HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 07/09/2018 (2)
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic and Community Development Committee meets at 5
p.m. on the second Monday of each month in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East,
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.
For additional information please contact Rhonda Bylin at 253-856-5457 or via email at
RBylin@KentWA.gov.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at
253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Rel ay
Service at 7-1-1.
Economic and Community
Development Committee
Agenda
Chair - Bill Boyce
- Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember, Marli Larimer, Councilmember
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
Monday, July 9, 2018
5:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time
1. Call to Order Chair 01 MIN.
2. Roll Call Chair 01 MIN.
3. Changes to the Agenda Chair 01 MIN.
4. Update on Economic
Development Activities
NO Bill Ellis 05 MIN.
5. Approval of June 11, 2018
Minutes
YES Chair 05 MIN.
6. Reappoint Randall Smith to
Public Facilities District Board
YES Kurt Hanson 05 MIN.
7. Urban Separators Alternatives YES Danielle Butsick 20 MIN.
8. King County Cities Climate
Collaboration (K4C)
NO Danielle Butsick 10 MIN.
9. Sound Transit Access
Improvements Update
NO Danielle Butsick 10 MIN.
10. Economic Development Website
Update
NO Michelle Wilmot 05 MIN.
11. Adjournment Chair 01 MIN.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Update on Economic Development Activities
SUMMARY:
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Innovative Community
4
Packet Pg. 2
Page 1 of 5
Pending Approval
Economic and Community
Development Committee
CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
June 11, 2018
Date: June 11, 2018
Time:5:00 PM
Place:Chambers East
Attending:Bill Boyce, Committee Chair
Toni Troutner, Councilmember
Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
Agenda:
1.Call to Order 5:00 PM
Chair Boyce called the meeting to order and introduced the Council members
and Secretary.
2.Roll Call
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Bill Boyce Committee Chair Present
Toni Troutner Councilmember Present
Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present
3.Changes to the Agenda
Kurt Hanson, Director of Economic & Community Development wishes to add
a brief Director's report at the end of the meeting. Chair Boyce says this
change will be allowed.
4.Approval of May 14, 2018 Minutes
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 14,
2018 as submitted by Rhonda Bylin.
RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Toni Troutner, Councilmember
SECONDER:Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES:Boyce, Troutner, Kaur
5.Economic Development Update - Information Only
Bill Ellis provided update on Economic Development Team activities since the
last meeting.
1. Food truck pilot launched at June 2nd Kent Farmers Market, and June
Sixth at Town Square Plaza, is generating positive social media response.
2. Bill Attended the NAOIP Breakfast meeting as a featured speaker and got
to discuss the Kent Valley to a group of 200+ developers as a place to do
5
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
1
,
2
0
1
8
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
June 11, 2018
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 5
business, and not just the types of business people usually associate with the
valley.
3. As a Founding sponsor of the CAMPS group, ECD Staff attended the annual
conference in Bellevue where Dana Ralph was scheduled to speak, Bill was
able to make a number of new connections which he has good follow on since
the event. Membership in the group has increased from 162 to over 200
since last year.
4. KDP Auction Dinner featured the Lunar Rover Commemoration as its fund
a need item. It also featured Mike Lombardi, Kent Resident and Beoing
Archivist and Historian who spoke about the Lunar rover and a number of
other amazing things that have been made in Kent. 12,700 was raised to
help fund that project.
Bill met the CEO of the Robbins Co., based in Kent, which manufactures
tunneling equipment, most famously the equipment that completed the
Chunnel Project between London and France.
5.ECD has committed to sponsorship of the NewSpace conference, to be held
in September at the Renton Hyatt Regency, featuring speakers from Blue
Origin providing multiple opportunities to showcase Kent as a hub new space
manufacturing. Washington First Robotics, also a sponsor and also based in
Kent, will highlight local efforts to develop the skilled workforce to serve the
industry.
6. A Round table breakfast held at AJAC (Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship
Committee) for regional employers was another effort to get the word out
about the areas work force development efforts.
7. Staff will be pursuing its 3rd grant from the Port of Seattle for Economic
Development efforts, which for a city of Kent's size would be 65K requiring
only a 32.5k match from the city. That grant had been used in the past to
fund the kitchen build at Feast.
Chair Boyce expressed appreciation that ECD staff efforts aligned very well
with strategic goals. Then he asked when Sonic was opening, which Bill didn't
know.
6.Malik Ridge Neighborhood Council Resolution
Malik Ridge is a newer community with only 11 homes, just east of Kent
Kangley and 132nd, but they are excited to participate and foster community
among their neighbors. Council represented by Leisha Richards President and
Parnish Singh Vice President.
Motion:Recommend Council adopt a resolution that recognizes
the Malik Ridge Neighborhood Council, supports its community
building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City’s
Neighborhood Program.
5
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
1
,
2
0
1
8
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
June 11, 2018
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 5
RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER:Toni Troutner, Councilmember
AYES:Boyce, Troutner, Kaur
7.North Scenic Hill Neighborhood Council Resolution
Large Community of 174 homes, the area encompasses Cemetery, a park
and the senior Center. Had an active association previously for about 8
years, but it kind of faded out. Fran McNet and Tim Betzel, president and
vice president respectively, are planning a big neighborhood event for
National Night Out in August.
MOTION: The North Scenic Hill neighborhood consists of 774 households
and is located on the East Hill of Kent. On May 30, 2018, the North Scenic
Hill neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the
City recognize their neighborhood council and allow the neighborhood to take
part in the City’s neighborhood program. The neighborhood has now
completed the process to be recognized as a neighborhood council.
RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Toni Troutner, Satwinder Kaur
AYES:Boyce, Troutner, Kaur
8.Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map -
Recommend
Three Comprehensive Plan Amendments are recommended by staff for the
council to approve:
1. 2017-4 - 2 tax parcels totalling .59 acres rezoned from SR-8 to MU.
Located south of Canyon Drive and West of 100th Place SE, are adjacent to
parcels designated MU and also Medium density multifamily on other side.
Low impact change to encourage development.
2. 2017-5 - 9 parcels totalling 9.3 acres in size, currently zoned SR-8,
located North of Kent Kangely and west of 116th Ave SE. Located on a
major arterial, but with a variety of buildings and uses, but previous
concerns about wetlands, and property owner buy in have been eased by
new information that wetlands were not as extensive as previously thought,
and property owners who were not on board with the proposed change were
actually deceased. Recommend changing to Medium Density Multifamily.
3. 2017-6 - 1 2.3 acre tax parcel which already has two zoning designations
on it, located next to a transit facility along the southern boundary of Kent's
West Hill. Southern Half of the property is MU and the Northern half is MDMF.
Recommend zoning whole to MU to create a more attractive investment
given the constraints of the property. Increase in setback from Commercial
to residential addresses neighbors concerns about a buffer between
residential and commercial use.
5
Packet Pg. 5
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
1
,
2
0
1
8
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
June 11, 2018
Kent, Washington
Page 4 of 5
MOTION: Recommend Council adopt Ordinance No._____, which
amends the Comprehensive Plan land use map designations relating
to annual docket applications CPA-2017-4, CPA-2017-5, and CPA-
2017-6, as recommended by staff.
RESULT:RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER:Toni Troutner, Councilmember
AYES:Boyce, Troutner, Kaur
9.Sound Transit Agreements - Information Only
Information Only Item, full agreements presented to Council most likely in
August.
Highlights are:
1. ST has agreed to city's request for pavement restoration in impacted
areas.
2.ST has agreed to a conceptual design for storm water management at
the KDM and S. 272nd Stations, on ST surplus property, for both the
current needs and acknowledging the city's interest in capacity to serve
future development. Open to explore partnership in that effort.
3. ST to provide Utility stub-outs for future development if the city can
provide detailed scope of work and evidence of utility provider buy-in.
4. Wrestling for control of Master Design Plan for surplus properties
within the city.
5. Advanced Design concept only currently available for the canopy
portion of the stations, which is a little disappointing.
10.Infraction Ordinance - Recommend
Matt Gilbert briefly summarizes the benefits of moving to infractions, and Ify
Monu, assistant city attorney, speaks to the capacity of the municipal court
to handle them. While the precise load is not known at this point, they do
have the ability to add capacity with Pro-tem judges should the burden be
greater than anticipated. It is hoped that a speedier process and actual court
before a judge, may reduce the recidivism rate among property code
violators.
MOTION: Recommend that the City Council adopt the civil infractions
ordinance as presented by staff.
5
Packet Pg. 6
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
1
,
2
0
1
8
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Regular Meeting
Minutes
June 11, 2018
Kent, Washington
Page 5 of 5
RESULT:RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Toni Troutner, Councilmember
SECONDER:Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES:Boyce, Troutner, Kaur
11.Directors Report presented by Kurt Hanson
Kurt delivered some breaking news regarding the city owned property
located at 412 West Titus across from the Police Station. The lot currently
contains a small single story home which is in disrepair and has begun to
cause a few problems with animals and transient activity, leading to the
decision to demolish the house as soon as it can be arranged. Due diligence
will be done but the job is not thought to be complicated by tanks or
anything else unusual or unusually costly. The home will be removed and the
lot seeded as future plans are not determined. Kurt will report back with
hard numbers when they are available, either here or directly to the Council.
12.Adjournment 5:50 PM
Committee Secretary
5
Packet Pg. 7
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
u
n
1
1
,
2
0
1
8
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Reappoint Randall Smith to the Public Facilities District Board
- Recommend
MOTION: Recommend the Council reappoint Randall Smith to Position Number 3 of
the Public Facilities District Board, for a 4-year term that will expire on August 31,
2022.
SUMMARY: In May of 2018, Randall Smith expressed his desire to continue
serving on the Public Facilities District board. RCW 35.57.010 requires that the
members appointed must be based on recommendations received from local
organizations that may include, but are not limited to the local chamber of
commerce, local economic development council, and the local labor council.
The City Clerk reached out to both the Kent Chamber of Commerce and Kent
Downtown Partnership for recommendations. The Kent Downtown Partnership has
recommended Randall Smith be reappointed to an additional 4-year term that will
be effective September 1, 2018 and expire on August 31, 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure
RECOMMENDED BY: Kurt Hanson
6
Packet Pg. 8
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Urban Separators Alternatives
MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council:
(option 1) no action regarding Urban Separators, as recommended by the Land Use
and Planning Board.
(option 2) amend the land use plan map and zoning designations for a portion of
the urban separator area west of Panther Lake along 108th Avenue SE, as drafted in
“Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance”.
(option 3) amend clustering requirements and allowed uses in urban separators and
the SR-1 zoning district, as drafted in “Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance” and as
recommended by staff.
SUMMARY: The City received requests from property owners during the 2014 and
2015 comprehensive plan amendment docket process to consider changes to
zoning or allowed development density of Urban Separator parcels. City Council
approved the addition of an Urban Separators analysis to the department’s work
plan starting in 2017. Staff completed an inventory and characterization report of
existing Urban Separators parcels, a consistency review to assess relevant policies,
and conducted public outreach in a variety of formats and venues. Based on the
results of the public outreach process and consistent with Kent’s comprehensive
plan policies, staff has developed three policy alternatives: 1) no changes; 2)
amend land use plan map and zoning designations for a portion of the urban
separator area west of Panther Lake along 108th Avenue SE; and 3) amend
clustering requirements and allowed uses in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning
district. Staff recommends Alternative 3, amend clustering requirements and
allowed uses in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. A public hearing was
held on June 25, 2018, and the Land Use and Planning Board recommended
Alternative 1, take no action.
BACKGROUND: Kent’s comprehensive plan and King County Countywide Planning
Policies designate certain areas in the city as Urban Separators. These areas are
7
Packet Pg. 9
intended to create visual definition within and between urban areas, buffer rural or
resource lands, preserve open space and opportunities for recreation, and connect
wildlife and critical area corridors. This designation effectively limits development
on these parcels to one residential unit per acre, as Kent’s comprehensive plan
policies require all Urban Separators to be zoned SR-1, the lowest density allowed
under Kent’s zoning code. Subdivisions in urban separators must be “clustered”;
among other requirements, this means that 50% of the unconstrained portion of
the parcel must be set aside as permanent open space.
City council directed staff to comprehensively review the urban separator
designation and evaluate its continued relevance in Kent. The three alternatives
presented by staff are informed by comments received during one-on-one
interviews, two public open houses, and a public hearing, as well as the results
from an online public survey. The alternatives include 1) a no action alternative (no
changes), 2) amendments to the land use plan map and zoning designations for 8
parcels (6623400339, 6623400340, 6623400350, 6623400351, 6623400352,
6623400353, 6623400354, and 6623400355) in the westernmost portion of the
Panther Lake urban separator, and 3) amendments to the use tables and clustering
requirements for urban separators and SR-1 zoning district.
Staff recommends Alternative 3 for the following reasons:
1) The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), ratified by the
City of Kent February 19, 2013, contain policies to establish urban
separators. The eastern portion of Kent’s urban separator lands, along Soos
Creek and Panther Lake, are designated as urban separators in the King
County CPPs. Any zoning or land use plan map changes to these areas
would be inconsistent with the CPPs.
2) In 2017, city staff completed an Inventory and Characterization Report, and
a Consistency Review Report for urban separators. These reports document
critical areas, existing development conditions, and development capacity in
Kent’s urban separators, and compare these characteristics to existing local,
regional, and state policies pertaining to urban separators. The reports
concluded that all existing urban separator focus areas serve the intended
purpose of urban separators to some degree, as defined in Kent’s 2015
comprehensive plan and/or the 2012 King County Countywide Planning
Policies.
3) King County’s 2014 Buildable Lands analysis and Kent’s 2015 development
capacity analysis demonstrate that Kent has sufficient vacant and
redevelopable land to accommodate its population growth targets through
2035. Per the criteria established in KCC 12.02.050, circumstances have not
changed, and no additional information has become available, such that
additional density is warranted in urban separator lands. Therefore there is
no demonstrated need to amend land use plan map designations for urban
separator lands to allow higher-density zoning.
7
Packet Pg. 10
4) Overwhelmingly, public opinion indicated a preference to retain urban
separators as they are and to promote the use of incentive programs to
support preservation of open space and natural beneficial functions on
private property. However, Policy LU-7.1 in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan
states that the city will “ensure residential development achieves a
substantial portion of the allowable maximum density on the net buildable
acreage.” Only a single cluster subdivision has been completed in Kent since
clustering requirements for urban separators were established in 2001. Staff
believes Alternative 3 helps achieve this policy goal by removing overly
burdensome requirements without compromising the intent of the urban
separator designation.
5) The City of Auburn, the City of Renton, and unincorporated King County also
require cluster subdivisions within urban separator lands, but with less
stringent requirements for open space set-asides. These jurisdictions require
50% of the entire parcel to be set aside as open space; critical areas may be
included in the 50% set-aside. Alternative 3 would establish clustering
requirements that are more consistent with those of Kent’s neighboring
jurisdictions.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative Government, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. UrbanSeparators_Alternatives_07-09-2018 (PDF)
2. ZCA-2016-2_UrbanSeparators_ENV_Decision (PDF)
3. SEPAChecklistUrbanSeparators_FinalSigned (PDF)
4. 2182087_ENV-2018-5_DNS signed (PDF)
5. Comments_Compiled_06-25-2018 (PDF)
6. Urban Separators_Alternative 2_Draft Ordinance (PDF)
7. UrbanSeparators_Alternative 2_DraftOrdinance_ExhibitA (PDF)
8. UrbanSeparators_Alternative 2_DraftOrdinance_ExhibitB (PDF)
9. Urban Separators_Alternative 3_Draft Ordinance (PDF)
7
Packet Pg. 11
Urban Separators
Proposed Alternatives
LUPB Hearing –June 25, 2018
7.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
A land use designation in the City’s
comprehensive plan meant to:
•Preserve open space
•Connect wildlife corridors
•Protect natural and resource areas
(steep slopes, wetlands,
agriculture/forest)
It does this through ZONING.
Urban Separators Overview 7.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
7.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Zoning in Urban Separators:
Urban Separators in Kent are
all zoned “SR-1”.
•One single family house
per acre (overall density)
•Requires “clustering”
when subdivided
7.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Cluster Subdivisions:
•Concentrates new development on a portion of the property
•Leaves at least 50% open space (half developable +
undevelopable areas)
•Small minimum lot size –2,500 square feet
•Requires groups of 8 with 120ft. in between
7.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Urban Separator Project:
What is the best use for Kent’s urban separators?
•City council was asked to consider changing the rules so that
property owners can build more houses than is currently allowed.
•The whole region needs more housing, but urban separators also
provide important environmental benefits.
•Any changes have to work with other city, state, county, and
regional policies.
7.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Outreach:
•1:1 Interviews –13 Interviews/Comments
•Open Houses (2) –85+ participants
•Public Hearing –33 attendees; 15 verbal testimony; 28 written
comments
•Online Survey –281 respondents
7.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Alternative #1
(LUPB Recommendation)
•No Action.
Preferred option in outreach.
No plan, code, or CPP amendments needed.
7.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Alternative #2
•Amend Land Use and Zoning Designations for a portion of the Panther Lake urban separator
New information since 2015 comp plan: no direct connection to Renton’s urban separators
Not clear that it will result in long-term benefits or is in the best interest of the community
Not consistent with other policies of the comp plan re: transportation, land use
Buildable Lands Study, 2014 shows sufficient capacity to meet growth targets through 2031
7.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Alternative #2
= Panther Lake Urban
Separator
= Docket Parcels
7.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
7.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Alternative #3
(Staff Recommendation)
•Code Amendments.
50% open space set aside from whole
parcel (including critical areas/buffers)
25% of subdivision may be duplex or
townhomes with ownership interest
Critical areas/buffers must be put in
permanent open space tract
7.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
For illustration
purposes only.
For illustration
purposes only.
Red = critical areas + buffers Green = 50% open space set-aside
Purple = new lots (2,500 square feet)
7.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
A: 50% Critical Area/Buffer
B: 0% Critical Area/Buffer
C: 10% Critical Area/Buffer
D: 90% Critical Area/Buffer
Critical Area
Critical Area/
Open Space Set-Aside
Open Space Set-Aside
Developable
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
ALTERNATIVE 3 AMENDMENTS:
7.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Support for Alternative #3:
•Straight forward process -no need for comprehensive plan or CPP
amendments
•Urban separators would continue to serve important environmental
purposes that benefit the public as a whole
•Buildable lands study shows sufficient capacity under current zoning
(planned density)
•Public interest in preserving designation; policy support for
achieving planned density
•Consistency with neighbor jurisdictions –50% open space from
whole parcel
7.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
Next Steps:
•Data gathering and reports
•City staff policy ideas
•Public outreach –meetings, interviews
•Staff and LUPB recommendations
•City Council adoption of amendments
7.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
_
0
7
-
0
9
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
URBAN SEPARATORS
ENV-2018-5, KIVA #RPSA-2182087
ZCA-2016-2, KIVA #RPP6-2160444
Erin George, AICP Responsible Official
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
proposal to:
a) amend the land use plan map designation for 8 parcels at the northeast
corner of the intersection of SE 200th Street and 108th Ave. SE from “Urban
Separator” to “SF-6”, and amend the zoning designation for these 8 parcels
from SR-1 to SR-6; and
b) amend sections 12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators; 15.04.020
Residential land uses; and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development
conditions; and add section 15.02.114.1 Duplex with ownership interest;
pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development
standards in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. The proposed
amendments better align Kent’s cluster subdivision requirements with those of
neighboring jurisdictions, allow 25% of new housing units to be duplex and
townhouse, and require critical areas in cluster subdivisions to be permanently
reserved in open space tracts.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kent’s comprehensive plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies
designate certain areas in the city as Urban Separators. These areas are
intended to create visual definition within and between urban areas, buffer
rural or resource lands, preserve open space and opportunities for recreation,
and connect wildlife and critical area corridors. This designation effectively
limits development on these parcels to one residential unit per acre, as all
Urban Separators are zoned SR-1, the lowest density allowed under Kent’s
zoning code. Subdivisions in urban separators must be “clustered”; among
other requirements, this means that 50% of the unconstrained portion of the
parcel must be set aside as permanent open space.
City council directed staff to comprehensively review the urban separator
designation and evaluate its continued relevance in Kent. The alternatives
7.b
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 2 of 7
presented by staff are informed by comments received during one-on-one
interviews, two public open houses, and a public hearing, as well as the results
from an online public survey. The alternatives include a) amendments to the
land use plan map and zoning designations for the westernmost portion of the
Panther Lake urban separator, and 2) amendments to the use tables and
clustering requirements for urban separators and SR-1 zoning district. These
alternatives may be adopted independently or jointly.
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4163), the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review
Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance
3944) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will
require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by
the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to
roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention,
treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water
systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the
deeding/dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance
with Title 11.03 and 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance
of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate
the location and density of development based upon known physical
constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to
maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter
6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to
the site.
In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective July 3, 2016), which
implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10,
2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
The proposal impacts lands which have documented slopes of greater
than 75%. There are many areas in Kent’s urban separators which
contain identified erodible soils and landslide hazard areas. Erosion
could occur as a consequence of new construction in urban separator
areas, although no development is proposed at this time. Erosion risk
will depend on the exact location and character of future development.
All future development will be subject to Kent’s Critical Areas Ordinance
(KCC 11.06), Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07), and
Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07), which establish requirements and
procedures for minimizing erosion impacts.
B. Air
The proposed amendments could result in additional development
beyond what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to
7.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 3 of 7
changes to cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts
typical of residential subdivision development, including emissions from
construction equipment, and additional emissions from private
automobiles from new residents. These impacts would be minimal for
the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation, as net density would
remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre.
The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and
zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban
separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in
greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the
allowed density on these parcels. Emissions mitigation measures should
be developed specific to individual development proposals, consistent
with Washington’s Air Quality Law.
C. Water
Surface waters are present in many locations throughout Kent’s urban
separator lands. These water bodies include, but are not limited to, the
Green River, Panther Lake, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Soosette Creek,
Johnson Creek, and McSorely Creek. Many other unnamed streams and
wetlands exist within Kent’s urban separators. Portions of Kent’s urban
separator lands are within the FEMA-identified 100-year floodplain. All
future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements
of Kent’s Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07).
D. Plants and Animals
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat
and Species map, streams in Kent’s urban separator lands are habitat or
breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon
(during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon,
bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. Inventoried bald eagle
nests are also present in some locations.
New development facilitated by this proposal may contribute to the
overall pattern of habitat fragmentation and encroachment; however,
clustering requirements in urban separators require open space
corridors to remain in place in such a way that connects wildlife habitat
areas. Any future development resulting from this proposal will be
subject to the requirements in Kent’s Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC
11.06), which establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and
mitigating impacts to wildlife habitat areas.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
New development facilitated by this proposal would require the
connection of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water
resources. Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code, 2015
Edition.
7.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 4 of 7
F. Environmental Health
Many of Kent’s urban separator lands contain inventoried critical areas
and buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard
areas, erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismic hazard areas.
Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent’s
permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent’s
development regulations and consistency with existing plans.
G. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
Any new development resulting from this proposal would be single-
family or duplex/townhome structures and would be subject to
development standards and height maximums. It is likely to create
noise, light, and glare typically associated with residential development
and accompanying automobile traffic. In areas which were previously
undeveloped, this could be perceived as a negative impact by neighbors.
Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum
permissible environmental noise levels in the city’s Noise Control
Ordinance (KCC 8.05), and KCC 15.08 contains performance standards
prohibiting land uses which cause objectionable conditions, including
direct or sky-directed glare..
H. Land and Shoreline Use
This proposal would retain residential use designations for all urban
separator areas; Alternative B would not amend land use or zoning
district designations, while Alternative A would increase the allowed
residential density from one unit per acre to six units per acre for eight
parcels. Alternative A would result in a small segment of land which is
zoned differently from adjacent areas, creating a “zoning island” effect.
This is typically considered undesirable from a land use planning
perspective.
Within Kent’s urban separator shorelines, there are two types of
shoreline designations as identified in Kent’s Shoreline Master Program:
“Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity” (UC-LI), and “Urban Conservancy
– Open Space” (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the Green
River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek. New
development would be required to comply with Kent’s Shoreline Master
Plan.
I. Housing
This proposal’s impact on the number of new housing units available is
expected to be modest. Its effect will likely be at the margins and
would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional
housing units. Based on existing development in urban separators,
demolition of existing housing units is likely to be minimal and result in
the loss of at most one single family home per new subdivision.
Existing housing in urban separator lands tends toward high-income
housing, and new units will likely follow this pattern. However,
7.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 5 of 7
Alternative B provides for 25% of new lots/units in an SR-1 subdivision
to be duplex or townhome units, which tends to be a more affordable
housing type for middle income families.
J. Recreation
Soos Creek Park falls within Kent’s urban separator lands, as do many
informal recreation opportunities within privately owned lands. New
subdivisions facilitated by this proposal may displace informal recreation
opportunities on developable portions of privately owned land; however,
existing cluster subdivision requirements contain provisions for an open
space set-aside of 50% of the developable portion of the parent parcel,
which could be used by new residents for recreation. The amendments
contained in this proposal call for this 50% open space set-aside to
come from the entire parcel, while preserving all critical areas and
buffers as open space, which could also be used for recreation purposes.
K. Historic and Cultural Preservation
According to the State of Washington Information System for
Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database,
there are no inventoried historic or cultural resources in urban separator
lands.
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered during work for any project action, the applicant must stop
work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical
Preservation.
L. Transportation
The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code
amendments in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they
do not increase the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. Its
effects on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the
margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution
of additional housing units.
The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and
currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment
changing these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow
roughly (not accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a
maximum additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 =
24). According to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add
approximately 1 new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak
trips.
New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal
would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and
location of new lots relative to the existing road network.
M. Public Services
7.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 6 of 7
New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor
increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police,
health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of
housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be
expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing
units. It would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for
public services.
The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand
for public services to the extent additional housing units are added.
Multiplying 16 new units by Kent’s average household size (2.9 people),
results in slightly more than 46 new people requiring access to public
services in this 4.3-acre area.
N. Utilities
Most of Kent’s urban separator lands are within water and sewer service
areas and are served with public utilities, although there are some
exceptions. Several properties in Kent’s urban separators currently have
no established connections to a water or sewer system. Some have
difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which
would add to the difficulty and expense of connection to this
infrastructure.
Other utilities, including electricity and natural gas, are available with
established connections in many urban separator areas, while some
would require new connections to be made for new development.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the
City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts
associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following
conditions and mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent
Shoreline Master Program;
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code;
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, and current Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water System Plan;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments;
7.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Decision Document
Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2)
ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087
Page 7 of 7
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Capital
Facilities and Equipment Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
21. Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume Model Remedies
Guidance (Publication Number 12-09-086-A)
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
7.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
Z
C
A
-
2
0
1
6
-
2
_
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
E
N
V
_
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
KENT
Location:400 w. Gowe o Maitto: 220 4thAvenue."rt*t?lllTrg^sf#rfr";
Permit Center (253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412
www.ci. kent.wa. us/permitcenter
Environmental Checklist
Application Form
WAsHTNGToN
Public Notice Board and
Application Fee...See Fee Schedule
TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
APPLICATION
#:
#: KIVA
RECEIVED BY: DATE PROCESSING FEE
A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT:
Meets the categorically exempt criteria.
Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and
application should be processed without further consideration of
environmental effects.
Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through
conditions. EIS not necessary.
Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An
Environmental lmpact Statement will be prepared.
An Environmental lmpact Statement for this project has already been
prepared.
Signature of Responsible Official Date
B. COMMENTS
C TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTE
D. ZONING DISTRICT:SR.1
7.c
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
1
2
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 2
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT:
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Name of Proj anf 'I lrhan Qanarafnr Frnionf
Name of Applicant: Citv of Kent
Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032
Contact Person: Danielle Butsick, Sr. Lonq Ranqe Planner
Telephone 25
(Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.)
3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Sr. Lonq Ranqe Planner, Planninq Services
4. Name of Legal Owne N/A Telephone:_
Mailing Address
5 Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of
streets and section. township and ranqe).
These proposed amendments impact areas throughout Kent which are designated as urban
separators on the city's comprehensive land use plan map.
Leqal description and tax identification number
a. Leqal description (if lenqthv. attach as separate sheet)
N/A
b. Tax ide n number:
N/A
Existinq conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,
size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a
separate sheet).
6.
7
Urban separator lands in Kent contain varying degrees of existing development and access to
7.c
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 3
infrastructure. They range from entirely vacant with large undivided lots to primarily developed with
many smaller parcels.
All of Kent's urban separator lands are within water service areas; properties that are not within the
City of Kent's retail water service area are within the service area of one of several neighboring
water purveyors including Highline Water District, District 111, or Soos Creek Water & Sewer
District. Most urban separator lands, with some small exceptions, are also within a public sewer
service area. Several properties in Urban Separator focus areas, however, currently have no
internal established connections to a water or sewer system and are served only by private wells
and septic systems. By their nature, some urban separator lands have difficult terrain, including
steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which would add to the difficulty and expense of
connection to this infrastructure.
All urban separator lands have some degree of access to the city road network; some are directly
served by minor or major arterials or residential collectors, while others are served only indirectly
through local streets. A small number of urban separator areas are connected to the road network
only at their external borders and lack internal access roads.
Transit service is limited in most urban separator lands, and typically consists of one or two routes;
some of these are peak-only routes or dial-a-ride transit. Most urban separators do have some level
of commercial or retail service within one to two miles, although few have these amenities within
one-quarter mile, the typical distance people are expected to be willing to walk to accomplish daily
tasks. The concentration of services in these areas is generally low compared to more dense urban
areas.
Nearly all of Kent's urban separator lands fall within watershed subbasins in Kent that exceed
thresholds for impervious surface (greater than 10%) and for tree canopy (less than 65%), as
recommended by the 2000 University of Washington report, "Forest Cover, lmpervious Surface
Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization lmpacts in King County, Washington". Even with severe
degradation, valuable habitat and species are present in streams in Kent, many of which drain into
rivers containing endangered species.
Site Area: Citywide: 1,431 acres desiqnated urban separator
Site Dimensions: NiA
Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or
project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project
and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions):
Alternative A: This proposal amends the land use plan map designation for 8 parcels at the
northeast corner of the intersection of SE 200th Street and 108th Ave. SE from "Urban Separator" to
"SF-6". The proposal also amends the zoning designation for these 8 parcels from SR-1 to SR-6.
Alternative B: This proposal amends sections 12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators;15.04.Q20
Residential land uses; and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions; and adds
section 15.02.114.1 Duplexwith ownership interest; pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision
requirements, and development standards in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. The
proposed amendments better align Kent's cluster subdivision requirements with those of
neighboring jurisdictions and allow 25oh of new housing units to be duplex and townhouse
8.
9.
7.c
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 4
structures, consistent with allowed uses in other single family residential districts.
10.Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if
possible).
N/A (This is a non-project action)
11 Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? fi yes, explain.
Adoption of proposal #2 andlor #3 may result in future development proposals beyond those that
would have occurred under existing regulations.
12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or
other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal.
AGENCY PERMIT TYPE
DATE
SUBMITTED-NUMBER STATUS**
*Leave blank if not submitted
"*Approved, denied or pending
13 Environmental lnformation: List any environmental information you know about that has
been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
An lnventory and Characterization Report was developed in 2Q17 by the City of Kent, which
documents existing environmental conditions based on best available GIS data.
14 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? lf yes, explain.
None known
7.c
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
c.
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 5
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a.General description of the site (circle one): ft!, Ig!!i4g, hillv, steepglgg, mountainous, oth
All of the above conditions, excluding "mountainous", are found in Kent's
urban separator lands.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Slopes in urban separator lands are documented in exceedance of 75o/o
slope.
What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? lf you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
The following soil types are found in Kent's urban separator lands
. Alderwood and Kitsap Soils (very steep). Tukwila muck (prime farmland if drained). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8-15% slope, prime farmland if
irrigated). Aldenruood gravelly sandy loam (15-30% slope, farmland of
statewide importance). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (0-8% slope, prime farmland if
irrigated),. Norma sandy loam (prime farmland if drained). Bellingham silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Oridia silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Everett very gravelly sandy loam (0-8% slope, farmland of
statewide importance)r Everett very gravelly sandy loam (8-15% slope, farmland of
statewide importance)o Everett very gravelly sandy loam (15-30% slope, farmland of
statewide importance)o lndianola loamy sand (5-15% slope, prime farmland if inigated). Seattle muck (prime farmland if drained)r Briscot silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Urban land (not prime farmland). Snohomish silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Renton silt loam (prime farmland if drained)o Pits (not prime farmland)o Woodinville silt loam (prime farmland if drained and protected from
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
e.
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 6
flooding or not frequently flooded during growing season)
. Puyallup fine sandy loam (prime farmland)
. Newberg silt loam (prime farmland). Puget silty clay loam (prime farmland if drained and protected from
flooding or not frequently flooded during growing season)
. Arents, Aldenruood material (6-150/0 slope, not prime farmland)
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? lf so, describe.
There are many areas in Kent's urban separators which contain identified
erodible soils and landslide hazard areas.
Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling
or grading proposed. lndicate source of fill.
No fill or grading is proposed
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? lf
so, generally describe.
Erosion could occur as a consequence of new construction in urban
separator areas, although no development is proposed at this time.
Erosion risk will depend on the exact location and character of future
development.
g About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
All existing lots in urban separator areas are subject to the SR-1 zoning
district development standards, which limit impervious surface to 40% of
the lot area (up to 10,000 square feet).
Clustering is required for new subdivisions, which allows a minimum lot
size of 2,500 square feet and up to 75o/o impervious surface (per
development standards for SR-8).
This proposal does not make any changes to impervious surface
maximums, so these standards will remain in place for future development
facilitated by this proposal. Any future development would be subject to
permitting requirements and SEPA environmental review.
f
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
a
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 7
the earth, if any
No development is proposed at this time. All future development will be
subject to Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), Surface Water
and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07), and Landscaping Regulations (KCC
15.07), which establish requirements and procedures for minimizing
erosion impacts.
2. Air
What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal
(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? lf any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
The proposed amendments could result in additional development beyond
what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to changes to
cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts typical of
residential subdivision development, including dust from grading/filling,
emissions from construction equipment, and additional emissions from
private automobiles from new residents. These impacts would be minimal
for the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation, as net density
would remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre.
The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and
zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban
separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in
greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the
allowed density on these parcels. The exact impacts of this proposal
cannot be estimated at this time, as no development has been proposed.
However, the following simple equation may give a rough scale of the
impact.
The total area included in the proposal is approximately 4.3 acres and
currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing
these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not
accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum
additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According
to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1
new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? lf so, generally describe.
None known
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 8
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts
to air, if any.
Mitigation measures should be developed specific to individual
development proposals, consistent with Washington's Air Quality Law.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1)ls there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt
water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? lf yes, describe type and
provide names. lf appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
Surface waters are present in many locations throughout Kent's urban
separator lands. These water bodies include, but are not limited to, the
Green River, Panther Lake, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Soosette Creek,
Johnson Creek, and McSorely Creek. Many other unnamed streams and
wetlands exist within Kent's urban separators.
Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within
200 feet) the described waters? lf yes, please describe and
attach available plans.
No work over, in, or adjacent to surface waters is proposed at this time.
3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be affected. lndicate
the source of fill material.
N/A
4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
2)
N/A
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 9
5)Does the proposal lie within a 1OO-year floodplain? lf so, note
location on the site plan.
Portions of Kent's urban separator lands are within the FEMA-identified
100-year floodplain.
6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? lf so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated volume of discharge.
N/A
b. Ground:
1)Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
N/A
2)Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example:
domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of
the system, the number of such systems, the number of
houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
N/A
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? lf so, describe.
Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? lf so,
generally describe.
NiA
2)
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 10
N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
All future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements
of Kent's Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07).
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site
_X_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other
_X_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_X_Shrubs
X Grass
X Pasture
_X_Crop or grain
_X_Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,
other
ater plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_X_Other types of vegetation
All of the above types of vegetation may be found in various locations
throughout Kent's urban separator lands.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Any vegetation removal that occurs as part of future development
subsequent to this proposal will vary as to type, amount and location,
depending on the exact development project. Some amount of vegetation
loss is expected, as this proposal will facilitate some development beyond
what is currently achievable in areas that are now vegetated and
undeveloped or underdeveloped relative to allowed density.
Alternative A would result in rezoning of I parcels constituting
approximately 4.3 acres, which currently contain 8 single family homes and
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 11
associated structures. These parcels are currently designated US/SR-1.
This proposal would amend their land use and zoning designations to SF-
6/5R-6, possibly resulting in redevelopment that would remove existing
vegetation and increase the percentage of impervious surface. Existing
vegetation on these properties is primarily grass and conifers.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site
According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Natural Heritaoe Proqram Element Occurrence Map, there are no known
threatened or endangered plant species in Kent's urban separator lands.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Requirements in Kent's Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07) will apply to
any new development resulting from this proposal, which require the use of
a variety of native and droughttolerant plant species.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: @h, @, gg!g, sonqbirds, other:_
Mammals: 9!ggl, bear, elk, beaver, oth raccoons. covotes
Fish: bass, g!q, !q!, herring, shellfish, other:_
The animals indicated above were sighted by residents and neighbors
within urban separator areas, and described during public outreach events.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prioritv Habitat
and Species map, streams in Kent's urban separator lands are habitat or
breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon
(during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon,
bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. lnventoried bald eagle nests
are also present in some locations.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
a.
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 12
c. ls the site part of a migration route? lf so, explain.
The City of Kent is within the Pacific Flyway, as identified by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. The Audubon Societv lmportant Bird Areas (lBAs)
map shows no specific migration locations within Kent's urban separator
lands.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Any future development resulting from this proposal will be subject to the
requirements in Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), which
establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to
wildl ife habitat areas.
6. Enerqvand Natural Resources
What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will
be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
New development facilitated by this proposal would require the connection
of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water resources. All use
of natural resources would be for residential purposes.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? lf so, generally describe.
N/A
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans
of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any.
Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the
requirements of the lnternational Energy Conservation Code, 2015 Edition.
7. Environmental Health
Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? lf so, describe.
c.
a
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 13
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required
NiA
2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
N/A
b. Noise
1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
N/A
2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or a long{erm basis
(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? lndicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Any new development resulting from this proposal is likely to create noise
typically associated with residential development and accompanying
automobile traffic. ln areas which were previously undeveloped, this could
be perceived as a negative impact by neighbors.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum
permissible environmental noise levels in the city's Noise Control
Ordinance (KCC 8.05).
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Lands under the urban separator land use designation are primarily single
family residential use or undeveloped, with the exception of a 118-unit
mobile home park and a commercial property containing a farm and feed
store, veterinarian, and equestrian facilities.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 14
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? lf so, describe
Some of Kent's urban separator lands have been used for agriculture in
the past; a small number of properties are currently used for farming,
including strawberries and family kitchen gardens.
c. Describe any structures on the site
Structures in Kent's urban separator lands are primarily single family
homes; size, age, type of construction, and condition vary widely.
d. Will any structures be demolished? lf so, what?
Existing structures may be demolished to facilitate subdivision and
redevelopment of properties in urban separator lands; this proposal could
result in more subdivisions than may occur under current regulations.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
All urban separator lands are zoned SR-1.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
All lands affected by this proposal are designated as Urban Separator
g. lf applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation
of the site?
Within Kent's urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline
designations: "Urban Conservancy - Low lntensity" (UC-L|), and "Urban
Conservancy - Open Space" (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the
Green River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? lf so, specify.
Yes. Many of Kent's urban separator lands contain inventoried critical
areas and buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard
areas, erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismichazard areas.
No critical areas or buffers are present on seven of the eight properties in
Alternative A. The easternmost parcel could fall within a critical area buffer,
depending on a delineation study. There are inventoried wetlands on
parcels directly to the south, as well as an 83-acre inventoried wetland
body (Panther Lake), less than 500 feet from the nearest property.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 15
N/A
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
N/A
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
I Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any.
Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's
permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development
regulations and consistency with existing plans.
9. Housins
Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? lndicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
It cannot be estimated at this time how many new units would result from
this proposal. The impact is likely to be modest, however. Alternative A
would apply only to 8 parcels which are already developed at a density
greater than one unit per acre and would result in a maximum net increase
of 16 new units (8 existing + 16 new = 24 units). Alternative B retains an
allowed density of one unit per acre, but amends code requirements to
facilitate subdivision and development of unconstrained lands while
providing permanent protection for sensitive areas. lts effects on the
number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would
not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing
units.
Existing housing in urban separator lands tends toward high-income
housing, and new units will likely follow this pattern. However, Alternative
B provides for 25% of new lots/units in an SR-1 subdivision to be duplex or
townhome units, which tends to be a more affordable housing type for
middle income families.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? lndicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
No proposals exist at this time to eliminate any housing units. Future
development resulting from this proposal may eliminate existing units to
a
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 16
facilitate subdivision and redevelopment. However, based on existing
development in urban separators, this impact is likely to be minimal and
result in the loss of at most one single family home per new subdivision.
c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Any new development resulting from this proposal would be single-family
or duplex/townhome residential structures and would be subject to
limitations in Kent's residential zone development standards. Maximum
height of structures would be limited to 2.5 stories or 30ft.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
lmpacts to views cannot be known at this time. However, urban separator
lands in Kent tend to be characterized by natural scenery, and neighboring
properties may be negatively impacted by future development facilitated by
this proposal if such development results in clearing of vegetation or
building on previously undeveloped land.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any
None.
11. Liqht and Glare
What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of
day would it mainly occur?
Future development facilitated by this proposal would likely produce light or
glare of the character and timing consistent with a residential subdivision.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
Light or glare from future development facilitated by this proposal could
negatively impact neighboring properties, as urban separator lands in Kent
tend to be characterized by natural scenery and low-density development.
a
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 17
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None known
d.
any
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if
a
Kent City Code 15.08 contains performance standards prohibiting land
uses which cause objectionable conditions, including direct or sky-directed
glare.
12. Recreation
What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
Soos Creek Park falls within Kent's urban separator lands, as do many
informal recreation opportunities within privately owned lands.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
lf so, describe.
New subdivisions facilitated by this proposal may displace informal
recreation opportunities on developable portions of privately owned land;
however, existing cluster subdivision requirements contain provisions for
an open space set-aside of 50% of the developable portion of the parent
parcel, which could be used by new residents for recreation. The
amendments contained in this proposal call for this 50% open space set-
aside to come from the entire parcel, while preserving all critical areas and
buffers as open space, which could also be used for recreation purposes.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant, if any.
Existing code requirements for cluster subdivisions and those contained in
this proposal are intended to reduce or mitigate the recreational impacts of
new development.
13. Historic and Gultural Preservation
Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?
lf so, generally describe.
a
None known per Washinqton State WISAARD database
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 18
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
None known
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any
N/A
14. Transportation
Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site
plans, if any.
All of Kent's urban separator lands are served by the city road network;
some are directly served by minor or major arterials or residential
collectors, while others are served only indirectly through local streets.
The parcels to which Alternative A applies are served by 108th Avenue SE,
a principal arterial, and SE 200th Street, a local dead-end street.
b. ls site currently served by public transit? lf not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Transit service is limited in most urban separator lands, and typically
consists of one or two routes; some of these are peak-only routes or dial-a-
ride transit.
The properties in Alternative A are served within T, mile by transit route
169, an all-day route that runs every 30 minutes between Kent Station and
the Renton Transit Center.
How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
a
c
N/A
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
e
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 19
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? lf so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal
would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and
location of new lots relative to the existing road network.
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? lf so, generally describe.
N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? lf known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code amendments
in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they do not increase
the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. lts effects on the
number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would
not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing
units.
The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and
currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing
these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not
accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum
additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According
to the 2012 IIE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1
new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any
The City of Kent is authorized by KCC 12.14 to transportation impact fees
for streets and roads based on the impact of new developments on public
facilities. The city also requires infrastructure improvements for new
developments through KCC 6.02; improvements are based on adopted
standards and plans.
15. Public Services
Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
a
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 20
other)? lf so, generally describe
New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor
increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police,
health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of
housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be
expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. lt
would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for public
services.
The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand for
public services to the extent additional housing units are added. The
proposal would allow for approximately 16 new single-family housing units,
not accounting for site constraints or design considerations. Multiplying 16
new units by Kent's average household size (2.9 people), results in slightly
more than 46 new people in this 4.3-acre area.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
The City of Kent collects school impact fees (per KCC 12.13), and fire
impact fees (per KCC 12.15) for any new development requiring a
residential building permit.
16. Utilities
Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
All of Kent's urban separator lands are within water service areas; those
that are not within the City of Kent's retail water service atea are within the
service area of one of several neighboring water purveyors including
Highline Water District, District 111, or Soos Creek Water & Sewer District.
Most urban separator lands, with some exceptions, are also within public
sewer service areas. Several properties in Kent's urban separators
currently have no established connections to a water or sewer system.
Some have difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard
areas, which would add to the difficulty and expense of connection to this
infrastructure.
Other utilities, including electricity and natural gas, are available with
established connections in many urban separator areas, while some would
require new connections to be made for new development.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities
providing the service and the general construction activities on the site
a
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 21
or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed
Chapter 6.02 in Kent City Code requires infrastructure improvements which
include sewer, water, lighting, conduit, storm drainage, and other
infrastructure for all new development equal to or exceeding $50,000 in
value.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
2
Date
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 22
DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them
in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or
the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the
item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;
emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances; or production of noise?
The proposed amendments could result in additional development beyond
what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to changes to
cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts typical of
residential subdivision development, including noise, dust from
grading/filling, emissions from construction equipment, and additional
emissions from private automobiles from new residents. These impacts
would be minimal for the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation,
as net density would remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre.
The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and
zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban
separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in
greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the
allowed density on these parcels.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
All future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements
of Kent's Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07). Emissions
mitigation measures should be developed specific to individual
development proposals, consistent with Washington's Air Quality Law.
Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum
permissible environmental noise levels in the city's Noise Control
Ordinance (KCC 8.05).
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or
marine life?
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 23
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prioritv Habitat
and Soecies map, streams in Kent's urban separator lands are habitat or
breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon
(during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon,
bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. lnventoried bald eagle nests
are also present in some locations.
New development facilitated by this proposal may contribute to the overall
pattern of habitat fragmentation and encroachment; however, requirements
for clustering in urban separators contain provisions for connecting wildlife
habitat corridors.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or
marine life?
Any future development resulting from this proposal will be subject to the
requirements in Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), which
establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to
wildlife habitat areas. Clustering requirements in urban separators require
open space corridors to remain in place in such a way that connects
wildlife habitat areas.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural
resources?
New development facilitated by this proposal would require the connection
of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are
Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the
requirements of the lnternational Energy Conservation Code, 2015 Edition.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic
rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural
sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Many of Kent's urban separator lands contain inventoried critical areas and
buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas,
erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismichazard areas.
No critical areas or buffers are present on seven of the eight properties in
Alternative A. The easternmost parcel could fall within a critical area buffer,
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist- Page 24
depending on a delineation study. There are inventoried wetlands on
parcels directly to the south, as well as an 83-acre inventoried wetland
body (Panther Lake), less than 500 feet from the nearest property.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's
permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development
regulations and consistency with existing plans.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses
incompatible with existing plans?
This proposal would retain residential use designations for all urban
separator areas; Alternative B would not amend land use or zoning district
designations, while Alternative A would increase the allowed residential
density from one unit per acre to six units per acre for eight parcels.
Alternative A would result in a small segment of land which is zoned
differently from adjacent areas, creating a "zoning island" effect. This is
typically considered undesirable from a land use planning perspective.
Within Kent's urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline
designations as identified in Kent's Shoreline Master Program: "Urban
Conservancy - Low lntensity" (UC-L|), and "Urban Conservancy - Open
Space" (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the Green River, Panther
Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek. New development would
be required to comply with Kent's Shoreline Master Plan.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use
impacts are:
Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's
permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development
regulations and consistency with existing plans, including Kent's
Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code amendments
in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they do not increase
the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. lts effects on the
number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 25
not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing
units.
The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and
currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing
these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not
accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum
additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According
to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1
new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips.
New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal
would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and
location of new lots relative to the existing road network.
New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor
increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police,
health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of
housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be
expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. lt
would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for public
services.
The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand for
public services to the extent additional housing units are added.
Multiplying 16 new units by Kent's average household size (2.9 people),
results in slightly more than 46 new people requiring access to public
services in this 4.3-acre area.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are
The City of Kent collects transportation impact fees (per KCC 12.14),
school impact fees (per KCC 12.13), and fire impact fees (per KCC 12.15)
for any new development requiring a residential building permit. The city
also requires infrastructure improvements for new developments through
KCC 6.02; improvements are based on adopted standards and plans.
7. ldentify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,
or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
There are no conflicts anticipated with local, state, or federal laws resulting
from this proposal. However, the amendments proposed in Alternative A
are inconsistent with King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
regarding county-identified urban separator lands. The properties
identified for land use and zoning district designation amendments under
Alternative A are, according to the CPPs, to remain designated as urban
separators. Kent's comprehensive plan states that all urban separators will
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 26
be zoned SR-1. lf this component of the proposal is adopted, further
amendments to the CPPs will be required.
P : \Pla nn i ng\ADM I N\FORM S\SEPA\SEPA_CH ECKLIST. doc ( REVISED 12/ 08)
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
7.c
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
E
P
A
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
F
i
n
a
l
S
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
KENT
WÂsHrñôtôñ CITY OF KENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Checklist No. ENV-2018-5
RPSA-2182087
zc\-2016-2
RPP6-2160444
Project: Urban Separators
Description: The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
proposal to:
A) Amend the land use plan map designation for B parcels at the Northeast corner of the
intersection of SE 20Oth St, and 1O8th Ave. SE from "Urban Separator" to "SF-6," and
amend the zoning designation for these B parcels from SR-1 to SR-6; and
B) Amend sections 12.04.263 Clustering in Urban Separators; 15.04.020 Residential
Land Uses; and 15.04.030 Residential Land Use and Development Conditions; and
add section 15.02,L14.L Duplex with Ownership Interest; pertaining to permitted
uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in urban separators and
the SR-1 zoning district, The proposed amendments better align Kent's cluster
subdivision requirements with those of neighboring jurisdictions, allow 25Vo of new
housing units to be duplex and townhouse, and require critical areas in cluster
subdivisions to be permanently reserved in open space tracts,
Location: These proposed amendments impact areas throughout Kent which are
designated as urban separators on the City's comprehensive land use plan map,
Applicant: City of Kent, 220 4th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032
Lead Agency CIry or Krrur
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment, An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review
of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency, This information is available to the public on request.
X This DNS is issued under L97-LL-340(2), The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for Í4 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a I$-day
comment period, Comments must be submitted by 4:3O p.ffi., June 15, 2018.
This MDNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03,520.
7.d
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
1
8
2
0
8
7
_
E
N
V
-
2
0
1
8
-
5
_
D
N
S
s
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Responsible Official
Position/Title Lctinq Current Planninq Manaqer
l\ddress 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent. WA 98032
Dated Mav 29, 2018 Signatu
APPEAL PROCESS:
AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NON NIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO
THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END
OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11,03.520.
DB/sm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2018\2182087_ENV-2018-5_Urban Separators_DNS.docx
2of2
May 29,2OtB
7.d
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
1
8
2
0
8
7
_
E
N
V
-
2
0
1
8
-
5
_
D
N
S
s
i
g
n
e
d
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators SEPA DNS Comments
Submitted for the Record June 25, 2018
7.e
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
DNS Comment #1 – Ivan Miller, King County
Received June 14, 2018
Good afternoon,
Thank you for notifying King County regarding the potential revisions to the City of Kent’s regulations
and zoning on parcels that have an urban separator designation.
Urban Separators are designated in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The policy guiding
this designation is as follows:
DP-9 Designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated and unincorporated
areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Resource Lands,
the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife
corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental,
visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the
Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy G-1. Designated Urban
Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in
Appendix 3.
King County notes that SEPA Environmental Decision document briefly references the Countywide
Planning Policies, however, there is no discussion of policy DP-9, the countywide process to amend the
designation, nor the impact of the changes on the designation.
Importantly, jurisdictions have broad discretion to manage their zoning and regulations on urban
separators without changing the designation, as long as the core values and functions identified in policy
DP-9 are protected. The lack of discussion in the SEPA documents make it unclear as to whether these
values and functions are protected, or whether the proposed changes would warrant initiating a re-
designation process through the Countywide Planning Policy process, as described in policy G-1.
King County requests that this discussion and analysis be added in order provide to the public and
stakeholders information to guide their participation in this process, and to assist the City’s legislative
body to consider the impacts and mitigations embodied in the two alternatives.
Following inclusion of this missing information, King County may have additional comments.
Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely,
Ivan Miller
King County Comprehensive Planning Manager | 206-263-8297 | ivan.miller@kingcounty.gov
7.e
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Response: DNS Comment #1 – Ivan Miller, King County
Sent June 20, 2018
Ivan,
Thank you for your comments regarding the City of Kent’s Determination of Non-Significance on the
Urban Separators proposal. I would like to provide some clarification on how we considered
Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) DP-9 in our SEPA analysis.
Policy DP-9 calls for jurisdictions to designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated
and unincorporated areas within the urban growth area. Urban Separators are intended to protect
resource lands, the rural area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife
corridors within and between communities, while also providing public health, environmental, visual,
and recreational benefits.
A comprehensive Inventory and Characterization Report was incorporated into the Urban Separators
SEPA checklist by reference and was considered as part of our SEPA review and threshold
determination. The report describes policy DP-9 and documents existing conditions in Kent’s Urban
Separator lands relative to each of its components, including presence of environmentally sensitive
areas and wildlife corridors, adjacency to open space and resource lands, as well as existing
development conditions and potential impacts of future development to at-risk watersheds to
determine public health, environmental, visual, and recreational value.
Our environmental review considered the potential impacts of each of the alternatives included in the
proposal (Alternative A – land use/zoning amendments and Alternative B – code amendments) on these
existing conditions. Under both alternatives, Kent’s Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06) serves to
protect environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife corridors. As described in the Inventory and
Characterization Report, properties included in Alternative A do not contain environmentally sensitive
areas including wetlands, steep slopes, or wildlife corridors; nor are they adjacent to open space or
resource lands. The properties are presently developed at a higher intensity than allowed by SR-1
zoning, reducing their public health, environmental, visual, and recreational value. This information led
to our determination that redesignation and rezone in this area to allow a density of 6 single-family lots
per acre (a maximum of 16 additional single-family lots) would not have a significant adverse
environmental impact. Other policy considerations, however, including failure to meet the
comprehensive plan amendment criteria in KCC 12.02.050 and the need to make changes to the CPPs
according to the amendment process in policy G-1 prior to final adoption of any redesignation of Urban
Separator lands, preclude Alternative A from being the preferred option.
We also used information in the Inventory and Characterization Report to assess Alternative B’s
potential impacts to each component in policy DP-9. Under this alternative, all impervious surface,
setback, and other development standards for the SR-1 zoning district would continue to apply to new
development in lands currently zoned SR-1; clustering requirements, although slightly modified by this
proposal, would remain in place for all new subdivisions in Urban Separators. Open space requirements
for cluster subdivisions would continue to require open space set-asides to be oriented in such a way
that connects open space and wildlife corridors, and the proposed amendments would provide
additional protections for critical areas by requiring the entire critical area to be reserved in a
permanent sensitive area tract. Under this alternative, all existing Urban Separators would continue to
provide the public health, environmental, visual and recreational benefits described in the Inventory and
Characterization Report. As described in the SEPA checklist, the proposed amendment would allow
more affordable types of housing in Urban Separators, potentially distributing these benefits to a
7.e
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
broader range of incomes. Additional development facilitated by the amendments proposed under
Alternative B could, as described in the SEPA checklist, displace a small amount of informal recreational
space; however, the impact would not be significant, and the code as amended would continue to
require 50% of parent parcels to be set aside as open space to be used by residents of the
subdivision. Requirements to preserve connectivity, scenic vistas, recreational opportunities, etc. would
remain in place.
Again, thank you for your review and comments; we appreciate the opportunity to provide this
clarification of how the CPPs were considered in the threshold determination for the Urban Separators
proposal. This letter will be entered into the record at the June 25, 2018 Land Use and Planning Board
public hearing.
Sincerely,
Danielle R. Butsick, AICP Senior Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
Planning Services | Economic & Community Development
400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032
Main 253-856-5454 | Direct 253-856-5443
dbutsick@kentwa.gov
7.e
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Jason Garnham, June 15, 2018
Responsible SEPA Official
City of Kent
Economic & Community Development
400 West Gowe St.
Kent, WA 98032
Mr. Garnham,
Our organization and other environmental groups reviewed the City of Kent’s recent State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the City’s
non-project Urban Separator proposal dated May 29, 2018. The SEPA determination
included two proposals.
Proposal B slightly modifies the City’s Codes relating to permitted uses, subdivision
requirements, and development standards for Urban Separator parcels. These slight
modifications do not eliminate any Urban Separators and provide balanced benefits to
developers and the environment. Our review finds the City’s SEPA Determination of
Nonsignificance appropriate for Proposal B.
Proposal A would eliminate the current Urban Separator designation and increase the
density from 1 home per acre to 8 homes per acre, for 8 parcels within the City of Kent. We
strongly disagree with the City’s SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for Proposal A.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) manages SEPA on behalf of local
governments in Washington. DOE’s official SEPA guidance to local governments for
nonproject proposals raises serious concerns regarding the City’s DNS for Proposal A.
These concerns are as follows:
•DOE’s SEPA guidance for nonproject proposals states, “Nonproject proposal
reviews should consider existing regulations.” Proposal A is clearly inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan and goals and policies of the City, the Countywide Planning
Policies, and the Growth Management Act. For example, Countywide Planning Policy
(CPP) DP-9 states, “Designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated
and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended
to protect Resource Lands, the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create
open space and wildlife corridors within and between communities while also providing
public health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban
friendsofsooscreekpark@Q.com
DNS Comment #2 - Friends of Soos Creek Park
Received June 15, 2018
7.e
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
P a g e | 2
Separators are made pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies amendment process
described in policy G-1.” The City’s environmental review did not follow the Countywide
Planning Policies amendment process. As described in policy G-1, amending the Urban
Separator designation requires approval by the Growth Management Planning Council,
King County Council, and ratification by all the cities within King County. Any SEPA
review to eliminate parcels from the countywide Urban Separator policy must be
conducted injunction with the SEPA review of other entities and jurisdictions within the
County. A SEPA environmental review by one city, which prematurely concludes a DNS
on a countywide designation, will set a precedent resulting in significant countywide
environmental impacts.
•DOE’s SEPA Guidance for Nonproject proposals states, ‘“SEPA review for nonproject
actions requires agencies to consider the “big picture” by:
1.Conducting comprehensive analysis
2.Addressing cumulative impacts
3.Considering possible alternatives
4.Outlining successful mitigation measures”’
The City of Kent’s environmental review of Proposal A did not adequately consider
these 4 requirements. Therefore, the City’s current environmental review of Proposal A
does not provide an adequate basis for future project decisions. The information
provided by the current environmental review does not provide a solid foundation for
additional analysis at the project phase, limiting the mitigation options which could
avoid significant environmental impacts.
•DOE’s SEPA Guidance for Nonproject proposals states “When a nonproject action
involves a comprehensive plan or similar proposal governing future project development,
the probable environmental impacts that would be allowed for the future development
need to be considered. For example, environmental analysis of a zone designation should
analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.”
The City’s environmental review of Proposal A fails to analyze the impacts of
development within the SR-1 zone. Proposal A would result in a small segment of land
zoned differently from adjacent areas, creating a “zoning island”. Proposal A is
inappropriate from a land use planning perspective and raises potential significant
impacts to the environment.
Proposal A compromises the quality of life of the community by reducing open space and
negatively impacting the environment. Proposal A is totally inconsistent with the City of
Kent’s and King County’s Comprehensive Plans, fails to meet the comprehensive plan
amendment review standards of KCC 12.02.050, does not comply with the Countywide
Planning Policies, and did not receive adequate environmental review.
7.e
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
P a g e | 3
In addition to the concerns described above, our review found potential ambiguity in the
official DNS document dated May 29, 2018. The DNS document states, “This MDNS …”,
apparently referring to a “Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificant”. If the document is
truly an MDNS, the specific impacts and mitigation associated with Proposal A should be
disclosed.
Furthermore, if neither the City of Kent’s Economic & Community Development
Department or Land Use and Planning Board recommend Proposal A, then the SEPA
determination should not include Proposal A as an alternative.
In conclusion, to avoid a significant impact to the environment we ask you to amend the
City’s DNS dated May 29, 2018 by:
1.Removing Proposal A, and
2.Removing the reference to a MDNS.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns and your sincere consideration of
our comments. Please inform us of your decision to amend the DNS as soon as possible, to
allow us adequate time to consider our response to the pending appeal deadline of June
29th, 2018.
Sincerely,
Joe Miles
Joe Miles, president
Friends of Soos Creek Park
CC: FOSCP Board of Directors
Danielle Butsick, City of Kent
7.e
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson
Director
2204th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax:253-856-6454WÂSHrNoroN
ogl
<
=+)c
o,v
o
PHONE: 253-856-5454
June 21, 2018
Joe Miles, President
Friends of Soos Creek Park
frien dsofsooscree kpa rk@q. co m
(42s) s23-s27s
In Response to the Concerns of Friends of Soos Creek park:
Mr. Miles,
Thank you for your careful review of the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
issued on May 29,2OL8, pertaining to urban separators. I understand thai your
concerns are regarding the environmental analysis for "Alternative 4", which ¡f
adopted, would amend the land use designation and zon¡ng district designation for 8parcels in the Panther Lake area from US to SF-6 and SR-1 to SR-6, respectively.
I will address each of your concerns individually, but first I would like to clarify that
Alternative A would amend the land use and zoning designations to allow a density
of 6 single-family lots per acre, rather than 8 ar yoù have described in your letter.
The following are my responses to each of your concerns as you've listed them:
1' As stated in the last paragraph of the SEPA checklist (item D.7.), Alternative
A as proposed is inconsistent with King County's Countywide Planning policies
(CPP's) as currently adopted. Due to this inconsistency, Kent's City Council
could not complete the adoption process for these proposed amendments to
Kent's land use plan map and zoning districts map without first completing the
CPP amendment process outlined in Cpp policy G-1.
The SEPA process is intended to inform decision-making as early as possible
with regard to a proposal's potential impacts to environmental quality, In this
case it is intended to inform Kent City Council's decision whether to pursue
Alternative A, which would involve working with the Growth Management
Policy Council to propose amendments to the CPPs; Alternative B, whicñ wouldinvolve code amendments not requiring comprehensive plan or Cpp
amendments; or another alternative, which could include no further action.
As the City Council process is the first decision point, or "action" as defined in
SEPA, we have determined that this is the appropriate time to conduct an
environmental review and to issue a SEpA determination.
Mayor Dana Ralph
City of Kent Economic & Community Development
Response: DNS Comment #2 - Friends of Soos Creek Park
Sent June 21, 2018
7.e
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson
Director
2204th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6454WÄsHtNGToN
ogl
<
=Ðc
OJY
o
PHONET 253-856-5454
2. We believe that our analysis considers the "big picture" and that it is
comprehensive, addresses cumulative impacts, and considers alternatives.
We did not ident¡fy significant impacts from this proposal that would require
mitigation measures to be identified.
The Urban Separators Inventory and Characterization Report, included by
reference in the SEPA checklist, is intended to provide background information
on existing conditions in urban separator lands, including those in AlternativeA. It describes the location of sensitive environmental resources and
characterizes existing development conditions. The SEPA checklist describes
future development likely to occur as a result of the proposal, and provides
analyses of environmental impacts resulting from this potential future
development.
If you can provide the specific shortcomings you fínd with our analysis, or
provide documentation of potential significant impacts, we would be happy to
discuss those items with you, Otherwise, these general comments are difficult
for us to address in more specific terms.
3. Our environmental review considered the potential impacts from development
at a net density of 6 single-family lots per acre on the 8 parcels identified in
Alternative A. The likely environmental impacts we identified were not
considered significant per the SEPA definition, in part due to the fact that these
properties contain no inventoried critical areas and are already developed at a
net density that is higher than that allowed by SR-1 zoning under the Urban
Separator land use designation. Additionally, part of the SEPA threshold
determination process is consideration of mitigation measures which an agency
or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal, including any mitigation
measures required by development regulations, comprehensive plans, or other
existing environmental rules or laws. If Alternative A were adopted, future
developments would be subject to Kent City Code requirements including but
not limited to subdivision standards, critical areas protection, tree retention,
stormwater standards, landscaping, infrastructure improvements, and
transportation impact fees. These code requirements would adequately
mitigate for any environmental impacts as discussed in the SEPA checklist, the
Inventory and Characterization Report and the SEPA decision document.
While we did not identify any probable significant adverse environmental
impacts, there are certainly other issues to be considered regarding this
proposal, including those addressed in the comprehensive plan amendment
review standards in KCC L2.02.O5O. City staff evaluated Alternative A for
Mayor Dana Ralph
City of Kent Economic & Commun¡ty Development
7.e
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson
Director
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6454WasHtNcroN
PHONE: 253-856-5454
compatibility w¡th these standards, and found it to be inconsistent with
community goals and policies. Findings on these issues will be presented along
with the SEPA environmental review to the Land Use and' Planning Board,
Economic and Community Development Committee, and City Council, and will
be included in staff's recommendation against advancing Alternative A.
4. We appreciate your careful review of the DNS document, and regret the
confusion caused by this typographical error. We will update our DNS template
accordingly to avoid this error in the future. As the title of the document and
the lack of mitigating conditions indicate, the determination remains a DNS.
5. Staff has an obligation to provide our advisory bodies and elected leaders a
range of alternatives to consider when making policy changes. Furthermore,
we are obligated to consider the environmental impacts of all such alternatives
via SEPA review. This range of alternatives provides decision-makers with
important context, and ¡s intended to set the bounds of potential impacts from
any proposal to facilitate fully-informed decision-making. For these reasons,
we will not be removing Alternative A from the proposal considered in this
DNS. However, as stated previously, staff will be recommending against
adoption of Alternative A based on a number of factors, including the
inconsistencies with KCC 12.02.050 and the King County CPP's, as well as
public comments received by the City.
Thank you again for your continued engagement in this process. The role you play
is critical to achieving a balanced decision-making process in Kent, and we hope that
you will remain involved as this proposal is heard at the Land Use and Planning Board,
Economic and Community Development Committee, and City Council. Both the Land
Use and Planning Board hearing and the City Council meeting will include
opportunities for public comment. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments may be appealed via judicial appeal
pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act.
Sincerely,
Erin George, AICP, Current ing Manager and SEPA Responsible Official
o
Ol
<
=+)CoY
o Mayor Dana Ralph
nn
City of Kent Economic & Commun¡ty Development
7.e
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators Comments for Public Hearing
Submitted for the Record June 25, 2018
7.e
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Comment #1 – John and Jan Welch
Received 6/21/2018
To Diane Butsick and The Kent Planning Commission
Please Diane,
I want to go on record to support changes to the urban separators. Many of us have “wet lands”
together with the monster buffers forced upon Kent by the DOE several years ago. I have 10 acres that
are ‘taken’ except for 1 home. If the separators are relaxed I may be able to add 1 or more homes.
For over fifty years I have paid taxes for schools, roads , ect , for others, but now, I cannot build on my
land. I have been forced to provide open space for the 200 plus housing project next door. Please allow
some fairness in this planning.
Thank you.. John and Jan Welch.. 11405 SE 196th Kent [ Panther
lake]. jwelchsr@comcast.net 253 854-0272.
7.e
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Comment #2 – Mark Rubeck
Received 6/21/2018
Ms. Butsick,
I am submitting these written comments in response to the call for inputs to the June 25
Public Hearing on Urban Separators.
I would like to state my support for the continued use of Urban Separators along the
Soos Creek Trail. This trail is a true gem in our community. I would hate to see it
diminished by overdevelopment. I use it regularly as do scores of others. It’s one of the
most popular trails in the area. We should do all we can to preserve it.
It also appears from the map you provided, that significant land along the Green River is
also protected by the Urban Separator classification. This too is a valuable recreation
and conservation site in South King County. Please don’t let developers encroach on
these natural areas.
Thank you.
Mark Rubeck
Renton
7.e
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Comment #3 – Sandy Lam
Received 6/22/2018
Hi,
I am a Kent resident and found out about this project through Nextdoor. I have a few concerns about
knocking out green space in order to make room for a growing population. Crime and traffic is what I am
most upset about.
My opinion probably doesn't count but I want to make sure that I speak my mind. I am a parent and
starting to feel unsafe living in Kent.
I've lived in the East Hill area for about 9 years now. I have a small child that goes to La Petite Academy
on 132nd. Right next to the school was a patch of greenery and now will be over taken by 3 houses. I
was disgusted to see that new houses would be built next to a daycare center! As a parent, this makes
me feel very uneasy that strangers will be living right next to the daycare that she loves. And please
note, this is not a in-home daycare!
The new Arco gas station on 240th street will just lure more criminals. A few months back, the Mc
Donalds/Chevron had a shooting and now there is another gas station two blocks down? That road now
has 5 mini marts which I think devalues are city and makes it a hot spot for criminal activity.
There are also a ton of houses for sale so not sure why we need to build new houses.
Keep the greenery!
Sandy
7.e
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Comment #4 – Heather Staines
Received 6/25/2018
Dear Ms. Butsick,
Please consider my views in Kent's decision process regarding Urban Separator zoning
designations, though I cannot attend tonight. I live on the east side of Soos Creek Park, which I
love and want to protect. My decisions about how to live on the land include taking care of
wildlife and native plants. Watching creatures try to cope as a new purchaser next door
completely clears to lawn, burns, and fences high to build a huge mansion reminds me that one
parcel can be significant and any zoning designation can bring a variety of possible human
activities detrimental to wildlife, clean air and water, and trees. Our rural road is increasingly
clogged with vehicles, many which speed, are noisy, and leave litter.
I understand the pressure to build housing, our region and nation are undersupplied at this
time. In reading the Kent Land Use and Planning Board recommendation to the Kent City
Council, and prior meeting minutes, I appreciate your office's careful consideration of the
availability of buildable land and utilization of existing zoning options. In my view, the current
market pressure makes this a time to hold on to previously enacted protections and allow them to
work regionally. By making exceptions and changes for developers who want higher profits,
your office could very easily make the mistake of degrading what makes Kent healthy and
appealing long term, which includes open space, recreation space, clean water, trees, and
wildlife. Based on my experiences in other communities, I feel that if the City of Kent, and King
County, will hold the line and insist on respect for previous wise planning decisions, or even
further them, development will move toward infill properties, perhaps even including making
older developments more dense. It is important that this happen now and that we use some
willpower. Please leave the urban separators and discourage people from seeking to change
them. Please choose option 1, no action.
Regarding option 3, I very much disagree with changing the equation for open space set asides as
proposed. Critical areas deserve extra consideration, not to have protection effectively
removed. Any parcel where that kind of formula change would make a difference to developers
will also be one where it would make a greater and more lasting negative difference to wildlife.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Heather Staines
7.e
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
_
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
_
0
6
-
2
5
-
2
0
1
8
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Re: Urban Separators
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and Zoning
Districts Map for properties at the northeast side of
the intersection of 108th Avenue SE and SE 200th
Street.
RECITALS
A. The urban separator land use designation is intended to
protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that
provide visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban
growth areas.
B. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs),
ratified by the City of Kent February 19, 2013, contain policies to establish
urban separators. The eastern portion of Kent’s urban separator lands,
along Soos Creek and Panther Lake, are designated as urban separators in
the King County CPPs.
C. Per Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan, all urban separator
lands are to be low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per
acre. To implement this policy, all urban separators in Kent are zoned SR-
1 for one single family dwelling per acre.
7.f
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Re: Urban Separators
D. On September 9, 2014, the city received DKT-2014-2,
requesting a rezone for property at 20628 132nd Ave. SE, in the Soos
Creek area and on August 31, 2015, the city received DKT-2015-1
requesting a rezone for properties at the southwest corner of the Panther
Lake urban separator area.
E. On October 20, 2015, the Kent City Council approved the
2015 Comprehensive Plan Docket Report, which added the multi-year
urban separators project to the Economic and Community Development
Department’s 2016 work program.
F. In 2017, city staff completed an Inventory and
Characterization Report, and a Consistency Review Report for urban
separators. These reports document critical areas, existing development
conditions, and development capacity in Kent’s urban separators, and
compare these characteristics to existing local, regional, and state policies
pertaining to urban separators. The reports concluded that all existing
urban separator focus areas serve the intended purpose of urban
separators to some degree, as defined in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan
and/or the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
G. Beginning in August 2017, city staff conducted a public
outreach campaign which included one-on-one interviews with developers
and community members, two public open houses, a public hearing, and
an online public survey, to gather public opinion regarding the best use of
urban separator lands in Kent. Overwhelmingly, public opinion during the
outreach campaign indicated a preference to retain urban separators as
they are, particularly in the Soos Creek area.
7.f
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Re: Urban Separators
H. On April 19, 2018, the City requested a standard 60-day
review from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the
proposed amendments to KCC. Comments received on xx-xx-2018
included __________________.
I. On May 31, 2018, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the code amendments.
J. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on xx-xx-2018, the
LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments
related to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development
standards in urban separators. After considering the matter, the LUPB
voted to recommend ________of the proposed amendments to the City
Council.
K. On xx-xx-2018, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-
scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council ________ of
the proposed code amendments.
L. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on xx-xx-2018, the City
Council voted to ________ the amendments to the City of Kent Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
7.f
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Re: Urban Separators
SECTION 1. – Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are
incorporated herein by this reference and constitute the city council’s
findings in this matter.
SECTION 2. – Amendment – Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Plan Map. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map is hereby
amended to reflect the revised land use plan map and zoning district
designations for the properties at the northeast side of the intersection of
108th Ave. SE and SE 200th Street (parcels 6623400339, 6623400340,
6623400350, 6623400351, 6623400352, 6623400353, 6623400354, and
6623400355) from US to SF-6 as set forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. – Amendment – Kent Comprehensive Plan Zoning
Districts Map. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Zoning Districts Map
is amended to reflect the revised zoning district designations for the
properties at the northeast side of the intersection of 108th Ave. SE and
SE 200th Street (parcels 6623400339, 6623400340, 6623400350,
6623400351, 6623400352, 6623400353, 6623400354, and 6623400355)
from SR-1 to SR-6 as set forth in Exhibit B.
SECTION 4. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
7.f
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance
5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
Re: Urban Separators
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
7.f
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators Alternative 2
Exhibit A – ZCA-2016-2, Urban Separators
DRAFT – April 19, 2018
7.g
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
_
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators Alternative 2
Exhibit B – ZCA-2016-2, Urban Separators
DRAFT – April 19, 2018
7.h
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
_
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
1 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Section
12.04.263, entitled “Clustering in urban
separators”; Section 15.04.020 entitled
“Residential land uses”; Section 15.04.030, entitled
“Residential land use and development conditions”
of the Kent City Code; and adding 15.02.144.1,
entitled “Duplex with ownership interest”;
pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision
requirements, and development standards in urban
separators.
RECITALS
A. The urban separator land use designation is intended to
protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that
provide visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban
growth areas.
B. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs),
ratified by the City of Kent February 19, 2013, contain policies to establish
urban separators. The eastern portion of Kent’s urban separator lands,
along Soos Creek and Panther Lake, are designated as urban separators in
the King County CPPs.
C. Per Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan, all urban separator
lands are to be low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per
7.i
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
2 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
acre. To implement this policy, all urban separators in Kent are zoned SR-
1 for one single family dwelling per acre.
D. On September 9, 2014 the city received DKT-2014-2,
requesting a rezone for property at 20628 132nd Ave. SE; and on August
31, 2015 the City received DKT-2015-1 requesting a rezone for properties
at the southwest corner of the Panther Lake urban separator area.
E. On October 20, 2015 the Kent City Council approved the 2015
Comprehensive Plan Docket Report, which added the multi-year urban
separators project to the Economic and Community Development
Department’s 2016 work program.
F. In 2017, city staff completed an Inventory and
Characterization Report, and a Consistency Review Report for urban
separators. These reports document critical areas, existing development
conditions, and development capacity in Kent’s urban separators; and
compare these characteristics to existing local, regional, and state policies
pertaining to urban separators. The reports concluded that all existing
urban separator focus areas serve the intended purpose of urban
separators to some degree, as defined in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan
and/or the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
G. Beginning in August 2017, city staff conducted a public
outreach campaign which included one-on-one interviews with developers
and community members, two informal public meetings, a public hearing,
and an online public survey, to gather public opinion regarding the best
use of urban separator lands in Kent. Overwhelmingly, public opinion
indicated a preference to retain urban separators as they are and to
7.i
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
3 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
promote the use of incentive programs to encourage preservation of open
space and natural beneficial functions on private property.
H. Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan has a variety of relevant
policies related to residential development. Policy LU-19.6 states that the
city will “encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering of
housing units, zero lot lines, and other techniques to protect and enhance
urban separators. “ Policy LU-7 states that the city will “ensure residential
development achieves a substantial portion of the allowable maximum
density on the net buildable acreage.” Policy LU-7.4 says that the city will
“allow a diversity of single family housing forms and strategies in all
residential districts (e.g. accessory dwellings, reduced lot size, cottage or
cluster housing), subject to design and development standards, to ensure
minimal impact to surrounding properties.”
I. Clustering is required for subdivision of land in urban
separators; among other requirements, clustering requires fifty percent of
the unconstrained portion of the property to be set aside as an open space
tract. It also requires new lots to be clustered in groups of 8 or fewer, and
clusters must be spaced at least 120 feet apart. The minimum lot size for
cluster subdivisions in urban separators is 2,500 square feet. Only a single
cluster subdivision has been completed since clustering requirements for
urban separators were established in 2001.
J. The City of Auburn, the City of Renton, and unincorporated
King County also require cluster subdivisions within urban separator lands,
but with less stringent requirements for open space set-asides. These
jurisdictions require 50% of the entire parcel to be set aside as open
space; critical areas may be included in the 50% set-aside.
7.i
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
4 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
K. On April 20, 2018, the City requested a standard 60-day
review from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the
proposed amendments to KCC. Comments received on xx-xx-2018
included __________________.
L. On May 31, 2018, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the code amendments.
M. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on xx-xx-2018, the
LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments
related to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development
standards in urban separators. After considering the matter, the LUPB
voted to recommend ________of the proposed amendments to the City
Council.
N. On xx-xx-2018, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-
scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council ________ of
the proposed code amendments.
O. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on xx-xx-2018, the City
Council voted to ________ the amendments to portions of Sections
12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators; 15.04.020 Residential land
uses; and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions;
pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development
standards in urban separators.
7.i
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
5 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 12.04.263. Section 12.04.263 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Clustering in urban separators,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 12.04.263. Clustering in urban separators.
A. All subdivisions and short subdivisions in the SR-1 zoning district
shall be required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the
property is located wholly or partially within an urban separator as
designated on the city of Kent comprehensive land use plan map.
B. Except as described in subsection (C) of this section, cluster
subdivisions and short subdivisions shall be subject to the SR-8 zoning
district development standards outlined in KCC Title 15. These standards
include, but are not limited to, minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks,
parking, landscaping, signage, etc.
C. The provisions of KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.250, as well as
other applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically
exempted. In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered
subdivisions or short subdivisions:
1. Location. The cluster residential development shall be
required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas.
2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option
shall include only single-family residential uses. Duplexes with ownership
7.i
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
6 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
interest and townhouses with ownership interest are also permitted uses
within subdivisions, pursuant to KCC 15.04.020.
3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster
residential development.
4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units
permitted in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of
dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in
which it is located.
5. Lot size. The minimum lot size of individual building lots
within a cluster subdivision or short subdivision is two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet. New lots created by any subdivision or short
subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8)
units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per project. Separation
between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120)
feet.
6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots
in a cluster subdivision or short subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet.
7. Other development standards. Development standards other
than lot size, lot width, and density shall be the same as are required
within the SR-8 zoning district.
8. Common open space. The common open space in a cluster
subdivision or short subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of
the nonconstrained total area of the parcel,. The nonconstrained area of
the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus including critical areas, as
7.i
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
7 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and
buffers. The remainder of the nonconstrained area remaining fifty percent
of the parcel, minus critical areas, shall be the buildable area of the parcel.
The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and
configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective
buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area
wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by
the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or
planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. Critical areas
and buffers shall be placed in separate tracts and shall not be included in
the area of individual lots. not be used in determining lot size and
common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision or short
subdivision. All natural features (significant stands of trees and rock
outcropping), as well as critical areas (such as streams, steep slopes, and
wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved.
Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except
as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all
common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or
disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive
areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic
vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the
clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife
habitat; andor impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of
the development. Such common open spaces shall be conveyed to
residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners’ association for
the benefit of the residents of the development, or conveyed to the city
with the city’s consent and approval.
7.i
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
8 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
SECTION 2. – Amendment – New KCC 15.02.144.1. Chapter 15.02
of the Kent City Code, entitled “Definitions,” is amended to add a new
section 15.02.144.1, entitled “Duplex with ownership interest,” as follows:
Sec. 15.02.114.1. Duplex with ownership interest. Duplex
with ownership interest means real property formed as a duplex, where
portions are designated for separate ownership and the remainder is
designated for common ownership solely by the owners of those portions,
with an undivided interest in the common elements vested in the unit
owners. Real property is not considered a duplex with ownership interest
until after a declaration encompassing and outlining the above
requirements is recorded.
SECTION 3. – Amendment – KCC 15.04.020. Section 15.04.020 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Residential land uses” is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.020. Residential land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
One single-family
dwelling per lot
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A
(1)
A
(1)
A
(1)
A
(1)
One duplex per
lot
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
7.i
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
9 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
One modular
home per lot
P P P P P P P P P P P P
Duplexes P
(27)
(32)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(22)
P P P P P
Multifamily
townhouse units
P
(27)
(32)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(19)
(20)
P
(19)
(20)
P P P P
(2)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P P
(2)
Multifamily
dwellings
P
(26)
P
(26)
P P P P
(2)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P P
(2)
Mobile homes and
manufactured
homes
P
Mobile home
parks
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
Group homes
class I-A
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P C
Group homes
class I-B
P P P P P P P P P P C P P C C C
Group homes
class II-A
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes
class II-B
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes
class II-C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes
class III
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
Secure
community
transition
facilities23. 24
Rebuild/accessory
uses for existing
dwellings
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
P
(6)
Transitional
housing
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P P
(7)
C
(30)
P
(7)
C
(30)
Rooming and
boarding of not
more than three
persons
A A A A A A A A A A
Farm worker
accommodations
A
(17)
A
(9)
A
(17)
Accessory uses
and structures
customarily
A A A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
7.i
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
10 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
appurtenant to a
permitted use
Accessory
dwelling units and
guest cottages
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
Accessory living
quarters
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
A
(14)
Live-work units P
(28)
Home occupations A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
Service buildings A
Storage of
recreational
vehicles
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
Drive-in churches C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Emergency
housing;
emergency
shelter
C
(31)
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Independent
senior living
facilities
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
(3)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
(3)
Assisted living
facilities
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
(3)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
(3)
Residential
facilities with
health care
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
(3)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
(3)
Designated
manufactured
home
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
SECTION 3. – Amendment – KCC 15.04.030. Section 15.04.030 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Residential land use development conditions”
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.030. Residential land use development conditions.
7.i
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
11 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per establishment, for
security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the
premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential
use shall be permitted.
2. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where
allowed, are only permissible in a mixed use overlay and must be included
within a mixed use development.
3. Assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and
independent senior living facilities, when not combined with commercial or
office uses, require a conditional use permit and are subject to the
following conditions:
a. Must be located within a half mile of publicly accessible
amenities in at least three of the following categories, as determined by
the economic and community development director. The distance shall be
measured as the shortest straight-line distance from the property line of
the proposed facility to the property line of the entities listed below:
i. Public park or trail, as identified in the city’s most
recently adopted park and open space plan, or owned or maintained by
any agency of the state, or any political subdivision thereof;
ii. Preschool, elementary, or secondary school (public or
private);
iii. Indoor recreational center (community center, senior
center, physical recreation facility, bingo or casino hall);
7.i
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
12 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
iv. Church, religious institution, or other place of worship;
v. Cultural arts center (theater, concert hall, artistic,
cultural, or other similar event center);
vi. Retail services, including, but not limited to: medical
services; food and beverage establishments; shopping centers; or other
commercial services that are relevant (reasonably useful or germane) to
the residents of the proposed facility, as determined by the city’s economic
and community development director.
b. Alternatively, if the facility provides amenities in one or more
of the categories listed in subsection (3)(a) of this section on the ground
floor of the facility itself, oriented towards the public (meaning that they
are visible, accessible and welcoming), the number of other amenities to
which a half-mile proximity is required may be reduced, at the discretion of
the city’s economic and community development director.
4. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where
allowed, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and
not located on the ground floor.
5. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where
allowed, when not combined with commercial or office uses.
6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired, and otherwise changed
for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for existing dwellings may be
constructed subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
7.i
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
13 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of 20 residents
at any one time, plus up to four resident staff.
8. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not
including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to
agricultural uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the
housing of farm owners, operators, or employees, but not accommodations
for transient labor.
10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the
maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only on the same
lot with a principally permitted detached single-family dwelling unit, and
are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160 and 15.08.350.
11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of
KCC 15.08.040.
12. [Reserved].
13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the mobile home
park code, Chapter 12.05 KCC.
14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of KCC
15.08.359.
15. [Reserved].
7.i
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
14 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in
accordance with KCC 15.08.080.
17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not
accommodations for transient labor.
18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones.
19. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire
property to be rezoned at the time of application for a rezone to an MR-T
zone: SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE.
20. All multifamily townhouse developments in an MR-T zone shall be
recorded as townhouses with ownership interest, as defined in KCC
15.02.525.1, prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city.
21. [Reserved].
22. One duplex per lot is permitted.
23. Secure community transition facilities are only permitted within the
boundaries depicted on the following map, and only with a conditional use
permit:
24. A secure community transition facility shall also comply with
applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter
71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the
siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are
7.i
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
15 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
subject to a 600-foot separation from any other class II or III group home.
In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to,
immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of
sight of risk-potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is
listed for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to
reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes
of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community
transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed
visual distance of 600 feet to be within line of sight. During the conditional
use permit process for a secure community transition facility, line of sight
may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can
demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce
the line of sight to less than 600 feet. This distance shall be measured by
following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the
nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to
be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use
district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For
the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community
transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable
distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share
of similar facilities of a statewide, regional, or countywide nature.
25. A designated manufactured home is a permitted use with the
following conditions:
a. A designated manufactured home must be a new
manufactured home;
b. The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a
permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space
7.i
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
16 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
from the bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete
or an approved concrete product that can be either load-bearing or
decorative;
c. The designated manufactured home shall comply with all city
design standards applicable to all other single-family homes;
d. The designated manufactured home shall be thermally
equivalent to the State Energy Code; and
e. The designated manufactured home shall meet all other
requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW
35.63.160.
26. Multifamily dwellings shall be allowed only within the Kent downtown
districts outlined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and shall be
condominiums recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW or
similar dwelling units with ownership interest and recorded as such prior to
approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city.
27. Within subdivisions, as defined by KCC 12.04.025, vested after
March 22, 2007, or altered to comply with zoning and subdivision code
amendments effective after March 22, 2007, 25 percent of the total
number of permitted dwelling units may be duplex or triplex townhouse
structures.
28. Live-work units; provided, that the following development standards
shall apply for live-work units, in addition to those set forth in KCC
15.04.190:
7.i
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
17 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
a. The unit shall contain a cooking space and sanitary facility in
conformance with applicable building standards;
b. Adequate and clearly defined working space must constitute
no less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the live-work unit. Said
working space shall be reserved for and regularly used by one or more
persons residing there;
c. At least one resident in each live-work unit shall maintain at
all times a valid city business license for a business on the premises;
d. Persons who do not reside in the live-work unit may be
employed in the live-work unit when the required parking is provided;
e. Customer and client visits are allowed when the required
parking is provided;
f. No portion of a live-work unit may be separately rented or
sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living on the
premises, or as a residential space for a person or persons not working on
the premises;
g. [Reserved];
h. Construct all nonresidential space, to the maximum allowed,
to commercial building standards; and
i. Provide an internal connection between the residential and
nonresidential space within each unit.
7.i
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
18 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
29. Subject to the maximum permitted density of the zoning district. For
assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and
independent senior living facilities, each residential care unit is considered
one dwelling unit for purposes of density calculations.
30. Conditional use when the number of residents exceeds 20 at any
one time or more than four resident staff.
31. Emergency housing is an allowed conditional use in the MR-D zone
only in conjunction with an approved conditional use permit, and subject to
the following additional conditions:
a. The emergency housing facility must be located on the same
lot as an actively operating church or similar religious institution, and the
lot must be a minimum of two acres in size;
b. The emergency housing facility must be located within a
permanent, enclosed building;
c. The building footprint of the emergency housing facility
cannot exceed the building footprint of the church or similar religious
institution that exists on the same lot;
d. The church or similar religious institution on the same lot as
the emergency housing facility shall be primarily liable for the operation
and maintenance of the facility itself, as well as the conduct of the
residents of the facility on and in the immediate vicinity of the lot, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, regardless of whether the organization
contracts with a third party for the provision of any services related to the
facility itself or its residents; and
7.i
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
19 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
e. The emergency housing facility shall comply with the setbacks
and landscaping requirements for churches, as identified in KCC
15.08.020(A).
32. Duplexes and multifamily townhouses shall be recorded as duplexes
with ownership interest or townhouses with ownership interest, as defined
in KCC 15.02.525.1 and KCC 15.02.114.1 prior to approval of a certificate
of occupancy by the city.
SECTION 4. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
7.i
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance
20 Amend Kent City Code -
Re: Urban Separators
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
7.i
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
_
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
_
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
9
4
:
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: King County Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C)
SUMMARY: The King County Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) is a regional
organization committed to collaboration on climate change issues; to become a
member, partner jurisdictions must commit to the K4C scope of work, as well as to
dedicating funding and resources. Partner jurisdictions pay an annual membership
fee based on population; Kent’s contribution would be $2,500. All partner
jurisdictions must also appoint a primary and alternate designee (typically mayor or
council members), commit to the K4C scope of work, and commit to participation in
annual Elected Official Summits and ongoing time-sensitive state-level policy
discussions.
The K4C can serve as a resource for its members. Member support includes letters
of support on grant applications, regional code collaboration (research and drafting
model ordinances), and letters of support for important plans or projects with
climate implications.
Staff will be available at the July 9 meeting to provide information on the K4C, and
request feedback from committee members on Kent’s potential participation with
the K4C.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative Community, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. King County K4C (PDF)
2. K4C - Interlocal Agreement - FINAL (PDF)
3. 5. 2018 - Attachment A - K4C 2018 Workplan and Budget (DOCX)
8
Packet Pg. 105
KING COUNTY CITIES CLIMATE COLLABORATION (K4C) Economic and Community Development Committee July
9, 2018
8.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
K4C IS ABOUT COLLABORATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES
Collaboration between city and county staff on:
Outreach – messaging and tools for climate change
Coordination – consistent standards, benchmarks, strategies and goals for responding to climate change
Solutions – success stories, challenges, data, and products
Funding and Resources – grants, and other shared resources
8.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
MEMBERSHIP REQUIRES COMMITMENT, AND DOLLARS:
Members are required to pay an annual fee based on population.
$2,500 is Kent’s expected contribution, prorated for mid-year registration
Appoint one designee and one alternate (Mayor or Council Members)
Climate Policy Discussions: time-sensitive, state level policy discussions
Elected Official Summits: Annually share data about climate impacts, review shared progress on climate and energy commitments
8.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
MEMBERSHIP REQUIRES COMMITMENT, AND DOLLARS (CONT.):
Members must sign an interlocal agreement that includes:
Shared Goals: Share data on greenhouse gases, emission sources, and trends; fund and use metric platform
Energy Supply: engage with utility providers; support technical analysis of local efficiency and renewable energy; extend Fund to Reduce Energy Demand (FRED) to K4C partners
Transportation/Land Use: support alternative/clean energy; support transit use; pursue funding and policy/infrastructure support for electric vehicles, TOD, and other ways to reduce emissions; enhance information sharing
Green Building + Energy Efficiency: partner on initiatives, policies, and code collaboration to support efficient building and green building policies and codes; advocate for strong state energy codes for commercial and multifamily buildings
Collaboration: Green Building Task Force (King County Solid Waste Division); Regional Code Collaboration (jurisdictions outside of King County); Sustainable Cities Roundtables
8.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
K4C IS A RESOURCE FOR ITS MEMBERS: Examples:
Grant applications: City of Tukwila Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) grant; visioning for a new Tukwila International Blvd. corridor
Code Collaboration Committee: ideas on how to adapt code for:
water conservation,
sustainable transportation,
energy efficiency,
materials conservation
Letters of support:
letter to WUTC on PSE’s plan for Colstrip power plant;
letter to WA State Climate Leg. & Exec. Workgroup in support of bold climate action;
di li G Il’ li l
8.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
QUESTIONS?
8.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
K
4
C
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CLIMATE COLLABORATION
This Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW among
participating Cities of King County, (hereinafter referred to as the "Cities"), and King
County, (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), 201 S. Jackson, Suite 701, Seattle,
WA 98104 (collectively, “the Parties”) Chapter 39.34 RCW.
Whereas, we, King County and the undersigned Cities of King County, wish to work
together to directly respond to climate change and reduce global and local sources of climate
pollution;
Whereas, we believe that by working together we can increase our efficiency and
effectiveness in making progress towards this goal;
Whereas, we are interested in achieving this goal in a way that builds a cleaner, stronger and
more resilient regional economy;
Whereas, we are interested in focusing on local solutions to leverage and partner with related
collaborative efforts;
Whereas, partnering on sustainable solutions will advance progress towards Cities’
environmental, climate change, and energy goals such as those adopted by the nearly half of
King County Cities that have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities and King County mutually agree as follows:
1. Purpose and Scope of this Agreement
1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to outline responsibilities and tasks related to
the County and Cities that are voluntarily participating in the King County-
Cities Climate Collaboration. The Parties will develop and coordinate on the
following efforts:
(a) Outreach: Develop, refine, and utilize messaging and tools for climate
change outreach to engage decision makers, other cities, and the
general public.
(b) Coordination: Collaborate on adopting consistent standards,
benchmarks, strategies, and overall goals related to responding to
climate change.
(c) Solutions: Share local success stories, challenges, data and products
that support and enhance climate mitigation efforts by all partners.
8.b
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 2
(d) Funding and resources: Collaborate to secure grant funding and other
shared resource opportunities to support climate related projects and
programs.
1.2 It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or
supersede the authority or role of any individual Party.
1.3 All tools, outreach materials, data, collaborative efforts, and other resources
that are developed as part of this Agreement are optional for Cities and King
County to adopt or utilize.
2. Organization
2.1 Each Party shall appoint one designee and an alternate to serve as its
representative. Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the
appointment of designees and alternate designees for each Party, designees
shall meet and choose, according to the voting provisions of this section,
representatives to serve as Chair and Vice Chair to oversee and direct the
activities associated with meetings including the development of the agendas,
running the meeting and providing leadership.
2.2. No action or binding decision will be taken without the presence of a quorum
of active designees or alternates. A quorum exists if a majority of the
designees present at the meeting. Each designee shall have an equal vote, with
a supermajority vote of 75% of all designees being required to approve the
final scope of the collaboration program or amend the scope. Any vote to
increase the amount of funding required by each Party, however, shall only be
binding on those who specifically agree to such increase.
2.3 Designees shall have the authority and mandate to administer the Tasks
outlined in Section 3.
2.4 Designees may approve a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to secure a
vendors or consultants needed to accomplish any Task, and shall interview one
or more applicants and make an appointment provided sufficient funds are
available.
2.5 Designees shall meet and report on a quarterly basis to ensure that Tasks are
efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of this
Agreement, including the allocation of resources.
2.6 Designees shall develop an initial annual work plan and budget which will be
finalized within one month of approval of the Agreement by the Parties.
Subsequent annual work plans will be developed and approved on or before
the anniversary of the adoption of the first years’ work plan in conjunction
8.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 3
with budget planning for consideration and adoption by the Parties’ legislative
bodies.
2.7 If direct payment in support of the annual work plan, such as for consultant
services or hiring staff, can be arranged by participating Cities, this is
preferred. If direct payment occurs, these funds will be accounted for towards
that city’s contribution. If this is not possible, funds collected from any source
on behalf of the Parties shall be maintained in a special fund by the County as
ex officio treasurer on behalf of the Collaboration. The County shall also serve
as the contractual agent for the Parties in acquiring any serviced needed to
complete Tasks of the Agreement.
3. Tasks
3. 1 Climate Collaboration Work Plan.
Finalize the Scope of Work for this King County-Cities Collaboration
consistent with this Agreement. This will take place after commencement per
Section 5 of this Agreement and is funding-dependent.
3.2 Sustain the King County Cities Climate Collaboration (Budget $10,000)
Pay necessary expenses to support expansion of the King County SWD
GreenTools Roundtable program to include every other-month forums on
climate-related sustainability issues. The Roundtables will be held at various
venues throughout King County and topics will focus on the collaborative
actions highlighted in the King County-Cities Climate Pledge: outreach,
coordination, solutions, funding and resources. Speakers will include King
County and City staff and other invited partners.
3.3 Hire a staff member, partial staff member, or consultant to support achieving
the priorities identified in the King County-Cities Climate Pledge (Budget
$9,000-$80,000 depending on commitments made)
(a) The staff member will help lead implementation of the King County-
Cities Climate Collaboration initiatives, including but not limited to:
sustainable transportation; clean fuel vehicles; community energy
retrofits; renewable energy projects; community outreach; and other
topics defined and agreed upon in the final Scope of Work or annual
Work Plans. Staff could develop and implement a general countywide
program that supports City sustainability projects or programs. Staffing
options include hiring a part- to full-time staff from King County or a
participating King County City to lead the effort
8.b
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 4
(b) Products that will be developed, to be clarified in the process of
finalizing the Scope of Work, and dependent on funding, include:
1. Directory of local climate solutions related resources to include:
a. County technical expert pool. A list of relevant County
technical experts on staff that already support city
sustainability projects and programs. This could be
expanded with mechanisms for cities to directly contract
with County staff to support implementation of specific
projects and programs.
b. Technical experts from all participating jurisdictions that
could help support other cities’ efforts, share local
success stories, or potentially be contracted out to work
with other cities.
c. Technical experts from academia, research institutions,
utilities and other organizations.
d. List of consultants with local experience and expertise
on a diverse range of climate and sustainability related
functions.
e. Best practices and lessons learned from relevant local
projects and programs.
2. Symposium for city and County staff focused on local climate
solutions.
3. Forum for all local technical experts – a broader group than
those engaged in the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration
– to share information and best practices
4. Opportunities for local governments to increase understanding
and gather information on specific climate change mitigation
efforts.
5. Other products as defined and agreed upon in the process of
finalizing the Scope of Work, provided they are consistent with
the King County-Cities Climate Pledge and focused on
sustainability and climate change related outreach, coordination,
solutions, or funding and resources.
4. Funding
4.1 The minimum required financial contribution for each King County City to
participate in this Agreement is shown below. In no event shall the Cities be responsible
for amounts incurred by King County in excess of what is set forth in this Agreement
without an amendment according to the terms hereof.
8.b
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 5
4.2 To the extent this Agreement is renewed annually, the Parties shall update the
work plan and contribute funds to King County for estimated costs, as described below,
in advance of services provided. Any funds not used in any given year will be used in
the execution of the following year’s Work Plan or refunded, on a proportional basis
based on initial contributions, within forty-five (45) days in the event of a Party’s
termination of this Agreement.
4.3 The Parties represent that funds for service provision under this Agreement
have been appropriated and are available. To the extent that such service provision
requires future appropriations beyond current appropriation authority, the obligations of
each Party are contingent upon the appropriation of funds by that Party's legislative
authority to complete the activities described herein. If no such appropriation is made,
the Agreement shall terminate as to that Party provided the Party provides notice of
termination prior to the other parties prior to the adoption of the annual work plan per
Section 2.6.
8.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 6
5. Duration
This Agreement is effective upon execution by King County and a minimum of eight
King County Cities which will contribute at least $9,000 total, after approval by the
legislative body of each Party. The Agreement will be posted on the web site of each
Party after authorization in accordance with RCW 39.34.040. and .200. The
Agreement will have a term of one year and will automatically renew each year unless
terminated as provided in Section 7.
6. Latecomers
Non-party King County cities may opt into this Agreement at any time. If cities join
after an annual work is finalized, they will pay a pro-rated amount, calculated as the
preceding year’s annual financial contribution for that jurisdiction multiplied by the
percentage of the remaining time in the year.
7. Termination
7.1 In addition to termination for lack of appropriation under Section 5, a Party
may end its participation in this Agreement upon written notice to the other
Parties prior to October 1st to be effective at the end of the calendar year.
Except as set forth in 7.2, no refunds will be paid to individual Parties who
terminate.
7.2 In the event of individual terminations that result in fewer than eight
remaining City participants, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and all
funding remaining after all services, fees and costs incurred to that date are
paid, shall be returned by King County to the remaining participants pro rata
based on their original relative contribution amounts. Such payment shall be
made within forty-five (45) days of the termination date.
8. Communications
The following persons shall be the contact person for all communications regarding
the performance of this Agreement.
King County City of
Matt Kuharic
King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks Director’s Office
201 South Jackson, Suite 701, Seattle,
WA 98104
Phone: 206-477-4554 Phone:
E-mail address:
matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov
Email address:
8.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 7
9. Indemnification
To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this
Agreement, each Party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other
Parties to include the officers, employees, agents and contractors of the Party, while
acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all
claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or
losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from
such Party’s own negligent acts or omissions, torts and wrongful or illegal acts related
to such Party’s participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each Party agrees
that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of
action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose,
each Party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Parties
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the
industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection
shall survive and continue to be applicable to Parties exercising the right of
termination pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event do the Parties intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any
other Party or otherwise with regard to any Party’s duties or regulations.
10. Compliance with All Laws and Regulations
The Parties shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations
and standards necessary for the performance of this Agreement.
11. Non- exclusive Program
Nothing herein shall preclude any Party from choosing or agreeing to fund or
implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes
hereunder by separate agreement or action.
12. No Third Party Rights
Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create
any rights in any third party, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of any
Party , or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party.
13. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only the unanimous consent of
the Parties represented by affirmative action of their legislative bodies.
8.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Page 8
14. Entire Agreement
This Agreement is a complete expression of the intent of the Parties and any oral or
written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded.
15. Waiver
Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default.
Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a
modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such through written
approval by the Parties which shall be attached to the original Agreement.
16. RCW 39.34 Required Clauses
a) Purpose. See Section 1 above
b) Duration. See Section 5 above.
c) Organization of separate entity and its powers. No new or separate legal or
administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement.
d) Responsibilities of the Parties. See provisions above.
e) Agreement to be filed and recorded. The City shall file this Agreement with its
City Clerk. The County shall place this Agreement on its web site. The Agreement
shall also be recorded.
f) Financing. Each Party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual
obligations under its normal budgetary process.
g) Termination. See Section 7 above.
17. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
The persons signing below, who warrant they have the authority to execute this
Agreement.
By: By:
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Date: ___________________________
Mayor
City of
Date: _________________________
8.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
4
C
-
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
F
I
N
A
L
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
Attachment A
King County-Cities Climate Collaboration
(K4C) 2018 Work Plan and Budget
Prepared per Motion 14449
8.c
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
2
0
1
8
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
K
4
C
2
0
1
8
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
2
This report has been developed to provide information about the King County-Cities Climate
Collaboration (K4C)1 2018 Work Plan and Budget, as required by King County Council Motion
14449 which states:
B. Consistent with Ordinance 17285, which authorized the Interlocal Agreement for the King
County-Cities Climate Collaboration, the executive is requested to coordinate with staff of the
transportation, economy and environment committee, or its successor, in developing the annual
work plans and budget for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration under the interlocal
agreement. The executive is requested to submit by January 31, and every year thereafter, the
King County-Cities Climate Collaboration annual work plan and budget to the council for
acceptance by motion.
Background: Elected Official and K4C Partner Guidance on K4C Priorities
K4C partners have collaboratively developed a Letter of Commitment, Principles for
Collaboration, and Joint County-City Climate Commitments2 ( K4C’s Joint Commitments) - that
will help get the region on track towards shared and ambitious countywide, community scale
climate change and greenhouse gas reduction targets formally adopted by King County and 39
King County Cities through the Growth Management Planning Council. As of the end of 2017,
the K4C’s Joint Commitments have been formally endorsed by the chief elected official of
thirteen of fourteen K4C partners - that together represent three quarters of the County’s
population. The K4C’s Joint Commitments serve as the anchor and guiding document informing
the work plan and activities of the K4C.
Recognizing that K4C partners cannot implement all of the K4C’s Joint Commitments at once,
partners are currently focusing on areas that: maximize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reduction potential; recognize an appropriate and strategic role for K4C; pursue untapped
potential or opportunity; and/or represent an opportunity for political action or partnership
among K4C partners, Washington State agencies, energy utilities, and others.
Based on alignment with the K4C’s Joint Commitments, a series of six elected official summits
between 2014 and 2017, and decisions at the Fall 2017 K4C staff retreat, below is a summary of
2018 K4C work plan and budget priorities. Beyond these priority focus areas, the K4C will
continue to collaborate on other K4C Joint Commitment areas, for example through hosting 2018
Sustainable Cities Roundtable on climate related topics.
2018 Work Plan: K4C Joint Commitment Priorities
The K4C’s 2018 Work Plan commitments focus on the following areas, organized by relevant
section of the K4C’s Joint Commitments:
1 To learn more about the K4C: www.kingcounty.gov/climate/pledge
2 The K4C’s Joint Commitments: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/dnrp-directors-office/climate/2016-K4C-
LetterOfCommitments.pdf
8.c
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
2
0
1
8
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
K
4
C
2
0
1
8
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
3
1. Shared Goals
Partner to share data on countywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources and trends,
including through a project led by the City of Bellevue and ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability to better assess the drivers and trends in local sources of community level
GHG emissions.
Partner to fund and use Scope 5, a web-based GHG emissions and sustainability metric
measurement platform for K4C partners that is transparent, current, and provides consistency
across agencies.
2. Energy Supply
Continue engagement between elected officials, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light, and
state utility regulators to work toward a renewable energy-powered future, with accelerated
coal phase-out and limitation of new natural gas-based electricity.
Use K4C expertise to support a technical analysis of local efficiency and renewable energy
potential, as part of a Clean Electricity Pathways Planning Project, including outlining and
engaging with elected officials regarding what K4C partners can do to achieve that potential.
Collaborate to extend King County’s Fund to Reduce Energy Demand (FRED) program to
K4C partners.
3. Transportation and Land Use
Support increased use of alternative fuels and clean technologies in K4C partner fleet
Explore more possibilities for people throughout the county to access the frequent transit
network, expanding opportunities for travel and decreasing reliance on single occupant
vehicles, including opportunities to expand alternative transit services and ridesharing.
Pursue funding opportunities for electric vehicles and related technologies, transportation-
oriented developments, and other strategies that reduce transportation emissions and single
occupancy vehicle use, including a coordinated approach to Washington State’s Volkswagen
settlement funding opportunity.
Support regional electric vehicle growth through policy, infrastructure, and vehicle
procurement coordination.
Engage K4C partners in fleet manager meetings to enhance information sharing and to
support development of best practices for vehicle use and fleet investments across partners.
4. Green Building and Energy Efficiency
Partner to develop and coordinate Living Building Challenge policies that support super-
efficient building strategies.
Partner through the Regional Code Collaboration on implementation of and development of
ambitious energy and green building policies and codes.
Collaborate to support development of and advocate for strong 2018 Washington state energy
codes for commercial and multifamily buildings.
5. Collaboration
Green Building Task Force and Regional Code Collaboration: The K4C partners with the
“Green Building Task Force” (GBTF), a group led by King County’s Solid Waste Division
that collaborates with King County cities on research, tools and policies related to green
building. The K4C also partners with a second green building collaborative effort called the
8.c
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
2
0
1
8
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
K
4
C
2
0
1
8
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
4
“Regional Code Collaboration”, which includes partners outside of King County, and is
focused on code development for local governments to further sustainable development. The
K4C will continue to partner with these groups on green building strategies, for example as it
did in the April 2016 by jointly hosting a green building focused elected official summit.
Sustainable Cities Roundtables: A key area of collaboration between the K4C and the
GBTF is the Sustainable Cities Roundtable series. This is a monthly series of training
sessions, discussions and workshops dedicated to green building and climate change policy
and programming for the county and cities in King County. The K4C helps design and host
roughly half of these events on topics that align with the K4C’s Joint Commitments.
2018 Work Plan: Additional Priorities:
K4C Shared Climate and Energy Policy Interests: Engage in time-sensitive climate policy
discussions at the state level as they relate to the K4C’s Joint Commitments.
2018 K4C Elected Official Summits. K4C staff committed to host at least one K4C elected
official event each year. As of the end of 2017, one elected official event is scheduled at for 2018
to be held on February 7th. Additional elected official events later in the year are possible. The
February 2018 summit will include a session sharing infographics about climate impacts and
actions in King County, and provide K4C partners an opportunity to learn more about the
Million Trees initiative and new K4C tools for reporting on our sustainability and climate change
progress. The meeting will also provide an opportunity to review shared progress towards K4C
climate and energy commitments, discuss the results from Clean Electricity Pathways consulting
work that K4C elected officials helped to scope, and to map next steps in shaping policies and
actions that accelerate the transition to renewable energy.
8.c
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
2
0
1
8
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
K
4
C
2
0
1
8
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
5
2017 K4C Budget
The K4C Interlocal Agreement (ILA) includes a stipulation that 75% of parties must approve of
budget expenditures. The K4C steering committee held a budget decision making meeting on
December 7th, 2017 through which twelve of fourteen (86%) of K4C partners formally adopted a
set of initial 2018 budget expenditures. These expenditures do not spend all of the K4C’s shared
resources and the group has agreed to consider additional spending priorities during the spring of
2018.
2018 K4C Revenues
ILA Defined Partner Contributions $34,200
Related King County Contribution $20,000
2017 Unspent Funds $43,540
Total Resources Available for 2018 $97,740
2018 K4C Approved Expenditures
2018 Sustainable Cities Roundtable Series - Event Production Support $10,000
2018 Sustainable Cities Roundtable Series- To support stipends, honorariums or
other financial support for local events, especially for topics and speakers related to
environmental justice, climate justice and broader equity and social justice topics,
themes or Roundtable participants
$5,000
2018 Sustainable Cities Roundtable Series - to support audio/video recording or
transmitting (e.g. webinars) of roundtables or trainings
$2,000
2018 K4C Event Catering $1,000
K4C and K4C Partner - Climate Action Infographics $10,000
Scope 5 – Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Tracking Program $12,625
High Performance Green Building Code - City Implementation Tools $16,000
Total Approved 2018 Expenditures $56,625
Conclusion and Next Steps
The 2018 work plan and budget builds on the K4C’s Joint Commitments, elected official input
and engagement, and interests and direction of all K4C partners. The 2018 K4C budget was
adopted by partners at the December 2017 staff budget decision making meeting. As this process
moves forward, the Executive commits to continue to coordinate with the staff of the
transportation, economy and environment committee, or its successor, in developing this and
future annual work plans and expenditures for the K4C.
8.c
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
2
0
1
8
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
K
4
C
2
0
1
8
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
1
2
9
5
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
K
4
C
)
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Sound Transit Access Improvements Update
SUMMARY: Sound Transit restored funding for the Kent Station Access
Improvements project in 2016; the project was initially authorized in 2008, and
suspended in 2010 as a result of the recession. A new parking structure is the main
project component, but pedestrian and non-motorized improvements will be
included as well. ECD staff continues to partner with Sound Transit staff to ensure
that the project is consistent with City of Kent long-term goals and that
implemented improvements enhance the transit-oriented and pedestrian-first
character of Kent’s downtown. A site for the garage was selected by the Sound
Transit Board of Directors, bounded by E James to the north, BNSF railroad tracks
to the west, Central Avenue to the east, and the transit center ADA parking lot to
the south.
At a recent meeting, Sound Transit staff and consultants proposed two site layout
alternatives; both consist of a garage footprint at the intersection of Railroad
Avenue N and E James Street, and both propose a realignment of Railroad Avenue
N. One alternative would realign Railroad Avenue N to the east of the garage,
closer to Central Avenue, and the other would realign Railroad Avenue N to the
west of the garage, closer to the BNSF railroad tracks. City staff have concerns
about the ability of either layout to accommodate future transit growth or facilitate
a pedestrian-first environment within the proposed planning envelope. Staff
submitted a comment letter to this effect to Sound Transit staff. The comment
letter is provided in the meeting packet.
As of June 28, staff has not yet received a formal response from Sound Transit staff
regarding the comment letter. However, Sound Transit staff have indicated that
there is no plan to revisit the planning envelope to accommodate additional space
for future transit bay space or passenger drop-off and ADA parking facilities, as
requested in Kent staff’s comment letter. Sound Transit staff have indicated that
the agency is moving forward with the layout alternative which places Railroad
Avenue N closer to Central Avenue, referred to as “Flipped Drive Access”. The
Sound Transit team will revisit the site layout within the proposed envelope to
explore ways to reconfigure site elements in such a way that does not preclude
future transit growth.
9
Packet Pg. 125
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Kent Comments - Site 3C Layout Alternatives (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 126
Melissa Saxe, PEPD South Sounder Project Development Director
Sound Transit Project Team
Re: Sound Transit Sounder Access Improvements Project
Dear Ms. Saxe:
The City of Kent appreciates your continued engagement with staff on the development of
site layout alternatives for the Sounder access improvements project. At the workshop on
May 23rd, we discussed two alternatives: “Drive Access” and “Flipped Drive Access”. Staff
has some serious concerns about either of these site layout alternatives moving forward as
currently conceived.
As you know, this project is in the heart of Kent’s downtown; it is critical that this project
aligns with and supports Kent’s vision and goals. These goals, described in the city’s
comprehensive plan and Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP), envision downtown as a
transit-oriented “pedestrian-first” environment. The city’s priorities are to maximize new
parking spaces to facilitate use of the Sounder; improve the quantity, safety, and quality of
pedestrian and bicycle connections between the transit center and downtown destinations;
and support planned growth in transit service and ridership to encourage transit-oriented
development.
The two site layout alternatives, “Drive Access” and “Flipped Drive Access”, offer some
advantages toward these goals. Both alternatives maximize the number of new parking
spaces by realigning Railroad Avenue to accommodate a more efficient garage footprint.
“Drive Access” may improve traffic operations by further separating the intersections of E.
James St. and Central Ave., and Railroad Ave. and Central Ave. “Flipped Drive Access”
promotes a more welcoming environment for pedestrians by locating the garage near the
platform to eliminate the need for garage users to cross any streets, and it improves bus
turning movements from the transit circle to E. Pioneer Street.
Our concerns, however, are more fundamental, and unless addressed will undermine any
potential advantages of either alternative. They pertain to the adequacy of the planning
envelope itself, and its ability to accommodate a functional transit center with long-term
viability. The following are our principal concerns:
Transit capacity and growth
Current capacity at Kent Station for buses consists of 9 active and 3 layover bays, in
approximately 1,050 linear feet. The King County “Metro Connects” plan calls for a
minimum of 12 active and 12 layover bays to accommodate planned increased service
through 2040. This service level requires nearly 1,500 linear feet for the buses alone,
plus 25 to 60 feet on either side for independent movement in and out of the station
area.
The concepts proposed at the May 23rd workshop provide approximately 1,040 to 1,075
linear feet of active and layover bay space. They only marginally meet existing bay
space, with no apparent ability to accommodate the planned increase in Metro bus
service. Neither alternative incorporates additional ADA parking or “kiss-and-ride”
space near the platform to accommodate increased ridership. We see these as
fundamental flaws, which call for a reevaluation of the site planning envelope. Given
these limitations, which have become clearer as the site designs have evolved, we
9.a
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
-
S
i
t
e
3
C
L
a
y
o
u
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
1
2
9
6
:
S
o
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
suggest revisiting options previously withdrawn, including the integration of additional
parcels to the east. The city’s preference was for these parcels to be reserved for
future transit-oriented redevelopment, but we recognize that the success of this project
may hinge on the use of those or other additional properties.
Welcoming pedestrian environment
The geometric constraints of the planning envelope for providing sufficient bus bay
space contribute to our second significant concern; neither of these proposed layouts
supports a welcoming pedestrian environment. First, planning within this envelope
requires improvised pedestrian intersections that are simply unworkable. The “Drive
Access” alternative’s offset pedestrian crossing at E James St. and Railroad Ave. to
accommodate bus turning movements over the railroad tracks is one such example. We
are not confident this intersection can function as proposed; we are concerned it will be
disorienting for pedestrians while failing to achieve the intended separation between
rail, automobile, and pedestrian traffic.
Second, the placement of active and layover bus bays along both sides of Railroad Ave.
requires streets to be uncomfortably wide and limits visibility when bus bays are full. It
creates an unwelcoming pedestrian environment, particularly in the “Drive Access”
alternative, in which garage users (including those with ADA parking permits) must
cross Railroad Ave. to get to the Sounder platform. This is at odds with our city’s vision
for a “pedestrian-first” downtown.
One potential solution to this conflict would be to incorporate additional bus facilities on
the ground floor of the parking garage. This may also require revisiting the concept of
spanning the garage over Railroad Avenue in its current configuration.
In light of the significant concerns described above, we respectfully request the following as
acceptable next steps: 1) revisit the “lidded” garage concept over Railroad Ave. in its
present alignment, and 2) reconsider the incorporation of additional properties, including
those to the east of the proposed planning envelope. Thank you for the opportunity to work
through these issues with your team. We are confident that we will reach a mutually
agreeable alternative that meets Sound Transit’s goals for this project as well as the City of
Kent’s vision for our downtown.
Sincerely,
Danielle Butsick, AICP
Sr. Long Range Planner, City of Kent
9.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
-
S
i
t
e
3
C
L
a
y
o
u
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
1
2
9
6
:
S
o
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue S,
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: July 9, 2018
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
SUBJECT: Economic Development Website Update
SUMMARY: Having a first-class online presence is critical for the economic
development team to expand the reach of its efforts and to share large amounts of
information with interested audiences. The economic development division
redesigned its webpages in order to capture the essence of the city, while also
relaying important information to our audiences.
Market research shows that 98% of commercial site selectors expect to obtain data
online; including up-to-date information about demographics, key industries,
showcases of leading employers, incentives, workforce attributes, and available
infrastructure and housing.
Work still to be done includes the implementation of a tool to showcase available
properties. A GIS-enabled component is a feature many of Kent’s neighboring cities
showcase on their sites, leaving Kent at a potential disadvantage. Making use of
available technology is something site selectors expect to see on economic
development sites; allowing visualization of available properties and characteristics
in the area.
Staff is exploring whether funding partnerships are possible to allow the hosting of
Zoom Prospector, a third-party plug-in solution which puts that information right on
the website, where site selectors want it.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Innovative Community, Sustainable Services
10
Packet Pg. 129