the Capital Facilities Plan. The capital improvements projects may be modified as follows: (i) Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" may be amended one time during any calendar year. Coordinate the annual update with the annual budget process. (ii) The "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" may be adjusted by ordinance not deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications concerning costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the plan; or the date of construction (so long as it is completed within the 6 -year period) of any facility enumerated in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan. " (iii) Any act, or failure to act, that causes any project listed in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" of this Comprehensive Plan to be scheduled for completion in a fiscal year later than the fiscal year indicated in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" shall be effective only if the act causing the delay is subject to one of the following: (a) Accelerate within, or add to the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " those projects providing capacity equal to, or greater than the delayed project, in order to provide capacity of public facilities in the fiscal year at least equal to the capacity scheduled prior to the act which delayed the subject project. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-25 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT (b) For those projects which are subject to concurrency requirements and which are authorized by development permits which were issued conditionally subject to the concurrent availability of public facility capacity provided by the delayed project, restrict them to the allowable amount and schedule of development which can be provided without the incomplete project. (c) Amend the Comprehensive Plan (during the allowable annual amendment) to temporarily reduce the adopted standard for the level of service for public facilities until the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled to be completed. Policy CFP -5.2 - Include in the capital appropriations of the City's annual budget all the capital improvements projects listed in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" for expenditure during the appropriate fiscal year, except that the City may omit from its annual budget any capital improvements for which a binding agreement has been executed with another party to provide the same project in the same fiscal year. Also include in the capital appropriations of its annual budget additional public facility projects that conform to Policy CFP- 3.5(ii) and Policy CFP-3.8(h)O. Policy CFP -5.3 - Adopt a concurrency ordinance to ensure that adequate facilities, as determined by the City, are available to serve new growth and development. Policy CFP -5.4 - Determine the availability of public facilities by verifying that the City has in place binding financial commitments to complete the necessary public facilities or strategies within six years, provided that: (i) The six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" is financially feasible. (ii) The City uses a realistic, financially feasible funding system based on revenue sources available according to laws adopted at the time the CFP is adopted. (iii) The six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" in this Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that the actual construction of the roads and mass transit facilities are scheduled to commence in or before the fourth year of the six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan. " (iv) The six-year CFP Projects and Financing Plan" includes both necessary facilities to maintain the adopted level -of -service 8-26 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 ' CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITES ELEMENT standards to serve the new development proposed to be permitted and the necessary facilities required to eliminate existing deficiencies. Goal CFP -6 - Provide adequate public facilities to urban growth areas. Policy CFP -6.1 - Ensure levels of service for public facilities in the urban growth area are consistent, and where possible, identical for the City of Kent and the unincorporated portion of the Kent Urban Growth Area (see Policy CFP -3.3). Policy CFP -6.2 - Declare the primary providers of public facilities and services in the unincorporated portion of the Kent Urban Growth Area to be: Public Facilitv Before Annexation After Annexation a. Fire Protection and Districts City of Kent emergency medical services b. Law Enforcement King County City of Kent c. Library Library District Library District d. Parks & Recreation King County City of Kent e. Local roads, sidewalks, King County City of Kent lighting f. State roads Washington State Washington State g. Sanity sewer Districts City of Kent h. Schools Districts Districts i. Solid waste disposal King County King County j. Storm Water King County City of Kent k. Transit King County King County 1. Water Districts City of Kent m. General government King County City of Kent offices Policy CFP -6.3 - Make providers of public facilities responsible for paying for their facilities. Providers may use sources of revenue that require users of facilities to pay for a portion of the cost of the facilities. As provided by law, some providers may require new development to pay impact fees and/or mitigation payments for a portion of the cost of public facilities. (i) Use Policy CFP -4.2 as the guideline for assigning responsibility for paying for public facilities in the Kent Urban Growth Area. (ii) Coordinate with King County and other providers of public facilities regarding collection of fees from development in their Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-27 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT a CHAPTER EIGHT respective jurisdictions for impacts on public facilities in other jurisdictions. Policy CFP -6.4 - When possible, enter into agreements with King County and other providers of public facilities to coordinate planning for and development of the Kent Urban Growth Area, including implementation and enforcement of Policies CFP -6.1 - 6.3. Goal CFP -7 - Implement the Capital Facilities Plan in a manner that coordinates and is consistent with the plans and policies of other elements of the City Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington, and, where possible, the plans and policies of other regional entities, adjacent counties, and municipalities. Policy CFP -7.1 - Manage the land development process to ensure that all development receives public facility levels of service equal to, or greater than the standards adopted in Policy CFP -3.3 by implementing the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" contained in the Capital Facilities Plan, and by using the fiscal resources provided for in Goal CFP -4 and its supporting policies. (i) Ensure that all Category A and B public facility capital improvements are consistent for planning purposes with the adopted land use map and the goals and policies of other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Ensure that the location of, and level of service provided by projects in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" maintain adopted standards for levels of service for existing and future development in a manner and location consistent with the Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan. (ii) Integrate the City's land use planning and decisions with its planning and decisions for public facility capital improvements by developing, adopting, and using the programs listed in the "Implementation Programs" section of the Capital Facilities Plan. (Note: Plans to implement the Comprehensive Plan elements, including a proposed concurrency ordinance, will be presented to the Planning Commission at a later date.) Policy CFP -7.2 - Ensure that implementation of the Capital Facilities Plan is consistent with the requirements of the adopted Countywide Planning Policies. 8-28 Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 F CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Goal CFP -8 - The City shall participate in a cooperative interjurisdictional process to determine siting of essential public facilities of a county -wide, regional, or state-wide nature. Policy CFP -8.1- Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the City of Kent or within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Comprehensive plan during the initial stages of the proposal process. Policy CFP -8.2 -When warranted by the special character of the essential facility, the City shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.200, Special use combining district, to applications for siting such facilities to insure adequate review, including public participation. Conditions of appproval, including design conditions, conditions, shall be imposed upon such uses in the interest of the welfare of the City and and the protection of the environment. Policy CFP -8.3 - In the principally permitted or conditional use sections of the zoning code, the City shall establish, as appropriate, locations and development standards for essential public facilities which do not warrant consideration through the special use combining district regulations. Such facilities shall include but not be limited to small inpatient facilities and group homes. Goal CFP -9 - The City shall participate in a cooperative interjurisdictional process to resolve issues of mitigation for any disproportionate financial burden which may fall on the jurisdiction which becomes the site of a facility of a state-wide, regional or county- wide nature. Kent Comprehensive Plan PC Revised Draft - December 12, 1994 8-29 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ` ELEMENT • CHAPTER NINE EXHIBIT -L TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that transportation planning is linked directly to land use decisions and to the financial structure of the city. The legislation further requires each city and county planning under GMA to incorporate a concurrency management system into their comprehensive plan. Such a system provides a policy procedure designed to enable the jurisdiction to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new developments at the time development occurs. The transportation plan must include an action plan for bringing into compliance any • existing facilities or services that are below established level -of -service (LOS) standards and for providing for expansion of facilities and services to meet future need at established LOS standards. The strategy must be financially sound; planned improvements must be financially feasible and committed for implementation within six years. The future land use plan must be consistent with this action plan; future growth should not cause facilities to fall below the established LOS standards. Lastly, the action strategy must be consistent with the six-year transportation improvement programs adopted by the City, the King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). If the surrounding land use density is appropriate, jurisdictions have the option to allow capacity to be provided through transit or high -occupancy -vehicle facilities. Other facilities for movement of nonmotorized users and goods also need to be considered. Changes in federal funding of transportation programs at the state and regional level, which funds then are apportioned to the local level, introduce the need to comply with isregional air quality goals, in addition to basic goals for transportation capacity. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-1 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE The overall guiding goal of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kent is to: Provide for a balanced multimodal transportation system • which will support land use patterns and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the potential annexation area. Transportation issues are among the top concerns for Kent residents. Much of this is related to the congestion on cross -valley corridors and on SR 167. Population growth in Kent has been about 5.2 percent annually over the last ten years (based on 1980 and 1990 census figures). Cities and unincorporated areas around Kent grew at similar rates over the same period, resulting in significant increases in traffic and associated vehicular air pollution. The purpose of the transportation plan is to guide the development and improvement of the City's circulation system. In support of the GMA, the policies in this element address problems such as congestion and travel -time delays, traffic impacts on residential areas, parking, and the improvement of transit, pedestrian, and other nonmotorized facilities. The policies will be used to guide transportation planning within the city. The City of Kent is also part of the Puget Sound region; as such, it is subject to • compliance with the regional planning efforts coordinated by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This agency oversees not only land use and transportation, but also considers compliance with air quality standards as they interrelate with land use and transportation. Under the Growth Management Act and other legislation, Kent is required to coordinate its efforts with those of adjoining jurisdictions and other agencies to ensure that plans are compatible and consistent. In order to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and Amendments, the air quality provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Clean Air Washington Act and other relevant legislation, Kent will commit to work with the PSRC, the WSDOT, transit agencies, and other jurisdictions in the development of transportation control measures and other transportation and air quality programs where warranted. The transportation plan focuses on transportation improvements that are required by the year 2020. The Growth Management Act requires the plan to address conditions through 2020. However, the City is concerned over conditions in the midterm, so an analysis of 2010 conditions is included as well. State and regional legislation and policies lay a solid foundation for this approach. Land use plans must minimize low-density sprawl, • and provide a more concentrated and planned land use pattern to be served more 9-2 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 '•1 Y �n a CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT efficiently by transportation systems and services. The land use plan is a critical tool in • creating an environment in which transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized travel modes can serve travel demand in an attractive, efficient, and cost-effective manner. Land use and transportation planning must be integrated closely and conducted on both regional and local levels in order to find better, long-range solutions for mobility. TRANSPORTATION TRENDS There is one solid transportation trend within the region: automobile traffic is increasing. Information compiled by the PSRC shows that during the 1981-1991 period, vehicle miles of travel increased 82 percent region -wide, while employment increased 35 percent and population increased about 20 percent. The vehicle miles travelled increased four times faster than the population increased! There are a variety of reasons for this increase. There are now more people commuting within the region, and auto ownership per household is at an all-time high. In addition, the location of employment and housing impacts the length and variety of trips made. New housing development is occurring on vacant land in outlying parts of the • metropolitan area rather than on land closer to traditional urban centers. Employment centers also are relocating to suburban areas. The general increase in standard of living in the region increases traffic because as the standard of living increases, car ownership and trip -making also increase. In addition, the average length of trips is increasing. The cumulative effect of all of these factors is more cars on the road travelling more miles, and increasing traffic congestion. Kent's history is primarily as a farming community. Transportation systems were based on movement of crops to market, via truck and rail. In the 1950's, there was a shift away from rail toward automobile and truck transportation. The completion of the Howard Hanson Dam in 1961 allowed flooding of the Green River to be controlled. This in turn encouraged developers to convert farmland to urban and industrial uses. The creation of the Boeing Aerospace Center in 1965 is a primary example. Interstate 5 was completed in 1966, I-405 in 1967, and SR 167 in 1969. Other state highways (SR 181, 515 and 516) augmented and replaced the rail system. This road system was developed to provide a regional network allowing access around Lake Washington and to serve the Kent industrial area. During this period, land uses shifted • KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-3 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE away from agriculture, and the transportation demand shifted from exporting raw materials to importing a major work force. • Kent is home to 42,000 residents (1993 City estimates) as well as 46,520 jobs. This is an increase from 22,961 residents in 1980. In addition, about 42,000 people live in unincorporated areas surrounding the city. These people create much of the local traffic on the city's arterial system each day. In addition to being affected by local traffic, Kent is affected by regional traffic. Traffic from south King County and northern Pierce County passes through Kent to destinations in the north. Because of Kent's central location, over one-half of the traffic passing through the City each day has neither an origin nor destination in the City. This regional, "pass-through" traffic often clogs up the local transportation system. When the regional transportation system is congested, local traffic trying to enter the freeways frequently gets backed up onto the local arterials, creating local congestion. In addition, regional commuters looking for a path of least resistance through the area often resort to using the City's already -crowded arterial streets; and local travellers may resort to using neighborhood streets. As a result, when the regional system is congested, local • circulation also suffers. Traffic congestion occurs at various locations within the city; however, certain areas experience severe congestion. These highly -congested areas are located primarily near freeway interchanges and employment activity centers. Because of their location near regional freeways and high levels of employment, the central and valley portions of the City experience most of the traffic congestion. Another cause for congestion is the at - grade railroad crossings. Traffic can be backed up for considerable distances due to 5 - minute -long closures of the crossings during peak periods. Kent's street system is most crowded in the early morning hours and mid- to late -afternoon when commuters are travelling between their jobs and home. Job-related commuting places a heavy strain on the transportation system in Kent because the city is an employment center. Over 46,000 people work in the city each day. More than 30 percent (about 14,100) work for the 27 employers affected by the City's commute trip reduction ordinance. These include the largest employers, such as Boeing and Heath Tecna.. Traffic can become extremely congested around the employment centers, • especially the larger ones, when workdays begin or end. 9-4 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 R. ` CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Most commuters within Kent still use single -occupant vehicles for their trip to work. • Baseline estimates for Commute Trip Reduction planning from the PSRC indicate that only about 15 percent of the employees with the major employers in Kent use transit or carpooling to commute to work. Even fewer people use these alternative modes of transportation for other trips such as shopping. A recent survey of 600 residents showed that almost 80 percent of those who commute use single -occupant vehicles, while 12 percent carpool, 5 percent vanpool, and 5.8 percent use transit. Metro currently provides both local and regional bus service in Kent. Regional bus service is available at two park-and-ride facilities within the city (Kent -Des Moines Road at I-5, and Lincoln at James), and via some peak -period, commuter routes which serve neighborhood centers. Dial -a -ride service also is available on weekdays and during limited hours on weekends. At this time, the City is conducting a detailed study of transit service and is developing recommendations for service changes. The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is in the process of finalizing implementation phasing and funding plans, which also will directly affect Kent. Under all of the RTA alternatives, the south King County commuter rail line is included as an implementation activity. This isservice could be in operation two years after a public vote on funding is approved. ANALYSIS OF FACILITY NEEDS The modelling effort conducted for this transportation plan identified some interesting trends in travel demand that are tied to land use in Kent. This analysis was based on 1991 data and 2010 forecasts, unless otherwise noted. Of the total daily travel demand in the City, about 33 percent is travel within the City. By 2010, this will change to about 34 percent of all daily travel. The total volume of travel will increase by about 30 percent (508,800 daily trips in 1991; 713,900 in 2010). The actual number of internal trips are expected to increase by 45 percent (167,300 versus 242,100). The East Hill area has the greatest number of productions and attractions in Kent • (77,600 daily trips). Nearly 40 percent of trips through East Hill (202,200 daily trips) are internal to East Hill. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-5 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE About 54 percent of total trips to/from the downtown core have the other trip -end in Kent (89,500 daily trips). About 80 percent of trips internal to Kent (167,300 daily trips) do not have a trip - end in the downtown. About 26 percent of all trips internal to Kent (167,300 daily trips) are related to the north industrial subarea. About 60 percent of the total daily travel to the north industrial subarea (155,800 daily trips) is from outside Kent. Travel between East Hill and West Hill is minimal, and the future demand through 2010 is not anticipated to increase significantly (1,400 daily trips). Daily travel between Kent and other nearby Puget Sound cities does not significantly favor one destination over another. In light of these and other trends, as well as of the regulatory requirements at the state • and federal level, development of this transportation element required examination of a number of issues. Links Between Land Use and Transportation: The Growth Management Act requires the land use and transportation systems to grow in tandem, so that transportation facilities are in place to serve the needs of new development. The transportation system should be designed to provide adequate capacity for all modes, not just for single -occupant autos. Traffic Congestion and Use of High -Occupancy Vehicles: Due to limited funding and continuing concern for the environment, few new roads will be built. The current and future challenge is to better manage the existing system and to reduce traffic demand as much as possible by encouraging the use of alternatives to single -occupant vehicles. Displaced Regional Traffic on Local Streets: Continuing to accommodate high • volumes of "pass-through" traffic now is being questioned by business leaders and 9-6 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ' ELEM&NT residents of the downtown and centrally -located neighborhoods. Protecting • neighborhoods from the impacts of regional and city-wide traffic is desirable. Improvements to the Street System: The designation and improvement of an arterial street system which can adequately serve land uses in the City continues to be an important issue. The design and appearance of transportation facilities and their potential impact on residential and commercial areas should be considered. Improvements to the road system need to be made in a way which will encourage pedestrian activity and improve the quality of neighborhoods. Transit: The lack of convenient bus service from residential areas to the downtown and employment centers is an important issue. Buses provide limited routes between residential neighborhoods and the downtown and link downtown to the major regional centers such as Bellevue and Seattle. Major employment centers are not adequately served at this time. In addition, the routing, frequency, and length of trips often make bus transportation inconvenient. Parking: Adequate to excessive parking is available in most areas of the City. In • the downtown, however, parking is more limited. There is a perception on the part of some businesses and citizens that parking is in short supply in the downtown area. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails: Many areas of the City are not served adequately by either bicycle trails or pedestrian walkways. Existing bike trails run predominantly north -south, and streets which are designated for bicycle use often are not maintained for safe operation of a bicycle. Some areas have a sidewalk network, while other areas have few or no sidewalks. In examining the vision developed by the City through the Community Forum and Visual Preference Survev and the possible transportation outcomes, the following are the possible scenarios for the future: Traffic Congestion and Use of High -Occupancy Vehicles: Four general scenarios can be projected for future traffic conditions in Kent. • Congestion could worsen on the existing system; KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE New roads could be built and existing roadways improved; A new transit system (bus or rail) could absorb a large number of trips, but congestion would continue on existing roadways; Travel demand could be reduced. In reality, all of these scenarios may occur to some degree. However, it is clear that funding and environmental considerations will limit the state's and City's ability to expand the road system and Metro's ability to provide transit. To prevent overwhelming congestion from occurring, an emphasis should be placed on increasing the efficiency of the existing system. Displaced Regional Traffic on Local Streets: The most feasible way to address this problem is through a combination of neighborhood protection policies and strong incentives supporting HOV alternatives on the arterial system. The City also needs to work with other jurisdictions on regional transportation issues. Improvements to the Street System: Changes in the street system most likely will occur as small improvements to existing streets rather than as the creation of new roadways or major expansions of the arterial network, with the exception of the three new arterials currently under study. These changes increasingly will be a product of public/private partnerships paid by impact fees or other mechanisms allowed by law. Land Use Pattern: Changes in land use patterns will aim to reduce dependence on single -occupant vehicles and to encourage pedestrians, bicycles, and transit use. Transit: Transit may provide the greatest potential change in the Kent transporta- tion system. If a regional high-capacity transit system becomes reality, Kent will need to accommodate a possible commuter rail stop near downtown and bus facilities serving the major residential and employment centers. Parking: As the City seeks ways to support transit and HOV use, the ratio of building area to parking spaces provided in buildings will come under scrutiny. Similarly, as land becomes more intensively developed, large surface parking lots 9-8 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT will become less desirable. Alternatives such as shared parking facilities and • structured parking will become realistic as development density increases. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails: In the future, bicycling and walking to work may become more realistic alternatives for more people. The Green River and Interurban trails provide a safe, well -used commuting route. Expansion of the existing bike and trail systems, especially for east -west travel and north -south travel outside of the valley floor, will make these modes of transportation more convenient, while congestion on the road system will make them more attractive. Land Use Assumptions Population and employment projections were refined by the City's Planning Department, based on PSRC forecasts which were derived from state-wide projections by the Office of Financial Management. Three land use plan alternatives were developed in conjunction with the refined population and employment forecast; these alternatives were used as the basis for calculating trip generation in the transportation model. The model was run using estimated levels of local land use for the years 2010 and 2020 to determine • estimated traffic volumes on local roadways and places where improvements are warranted. The three land use alternatives and the results of this analysis are described in the City's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Existing Inventory and Service Needs The City's transportation resources include about 185 miles of roadway classified as local access or higher and 144 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities (excluding sidewalks). Transit service, provided by Metro, includes peak -period, Seattle -oriented commuter routes and some all -day local service throughout south King County. Residents interviewed through various means during the comprehensive planning process all agree that transportation congestion and improvements to transit service should be high priorities in the Kent of the future (See Figure 9.1). The traffic model which was developed using current (1991) land use levels and calibrated to 1991 traffic volumes, showed some significant deficiencies in the SR 516 corridor on East Hill, on Military Road throughout the city, S 212th/SE 208th street, 108th Ave SE in the northern section of the city, James/240th immediately east of • downtown, West Valley Road south of downtown, Meeker between SR 516 and SR 167, and virtually all state highway links. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-9 t, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE The GMA requires the City to establish service levels for transportation and to provide a means for correcting current deficiencies and meeting future needs. Transportation • planners and engineers use the term "level of service," or LOS, to describe availability of a given transportation facility. Generally, LOS is defined relative to demand and capacity; however, average vehicular delay also can be used. The City is proposing a flexible LOS standard for roads, which tolerates higher levels of congestion in the more urbanized area. In residential areas, a better LOS would be considered acceptable; in rural areas, an even higher standard would be required. LOS would be determined using volume -to -capacity ratios determined through modelling efforts. The currently -adopted 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, along with several additions, are proposed to meet the requirement to correct current deficiencies. Forecast of Traffic Based on Land Use Assumptions The calibrated traffic model was applied to the three land use scenarios which were developed. The number of intersections and roadway links that approach congested levels was tallied, and a qualitative assessment of the severity of anticipated congestion • was made for each alternative. The vehicle miles travelled and the vehicle hours travelled do not vary appreciably among the alternatives. The number of intersections and links at Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios over 0.70 also does not vary appreciably among alternatives. In some cases, the severity of the impact is greater with one alternative than with another; however, the level of accuracy provided by the model can identify order - of -magnitude impacts but cannot provide a detailed capacity analysis. Development of Level of Service Standards Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative estimate of the performance efficiency of transportation facilities in a community. These LOS standards can be based on many measures, including traffic congestion. LOS standards for traffic congestion have been developed and revised over the years by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). One of the TRB systems uses volume on a road and capacity of the road to define a ratio, called a V/C ratio, which can be classified by degree of congestion. The classifications range from A (the best) to F (the worst). • 9-10 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATIOAr ELEMENT LOS A - Low volume, high speeds, no delay. High freedom to select desired speed and maneuver within traffic stream. LOS B - Stable flow with reasonable freedom to select speed. LOS C - Stable flow, but speed and maneuverability are affected by the presence of others and require care on the part of the driver. LOS D - Approaches unstable flow. Speed and maneuverability are severely restricted. Small additions to traffic flow generally will cause operational problems. LOS E - Represents operating conditions at or near the capacity of the highway. Low speeds. Freedom to maneuver is extremely difficult. Any incident can cause extensive queuing. LOS F - Represents forced -flow operation at very low speeds. Operations are characterized by stop -and -go traffic. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop. Similar LOS classifications have been developed for intersections; they use volume, capacity, and signal phasing to determine average delay at the intersection, and thus a level of service. LOS formulas for pedestrian and transit service also have been developed. However, there is much debate on how effective they are in assessing situations in smaller cities and suburban settings. Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to adopt LOS standards to determine when growth has consumed available capacity for public services. LOS is the basis for determining whether there is sufficient capacity for development and for analyzing the operating efficiency of transportation facilities. The GMA requires that land use and transportation planning be coordinated so that transportation capacity exists at the time development occurs (or within 6 years). The law is not explicit about how the standards should be developed or applied. To ensure regional consistency in transportation LOS, the county -wide Growth Management Planning Council developed a 12 -point framework for developing LOS is standards in King County. The LOS standards proposed for Kent follow this framework by including separate standards for different transportation modes, including KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-11 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE nonmotorized modes. This is in keeping with the adopted commute trip reduction ordinance, air quality legislation, and policies which support SOV mode reductions. The • City is proposing a desirable level of transit service; however, it is not being treated as a standard. Metro's proposed service for south King County already has been defined to some extent as part of the Regional Transit Plan (RTP), and it is being revisited as part of Metro's six-year planning process. By adopting an LOS standard when the supply is provided by another agency, such as Metro or Washington State, the City either may be obligating itself to pay for additional service or may be required to deny development if such service is not in place. However, the City is including demand-side performance requirements to promote an environment that is supportive of transit and nonmotorized travel. Under the county -wide framework, the PSRC is charged with developing LOS standards for regional facilities, including state highways. These roads are an integral part of the regional transportation network; however, many are currently at or near capacity. In the case of some facilities, such as I-5, the cost of adding new vehicular capacity is prohibitive. Kent acknowledges the importance of state highways in the regional system and has defined a desirable LOS. However, adopting a standard for state-controlled • facilities limits the ability of the City to approve new development if state facilities, which are beyond the City's control, are inadequate. Definition of LOS Standards for Kent For the purpose of the Kent LOS standard, 22 subareas of the city were defined. The capacities of each of the arterials crossing the boundary of the zone can be totalled to produce a directional capacity. Similarly, the traffic volumes crossing the boundaries can be totalled by direction. Kent's proposed method of determining arterial LOS standards represents a combination of two methods of estimation and is tied to land use. The proposed measure uses volumes and capacities at the boundary of each zone, with acceptable V/C ratios assigned to each zone. Areas where the land use plan directs intensive growth, for example, the downtown, would have acceptable V/Cs that are high, while areas such as the Soos Creek plateau would have a lower threshold of acceptability. In addition, several intersections and critical road links have been identified in most every zone as a way to confirm LOS at key locations. Some of these intersections and road segments are on the • 9-12 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEAJENT boundaries, which will allow a more refined estimate of volume and capacity than the • model would present across the entire boundary. • In establishing a standard for each zone in the City, the general focus of future land use - - where activity centers are proposed and where low-density uses are located -- needs to be compared to information generated by the traffic model. As growth occurs, the land use levels in the traffic model need to be updated. The assumption was made, similar to King County and other cities, that high levels of congestion are acceptable in the Central Business District, and possibly in other major activity centers, but that lower levels of service (high V/C ratios) are not acceptable in residential areas and low-density commercial areas. Table 9.1 shows the V/C ratios associated with each LOS for the purpose of this analysis. For planning purposes, the actual V/C for each boundary was not calculated, but was estimated based on reviewing the existing and projected V/C ratios in excess of 0.70, whether the total boundary fell in the <0.7, <0.8, or <0.9 category. Table 9.1 LOS DEFINITION Lo$ `V/C RATIO A 0.01-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-0.98 F 0.99+ Table 9.2 presents the existing (1991) zone levels of service for the 22 zones in Kent. It was developed using existing land uses and modelled traffic volumes for the mixed-use alternative in the year 2010, assuming that the improvements adopted in the 1993-1999 transportation improvement program (TIP) are funded and completed. A second scenario • assumes the current TIP and the proposed east legs of both the 224th/228th corridor and the 196th/200th corridor are built (See also Figure 9.2). KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-13 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE As a supplement to the zonal LOS system, the City has identified control intersections and roads in each zone, which also must be at or below the LOS standard for the zone. Concurrency would be proven using the appropriate Highway Capacity Manual techniques which are current at the time of analysis. Nonmotorized and Transit LOS There are two additional components of the LOS standard: transit and nonmotorized service. The proposed transit service standards are tentative, as the City is working with Metro to implement a transit strategy for Kent. The transit standard considered the arterial structure of the city and land use forecasts to determine whether each zone has a need for fixed -route arterial transit service. Generally it was found that areas that are primarily low-density residential would be best served by peak -period commuter -oriented service and off-peak dial -a -ride service. Areas that are defined as activity centers should have frequent all -day service, and areas such as downtown Kent should fill a role as a transit hub. Nonmotorized service standards also are tied to the types of roadways and land uses in the zones. An examination of the existing road system and proposed new roadways, as related to land uses and densities, helped guide the estimates. Where environmental or topographical constraints do not prohibit such activity, land use standards for new development of larger multitenant sites, either residential or commercial, are encouraged to provide linkages for nonmotorized travel between adjacent sites. The City is developing an inventory of existing sidewalks. While the sidewalk network in downtown appears to be complete, sidewalks in the industrial area north of the CBD and in commercial centers such as East and West Hills are lacking coordination. An initial priority should be to develop sidewalks that would serve as safe walking routes in the vicinity of schools, parks, and playgrounds. Identification of Service Needs Rail Crossings - One of the most significant problems with downtown circulation is the problem created by the at -grade railroad crossings on the east -west arterials. Currently, James, Smith, Titus, and SR 516 (Willis) cross the tracks at grade. Other east -west 9-14 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 C7 • • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT arterials, such as 212th and 277th Streets also are affected. Traffic backs up on these • arterials, and intersections may or may not remain clear for north -south traffic to pass. Traffic signal cycles are not tied to the crossings and can compound delays and congestion by making east -west traffic queue through several cycles after the train has cleared. Burlington Northern estimates about 40-50 trains per day use the tracks, including a variable number of trains in the 4-6 PM peak period. Union Pacific estimates their track utilization at 10-20 trains per day. This could increase by as many as 20 trains per day and 10 per peak period as a result of the proposed commuter rail operation. Problems associated with railroad grade crossings could be exacerbated with the implementation of commuter rail. • • KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-15 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE 9-16 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • �J • C O U m v1 00 N + V1 C� N C m ~ 00 V1 V1 V1 l� V1 Ar N V�' lZ .� Oh 01 N 00 . �+ l� N h �O v1 M M V1 Or N d O + + + + + + + + + + + m �n r N o� o� v oo N t- m toIn — �o v to m v m to v l� V1 V) N 00 O0 n 00 Wn O ON �O N m O o0 CV I V1 t-: .-41 06 d1 N I ool O ,C (V 4 1,6 41 kn I c+i 41 M 1 �O .- by " OO Q O Q Q ? m Cl)A c`n A A rn �n o 0 0 0 m 0 m o m o m �n �--� o m 0 m o m O m o M o �O a o M opo a Utn h V1 h N O V1 V'1 O O V1 V1 Vl v1 V1 O Vl O b 'd a� o 0 11 o w p, O 00 00 O0 0o rn t` C� OR 0 00 00 0o co OR o p Oo r- r" r OR r Oo r oo r r t` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N v v v +1 v n v n v v n n v v v v v v v v v v b a O oo t` r t� Co t` oo o0 0o t` r OR v n v v n n v v v v v v v v v v Nw v v n -H v n >" ONo0 oo t` r- t-- Oo t` oo t':t� r-: t- t- t` Co t—.0 � �` W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v +1 +1 -H n v n v v n v v v v v v v v v v v t, p .o a a cd a � is u a a � a x x a x A � � -� a 9 o A Ca b b b b A U A A b A , A A A A A W ON IL0=1 9-16 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • �J • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Proposals to create grade separation at one or more of these intersections and to provide • crossing at both the BN and UP tracks have been discussed over the years. The elevated section of SR 167 through the valley floor would make elevated arterial crossings of the UP tracks difficult, if not impossible, because the arterial would need to pass over the freeway as well as over the tracks. Arterial undercrossings would be possible but could eliminate intersections with important north -south streets. Capacity Needs - Currently, Kent has several areas of severe traffic congestion. Other than the downtown intersections, areas of congestion include virtually all of the intersections on SR 516 and on SE 208th/212th Street, Military Road intersections and roadway within Kent, the section of Meeker between SR 516 and SR 167, SR 181, south of Willis, the length of SR 167 in the peak travel direction within Kent, and all of peak direction I-5. In the future, these problems will be compounded under each of the land use alternatives. Additional intersections and roadway segments will become congested, primarily on the East Hill north of SE 240th Street and in the northern industrial part of the valley. • Goods Movement - Kent is a significant center of goods distribution. Much of the industrial area is dedicated to warehousing, and there are several sites along the railroad tracks that are intermodal transfer centers for various manufacturers or transfer companies. Designation of a network of truck routes will help ensure that roads of sufficient design and capacity are available to move materials into and out of the city. The railroads are planning track improvements to improve efficiency on the two main lines that travel through the city. Public Transit Needs - Some significant changes in public transit service will be needed to meet the needs of the regionally -adopted urban centers concept. Focusing commuter service on Seattle as a destination will need to give way to a multidestination peak -period service, regardless of whether a regional rail system is approved. Service improvements for trips internal to Kent also will be needed to support trip reduction and other demand management strategies. Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs - The City has a network of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, • mostly on City streets. There are some significant gaps in the sidewalk network, which can be discouraging to pedestrians. Some of these gaps exist in areas where there is a KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT -December 12, 1994 9-17 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE high potential for walkers, such as near schools. Kent also is fortunate to be a participant in the development of the- Green River and Interurban trails, two • nonmotorized trails that see significant commuter and recreational use. The Kent Bicycle Advisory Board, a citizens group, has recommended support of three east -west corridors and three north -south corridors. These include 208th/212th Street, Reith/Meeker/Canyon/SR 516, and the planned SE 272nd/277th Street. North- south routes include Military Road, the Interurban Trail, and 116th Ave SE. These main routes need to be supplemented by additional collector routes within neighborhoods and business centers. COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION In January 1993, the City enacted a commute trip reduction ordinance. This ordinance, required by state law, applies to all employers in the City with 100 or more full-time employees who start work between 6AM and 9AM at least two weekdays per week for 12 continuous months of the year. At the present time, this ordinance affects 27 employers at 31 sites and covers about 14,100 employees. The ordinance requires the affected employers to develop and implement commute trip • reduction programs such that there is a reduction of 15 percent in the number of single - occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and vehicle miles of travel per employee in 1995. The required reduction is 25 percent in 1997 and 35 percent in 1999. The modelling effort for this transportation plan included an appropriate reduction in SOV trips to account for the law. It also was assumed in the model that the regional rail system would serve 10.4 percent of home-based work and college trips. Assuming that employers are successful in implementing their programs, and that the number of affected employees stays roughly the same over the 1993-1999 time period, the reduction from 1993 SOV trips would be about 1,800 by 1995, 3,000 by 1997, and 4,200 by 1999. The actual number of vehicles removed is related to which alternate modes are selected. For example, if all of the affected employees switched to bicycles or rail transit, the full number of trips would be removed from the network; if they all switched to two -person carpools, only half the number would be removed. Under the assumption that Kent started with an average mode split of 85 percent single - occupant vehicles (SOV) and that the Commute Trip Reduction Act remains in place, • 9-18 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT requiring major employers to maintain an SOV rate of 55 percent or lower after 1999, • we may assume about 20 percent of the new trips based on ITE values would not occur. This is because not all new employers would fall into the affected employer category. PM peak trips are generated by many uses, and the proportion of "affected employee trips" is fairly low. Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Support - At the present time, City zoning policies support nonSOV modes; however, there is minimal incentive for a developer or employer to implement any actions beyond the minimum. City codes could provide development incentives, such as more leasable space, if a facility provides permanent incentives for nonSOV use, such as reserving a percentage of employee parking for HOV users. Allowing developers to contribute to off-site parking in trade for reduced on-site parking requirements, or to sponsor a spillover mitigation program (such as a residential parking zone), could encourage developers and businesses to support CTR. The City also should consider requiring employers to charge for parking and encouraging property managers to include parking as a negotiable, chargeable element rather than an inclusive feature in a building lease. • Finally, by adopting CTR requirements which are more stringent than the state guidelines, more employers could be forced into complying with CTR. These requirements could include reducing the threshold from 100 to 50 employees, imposing penalties for nonattainment of goals, or requiring a minimum number of specific CTR measures based on site size. TRANSIT PLAN The City has conducted a study of transit service. Major findings and recommendations of this study (in a separate document) will guide the City in working with transit providers to develop service for the Kent area. The King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro), currently operates 24 transit routes that serve the Kent area. Twenty of these routes are fixed -route service, one is a dial -a -ride paratransit route, and three are custom -bus routes. Peak period service generally is provided every 30 minutes or less on every route except two. Midday service is provided on seven of the fixed routes. Weekday evening service after 1 1P • is provided on three routes. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-19 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Much of Kent's transit service is focused on the downtown Kent Transit Center/Park-and- Ride. The Kent -Des Moines Park -and -Ride is served by six routes, primarily with • Seattle CBD destinations. A third park-and-ride recently opened just outside the City limits, near SR 516 and 132nd, and is served by three routes. Metro also provides commuter vans to 70 vanpool groups with origins or destinations in Kent; this represents about 13 percent of Metro's vanpool fleet. Metro also provides door-to-door, advance - reservation service for elderly or disabled persons. The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is examining the implementation of a commuter rail line from Tacoma to Everett via downtown Seattle and the Green River valley. This rail line would use one of the sets of existing tracks. Under the current proposal, commuter trains could run in both directions during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Stations would be located in each of the cities along the alignment, and each station would be served by a network of feeder buses from residential centers and shuttles to employment centers. The Kent Transit Advisory Board has recommended to the City Council that commuter rail operate on the Burlington Northern line, with a station in the vicinity of James Street -Smith Street. This is somewhat consistent with previous City positions that the station should be in downtown; this location would encourage commuters to patronize downtown businesses before and after their commutes and would • provide easy access for commuters with jobs in the downtown area. The ultimate regional system also includes a proposed light rail or possibly rapid rail line in the I-5 corridor through Kent, with a stop at the Kent -Des Moines Park -and -Ride. This system also would be served by a network of feeder and shuttle buses. Bus service improvements, the commuter rail portion, and an initial light rail segment closer to Seattle are anticipated to go to the public for a funding vote in 1995. Transit Recommendations For the purpose of analyzing transit markets and demand, the City was divided into four areas: East Hill, West Hill, Downtown, and the North Industrial Area. Based on telephone surveys, origin -destination information, key -person interviews, and an evaluation of current services and facilities, recommendations were developed and evaluated. Actions for market areas that are tied to Kent, such as other south King County cities, also were reviewed and recommended. The following is a summary of the recommended actions: • 9-20 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT East Hill Action 1 - Implement a combined fixed route/route deviation/demand • responsive service to provide circulation among East Hill, Downtown, and the North Industrial Area. East Hill Action 2 - Increase the frequency of service on Route 168 in order to meet future local -travel demand among Covington, East Hill, and Downtown. Route 168 is currently a popular and productive route. West Hill Action 1 - Implement a combined fixed route/route deviation/demand responsive service to provide circulation among West Hill, Downtown, and the SR 99 corridor. The service should focus on midday coverage and provide connections to regional service. Downtown Action 1 - Enhance service coverage and connections in the downtown through the development of local circulators from East and West Hills, and a new local fixed route from Downtown to the North Industrial Area. North Industrial Area Action 1 - There is currently one transit service corridor • in this area. Implement a new fixed route from Downtown Kent which circulates through the area and continues to Renton. Focus on enhancing service coverage. • South King County Action 1 - Improve service connections between local Kent routes at the Kent -Des Moines Park-and-ride and routes serving the SR 99 corridor. South King County Action 2 - Enhance service coverage through implementation of a new Renton -to -Kent route via the North Industrial Area, west of SR 167. South King County Action 3 - Provide all -day, bidirectional service on Route 167 through Auburn, Kent, Renton, Bellevue, and the University of Washington. Regional Action 1 - If commuter rail is implemented, reinvest discontinued service hours in local service improvements. If not, provide additional connections to major transit generators/employment centers in the Seattle area (U - District, First Hill, Northgate). KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-21 TR4NSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Regional Action 2 - Improve connections with Pierce Transit, especially if commuter rail is not implemented, to provide a regional bus line from Pierce • County to Kent, via Auburn. The recent Downtown Parking Study suggested that there is an imbalance in long- and short-term parking in the downtown area. It is also agreed that the existing downtown park-and-ride is too far from downtown for employees to use, and that existing transit service from that lot to downtown is inconvenient. Conversion of the area near the BN tracks to long-term transit/commuter parking would require relocation of some existing long-term, general -use parking. If the area is not appropriately sized, on -street parking in downtown could be affected by spillover as a result of increased use of transit. System Management Alternatives - The City currently is involved in two projects to improve system operation in the valley. One is a multijurisdictional examination and review of signal timing and coordination for valley arterials that cross jurisdictional bounds. The outcome of this project should be improved flow on major roads and the ability, via computer technology, to adjust signal cycles as demand warrants. The second project is within the City and includes installing a new master computer for the City's signal system. This will allow the City to adjust signal cycles as demand varies. • As technology improves over the next 10 to 20 years, a system of surveillance, control, and driver information (SC&DI), similar to that operated by WSDOT on I-5, I-90, and SR 520, would be appropriate for the principal arterials in south King County. This would allow drivers to be notified where back-ups are occurring and what alternate routes may be available. It also would provide a way to meter traffic entering congested facilities. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS Six -Year Program Every year, the City adopts a transportation improvement program aimed at showing improvements and expenditures over the next six years. The program adopted for 1994- 2000 generally provides adequate levels of service and corrects existing deficiencies, as defined by the City's service standard. Elements of this action plan include road widening and development of new corridors, support for demand management programs including a significant upgrade to traffic signal control, and support for neighborhood is traffic control. 9-22 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 2010 Improvements • As new development occurs additional improvements p p ements will be needed to maintain the proposed LOS standards. A number of projects have been identified, including road widening for general purpose traffic and for HOV lanes, completion of the regional network, and conversion of lanes for peak -period HOV use. Each of the land use alternatives which were originally developed has a slightly different effect in terms of traffic impact, so the project lists are slightly different in terms of magnitude of impact on a specific corridor or facility. 2020 Improvements A similar project list has been identified for implementation between 2010 and 2020, assuming growth occurs at the rate identified in the land use alternatives. These projects include more widening, primarily to serve HOV users. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-23 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The creation of a financing and implementation plan is critical to the overall development of the transportation element. In turn the transportation element is a critical element of the comprehensive plan. Development of a financing and implementation plan involves the examination of a number of issues including, improvements to the street system, transit, parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A key tool of the examination was the development of a computer forecast model which simulates the future year travel patterns on the City's transportation system. A key parameter in determining the needs of the system was service levels. Under Growth Management service levels or degree of congestion is a local discretion subject however to consistency at jurisdictional boundaries. The methodology used to develop the financing plan was consistent with that of the countrywide planning policies. This section is a critical component of the transportation element, and as such plays a important part in enabling growth to occur in concert with the land use projections. It should be noted that while the land use element projected three different scenarios, the differences with respect to the transportation system were negligible. While the • transportation element incorporates an improvement program for 2010 and 2020, the critical component is the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. The recommended 6 Year T.I.P. is shown on Table 9.3. It is critical because Growth Management mandates that all plans be financially sound and implementable with respect to concurrancy. The 6 Year T.I.P. outlines over $72,000,000 in improvements, of which approximately $50,000,000 is to be spent on corridor projects, more than $17,000,000 on arterials, almost $800,000 on intersections and over $4,000,000 on non -motorized and maintenance improvements. It should be noted that no new revenue sources are contemplated. The bulk of the revenue comes from Grants ($31,000,000), LIDs ($17,000,000), and existing sources ($21,000,000) such as Cash on Hand, MV Fuel Tax, MV Registration Fee and Street Utility. Both project costs and anticipated revenues are shown on Figure 9.3. With respect to Grants, 74% ($23,018,000) thereof are existing commitments with the balance ($8,038,000) related to highly eligible type projects. 9-24 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Similarly so with respect to LIDS where 82% ($14,147,000) pertains to the corridor • projects for which adequate covenants exist. The balance ($3,046,000) involves projects that due to a combination of low assessment level and adjacent high density land use should be supportable. C, • The implementation schedule which is equally important with respect to Growth Management and the assemblage of funds is reflected in Table 9.4. The crucial projects such as the 196th Street Corridor, Orillia to West Valley Highway, and West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway, and the 272nd Street Corridor are anticipated to be opened in 1998, 2000 and 1999 respectively. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-25 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE FIGURE 9.3 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 6 YEAR T.I.P. PROJECT COSTS Non-moionzea as mai Inlersecty Arterials (23 68%) Projects (69 64%) 0 • Includes Cash on Hand, MV Fuel Tax, MV Registration hee & Street utlury • 9-26 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE + TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Table 9.3 • Six Year Capital Improvement Projects (1995 - 2000) Corridors: 1 272nd Corridor (Auburn Way North - SR516) 17,258 (Total Project Cost $27,500, Cost Beyond 2000 $6,218) 2 196th Street (East Valley Highway - West Valley Highway) 20,391 (Total Project Cost $22,044) 3 196th/200th Street (Orillia - West Valley Highway) 12,249 (Total Project Cost $12,741) Total Corridors 49,898 Arterials: 4 212 Street HOV Lanes (West Valley Highway - SR167) 3,900 5 64th Avenue Extension (224th - 216th South) 2,200 6 West Meeker Street Widening (4/5 Lanes) 2,566 (SR516 - East Bank of Green River) 7 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes (SR516 - Southeast 240th Street) 1,650 8 Washington Ave Widening (7 Lanes) 1,000 (Harrison Street to Green River Bridge) 9 72nd Avenue Extension (South 194th - South 196th) 540 • 10 Southeast 256th Widening (5 Lanes) (SR516 - 116th Ave) 2,900 11 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes (Southeast 240th - S City Limits) 2,500 Total Arterials 17,256 Intersection Improvements: 12 Reith Road/West Meeker Street Intersection Widening 57 13 Russell Road/West Meeker Street Signalization 200 14 Military Road Intersection Improvements (Left Turn Pocket) 150 15 James Street/Central Avenue (Northbound Right Turn Lane) 350 16 Green River Signal Coordination g Total Intersection Improvements 765 Other Improvements: 17 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 1,800 18 Bike Path Improvements 500 19 Canyon Drive Sidewalk & Bicycle Lane 792 20 Neighborhood Traffic Control 60 21 Bus Service Enhancements 79 22 Pavement Markings (Restoration) 100 23 East Valley Highway Pavement Rehabilitation 510 24 South Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation 425 Total Other Improvements 4,266 • Total Capital Improvement Projects 72,185 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-27 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Table Six Year Capital Improvement 9.4 Program (1995-200) • Revenues: 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Vehicle Fuel Tax (Unrestricted) 712 726 741 756 771 '786 4,491 Vehicle Fuel Tax (Restricted) 61 202 133 288 208 892 Public Works Operation Budget 192 300 492 Total Revenue 712 979 943 1,189 1,059 994 5,875 Program Expenditures: Sidewalk Rehabilitation 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800 Bike Paths 100 100 100 100 100 500 Bus Demonstration 30 49 79 Neighborhood Traffic 20 20 20 60 Control Total Program Expenditures 450 449 320 400 420 400 2,439 Subtotal 262 530 623 789 639 594 3,436 Projects: Reith/W Meeker Intersection 0 0 212th HOV Lanes 0 0 Russell1W Meeker Signal 168 168 64th Ave Extension 489 11 500 • Canyon Drive Sidewalk & 542 542 Bicycle Lanes W Meeker Widening 657 109 766 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes 0 0 Phase I Washington Ave Widening 0 0 Military Road Intersection 150 150 Improvements 72nd Avenue Extension 340 340 S.E. 256th Street Widening 485 485 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes 0 0 Phase II Pavement Markings Project 100 100 Green River Signal Coord. 0 0 James & Central 70 70 Northbound Right 1brn Lane EVH Pavement Rehabilitation 192 192 S Central Pavement Rehabilitation 300 300 Total Projects 268 681 623 790 657 594 3,613 Beginning Fund Balance 228 222 71 71 70 51 Ending Fund Balance * 228 222 71 71 70 51 51 • *Ending + Restricted = $227 EndmE Fund Balance 1994 (Unrestricted ) , 919 9-28 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 t, CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 40 TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES The transportation plan was developed around one central goal. Overall Goal: Provide for a balanced multimodal transportation system which will support land use patterns and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the potential annexation area. This goal is supported by 10 goals and almost 100 policies. The goals and policies under each goal are as follows: TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -1 - Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Policy TR -1.1 - Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges. Policy TR -1.2 - Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to improve affected roadways. Policy TR -1.3 - Fund development of the roads necessary for a complete arterial system serving all travel needs in the planning area (inside and outside the City) through fair -share payments by new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Policy TR -1.4 - Along all principal and minor arterial corridors, consolidate access points to residential, commercial, and industrial development. Consider proposals to consolidate access points during development review, as part of road improvement projects, or as part of land use redevelopment projects. Policy TR -1.5 - Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Pblicy TR -1.6 - Phase implementation of transportation plans concurrently with growth to allow adequate transportation facilities and services to be in place at the time of occupancy. Policy TR -1.7 - Promote land use patterns which support public transportation. • KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-29 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Policy TR -1.8 - Create land uses in the downtown and commercial areas which better support transit and reduce peak -hour trip generation. PARKING GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -2 - Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policy TR -2.1 - Develop parking ratios which take into account existing parking supply, minimums and maximums, land use intensity, and transit and ride -sharing goals. Policy TR -2.2 - Develop criteria for a network of park-and-ride lots to serve residential areas which feed into the regional transit system/commuter rail line located downtown. Policy TR -2.3 - Incorporate ground -level retail and/or service facilities into any parking structures that are constructed within the downtown DCE, DC, and DLM zones. Policy TR -2.4 - Remove the provisions in the existing zoning regulations that distinguish between parking structures and surface parking lots. Policy TR -2.5 - Provide an option for developers to construct the minimum number of parking spaces on-site or pay an in -lieu fee to cover the cost of the City's construction and operation of parking at an off-site location. Policy TR -2.6 - Evaluate the parking requirements for all other uses, including mixed-use projects, within the DC, DCE, and DLM zones on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the following factors: (a) the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to the site; (b) the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and type of employees and the anticipated shifts; (c) the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual site parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within concentrated areas; (d) the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation report and other publications which provide parking generation indices; and (e) any studies of similar specific uses conducted either by the City of Kent or the applicant. The City of Kent parking coordinator, with the Planning 9-30 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Director's concurrence, will prepare a report recommending specific parking • requirements. Pblicy TR -2.7 - Recommend no parking maximum ratios for retail or residential uses. Policy TR -2.8 - Require reduced maximum -allowable -parking ratios for development projects that are in close proximity to intermodal transit/commuter rail facilities. A development project may provide up to 50 percent of the applicable maximum parking standard if the development is located within 250 feet of a designated intermodal transit/commuter rail facility. Such project may provide up to 75 percent of the applicable maximum parking standard if the development is located between 250 and 500 feet of an intermodal facility. Policy TR -2.9 - Require a specific ratio of the total parking area for HOV parking. A minimum of two (2) HOV parking spaces for every 25 on-site spaces is suggested. Policy TR -2.10 - Require bicycle parking under the zoning code. Recommended standards are: one bicycle parking space for every 10 motor vehicle spaces in a new development, with a minimum of 10 bicycle spaces for any new development in the DC, DCE, and DLM zones. • Policy TR -2.11 - Do not differentiate among the DCE, DC, and DLM zones in terms of parking requirements for the same land uses within Kent's downtown. • STREET SYSTEM GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -3 - Provide a balanced transportation system that recognizes the need for major road improvements to accommodate many travel modes. Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable circulation for all users throughout the City. Policy TR -3. I - Assign a functional classification to each street in the City based on factors including volumes of motorized and nonmotorized traffic, type of service provided, adjacent land use, and preservation of existing neighborhood traffic characteristics. Policy TR -3.2 - Coordinate implementation of street construction standards for each functional classification with policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Community Design Element. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-31 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE '4 TRAFFIC FLOW GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -4 - Eliminate disruptions which reduce the sae and reasonable nctionin • P safety functioning of the local transportation system. Policy TR -4.1 - Maximize traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy TR -4.2 - Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic and reducing accessibility for the City-wide road network. Policy TR -4.3 - Balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street system and protecting neighborhoods. Where overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts neighborhoods, protect the residential area. Policy TR -4.4 - Develop a system of level -of -service standards which promote growth where appropriate and preserve the transportation system where appropriate. Policy TR -4.5 - Limit heavy, through truck traffic to designated truck routes in order to reduce its disruptive impacts. Policy TR -4.6 -Minimize the effects of regional traffic congestion and overflow • onto the local transportation system. Policy TR -4.7 - Develop strategies to reduce traffic flows in local areas experiencing extreme congestion. Policy TR -4.8 - Enhance the neighborhood Traffic Safety Program to include in neighborhoods a wide range of passive control devices. Policy TR -4.9 - Reduce the disruptive impacts of traffic related to major institutions, activity centers, and employers via trip -reduction efforts, access/egress controls, and provision of alternatives to SOV use. FACILITY DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -5 - Design transportation facilities to preserve and to be consistent with the natural and built environments. Policy TR -5.1 - Landscape transportation facilities to complement neighborhood character and amenities. 0 9-32 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy TR -5.2 - Maintain and incorporate prominent features of the natural • environment into the landscape of transportation facilities. Policy TR -5.3 - Protect neighborhoods from transportation facility improvements that are not in character with the residential areas. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections among residential developments to serve as an alternative to automobile use. Policy TR -5.4 - Arrange streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods as an interconnecting network and connect them to other streets. Policy TR -5.5 - Limit the development of new cul-de-sac streets to situations where continuation of the road at some time in the future is unlikely. Policy TR -5.6 - Develop the urban design elements of the street system in accordance with policies in the City's visioning document. GOODS MOVEMENURAIL GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -6 - Maintain existing rail service to commercial and industrial sites. isPolicy TR -6.1 - Design transportation facilities in a manner which complements railroads. Policy TR -6.2 - Locate new spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings and to serve a maximum number of sites. Policy TR -6.3 - Minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjoining residential property by limiting nighttime operation and by constructing noise and visual buffers as needed. Policy TR -6.4 - Design railroad crossings to minimize maintenance and to protect the street surface. Policy TR -6.5 - Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at -grade crossings. Develop traffic signal prioritization that is activated by crossing signals in order to maintain non -conflicting, auto/truck traffic flow when crossings are occupied by trains. Policy TR -6.6 - With the assistance of the railroads, develop grade separation priorities for arterial street crossings . This is supported by state -level plans for high-speed rail between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia. • KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-33 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -7 - Improve the nonmotorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. Policy TR -7.1 - Accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic within all residential and employment areas of the City. Policy TR -7.2 - Require residential development standards to include pedestrian facilities, such as pathways connecting with adjacent developments, transit service, and arterials. Policy TR -7.3 - Review site plans for all new construction and site re- development to ensure compatibility with goals and policies for nonmotorized transportation, automobile, and transit. Policy TR -7.4 - Enhance safety of pedestrian and bicycle movement across principal arterial intersections. Policy TR -7.5 - Equip intersections which have high pedestrian and bicycle volumes with activation buttons and additional fixtures as needed to ensure visibility. Policy TR -7.6 - Minimize obstructions and conflicts with pedestrian movement on sidewalks, paths, and other pedestrian areas. Policy TR -7.7 - Minimize obstructions and potential conflicts with bicycle movement on streets where bicycle use is encouraged. Policy TR -7.8 - Sign street intersections of streets with nonmotorized trails for both trail users and street users. Policy TR -7.9 - Provide convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops for all users. Policy TR -7.10 - Provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle access between downtown and the commercial area on the west side of SR 167. Policy TR -7.11 - Encourage bicycle storage facilities and parking within de- velopment projects, at park -and -rides, in commercial areas, and in parks. Policy TR -7.12 - Incorporate bicycle -supportive design in transportation projects, using a variety of techniques appropriate to the particular project and right-of- way characteristics. 9-34 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy TR -7.13 - Ensure that street -trail crossings with nearby signals provide • trail users adequate gaps in the cross traffic to allow crossing. Policy TR -7.14 - Encourage major employers, as defined by Kent's commute trip reduction ordinance, to provide arrangements for bicycle commuters to change clothes and safely store their bicycles. Policy TR -7.15 - Encourage new commercial or industrial development to provide covered bicycle lock-up facilities. Require multifamily residential developments to include bicycle lockers or lock-up rooms. Policy TR -7.16 - Whenever possible, use standards which meet the guidelines of AASHTO (American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Policy TR -7.17 - Consider development of nonmotorized transportation facilities which are separated from roads which are not part of the Regional Trails System only if they: provide needed access across gaps in the nonmotorized transportation system; provide linkages to the Regional Trails System, eliminate barriers to access by nonmotorized transportation; replace access which is removed from a portion of the transportation system previously open to bicycles or pedestrians; or, provide access to new transit or transportation facilities. • Policy TR -7.18 - Design residential streets, including those in single and multifamily developments, to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy TR -7.19 - Provide bicycle and pedestrian access at transit sites and park- and-ride facilities. Policy TR -7.20 - Locate pedestrian and bicycle routes to be safe, convenient, and to provide transportation among neighborhoods and schools, industrial and commercial business areas, employment centers, institutions, recreational facilities, activity centers, and other off-road trail systems, both local and regional. Policy TR -7.21 - Provide trail opportunities in areas designated as environmentally sensitive or designated for conservation, open space, utility corridors, abandoned railroad corridors, and undeveloped City -owned rights-of- way. Policy TR -7.22 - Review right-of-way vacations for impacts on nonmotorized facility systems. Policy TR -7.23 - Encourage pedestrian and bicycle safety programs for youth, • the elderly, and the handicapped. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-35 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Policy TR -7.24 - Via incentives or regulatory means, require new residential, commercial, and industrial developments to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle design elements, both on -road systems and off-road trails. Policy TR -7.25 - Require redeveloping properties to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities to promote walking and to encourage the use of bicycles by employees, visitors, residents, and shoppers. Policy TR -7.26 - Wherever possible, separate pedestrian and bicycle trails from roadway systems and traffic hazard areas. Policy TR -7.27 - Encourage transit use by improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stops, park-and-ride lots, and transit facilities. Policy TR -7.28 - Ensure that trail systems located in sensitive or conservation areas are compatible with the environment in which the trail is located as well as with the intended uses. Policy TR -7.29 - Apply for federally funded programs, such as those authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, to develop regional trails, intermodal connections to transit facilities, and park-and-ride lots. Policy TR -7.30 - Encourage participation of developers, businesses, and other private enterprises in the development and/or funding of nonmotorized trail systems. At a minimum, require all properties to provide sidewalks along their roadway frontage. Policy TR -7.31 - Provide near regional systems trailhead facilities that include parking, restroom facilities, informational signage on trail use regulations, trash receptacles, and domestic water. Policy TR -7.32 - Where convenient, locate trailhead facilities within park and recreational facilities to provide multiple use opportunities. Policy TR -7.33 - Provide along trail systems rest areas for sitting, eating, and stationary exercise to take advantage of views, cultural resources, and points of interest. Policy TR -7.34 - Encourage commercial/industrial employers located along existing and future regional trail systems to provide commuter facilities for bicyclists, including secure parking areas, showers, lockers, and educational information which promotes bicycling and walking as a method of commuting. Policy TR -7.35 - Encourage the upgrade of and enhancement to existing pedestrian and bicycle systems in order to improve safety, maintenance, and to provide informational signage. 9-36 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 r� • r CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy TR -7.36 - Implement a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle signage • program for directional information, identification of on- and off-street routes, interpretive education, and a printed, updated trails facility map. Policy TR -7.37 - Provide at park-and-ride facilities safe and secure bicycle parking areas that are covered, lighted, and that include permanent fixtures for storing bicycles. Policy TR -7.38 - Provide safe crossings at major street and railroad facilities, with traffic control that includes signs, bollards, painted markings, and clear sight distances. Where possible, provide grade separation for trails. Policy TR -7.39 - Explore potential partnerships with other agencies and utility companies that have networks and easements in the City. Policy TR -7.40 - Provide interpretive and educational signage along trail systems located in sensitive, conservation, and open space areas. Policy TR -7.41 - Use landscaping to direct trail users and to enhance and create an aesthetically pleasing environment. • TRANSIT/HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -8.0 - Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single- occupancy vehicles. Policy TR -8.1 - Work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area toward providing frequent, coordinated, and comprehensive bus service and facilities in all residential and employment areas. Policy TR -8.2 - Promote the establishment of a multimodal transit center in downtown Kent as part of a regional high-capacity transit system. Policy TR -8.3 - Provide the non -CBD, residential portion of the transit system with parking, via either park-and-ride lots or shared -use parking facilities. Policy TR -8.4 - Coordinate park-and-ride facilities located near downtown with downtown parking programs for merchants and shoppers. Policy TR -8.5 - Support the completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials which give high -occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single -occupancy vehicles. • KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-37 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPTER NINE Policy TR -8.6 - Promote measures to increase the use of high -occupancy vehicles among employers located within the City who are not required to comply with • commute trip reduction. Policy TR -8.7 - Support development of a regional network using rail technology to move people and goods. Policy TR -8.8 - As a means of accommodating new development, mode split goals should be established in each of the 22 transportation zones, that work towards a 50% increase in transit share by the year 2001, and a 100% increase by the year 2010 -- within the imitations of the City being able to request service from METRO. Policy TR -8.9 - Transit priority measures, such as "queue jump " lanes , "traffic signal pre-emption", and "transit only" lanes should be incorporated in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, consistent with achieving a significant node shift away from continued SOV growth. FUNDING GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -9 - Pursue funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. • Policy TR -9.1 - Allow for funding of growth -related traffic improvements proportionately by impact fees charged to new development. Policy TR -9.2 - Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships, such as Trans- portation Benefit Zones (TBZ) and Transportation Benefits Districts (TBD), to help pay for transportation improvements. Policy TR -9.3 - Pursue federal, state and local sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. Policy TR -9.4 - Establish a mechanism to provide multijurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements. Policy TR -9.5 - Create a funding mechanism, such as a Transportation Benefit District, which can be applied across boundaries to address the impact on the City's transportation system of growth outside the City limits. • 9-38 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 • 0 • CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION GOALS AND POLICIES Goal TR -10 - Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and improvements with the county, WSDOT, other cities, and the Regional Transit Authority. Policy TR -10.1 - Design and implement a subregional transportation system in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy TR -10.2 - Plan and improve local and regional transit service and facilities in cooperation with the Regional Transit Authority. KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC REVISED DRAFT - December 12, 1994 9-39 Exhibit F l � NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES (Revised 4/18/95) Goal 7R-1 - Coordinate land use and transporiation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the growth Management Act. Alternative flexible and creative transportation options that maximize these requirements should also be allawed in the planning process. Goal 7R-7 - Improve the non -motorized transportation system or both internal circulation and linkages fo regional travel, and promote the use of non -motorized transportation. Policy 7W-7. 1 - Whenever practical, give consideration to pedestrian and bicycle traffic within all residential and development areas of the City. Policy 7R-7.2 - Whenever practical, use incentives or regulations to encourage new construction to promote pedestrian and bicycle movements to pathways, transit services and arterials. Policy TR -7.3 - Establish a non -motorized transportation network within the City to be comprised of the primary routes, collector routes and recreation routes denoted on the non-moiorized facilities map. Policy 7R-7.4 - Enhance and promote the safety of pedestrian and bicycle movements across arterial intersections, major street crossings and railroad facilites. Policy YR -7. 5 - Provide visibility and promote safe crossings for pedestrians and bicycles where streets intersect with trails, paths and ofher areas where pedestrians andor bicycle movements are encouraged. Policy 7R-7.6 - Whenever practical, provide safety and safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit stops. Sign street intersections of streets with nonmotorized trails for both trail users and street users. Policy TR -7.7 - Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, encourage bicycle storage facilities with adequate lighting of residential development projects, park and rides, employment and industrial centers, schools, activity centers and retail areas. Policy 7R-7.8 - Whenever practical using incentives or regulatory means, encourage employers to provide clothing change facilities. Policy TR -7.9 - Promote the use of non -motorized travel through bicycle safety programs. - M It Non -Motorized Page 2 (Revised 4/18/95) Policy 7W-7.10 - Implement a comprehensive pedestrian and bicvcle signage program for directional information, identification of on/off street routes, interpretive education and a printed updated trails facility map. Policy TR -7.11 - City standards for transportation facilities shall incorporate bicycle - friendly and pedestrian friendly design elements wherever possible, use standards for public roadways which meet the guidelines of AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Traffic Officials Guide to the Development Bicycle Facilities. Policy TR -7.12 - Ensure that trail systems located in sensitive or conservation areas are compatible with the environment in which the trail is located as well as with the intended uses. EXHIBIT F