Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 01/09/2017 (2)Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 4th Ave S, Kent, 98032. For additional information please contact Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5702. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. Economic & Community Development Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Bill Boyce, Chair January 9, 2017 5:00 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker(s) Time Page 1. Call to Order Bill Boyce 1 min 2. Roll Call Bill Boyce 1 min 3. Changes to the Agenda Bill Boyce 1 min 4. Approval of December 12, 2016 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 1 min 1 5. Kent Sounder Access Improvements NO Sandra Fann 10 min 5 Information Only Sound Transit 6. KPG Contract – Meet Me on Meeker YES Bill Ellis 10 min 25 7. Housing Source of Income Discrimination YES Merina Hanson 10 min 41 Adam Long 8. Urban Separators-Scope of Project NO Danielle Butsick 10 min 57 Information Only 9. Tiny Homes NO Danielle Butsick 10 min 77 Information Only 10. Proactive Code Enforcement Update NO Matt Gilbert 5 min Information Only 11. Showare Update NO Ben Wolters 5 min Information Only 12. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 5 min Information Only ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES December 12, 2016 Committee Members Bill Boyce, Tina Budell, Jim Berrios 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda No Changes 4. Approval of Minutes Jim Berrios requested clarity and review on item #7 from the November 14 meeting on the Surface Water Manual, no action was taken at ECD. This item has went to Public Works Committee for approval but there seems to be concerns about the vaults for surface water. I would like to know if there will be further review of this item before it is pasted through full Council at the next meeting. Chair Boyce stated there was a meeting at 4:00 today with City Staff - Tim Laporte and Ben Wolters and Council Member Dennis Higgins, Bill Boyce, along with CAO Derek Matheson. It was decided to pull this item from the next Council Meeting and take it back to Public Works Committee and have further discussions between the City stake holders and make sure we are all on the same page with the goal being to bring this item back to the January 17th Council meeting. Council Member Berrios asked about the time sensitivity of this item. Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director acknowledged the Dept. of Ecology has a deadline for this as January 1, however after conversation with the City Attorney and with the amount of work and effort that has already been completed by the City to adopt the standards by the January meeting is showing the City’s intent to comply, if not by the except date but within the month of January showing the City is working on this item and moving forward in good faith. Committee Member Budell MOVED and Committee Member Berrios SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of November 14th. Motion PASSED 3-0, with clarification of the surface water manual item. 5. Multifamily Tax Exemption – Riverbend Site Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager spoke on the second part of the 2-part process to allow the Multifamily Tax Exemption at the Riverbend site. In November, the Council set an urban area around the Riverbend site that was step 1, step 2 is to establish a specific area within the Residential Targeted Area, and this is the area within the new urban center where the multifamily tax exemption will be a possibility for projects. This creates a place where future projects can apply through the Council and Code. We are currently working with a developer who is working through the planning process and their application will be coming to the Council within the next year. What Council has to vote on tonight is an ordinance to create the residential targeted area with a minor adjustment to the qualification as it relates to parking garages when the multifamily tax exemption program was extended a few years 1 ECDC Minutes December 12, 2016 2 ago the Council added a qualifying project had to have all the required parking in a parking structure, that was meant for downtown. We are now extending this to the Riverbend site and we are not in and intense urban area. This site is more of an open space context. We have added some language saying projects shall provide structured parking but can also use surface parking within the design. The developer we are working with now has structure parking under 2 buildings but also surface parking within the plan. We wanted to make sure there would be flexibility within the ordinance. Nothing is being changed for the downtown area. Council Member Berrios wanted clarification on the parking change only being for the specific Par 3 area. Gilbert responded, yes, the new residential area which is the Par 3 area. Gilbert stated the downtown projects will remain the way they are today which says all required parking must be in a structure and it is clearly spelled out like that in the ordinance. Council Member Berrios asked about the question about having a savings to the developer of $25,000, and where did the number come from. Gilbert stated it is not a number he has knowledge of. The savings would depend on the value of the project and we do not know that at this time. When the application is in process that is when we will be able to make that determination, and provide that number. The Dwell Project took the exemption and the Platform did not. The tax break only pertains to the multifamily part and the commercial part is still taxed yearly. Committee Member Budell MOVED and Committee Member Berrios SECONDED a Motion to recommend the Council adopt an ordinance establishing a Residential Targeted Area, and adopt related changes to Chapter 3.25 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions.” Motion Passed 3-0. 7. Sound Transit Memo of Understanding Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager presented the memo of understanding from Sound Transit. When Sound Transit Board selected their preferred alternative back in July of 2015 they request Sound Transit staff work with stakeholders to make the connection to Highline College significant and to make sure it is supportive of transit supported development and to see if the permit process could be streamlined. We have also been looking at East, West connections, partnerships that might happen, code applications, and flexibility of those codes. Sound Transit is expected to go back to their board to select a project to build early next year. Sound Transit has asked City jurisdictions come up with a memo of understanding to show we have been working together and what progress we have made. Those items are included in the memo of understanding. If the Committee moves to recommend the City Council endorse the Mayors signature on the memo in your packet it will be voted on January 3rd at the Council Meeting. Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Member Budell SECONDED the motion to move to recommend to the full City Council 2 ECDC Minutes December 12, 2016 3 endorsement of the Mayor’s signature on the Memorandum of Understanding between Sound Transit and the City of Kent. Motion PASSED 3-0. 8. ShoWare Update – Information Only Ben Wolters stating Showare is in line to have a relatively good year and Wolters is expecting it to be similar to last year (2015). We are seeing a steady increase on admissions. Another factor is the region is growing around the facility and the population has increases since the opening. Council Member Boyce asked a question about a tax that was passed for the Tacoma dome, and are we preparing for the time when our building gets older. Wolters stated we are working toward that, and the Councils decision to set aside $500,000 annually for operating, which we have been outperforming and is money going back to cover previous expenses is a good start. The Council also set aside $300,000 year. Tim Higgins ShoWare General Manager is working on a schedule to replace and repair normal wear to the building. Areas of interest going forward to replace will be:  Mechanical systems  Lighting systems (some have already been replaced)  Telecommunications  Public Announcing & video production systems  Seat replacement will be a big ticket item in the millions  Carpet replacement will be in several $100,000 Council Member Berrios mentioned the cracks in the concrete and Wolters stated they are mostly cosmetic the reality is concrete cracks there are some treatments that can be used and make it still look good. At this time ShoWare is and will continue to monitor this. Berrios stated we clearly have the right person in Tim Higgins managing the ShoWare Center, Wolters agreed. Berrios asked if ShoWare is still getting good trade recognition. Wolters said yes we are on the map for a wide variety of events. 9. Marketing and Tourism Update – Information Only Ben Wolters reported on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee back in September deciding to select JayRay to be the marketing consultant and the he contract with JayRay was signed today. With the signing of the contract the decision was made to start with a smaller contract for just over $19,000 with 2 basic tasks, 1) an overall assessment on where are current marketing efforts are for Kent and make recommendations for a 12 month program. 2) Plus all the information related to the website, social media accounts have been transferred to JayRay and maintaining a very active Website is a very important task. Wolters said we are on our way to the new and exciting activity. The Committee has a reserve of almost a half million dollars with on average each year of approximately $200,000 from Hotel/Motel tax revenue. This can be devoted toward marketing if the LTAC chooses. Wolters is looking forward to the Committee make some real significant roads in marketing Kent next year. We have a Lodging Tax meeting in January. 3 ECDC Minutes December 12, 2016 4 10. Economic Development Update – Information Only Bill Ellis gave a presentation on the Training Center and the America Promise Grant in August of 2016, unfortunately we were unsuccessful in getting that grant. But a good outcome from pressuring that grant was we were recognized by the Dept. of Commerce to take the lead on repurposing Wmati dollars. The state legislature in 2013 set aside over $12 million dollars to put a training center at the City of Renton’s airfield. That project hit a dead-end when it became clear to the City of Renton there was no business plan to provide training at that location and there was no operating entity that could take on the mission. Seeing the partnership the City of Kent has pulled together, the colleges we have participating, AJAC, Social Services, as well as pointing to the real need we defined in Kent for the residents to have an approximate training center they have endorsed the idea we will work with our partners to come up with a working functional business plan to achieve the original intent of the legislation to create a training center in Kent. We have been working with the College workgroups to define the revenue we would have, what programs that make sense for the colleges to put forward. We have also worked with CAMPS to understand the employer interest and demand. We have had conversations with no-profit trainers like AJAC and Seattle Goodwill, as well as introducing the concept to the Kent School District. We are hoping do with the Port of Seattle aggressive move to acquire real-estate there would be a way to obtain are a series of buildings named the Rivers Edge owned by King County Flood Control District on the NW area of Kent and we have felt like this is an ideal location for 2 reasons. 1) It is split into 3 smaller buildings which could allow an independent operation from the colleges and non-profits but also have the benefits of being co-located next to each other. It is on the main bus line from downtown Seattle and Kent. One of the key components is that we can reach new students, new employees that the existing campuses would not normally get. This location has a lot of areas around it that could benefit from new workforce We put an email of interest and found the Port was outbid. We are working with the Port to see if there will be a way to still either purchase or use the buildings. All the proponents for the training center are all in favor of having the Training Center in Kent. By January we may have a business plans from Goodwill and AJAC to operate a training center in Kent and a understanding from the colleges. We will have all of what we need in place but the real-estate piece Ellis wanted to add the rents are moving up because of low vacancies rates in the Kent Valley are up 12% over last quarter of last year. 11. Adjournment of the meeting 6 p.m. ______ ___________________________________ Submitted Julie Pulliam Economic & Community Development Committee 4 City Council Committee Briefings – January 9, 2017 Kent Station Access Improvements 5 Kent Station Access Improvements Auburn Station Access Improvements 6 Project Background – How did we get here? 2008 ST2 funded Kent and Auburn Projects 2010-2012 Sounder Station Access Study 2010 Kent and Auburn Projects suspended 2016 Kent and Auburn Project funding restored 7 Project Background – ST2 Kent Station Access Improvements Auburn Station Access Improvements Purpose: To increase access for all riders to the Sounder stations. 8 Project Background – ST2 Representative Scope Kent Station Access Improvements Construct 450-stall multi-level parking structure. Estimated Cost: $33.1 Million in 2016 Dollars 9 Project Background – ST2 Flexible Access to ST Facilities Examine alternatives to expanded parking that would meet demand and riders’ needs. Potential Strategies Include: • Pedestrian/bicycle improvements • Additional bus/transfer facilities • Transit speed and reliability improvements • Expanded or new kiss-and-ride areas • Off-site parking along an existing bus route with frequent connections Could result in a mix of improvements along with or instead of parking 10 Project Background – ST2 Planning effort will determine the most effective and affordable mix of improvements 11 Project Timeline 12 Strategies for Expediting Project Delivery • Political/stakeholder buy-in on alternatives • Early identification of preferred improvements • Streamlined environmental and permitting processes • Early decision on project delivery approach • ROW Acquisition 13 Stakeholder Engagement Elected Leadership Local elected officials ST Boardmembers Stakeholder Group Business Neighborhoods Transit Agencies Social Services Interest Groups Technical Advisory Committee City, County, Metro, Transit Agencies, technical staff Public / Transit Riders Sound Transit Project Team 14 Stakeholder Engagement Schedule 15 Stakeholder Engagement • Elected Leadership: – Mayor – City Council – Sound Transit Boardmembers • Briefings/Workshops at key milestones in 2017 – Jan-Feb: Project Introduction – Mar-Apr: Alternatives Screening – May-Aug: Preferred Alternative Recommendation Elected Leadership Local elected officials ST Boardmembers 16 Stakeholder Engagement • Membership (to be confirmed): – Kent Downtown Partnership – Kent Chamber of Commerce – Transit Rider(s) – Neighborhood Councils/Local Resident(s) – Local Business(es)/Employer(s) – Property Owner(s) – Green River Community College – Interested Stakeholders (bicyclists, ADA, social service) Stakeholder Group Business Neighborhoods Transit Agencies Social Services Interest Groups 17 Stakeholder Engagement • Workshops at key milestones in 2017 – Jan-Feb: Project Introduction – Mar-Apr: Alternatives Screening Stakeholder Group Business Neighborhoods Transit Agencies Social Services Interest Groups 18 Stakeholder Engagement • Membership: – City of Kent – City of Auburn – Sound Transit – King County Metro – Pierce Transit • Monthly meetings (initiated on Nov. 16, 2016) Technical Advisory Committee City, County, Metro, Transit Agencies, technical staff 19 Stakeholder Engagement Sound Transit Project Team Public / Transit Riders • Two open houses: – Feb 2017: Project introduction, goals, criteria – Apr 2017: Alternatives screening outcomes, feedback on top alternatives • Updates via project website, folios, listserv, e-mail 20 Next Steps • Project Introduction -Week of January 23 –Stakeholder Workshop #1 -Week of February 7 – Open House #1 • Future Council Briefings -April 2017 – Alternatives Comparison/Screening -June 2017 – Preferred Alternative Recommendations 21 Questions & Answers 22 23 24 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 5, 2017 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Bill Ellis, Economic Development Analyst RE: Meet Me on Meeker Design and Construction Standard Overlay Development Scope and contract with KPG For meeting of 1-9-17 SUMMARY: The City of Kent is taking the next step of the place-making project “Meet Me on Meeker”—the cross-department initiative to guide complementary land use and transportation investment along the Meeker Street commercial corridor. After completing the Corridor Master Plan and settling upon a concept for the street, to effectuate the vision the City will next need to develop a unique design and construction standard overlay for Meeker Street. These standards, once developed and then adopted by the City, will inform how the City requires public and private development to improve the street with redevelopment over time. This scope-of-work, a contract proposed for the urban design and civil engineering firm KPG, is primarily for the refinement of thematic elements and creation of detailed specifications for eventual presentation to Council for adoption into the City’s Standard Plans. Accompanying these will be new illustrations of the streetscape design treatments. Additionally, KPG consultancy will assist and support City staff in their planned outreach to property owners along the Meeker Street corridor to discuss the vision and goals of Meet Me on Meeker, and what potential impact newly developed and proposed design and construction standards could have for their specific parcels in this new planning effort. After adoption, the City Engineer is responsible for reviewing and stamping the plans and may adjust the standard details for each specific plan as necessary. EXHIBITS: Contract BUDGET IMPACT: cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval of the 2017 Consultant Service Agreement with KPG, Inc., which will develop and design the construction standards which will guide the development of the Meeker Street project, Meet Me on Meeker. 25 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1 (Over $20,000) CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Kent and KPG, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and KPG, Inc. organized under the laws of the State of Washington, located and doing business at 753 9th Ave N. Seattle, WA 98109 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. Consultant shall perform the following services for the City in accordance with the following described plans and/or specifications: The City, through its Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan, has developed a conceptual vision for Meeker Street. This scope of work will develop design and construction standards that will guide the development of public right-of-way, including roadway, intersections, promenade walkway, sidewalks, and landscape and urban design features. The scope of work includes:  Review of the 2009 City of Kent Design & Construction Plan.  Provide design standards that will create the identity of the Meeker Street District Overlay  Providing standard construction details and limited technical specifications for incorporation into both City initiated and private developer construction plans. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices within the Puget Sound region in effect at the time those services are performed. II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete the work described in Section I by July 1, 2017. III. COMPENSATION. A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed $99,487.45 for the services described in this Agreement. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the work described in Section I above, and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed amendment to this agreement. The Consultant agrees that the hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work performed, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this Agreement. The City shall provide payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Consultant and reserves the option to only pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. 26 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2 (Over $20,000) IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following representations: A. The Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. B. The Consultant maintains and pays for its own place of business from which Consultant’s services under this Agreement will be performed. C. The Consultant has an established and independent business that is eligible for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before the City retained Consultant’s services, or the Consultant is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved under this Agreement. D. The Consultant is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue. E. The Consultant has registered its business and established an account with the state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be required by Consultant’s business, and has obtained a Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number from the State of Washington. F. The Consultant maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and earnings of its business. V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on the signature block of this Agreement. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant’s possession pertaining to this project, which may be used by the City without restriction. If the City’s use of Consultant’s records or data is not related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. 27 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3 (Over $20,000) IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. In the event Consultant refuses tender of defense in any suit or any claim, if that tender was made pursuant to this indemnification clause, and if that refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or other agreed tribunal) to have been a wrongful refusal on the Consultant’s part, then Consultant shall pay all the City’s costs for defense, including all reasonable expert witnes s fees and reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus the City’s legal costs and fees incurred because there was a wrongful refusal on the Consultant’s part. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VIII. INSURANCE. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by this reference. IX. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The City will provide its best efforts to provide reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. X. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents, drawings, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City to the Consultant will be safeguarded by the Consultant. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon the City’s request. The Consultant acknowledges that the City is a public agency subject to the Public Records Act codified in Chapter 42.56 of the Revised Code of Washington. As such, the Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with the City in satisfying the City’s duties and obligations under th e Public Records Act. The City’s use or reuse of any of the documents, data, and files created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. XI. CITY'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure satisfactory completion. XII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK. Consultant shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in th e performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any 28 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4 (Over $20,000) dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties’ performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement. D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement. However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. I. Public Records Act. The Consultant acknowledges that the City is a public agency subject to the Public Records Act codified in Chapter 42.56 of the Revised Code of Washington and documents, notes, emails, and other records prepared or gathered by the Consultant in its performance of this Agreement may be subject to public review and disclosure, even if those records are not produced to or possessed by the City of Kent. As such, the Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with the City in satisfying the City’s duties and obligations under the Public Records Act. J. City Business License Required. Prior to commencing the tasks described in Section I, Contractor agrees to provide proof of a current city of Kent business license pursuant to Chapter 5.01 of the Kent City Code. K. Counterparts and Signatures by Fax or Email. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one Agreement. Further, upon executing this Agreement, either party may deliver the signature page to the other by fax or email and that signature shall have the same force and effect as if the Agreement bearing the original signature was received in person. IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become effective on the last date entered below. All acts consistent with the authority of this Agreement and prior to its effective date are ratified and affirmed, and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to have applied. 29 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 5 (Over $20,000) CONSULTANT: By: (signature) Print Name: Its (title) DATE: CITY OF KENT: By: (signature) Print Name: Suzette Cooke Its Mayor DATE: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CONSULTANT: John Davies KPG, Inc. 753 9th Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 206-286-1640 (telephone) NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CITY OF KENT: Bill Ellis City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856-5707 (telephone) (253) 856-6454 (facsimile) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kent Law Department 30 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 1 DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City’s equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City’s sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement; The questions are as follows: 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. By: ___________________________________________ For: __________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ 31 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 2 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City’s equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines. 32 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 3 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the Agreement. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on the (date), between the firm I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. By: ___________________________________________ For: __________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ 33 EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK MEEKER STREET DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS JANUARY 5, 2017 A. Introduction The City of Kent is developing Meeker Street as al multimodal corridor and entrance from Kent-Des Moines Road to downtown Kent. The City, through its Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan, has developed a conceptual vision for Meeker Street. This scope of work will develop design and construction standards that will guide the development of public right-of-way, including roadway, intersections, promenade walkway, sidewalks, and landscape and urban design features. The scope of work includes:  Review of the 2009 City of Kent Design & Construction Plan.  Provide design standards that will create the identity of the Meeker Street District Overlay  Providing standard construction details and limited technical specifications for incorporation into both City initiated and private developer construction plans. B. Background The Meeker Street standards are intended to be built upon the following background documents:  Draft Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan, November 2016.  2009 City of Kent Design & Construction Standards.  City of Kent Downtown Design Guidelines 2014.  Landscape Plans: Development Assistance Brochure #5 (PWD2035) 2002.  Street Trees: Development Assistance Brochure #14 (PWD2028) 2009.  Kent City Code Sections 6.10.15.07.  Current applicable items that have been adopted into the City Code or Public Works Standards. C. Assumptions The following assumptions have been made to proceed with the scope of work. Provided by the KPG:  Assumes three (3) month process.  Review and update identified outstanding issues and questions in the Draft Meeker Street Master Plan, to selected theme.  Develop standard streetscape and urban design elements for street improvements for Meeker Street, including product information, specifications and installation details, based upon working with the City and the selected corridor themes (per Draft Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan, November 2016).  Create illustrations of streetscape design treatment (developed from the Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan Design Concepts), up to three (3) total (including promenade walkway, gateway features, wayfinding locations, and intersection treatments), in both 34 elevation and plan views based upon proposed building massing, streetscape elements and approved Right-of-Way.  8-1/2 x11 typical street standard details and related specifications, to be adopted into the City’s Standard Plans. The City Engineer will be responsible for reviewing and stamping the plans and may adjust the standard details for each specific plan, as required. Changes to the details and specifications could include geotechnical, structural, Right-of- Way, topographic and manufacturer information. Provided by the City:  All required background documents.  Coordination with the City Public Works Department.  Submittal reviews, comments, and approvals.  Public notices and property owner mailing and postage with Vendor assistance (if required).  Meeting room arrangements (if required).  Council updates and presentations (if required).  Review for Council final approval.  Current City specification boilerplate and other related standards.  Review and stamping of street standard details for adoption into the City’s Design & Construction Standards. D. Project Deliverables Deliverables prepared by KPG are identified at the end of each task. E. Scope of Work Task 1 – Management/Administration/Coordination 1.1 KPG shall provide continuous project management for the project duration (estimate three (3) months). 1.2 KPG shall prepare monthly status reports identifying work in progress, upcoming work elements, reporting of any issues or additional information needs, and key accomplishments for the billing period. 1.3 KPG shall attend three (3) meetings with the City staff, including Public Works Department, Community Development and other departments to coordinate the development of Design & Construction Standards. Deliverables:  Project Schedule and necessary updates.  Monthly progress reports and invoicing three (3) months).  Meeting agendas. Task 2 – Review Background Documents 2.1 KPG will review all pertinent background documents identified in Section B – Background in Exhibit A. 35 Task 3 – Streetscape Design and Standards 3.1 Based on City’s selected theme for the corridor and a general understanding of the City brand, KPG shall review, refine and illustrate up to three sections of approximately two hundred feet (200’). These streetscape illustrations will define the key elements of the design including promenade walkway, gateway features, wayfinding, prominent intersection treatments, nodes and other features in both elevation and plan views, as developed in the Draft Meeker Street Corridor Master Plan. These illustrations shall be used for staff feedback, public outreach and for defining the design elements for the corridor. 3.2 Define the design elements included in the Draft Corridor Master Plan, including but not limited to:  Heights, distances, sizes, and mounting of all streetscape elements.  Decorative accent paving, scoring patterns for sidewalks, promenade and street elements.  Tree grates and/or planters, including uplighting, and watering systems.  Street planting palette of shrub, grasses, perennials, groundcovers and street trees types consistent with City standards including Low Impact Development (LID) systems.  LID drainage and medians.  Lighting including street and pedestrian luminaire poles and accessory fixtures and accent lighting (with material and color selection). Lighting selected shall include products, spacing, height, light volume and direction, Light-Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures (coordination with PUD), banner and flower basket arm system, and irrigation system.  Street furnishing products, with materials, color, finishes, locations, and mounting including items such as benches, bike racks, litter and recycling receptacles, bollards, free standing planters, media storage units.  Decorative utility covers, such as manhole covers, trench drain grates, and catch basins, including location guidelines.  Utility boxes, covers and grates, location standards and requirements.  Traffic Signal Poles.  Guidelines for Public Art placement.  Guidelines for median planting, lighting etc.  Guidelines for sustainable elements. Up to (2) two alternate products, of similar look and function, shall be provided with the standard details in case of discontinued items and must be approved by the City. All products shall be selected taking into account maintenance, longevity, wear, replacement, accessibility and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements, and costs and benefits. All applicable items shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable department or agency including but not limited to Public Works, PUD, Waste Management, King County Metro, etc. 3.3 KPG shall provide text for Section 6.4 (Street Design Standards) for incorporation into the City of Kent Design & Construction Standards document describing the Meeker Overlay 36 District and Overlay Design Standards including streetscape, urban design and strategic place-making elements. 3.4 KPG will refine its cost estimates to reflect the specific materials selected for the streetscape plan. A cost estimate for the frontage improvements for Riverbend development will be estimated to reflect specific costs related to that development. Deliverables:  Electronic copy photo-simulation perspectives (InDesign and PDF format), 11x17 handouts, and 22x34 mounted boards as needed.  Streetscape graphics (PDF format) 11x17 handout, 22x34 mounted boards as needed.  Draft and final sub section for the Section Design and Construction Standards document (W ord or InDesign and PDF format). Task 4 - Standard Construction Details and Specifications 4.1 KPG shall draft and finalize standard construction details and specifications for the applicable street and urban elements including:  Minor Arterial Street Standard Plans within Meeker Overlay: o 3 lane section with median. o 5 lane section (600’ to the west of Washington Ave). o 4 lane section (between Washington Ave and Thompson Ave). o 3 lane section (between Thompson Ave and Lincoln Ave). o 2 lane section (between Lincoln Ave and 4th Ave).  General and special product information, colors or materials, heights, distances, sizes, mounting, approvals needed for optional feature items and other specifications of all streetscape elements.  LID features: o Porous pavement materials. o Integration of raingarden areas into medians or green spaces along promenade areas, including plant materials. o Stormwater media filters as appropriate (e.g. Filterra units, Modular Wetlands). o Decorative storm drain and utility covers.  Paving: o Decorative accent paving. o Typical sidewalk plan layout detail, including sidewalk finishes, tree grate locations, luminaire locations with junction box layout. o Crosswalks paving and striping.  Lighting: o Street and Pedestrian Luminaire Poles (with material and color selection). Details shall include products, spacing, height, banner and flower basket arm system, watering system attachments. o Accent Lighting.  Street Trees, Planters and/or Grates: o Tree spacing, planting, watering requirements, and LID elements. o Tree grate specifications including adjustable grate sizing for trunk growth.  Pole banners, including poles, arms, material and size of banners (this will not include banner graphics, signage and color). 37  Street furnishing plans and details for installation, with product information, materials, color, finishes, including benches or other seating, bike racks, litter and recycling receptacles, bollards, free standing planters, and media storage units.  Decorative utility covers.  Utility box locations.  Traffic signal poles. 4.2 KPG shall provide quality assurance / quality control reviews by senior staff of all details and specifications prior to final submittal to the City. 4.3 KPG shall coordinate specifications and standard details with the City Staff, Public Works Department etc., including up to three (3) coordination meetings Deliverables:  Electronic copies (in PDF and AutoCAD 2013 format) of standard construction details. Task 5. Property Owner/Developer Coordination 5.1 KPG shall provide support and assist with one (1) informational open house for property owners to discuss the proposed improvements from Russell Avenue to 6th Avenue S. In addition KPG shall assist with up to eight (8) meetings with individual property owners (TBD), subsequent to the open house. KPG shall use information from King County Assessor Data and City of Kent to develop a list of property owner contacts and will work with City Staff to provide displays and documents for the open house. KPG shall meet with the individual property owners as determined from the open house, and/or property owners with current development proposals, to discuss the proposed design for the corridor and for the potential impacts to the owner’s property. Individual meeting materials will include descriptions the project, primary objectives, existing ROW lines and additional property needed, and the process for securing easements/right of way or takings, depending on the stage of proposed development. Deliverables:  Supporting materials for property owner discussions and meetings and informational open house. 38 HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE Project: City of Kent Meeker Street Design and Construction Standards January 5, 2017 Hours Total Fee 117.22$ 164.47$ 139.33$ 106.49$ 67.51$ 79.79$ Task Description Direct Salary Costs (DSC)47.29$ 66.35$ 56.21$ 42.96$ 27.23$ 32.19$ Task 1: Project Management 1.1 Project coordination and management 30 0 12 0 0 0 42 5,188.39$ 1.2 Prepare monthly progress reports (3 months)0 0 4 0 0 4 8 876.45$ 1.3 Monthly Coordination Meetings 10 6 6 0 0 0 22 2,994.96$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 115.00$ 40 6 22 0 0 4 72 9,174.80$ Task 2: Review Background Documents 2.1 Background Document Review 2 6 6 8 0 0 22 2,909.18$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details -$ 2 6 6 8 0 0 22 2,909.18$ Task 3: Streetscape Design and Standards 3.1 Design Development 2 2 12 20 80 0 116 9,765.60$ 3.2 Define Design Elements 4 12 40 78 110 0 244 23,747.64$ 3.3 Section 6.4 for Street Design Standards 4 16 12 20 0 0 52 6,902.22$ 3.4 Cost Estimates 4 12 8 22 28 0 74 7,790.16$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 69.00$ 14 42 72 140 218 0 486 48,274.63$ Task 4: Standard Construction Details and Specifications 4.1 Draft and finalize construction details and specs 4 8 22 56 58 0 148 14,728.74$ 4.2 QA/QC 4 8 12 12 0 0 36 4,734.49$ 4.2 Coordination and review with City Staff 4 8 8 0 0 0 20 2,899.27$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 69.00$ 12 24 42 68 58 0 204 22,431.50$ Task 5: Property Owner/Developer Coordination 5.1 Property Owner Outreach 34 16 40 18 24 10 142 16,524.84$ Reimbursable expenses .172.50$ Task Total 34 16 40 18 24 10 142 16,697.34$ TOTAL HOURS AND TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE 102 94 182 234 300 14 926 99,487.45$ Direct Salary Costs 47.29$ 66.35$ 56.21$ 42.96$ 27.23$ 32.19$ Overhead @ 117.88%55.74$ 78.22$ 66.26$ 50.64$ 32.10$ 37.94$ 117.88% Fixed Fee @ 30%14.19$ 19.91$ 16.86$ 12.89$ 8.17$ 9.66$ 30.00% Total Labor Rate 117.22$ 164.47$ 139.33$ 106.49$ 67.51$ 79.79$ Labor Hour Estimate Task Total Task Totals Task Total Hourly rates are based on the following: Project Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer/ Sr Urban Designer Design Engineer/ Landscape Architect Clerical Task Total CAD Technician/ Urban Designer 39 40 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Phone: 253-856-5770 Fax: 253-856-6770 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2017 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Adam Long, Assistant City Attorney RE: Housing, Source of Income Discrimination SUMMARY: At the August 13, 2016, City of Kent Strategic Plan Mini-Retreat, the September 12, 2016, meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee and the November 29, 2016, Special City Council Workshop, staff presented information pertaining to barriers faced by low-income residents who are seeking rental housing. The Council directed staff to provide a comparison chart of what other cities are doing, and to prepare an ordinance prohibiting housing discrimination based on Section 8 vouchers as a source of income (SOID) with an optional clause or section that would extend the prohibition to other government subsidies. The continuing trends of low vacancy rates and increasing rent costs across the Puget Sound region are making it very difficult for low-income families to find and maintain housing in Kent and our neighboring cities. The attached ordinances prohibit 1) discrimination based solely on use of Section 8 vouchers and 2) discrimination based on any subsidy income source, such as Section 8 vouchers, Social Security income, veteran housing subsidies, or housing assistance for people with disabilities. EXHIBITS: Draft Ordinances (2) BUDGET IMPACTS: NA (Not Applicable) P:\Planning\ECDC\2017\1-9-17\ECDC_memo 010917 Housing_Source_of_Income_Discrimination.doc CC: Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Merina Hanson, Housing & Human Services Manager Julie Parascondola, Parks and Community Services Director Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director MOTION: Recommend Council adopt an ordinance establishing a prohibition on source of income discrimination in housing based on (1) use of Section 8 voucher or certificate or (2) use of income from any government subsidy program, and adopt Chapter 10.01 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Unfair Housing Practices.” 41 1 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting Chapter 10.01 of the Kent City Code, enacting “Source of Income Discrimination” residential rental regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of government subsidies, imposing penalties, and establishing an appeal process. RECITALS A. The City of Kent recognizes that discrimination in housing adversely and seriously affects the health, safety, and welfare of the community. B. There are several government programs that assist very low- income families, the elderly, veterans, and people with disabilities with financial subsidies that allow them to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. C. A significant number of people have difficulty securing adequate rental housing without financial assistance, and it is essential to assure that housing is available to those people. D. Rental rates are rapidly rising in the Puget Sound region, and the number of affordable units is decreasing as rents increase. This provides landlords with an opportunity to disfavor rentals to those receiving government assistance. 42 2 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices E. When families lose their homes as a result of income source based discrimination, they often lack funds to move, risk being unable to find replacement housing close to their workplace, risk becoming homeless, and risk disruption to their children’s education and social development by being forced to move away from their friends and schools. F. City and countywide planning policies seek to promote fairness in housing for residents of all abilities, ages, races, and incomes. G. Participation by landlords in these housing assistance programs provides a reliable, steady source of rental income. H. Some state financial assistance programs are only available to landlords in cities that have passed ordinances that prohibit denying tenancy based solely on the applicant's source of income. I. The Kent City Council has determined that prohibiting landlords from denying tenants the opportunity to rent housing solely because the tenant proposes to use government financial assistance will promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - New Chapter. Title 10 of the Kent City Code is amended by adding a new chapter 10.01, entitled “Unfair Housing Practices,” to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.01 43 3 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices UNFAIR HOUSING PRACTICES Sec. 10.01.010 Source of Income Discrimination Prohibited. Property owners, property managers, landlords, and their agents, who rent or lease dwelling units may not refuse to rent or lease a dwelling unit to any tenant or prospective tenant or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against that person solely on the basis that the person proposes to pay a portion of the rent from a “source of income” as defined in this Chapter. Sec. 10.01.020 DEFINITIONS. A. “Source of income” includes income derived from social security, supplemental security income, other retirement programs, and any federal, state, local, or nonprofit-administered benefit or subsidy programs, including housing assistance, public assistance, and general assistance programs. “Source of income” does not include income derived in an illegal manner; B. Other terms used in this Chapter shall be defined as set forth in the Residential Landlord Tenant Act, Chapter 58.19 RCW. Sec. 10.01.030 APPLICABILITY. Nothing in this chapter will apply if the dwelling unit does not qualify for participation in the tenant’s “source of income” program. However, any property owner or manager that refuses to rent a dwelling unit to a person based upon the proposed use of funds from a “source of income” must notify that person in writing of the reasons why the dwelling unit is ineligible for participation in the particular “source of income” program. Refusal to allow a health and safety inspection of the property by a public housing authority will not be considered a legitimate basis for refusing to rent due to program ineligibility. Sec. 10.01.040 EXCEPTIONS. This Chapter shall not: 44 4 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices A. Apply to the renting, leasing, or subleasing of a portion of a single-family dwelling, where the owner or person entitled to possession maintains a permanent residence, home or abode in the same dwelling; or B. Deny any person from making a choice among prospective tenants on the basis of factors other than the source of income. Sec. 10.01.050 PENALTIES. A. Civil violation. 1. The violation of any provision of this chapter is a civil violation as provided for in Chapter 1.04 KCC, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required. 2. Any penalty due and unpaid and delinquent under this chapter will constitute a debt of the city. The city may, pursuant to Chapter 19.16 RCW, use a collection agency to collect unpaid license fees, or it may seek collection by court proceedings, which remedies shall be in addition to all other remedies. Sec. 10.01.060 APPEALS. A. Any person ordered to pay a civil penalty pursuant to KCC 10.01.050 may appeal the penalty by filing with the City Clerk a written appeal. Appeals shall be in writing and contain the following information: 1. Appellant’s name, address, phone number, and email address; 2. Appellant’s statement describing his or her standing to appeal; 3. Identification of the summary of decision which is the subject of the appeal; 45 5 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices 4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and 6. A statement affirming that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s signature. B. To be valid, the appeal must be received and date stamped by the City Clerk’s office no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the penalty was issued. The City Clerk will forward all timely appeals to the Economic and Community Development Director or designee. C. The Director, or designee, will review the appeal and either affirm or repeal the order imposing the civil penalty based upon written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Director, or designee, may reduce the amount of the civil penalty upon a finding that the violation did not occur in bad faith and any known victims of the violation have been fully compensated for damages suffered as a result of the violation. The Director, or designee, may request additional information necessary to make the decision and/or choose to hold an informal hearing to solicit evidence. D. If the penalty is not repealed, the person who has been ordered to pay the civil penalty may appeal the Director’s decision to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process set forth in KCC Chapter 1.04. Appeals must be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council. The City shall have the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such 46 6 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 47 7 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices PASSED: day of , 201__. APPROVED: day of , 201__. PUBLISHED: day of , 201__. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK 48 1 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting Chapter 10.01 of the Kent City Code, enacting “Source of Income Discrimination” residential rental regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of government subsidies, imposing penalties, and establishing an appeal process. RECITALS A. The City of Kent recognizes that discrimination in housing adversely and seriously affects the health, safety, and welfare of the community. B. The Section 8 voucher and certificate programs are programs of the federal government that assist very low-income families, the elderly, veterans, and people with disabilities with financial subsidies that allow them to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. C. A significant number of people have difficulty securing adequate rental housing without financial assistance, and it is essential to assure that housing is available to those people. D. Rental rates are rapidly rising in the Puget Sound region, and the number of affordable units is decreasing as rents increase. This provides landlords with an opportunity to disfavor renting to those receiving government assistance. 49 2 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices E. When families lose their homes as a result of income source based discrimination, they often lack funds to move, risk being unable to find replacement housing close to their workplace, risk becoming homeless, and risk disruption to their children’s education and social development by being forced to move away from their friends and schools. F. City and countywide planning policies seek to promote fairness in housing for residents of all abilities, ages, races, and incomes. G. Participation by landlords in the Section 8 housing assistance programs provides a reliable, steady source of rental income. H. Some state financial assistance programs are only available to landlords in cities that have passed ordinances that prohibit denying tenancy based solely on the applicant's source of income. I. The Kent City Council has determined that prohibiting landlords from denying tenants the opportunity to rent housing solely because the tenant proposes to use a Section 8 voucher or certificate will promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - New Chapter. Title 10 of the Kent City Code is amended by adding a new chapter 10.01, entitled “Unfair Housing Practices,” to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.01 UNFAIR HOUSING PRACTICES 50 3 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices Sec. 10.01.010 Source of Income Discrimination Prohibited. Property owners, property managers, landlords, and their agents, who rent or lease dwelling units may not refuse to rent or lease a dwelling unit to any tenant or potential tenant or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against that person solely on the basis that the person proposes to pay a portion of the rent using a Section 8 housing choice voucher or certificate issued under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Terms used in this Chapter shall be defined as set forth in the Residential Landlord Tenant Act, Chapter 58.19 RCW. Sec. 10.01.020 APPLICABILITY TO HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS AND CERTIFICATES. The prohibition in KCC 10.01.010 does not apply with respect to the use of a Section 8 housing choice voucher or certificate if the dwelling unit does not qualify for participation in such program according to applicable public housing authority guidelines. However, refusal to allow a health and safety inspection of the property by the public housing authority shall not serve as a basis for denying the use of a Section 8 voucher or certificate. Any property owner or manager that refuses to rent a dwelling unit to a person based upon the proposed use of a Section 8 housing choice voucher or certificate shall notify such person in writing of the reasons why the dwelling unit is ineligible for participation in the Section 8 housing choice voucher or certificate program. The written notice shall specify the specific condition of the property or lease terms that disqualify the dwelling unit from participation in the Section 8 housing choice or certificate program. Sec. 10.01.040 EXCEPTIONS. This Chapter shall not: A. Apply to the renting, leasing, or subleasing of a portion of a single-family dwelling, where the owner or person entitled to possession maintains a permanent residence, home or abode in the same dwelling; or 51 4 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices B. Deny any person from making a choice among prospective tenants on the basis of factors other than the source of income. Sec. 10.01.050 PENALTIES. A. Civil violation. 1. The violation of any provision of this chapter is a civil violation as provided for in Chapter 1.04 KCC, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required. 2. Any penalty due and unpaid and delinquent under this chapter will constitute a debt of the city. The city may, pursuant to Chapter 19.16 RCW, use a collection agency to collect unpaid license fees, or it may seek collection by court proceedings, which remedies shall be in addition to all other remedies. Sec. 10.01.060 APPEALS. A. Any person ordered to pay a civil penalty pursuant to KCC 10.01.050 may appeal the penalty by filing with the City Clerk a written appeal. Appeals shall be in writing and contain the following information: 1. Appellant’s name, address, phone number, and email address; 2. Appellant’s statement describing his or her standing to appeal; 3. Identification of the summary of decision which is the subject of the appeal; 4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based; 52 5 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices 5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent; and 6. A statement affirming that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s signature. B. To be valid, the appeal must be received and date stamped by the City Clerk’s office no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the penalty was issued. The City Clerk will forward all timely appeals to the Economic and Community Development Director or designee. C. The Director, or designee, will review the appeal and either affirm or repeal the order imposing the civil penalty based upon written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Director, or designee, may reduce the amount of the civil penalty upon a finding that the violation did not occur in bad faith and any known victims of the violation have been fully compensated for damages suffered as a result of the violation. The Director, or designee, may request additional information necessary to make the decision and/or choose to hold an informal hearing to solicit evidence. D. If the penalty is not repealed, the person who has been ordered to pay the civil penalty may appeal the Director’s decision to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process set forth in KCC Chapter 1.04. Appeals must be accompanied by an appeal fee as set by the city council. The City shall have the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. SECTION 2. – 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. 53 6 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 54 7 Adopt KCC 10.01 - Re: KCC 10.01 – Unfair Housing Practices PASSED: day of , 201__. APPROVED: day of , 201__. PUBLISHED: day of , 201__. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK 55 56 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2017 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner RE: Urban Separators For Meeting of January 9, 2017 SUMMARY: ECD has received multiple requests from property owners to consider changes to allowed density of Urban Separator parcels, and City Council approved the addition of an Urban Separators analysis to the department’s work plan. Staff are developing a scope of work for the project and will present the draft to the Committee for review and feedback. BACKGROUND: Kent’s comprehensive plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies designate certain parcels in the City as Urban Separator land use. Urban Separators are intended to create visual definition within and between urban areas, buffer rural or resource lands, and connect wildlife and critical area corridors. This designation limits development on these parcels to one residential unit per acre, the lowest density allowed under Kent’s zoning code. Multiple property owners have submitted docket requests to the City to review the Urban Separator designation and consider rezoning certain parcels to allow for greater development density. Neighborhood context and adjacent densities have been cited as points of consideration for the analysis. ECD staff have drafted a scope of work that includes inventory and characterization of existing Urban Separator parcels, a public engagement process, and a process for amending the City’s comprehensive plan and zoning code if necessary, in compliance with state regulations and regional planning requirements. Staff will be available at the January 9th meeting to provide information, answer questions, and receive feedback from ECDC on the Urban Separators project. The project is on the City’s work plan for 2017, and work is intended to begin early this year. EXHIBITS: Draft Scope of Work; PowerPoint presentation BUDGET IMPACTS: None DB:jp S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-2 Urban Separators\UrbanSeparators-010917_ECDC_memo-info-only.doc Encl: Discussion points; Presentation CC: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager MOTION: Info Only 57 1 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Scope of Work: Urban Separators January 5, 2017 OVERVIEW History and Purpose King County first adopted the concept of urban separators in 1992 with the development of Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The 1992 CCPs were a multi- jurisdictional effort to align planning efforts in King County consistent with policies in the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA). Two planning goals of the GMA directly support a GMA requirement for local jurisdictions to identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. Goal9 states, “Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.” Goal 10 states, “Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.” The King County CPPs similarly support open space corridors. Policy DP-9 states in part, “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.” The policy also provides for amendments to urban separators that are depicted on the Urban Separators Map appended to the CPPs. In 2001, the Kent City Council passed an ordinance (Ord. 3551) amending the Kent Comprehensive Plan to provide for an urban separators land use designation consistent with the King County CPPs. The City Council adopted corresponding zoning regulations that set standards for how parcels within urban separators can be subdivided and developed. For instance, residential development must be “clustered” when located in urban separators. Urban separators in Kent are all zoned for single-family residential development at a density of one residential unit per acre, the lowest residential density provided in Kent’s zoning regulations. In the past couple of years, interested property owners have expressed an interest in increasing allowable densities on properties within the urban separator land use designation. On October 18, 2016, the City Council approved revisions to the 2014 and 2015 Annual Docket to add an analysis of urban separators to staff’s 2017 work program. At the January, 2017 meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee, staff will present a proposed scope of work for the project. The following are descriptions of each of the tasks anticipated for this project: 58 2 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Note: Tasks are listed roughly in chronological order, but certain tasks may overlap or happen concurrently. Task 1: PARCEL INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION Deliverables: Written report documenting current condition of all parcels in Urban Separator land use designation (including number of parcels, average size of parcels, presence of existing structures, development potential, etc.), and describing properties for which consideration of rezoning has been requested. Timeline: 6-8 weeks Background: There currently are three parties of record for Urban Separators; these parties submitted docket requests to the City in 2014 and 2015 requesting increased density on certain parcels with urban separator designations. The largest parcel is approximately 2.3 acres and is located on the east side of 132nd Ave. SE near the City’s eastern border. The other two parties of record referenced a group of 8 parcels, all adjacent to one another and totaling 4.4 acres. Three of these parcels, including the largest of the 8, are owned by the docket applicants. Five are owned by other parties. A cursory GIS analysis shows that there may be a number of “split parcels”, which are partially designated Urban Separator and correspondingly zoned SR-1, and partially outside of the Urban Separator land use designation, and in some cases zoned for more allowed density. Task 2: CONSISTENCY REVIEW Deliverables: Written report documenting consistency or inconsistency with Kent’s and neighboring jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans; King County CPPs; PSRC Multicounty Planning Policies (MCPPs); infrastructure, transportation, and capital improvement plans; statewide Growth Management Act and other relevant plans and policies. Timeline: 10-12 weeks Background: The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to coordinate on planning activities. Particularly with issues of regional importance like urban separators, staff needs to evaluate whether proposed changes to Kent’s zoning or land use designations create inconsistencies with broader plans and policies. The evaluation includes condition and capacity of the land and investment for infrastructure necessary to support increased density. 59 3 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Task 3: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Deliverables: Written report listing and characterizing at least three options for development or preservation of Urban Separator parcels. Timeline: 6-8 weeks Background: In order to provide context and guide discussion during public outreach, staff will evaluate and describe several potential alternatives for the use and designation of urban separator properties. This list of alternatives will not be comprehensive; rather, it will serve as a framework for communicating the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of approaches to how the City of Kent views the urban separator designation. During the preliminary alternatives analysis, it will be important to consult Kent’s legal department to fully understand any legal implications of potential action. Staff also will consult with King County and adjacent jurisdictions to learn history and context of countywide urban separators and determine what impacts each potential action could have on consistency with the King County CPPs and plans of other jurisdictions. Below are three potential alternatives for analysis: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): A transfer of development rights (TDR) is a transaction in which development rights at an allowed density on one parcel (usually rural) are sold to an owner of a separate parcel (usually urban) in order to allow the second owner to build at a higher density than would otherwise be allowed on that parcel. Development rights are permanently removed from the first parcel. The King County CPPs describe transfer of development rights as an encouraged practice to direct development to urban areas and away from rural areas. King County has a 4:1 policy for TDRs, meaning that “sending” parcels that are zoned for one unit per acre can transfer development rights at a rate of 4 units per acre. There are several points to consider on this alternative. 1) If the City is willing to accept increased density in certain “receiving” parcels, why would those parcels not already be zoned for the maximum density the city is willing to accept? 2) The TDR program will cost developers additional dollars to develop more densely in urban areas. This may be a disincentive for encouraging development intensity. Clustering – Kent’s comprehensive plan and zoning codes require clustered development in urban separators. Clustering means concentrating 60 4 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 development on one portion of a property and designating the remainder of the property as open space. Clustered development allows development in the “cluster” area at a density of 8 units per acre. This has the advantage of preserving open space, further protecting critical areas that typically are on or in the vicinity of urban separator properties and creating transitions between urban and rural lands. Rezone – Rezoning urban separators to allow denser land uses would be the most complex of the alternatives, and would require amendments to Kent’s comprehensive plan and zoning code, as well as the King County CPPs. Task 4: CONSULTATION WITH CITY LEADERSHIP AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Deliverables: 1) Meeting with Mayor Cooke and CAO Derek Matheson to communicate intent of project; 2) Presentation to Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC) or Council Workshop; 3) Conversations with Parks and Public Works Departments to assess interest in urban separators. Timeline: 4-8 weeks Dependencies: Timing of ECDC meetings and Council Workshops Background: Prior to embarking on a public engagement process, staff will consult City leadership regarding stakeholders, what information is being solicited, and what messages are being communicated to the public. This will help City leadership anticipate questions from the public and inform ECD staff of citywide issues that may impact or influence the public engagement process. Task 5: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Deliverables: 1) One-on-one interviews; 2) at least 2 public meetings; 3) written report summarizing public input and potential policy implications. Timeline: 6-9 months Background: Staff will carry out a public engagement process that will include a series of one-on- one interviews with property owners and at least two public meetings. Interviews with individual property owners and residents may be requested through postal or e-mail or by direct phone call. Contact with existing parties of record will be made using contact information provided in docket applications. 61 5 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Purpose for interviews and public meetings: Interviews and public meetings will be designed to capture the following information: o Public interest in preserving urban separators. o Public perception of the value and efficacy of the urban separator land use designation. o Public interest in considering rezone of certain parcels within the urban separator land use designation to allow alternative densities. o General public perception of highest and best use for existing parcels designated as urban separators. The public engagement process will also be used to share information pertaining to development alternatives potentially applicable to parcels in urban separators, including clustered development and transfer of development rights (TDR). Process for interviews and public meetings: o One-on-one interviews with the following property owners:  Owners of parcels named in docket applications for consideration of rezone.  Owners of parcels adjacent to parcels named in docket applications for consideration of rezone.  Owners of parcels within the urban separator land use designation that have not been named in docket applications for consideration of rezone. o Two public meetings will be held in strategic locations to capture input from other interested persons, including residents, employees, and regular visitors to areas designated as urban separators. If possible, meetings will be held near properties designated urban separators to facilitate local participation. The following are possible locations:  In or near the Panther Lake subdivision in northeast Kent  Near Kent’s southeast border with Auburn and Covington, toward the south end of Lake Meridian.  To the west of Kent’s Industrial Park, along the Green River If interviews and public meetings reveal significant public contention, at least one additional public meeting will be held to gather additional comments. The content and location of any additional meetings will be determined based on issues identified during initial interviews and public meetings. Task 6: STATE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 62 6 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Deliverables: 1) Completed SEPA Checklist; 2) EIS Addendum or other threshold determination 3) Notification to Washington State Dept. of Commerce of changes to Kent Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code; Timeline: 3-4 months Dependencies: SEPA determination; SEPA public review period; 60-day or expedited State review period Background: Local jurisdictions taking any action that have the potential to adversely impact the environment are required to submit a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist documenting any potential effects. The checklist is reviewed by the SEPA Responsible Official representing the Lead Agency, and a determination is made regarding the “significance” of the environmental impact; one of three decisions will be issued: Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), Determination of Significance (DS), or Mitigated (conditioned) Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). Because comprehensive plan and zoning amendments are GMA actions, a 14-day public review of a DNS or MDNS is required. A DS would require an environmental impact statement (EIS), a supplemental EIS, or the SEPA Responsible Official may issue an addendum to an existing EIS. Prior to adoption of amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations, the GMA requires local jurisdictions to provide at least 60-days’ notice to the Washington State Department of Commerce. This advance notice provides the state an opportunity to review and provide comments on the comprehensive plan amendments during the public comment period. Growth Management Services’ guidance states that it is preferable to receive SEPA documentation along with the amendments to facilitate a more comprehensive review during the 60-day period. Task 7: INTERNAL LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS Deliverables: 1) Council memo with at least three alternatives for rezoning or preserving urban separator designations on parcels, based on public input and alternatives analysis; 2) revised code language and draft ordinance; 3) workshops, presentations and public hearing(s) at LUPB and ECDC as needed; 4) City Council approval to proceed with King County amendments to CPPs; 5) request for CPP amendment to King County Growth Management Planning Council; 6) Kent City Council ordinance; 7) countywide ratification of CPP amendments. Timeline: 12-18 months Dependencies: Timing of LUPB, ECDC, Committee, and Council meetings; Timing of CPP amendment process 63 7 DRAFT: 1/5/2017 Background: Any amendments to Kent’s zoning or land use designations would be considered in workshops and at least one public hearing before the City’s Land Use and Planning Board. The LUPB’s recommendation on the amendments would then be considered by the Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC), and any revisions requested by the Committee would be made prior to the amendments going before the full Council. Because of the countywide significance of amendments pertaining to parcels designated as urban separators in the King County CPPs, and unless guided otherwise by the City Attorney, amendments could not be fully adopted and implemented before being approved by the King County Council. Once the amendments are considered by the ECDC, they would go before the full City Council for a resolution (not an ordinance) to be submitted for King County Council review as amendments to the CPPs. If approved by the King County Council, the amendments would then return to the Kent City Council for adoption through ordinance. Task 8: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY AMENDMENTS Deliverables: Presentation to Growth Management Planning Council Interjurisdictional Team (IJT) Timeline: 9-12 months Dependencies: Timing of GMPC meetings; Timing of IJT meetings; 90-day ratification period Background: Kent City Council approves action to amend the City’s land use designations or Zoning Code pertaining to urban separator parcels and pursue amendments to CPPs. City of Kent ECD staff would present the proposed amendments to the Interjurisdictional Team (IJT – staff to GMPC), after which the IJT would submit a recommendation to the GMPC. The GMPC meets two to five times per year, and would require two meetings to make a decision on the amendments: one to discuss the IJT recommendation, and one subsequent meeting to issue a decision. The GMPC would then make a recommendation to the King County Council, and the Council would approve the amendment and ratify it on behalf of unincorporated King County. Finally, cities and towns in King County would ratify the amendment within 90 days, either by affirmative vote or by absence of action within the ratification period. The amendment would have to be ratified by cities and towns representing 70% of the county’s population and 30% of the county’s jurisdictions. 64 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development URBAN SEPARATORS Information Only 65 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Presentation Snapshot •Urban Separators Overview –Purpose & History •High-Level Project Goals •Important Milestones •Next Steps 2 66 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators The Role of Urban Separators •Urban Separators are intended to: –Create visual definition, “transitional space” within and between urban growth areas, or buffer rural areas –Preserve land for parks, trails –Connect wildlife corridors, wetlands –Buffer resource lands (agriculture, forest) 3 67 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators History of Urban Separators •Countywide designation beginning in 1992 CPPs •Kent Ord. 3551 in 2001 –Amendment to Comp. Plan –Set standards for development in US (clustering, SR-1) 4 68 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Project Background •Property owner requests to consider increased density •Consider neighboring parcel densities, neighborhood context •October, 2016 – City Council approved addition of Urban Separators analysis to 2017 work program 5 69 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Project Goals 1)Determine most desirable land use for Urban Separator parcels 2)Develop a strategy consistent with: –CPPs –MCPPs –GMA –Kent Comprehensive Plan –infrastructure, transportation, CIPs 3)Implement zoning code or Comprehensive Plan amendments as identified 6 70 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Project Milestones PHASE 1: 1)Parcel Inventory/Characterization 2)Consistency Review 3)Preliminary Alternatives Analysis 7 71 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Project Milestones PHASE 2: 4)Consult with City Leadership/Departments 5)Public & Stakeholder Engagement 8 72 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Project Milestones PHASE 3: 6)State Regulatory Compliance 7)Internal Land Use & Zoning Amendments 8)Countywide Planning Policy Amendments 9 73 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Next Steps •Finalize scope of work •Identify & notify property owners/stakeholders 10 74 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Urban Separators Questions? 11 75 76 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2017 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner RE: Tiny Houses For Meeting of January 9, 2017 SUMMARY: Because tiny houses are becoming increasingly common in the Pacific Northwest, particularly in the metropolitan areas of Portland, Olympia and Seattle, staff will update the committee on this housing type and associated challenges. BACKGROUND: The region’s significant population growth and pressure from increasing demand for housing puts space at a premium and has caused housing prices to rise dramatically. Tiny houses are one possible housing solution for those who desire to own a detached residence, yet prefer minimalism and mobility over space. Mt. Hood Tiny House Village near Portland, Oregon has several examples of tiny houses with many of the amenities found in more commonly-sized houses. At the same time, many cities and non-profits in the Northwest are challenged by homelessness and are seeking creative ways to efficiently use available space for transitional or low-income housing. Alternative housing options such as tiny house villages accommodate greater density at relatively low cost. An example of a tiny house village is Othello Village at 7544 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S in Seattle, which currently includes 8 tiny houses on a ½ acre lot. A tiny house is one that, by a commonly found definition, is 400 square feet or less in size. Tiny houses vary in their design and amenities; some are fully equipped with running water and kitchen facilities, while some are simple sleeping quarters. Some tiny houses are built in place on foundations, while others are intended to be mobile and are either permanently fixed to a wheeled trailer chassis or situated on a semi-permanent foundation (such as stacked cinder blocks) that can easily be moved. Further discussion points are attached. Staff will be available at the January 9th meeting to provide information and answer questions on tiny houses. The City does not at this time have specific regulations for this housing type nor is such a project on the current work program. EXHIBITS: Discussion points; PowerPoint presentation BUDGET IMPACTS: None DB:jp S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\Tiny Houses\Tiny-Homes-010917_ECDC_memo-info-only.doc Encl: Discussion points; Presentation CC: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager MOTION: Info Only 77 TINY HOUSE DISCUSSION POINTS ECD Committee – January 9, 2017  Newly constructed tiny houses must meet building codes, fire codes, and other safety requirements included in KCC 14.01 specifically or by reference. This includes International Residential Code (IRC) requirements for minimum ceiling heights and room dimensions.  For a tiny house to qualify as a legal dwelling, per KCC 14.02.080F, it must have potable water and sanitary facilities. To qualify as an individual dwelling unit, per KCC 15.02.130, it must also have kitchen facilities.  Several policies in Kent’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan, including LU-7.4, may support the idea of alternative housing options like tiny houses, through reference to cottage or cluster housing.  The following are possible options for future consideration should the City want to include tiny houses in existing or new zoning regulations: Option 1: Mobile Home Park  Minimum Spacing, and Common Space – the MHP zoning district requires 15 feet between mobile homes, and 500 square feet per lot of common space. Densities found in tiny house villages such as Othello Village would not meet these minimum spacing requirements.  Maximum Density – 9 dwelling units per acre (or underlying zoning, if lower). This is roughly half the density of Othello Village, which has 8 units per ½ acre.  Factory Construction – houses must be factory-constructed to meet KCC 12.05.050 and KCC 15.02.262. Mobile homes manufactured after 1976 must comply with HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards.  Must meet all other requirements of KCC 12.05 for mobile home parks. Option 2: Recreational Vehicle Park  A tiny home may qualify as a recreational vehicle as defined in KCC 12.06.040 if it is roadworthy and can be licensed to be transported on public streets or highways per WA State regulations. Definition of “travel trailer” for registration purposes can be found in RCW 46.04.623, and refers to temporary dwelling.  Minimum Spacing and Common Space - Tiny houses in an RV park would have to meet spacing and density requirements listed in KCC 12.06, including a minimum 10-foot space between RVs, and 100 square feet of recreational area would have to be provided for each RV space in the park.  Maximum Density – Tiny houses meeting the recreational vehicle definition may be located in RV parks at a maximum density of 28 per acre. An RV park must have at least 5 spaces for RVs. 78  Residents (visitors) of a tiny home RV park would be limited to a 30-day stay. Option 3: Single-Family Residential  Tiny homes that qualify as single-family dwelling units (as described above) and meeting all relevant covenants and building codes, could be located on an individual lot in a clustered subdivision per KCC 12.04.263- 264.  A tiny home that is a designated manufactured home may be located on single family or multiple family lots, if it is placed on a permanent foundation. To be a designated manufactured home, the tiny home must be new and compliant with HUD standards for manufactured homes. To move it to a new location, the tiny house must also be licensed for transport by the State of Washington.  Per KCC 15.08.080, recreational vehicles may be stored in residential zones in Kent, but they cannot be used for habitation. Option 4: Low Density Multifamily Residential (MR-G), or Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MR-M)  Tiny houses are unlikely to meet the definition of a multifamily dwelling in KCC 15.02.125, which is a residential building designed for or occupied by three or more families, with at least one dwelling unit per family.  Tiny houses may be allowed as single-family dwelling units in MR-G or MR-M, provided that they meet all building codes, lot coverage, spacing, and design standards. Tiny houses would be required to meet minimum yard size requirements, minimum lot width and spacing between houses consistent with IRC and the Kent Zoning Code.  MR-G Maximum Density is 16 or fewer units per acre (approximately the same as Othello Village).  MR-M Maximum Density is 23 or fewer units per acre.  Per KCC 15.08.080, recreational vehicles may be stored in residential zones in Kent, but they cannot be used for habitation. Option 5: ADU or Guest Cottage as Accessory Structure  A single tiny house may qualify as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to a single family residential unit if it has kitchen and sanitary facilities and meets all design, setback, massing, and other requirements in KCC 15.08.160 and 15.08.350, as well as all applicable building codes. Importantly, the ADU must be “visually compatible” with the primary structure, if it is more than 12 feet tall. This means exterior finish, trim, and pitch of the roof must match the primary structure. Either the primary structure or the ADU must be owner-occupied. The ADU must meet building codes, including minimum room size (≥70 square feet) and ceiling height (≥7 feet).  An ADU can be used for boarding for compensation (i.e. AirBNB) for up to 3 people in residential zones, per KCC 15.04.020.  A single tiny house may qualify as a guest cottage that is an accessory structure to a single-family residence, even without a kitchen or running 79 potable water, if it is used to house transient visitors and non-paying guests. This is relevant to discussions pertaining to short-term room rental programs, such as AirBnB. Option 6: Transitional Housing  Transitional housing is defined in KCC 15.02.528.  Housing must be owned by a public entity or non-profit.  Resident tenure would be limited to 24 months, and would be contingent upon participation in training or counseling program.  Tiny houses may be allowed as transitional housing in certain zoning districts in Kent, but they may be subject to a number of conditions depending on the zone, including occupancy thresholds and design standards. Option 7: Seattle Example - Transitional Encampment Interim Land Use Seattle’s approach to permitting tiny house villages is to allow them under the Transitional Encampment Interim Land Use provision, which is allowed in certain mixed use and commercial zones, and excluded in residential zones. Among other requirements in Seattle’s land use code (23.42.056), Seattle requires the following of transitional encampments:  A permit is issued for only 1-year at a time.  Village must be separated by at least one mile from other transitional encampments, and located within ½ mile of a bus stop.  The maximum number of residents at any one time is 100, and the village must have at least 100 square feet per resident, totaling at least 5,000 square feet. Seattle will only issue permits for 3 encampments at one time (excluding those at religious facilities).  Other safety and sanitation requirements apply to encampments at religious facilities. Option 8: Create New Policy Structure for Tiny Houses Certain limitations exist in applying any of the above regulations to tiny houses, simply because they were not developed to address the unique challenges and opportunities inherent in this emerging housing trend. If the City is interested in encouraging tiny houses as an additional housing option, it may be advantageous to develop a set of guidelines tailored to tiny houses. By developing regulations that specifically address issues unique to tiny houses, the City may be able to achieve more desirable outcomes than it would by applying existing codes not intended for this purpose. S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\Tiny-House_Discussion-Points-010917.docx 80 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development TINY HOUSES Information Only 81 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Presentation Overview •Background & Definitions •Unique Challenges & Opportunities •Tiny Houses in Other U.S. Cities •Tiny Houses in Kent •Conclusions 2 82 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Background •Tiny Houses are: –typically ≤400 sq. feet –usually on wheels or trailer chassis –complete dwellings with kitchen and sanitary facilities –often self-contained, or “off-grid” –frequently DIY projects 3 83 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses The Tiny House Appeal •Common reasons for tiny house living: –Affordability: low utility costs, no mortgage –Sustainability: off-grid capable –Minimalism/mobility: less stuff –Cultural trends: self-reliance, DIY 4 84 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses The Tiny House Appeal •Another reason for tiny houses: –Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for independent family member or guest –Income generation: rental unit or AirBNB 5 85 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses The Tiny House Spectrum •Types of Tiny Houses: –Wood frame- wheels/trailer chassis –Wood frame- cinder blocks, posts –Wood frame- concrete foundation –Prefab or factory built –Shipping container house –Floating home 6 86 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Siting Considerations •Tiny Houses may be found: –in “tiny house villages” –as transitional housing villages –as rentals or guest houses –in mobile home or RV parks –as vacation cabins or “off-grid” homes 7 87 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Unique Challenges •Zoning and Density Considerations: –Lot size and use restrictions –Legal covenants –Design standards: neighborhood context –Mobile home parks: construction standards –RV parks: state licensing, maximum stay 8 88 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Unique Challenges •Building Code and Design Standards: –Minimum ceiling height & room size –Minimum total square footage 9 89 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Unique Challenges •Other Regulatory Challenges: –Definitions: •Building, manufactured home, or RV? –Desired outcomes: •Affordable Housing? •Sustainability? •Residential density? Are Tiny Houses the only, or best, way? 10 90 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Tiny Houses in NW Cities •Seattle: –Othello Village –ADUs on foundations –RVs if on wheels •Portland: –The “Caravan” Hotel –SDC Waiver for permitted ADUs –RVs if on wheels 11 91 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses Tiny Houses in Kent •2015 Comp. Plan –Cottage or cluster housing as alt. housing. •Kent City Code –Definitions/Building Codes: dwelling unit; min. size –ADU/Guest Cottage: use restrictions; design standards –Single/Multi-Family Zones: min. lot sizes; no living in RVs –Mobile/Manufactured: construction standards; state laws –RV Parks: 30-day limit 12 92 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses To Conclude •Tiny Houses are a growing trend. •Several regulatory challenges exist, including how we define them. •How we regulate them depends on the outcomes we want. 13 93 City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 5, 2017 – Tiny Houses ? 14 94