HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 04/10/2017 (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
April 10, 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 March 13, 2017 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 1 min 1
5. Comprehensive Plan Amendments YES Danielle Butsick 15 min 5
2015 Dockets
6. Countywide Planning Policies - Ratification YES Charlene Anderson 5 min 97
7. Development Fee Increase Implementation NO Matt Gilbert 10 min 121
Update Jon Napier
8. Kaibara Park- Sound Transit Garage NO Danielle Butsick 5 min 123
Alternative #4
9. 105 Building – Historic Significance NO Danielle Butsick 5 min 125
10. 2018-2023 Six-Year Transportation NO Lacey Jane Wolfe 10 min 131
Improvement Program
11. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 10 min
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
Date: March 13, 2017
Time: 5 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Bill Boyce, Jim Berrios
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda
None
4. Approval of Minutes
Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Chair Boyce SECONDED
a Motion to Approve the Minutes of January 9, 2017. Motion PASSED 2-0.
5. Re-Appointment of Josh Bang to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Ben Wolters, Director of Economic and Community Development, presented to the
Committee a request for re-appointment of Josh Bang to the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee.
Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Chair Boyce SECONDED
a Motion to Approve the Reappointment of Josh Bang to the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee for another four-year term. Motion PASSED 2-0.
6. Approval of VisitKent Marketing Contract with JayRay, Inc.
Wolters presented information on JayRay’s scope. The agency plans to provide
marketing for the VisitKent.com campaign through a contract not to exceed
$164,635. They were selected by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) to
promote tourism and lodging visibility within the City through:
• Upgrading VisitKent.com website
• Providing social media outreach
• Securing additional coverage online and in print for “Kent as Home Base”
opportunities
Discussion ensued regarding the previous agency used, Genesis Marketing. Wolters
stated that the LTAC had decided to take a new direction, moving toward a larger
firm with a broader base of tourism clientele. He added that funds would be paid
from the Lodging Tax Fund which has nearly $500,000 in reserve funds.
Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Chair Boyce SECONDED
a Motion to Approve the 2017 Contract for JayRay. Motion PASSED 2-0.
7. Sound Transit Update Auburn/Kent Sounder Station Access
Improvement Project
Danielle Butsick, Long-range planner, introduced Chelsea Levy and Sandra Fann of
Sound Transit. Camille Tsao, of CDM Smith, was also introduced.
1
Fann presented the expansion project with a purpose to increase access for all
riders at the Kent Sounder station. The proposed improvement would consist of the
construction of a 450-stall parking structure at an estimated cost of $33.1 million.
The project has a 7-year timeline for completion. She further noted the process for
ongoing stakeholder engagement:
• Introduce project with goals and objectives – January through February,
2017
• Evaluate improvement packages – March through July, 2017
• Select improvement package – July through September, 2017
Fann spoke regarding various meetings held in the past several months involving
stakeholders and advisory committee members. Meeting discussion included
ridership origins and their modes of transportation, as well as potential parking
garage locations and other possible improvements. Project goals and objectives
were comprised of: Access, Environment, Implementation and Consistency &
Compatibility
Preliminary screening of parking locations narrowed the initial number of eight
possible locations to four, for further study.
Site 1 – North of James Street
Site 2 – Within Kent Station Parking Lot North of AMC Theater
Site 3 – Assemblage of multiple properties on east side of tracks with multiple
access points
Site 4 – Kaibara Park located near library
Discussion ensued regarding potential traffic impacts, as well as opportunities.
Next Steps:
A. Evaluate four potential parking garage sites
• Transportation access
• Engineering
• Environmental considerations
• Development potential
B. Pair non-motorized and transit access improvements with parking garage
options into different alternative packages
C. Evaluate alternative packages
D. Present alternative packages and identify preferred alternative
Upcoming stakeholder engagement dates include: Round two evaluation and
comparison, with two stakeholder meetings in April and May, then an open house
and City Council presentation in June.
8. Incentive for Downtown Kent
Wolters introduced Bill Ellis, Economic Development analyst, to present potential
downtown development incentives.
• Possible incentives for the City
• Neighboring municipalities’ incentives
o Tukwila’s Zoning Districts known as “TUC-TOD” (Transit-Oriented
Development)
o Washington Towers
• Most appropriate types of development to suit the City’s goals
2
Tukwila’s Subarea Plan contains principles similar to those for “Meet Me on
Meeker”, complete streets, breaking up superblocks, creating a memorable built
environment, making great public spaces, and getting the mixture of uses right
while encouraging people to live near transit.
Washington Towers is an 18-story, catalyzed development by fee deferral in order
to promote residential growth near Southcenter. It includes a hotel, apartments
and retail and is located in the heart of the shopping district. Transportation
impact, fire, parks, and building permit fees have been deferred with specific
requirements and loan payment.
Auburn Urban Center District Incentives:
• Land use waivers and density bonuses for pedestrian orientation/movement
• Relaxed parking requirements
• Multi-family property tax exemption
• Waiver of stormwater drainage facilities (ended 2011)
• Waiver of traffic impact fee (ended 2007)
• Construction sales tax exemption on first $100K
• Defer impact fees and system development charges to issuance of
certification of occupancy
Ellis compared the City to Tukwila and Auburn to glean similarities.
Proposed Meeker Corridor Fee Deferral targets areas east of 167 to First Avenue. It
would be a way for developers to defer their early expenses, such as construction.
Grocer recruitment might be viable option. It requires clearance of initial
demographic thresholds and favors small footprints in areas of dense development.
Safeway was used as a model to establish requirements for new grocer within one-
mile ring from Kent Station.
Discussion ensued regarding grocers, multi-family development, and further
incentives for development.
9. Meet Me on Meeker
Hayley Bonsteel, Long-range planner, and Bill Ellis presented strategies for moving
the concept forward, along with how the cross section concept might flex across the
corridor. Slides displayed the proposed area on Meeker from the 516 to Central
Avenue.
Concept:
• On-street parking
• Three lanes and/or landscaped median
• Wide pathway for cyclists with amenity zones
• Generous sidewalk
Potential priorities for grants/leveraging:
• B1: Riverview Apartments
• E2: 64th Avenue has many children and seniors utilizing intersection/crossing
• E3: Mid-block between school and Tri-court Seniors
• C3/E5: Underpass
• King County Parks – potential funding for east of Interurban
• TIB Award for Complete Streets – 4th and Meeker
3
Possible interim improvements to Meeker include paint-only intervention around the
school and quick-serve restaurant area. Constricting traffic lanes and reducing
speeds may help to avoid quick-merge situations. In this scenario, removing the
HOV-only lane on Washington would happen prior to the paint improvements.
The underpass connects to the regional growth center, making it potentially
competitive for grants. Langston Landing project currently has no left turn on the
north, west or south. A strong desire exists to restore the left turn capability for
greater flow of retail traffic, which could be leveraged with a grant for the
underpass.
MJR Development owns the block on either side of Meeker west of Washington and
plans to improve pedestrian access.
Next Steps:
• Property Owner Outreach (ongoing)
• Design and Construction Standards
o Development: Q2/A3
o Adoption: Q3/Q4
• Detailed Survey
• Further Design of Full Corridor
• Ongoing Grant Preparation
10. ShoWare Update: 2016 Review and 2017 Look Ahead
Tim Higgins, General Manager for ShoWare reported that a recent event required
additional parking. Seattle’s Finest was hired for parking assistance. He added that
2016 was a positive year for the center with revenues increasing over past years,
due in large part to the Seattle Thunderbirds. Highlights of this success include:
#17 of top 20 venues of similar size according to Venues Today magazine, as well
as #189 of top 200 venues (of any size) per Pollstar. Over 450,000 guests in 2016.
Discussion encompassed overall revenue and the center’s contributions to nearby
retail in the downtown area. Point-of-sale operations are in need of upgrade, in
addition to audio/visual equipment, with options currently being explored. NHL has
recommended new safety glass for hockey rink, as well. Naming rights renewal is
also coming up.
11. Economic Development Update
None
Adjournment of the meeting 7:15 p.m.
______ ___________________________________
Submitted by Cheryl Trimble on behalf of Julie Pulliam
Economic & Community Development Committee
4
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: April 6, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
RE: Docketed Comprehensive Plan Amendments [CPA-2017-1]
For Meeting of April 10, 2017.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2016, Kent City Council approved the 2016 docket
items and amended 2014 and 2015 docket reports, including the following
amendments to the comprehensive plan.
The Educational Service Areas and Facilities Map, Figure CF-4 in the comprehensive
plan, is missing labels for Mt. Rainier High School and Mill Creek Elementary. Valley
View Elementary is omitted from the map. Per DKT-2016-A.1, an amended map is
included in the meeting packet.
Table LU.1 in the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan inadvertently
omitted MHP from allowed zoning under LDMF and MDMF. KCC 12.05.060 Zoning
for mobile home vehicle parks, and KCC 15.03.010 Establishment and designation
of districts, provide for MHP zoning in multi-family residential districts. Per DKT-
2016-A.2, an amended table is included in the meeting packet.
On October 4, 2016 Kent City Council passed Resolution 1935, declaring the city-
owned properties referred to as the Naden properties as surplus to the City’s needs
and authorizing the Mayor to market the properties for sale or lease. The Resolution
also directed staff to amend the comprehensive plan to comply with the decision to
surplus the Naden Property. Per DKT-2016-A.3, language has been added to the
Parks and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to surplus of
park properties.
Forty-three acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of SR-167 and S 180th
Street/SW 43rd Street were zoned General Commercial in the 2015 comprehensive
plan update and were designated as Commercial in the Land Use Plan Map. Per
DKT-2016-A.4, staff considered extending Mixed Use designation to these parcels in
order to achieve additional flexibility in permitted uses, and a revised Zoning
Districts Map and Land Use Plan Map are included in the meeting packet.
Data and tabular values in the 2015 Kent Comprehensive Plan Housing Element are
sourced from the 2005-2009 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
data released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council (approval/denial/modification)
of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan
Map, and Zoning Districts Map as presented by staff.
5
Updated CHAS data are available based on 2009-2013 figures. Per DKT-2015-2,
amended tables in the Housing Element are included in the meeting packet.
On September 1, 2015, Kent City Council adopted Ordinance 4164, which included
a Land Use Plan Map amendment changing the land use plan map designation of
properties on the southeast side of the intersection of S 212th Street and Russell
Road (referred to in Ord. 4164 in Exhibit P, Site B2.a Valley West) from mixed
MHP/I to entirely I. The ordinance inadvertently excluded the segment of a City-
owned parcel west of Russell Road with similar land use plan map designations.
Per DKT-2015-4 an amended Land Use Plan Map is included in the meeting packet.
These amendments were presented to the Land Use and Planning Board on
February 27, 2017 during a workshop session. No changes were requested by the
Board at this time.
A SEPA checklist has been completed for the proposed amendments; the City of
Kent SEPA Responsible Official has issued an addendum to the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and City of
Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action SEIS. The checklist and
addendum are included in the meeting packet.
A public hearing was held on March 27, 2017 at the Land Use and Planning Board
meeting. One written comment was received in advance and was addressed during
the hearing. No comments were received during the hearing. The Land Use and
Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map, and Zoning Districts Map as presented by
staff. Minutes from the public hearing are included in the meeting packet.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance; (Exhibit A) Educational Service Areas & Facilities Map –
Figure CF-4; (Exhibit B) 2015 City of Kent Land Use Designations – Table LU.1;
(Exhibit C) Excerpt – 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation Element;
(Exhibit D) Excerpts – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Districts Map and Land Use
Plan Map; (Exhibit E) Excerpt - 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element;
(Exhibit F) Excerpt – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map; SEPA Checklist
and Addendum; March 27, 2017 LUPB Public Hearing Minutes
BUDGET IMPACT: None
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
DB:pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2017\4-10-17\CPA-2017-1_ECDCMemo_04102017.docx
6
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting annual
amendments to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan;
including updated maps, tables, and data sources;
updated information pertaining to the surplus of
park properties; and rezoning 43 acres from
General Commercial (GC) to General Commercial –
Mixed Use (GC-MU).
RECITALS
A. Under the Growth Management Act, Kent’s comprehensive
plan is subject to continuing review and evaluation.
B. The City considers annual amendments to plans or
development regulations that are suggested by interested persons via a
docket process.
C. On October 18, 2016, Kent City Council approved the 2016
docket items and amended 2014 and 2015 docket reports, which included
the comprehensive plan amendments adopted through this ordinance.
D. The Educational Service Areas and Facilities Map, Figure CF-4
in the comprehensive plan, is missing labels for Mt. Rainier High School
7
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
and Mill Creek Elementary. Valley View Elementary is omitted from the
map. The city received docket request 2016-A.1 to correct the map.
E. In Table LU.1 in the Land Use Element of the comprehensive
plan, MHP was inadvertently omitted from allowed zoning under LDMF and
MDMF. KCC 12.05.060 (Zoning for mobile home vehicle parks), and KCC
15.03.010 (Establishment and designation of districts), provide for MHP
zoning in multi-family residential districts. The city received docket request
2016-A.2 to correct the table.
F. The City of Kent, as part of its normal revenue and finance,
and asset management functions, occasionally surpluses city properties at
the direction of the City Council, in accordance with the city’s surplus
process.
G. On October 4, 2016, Kent City Council passed Resolution
1935, declaring city-owned property referred to as the Naden properties as
surplus and authorizing the Mayor to market the properties for sale or
lease. The Resolution also directed staff to amend the comprehensive plan
to reflect the decision to surplus the Naden properties, and the
amendment is docket request 2016-A.3. Other changes to the Parks and
Recreation Facilities Map, Figure P-1, and tables may be made with the
next update of the Park & Open Space Plan.
H. 43 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of SR-167
and S 180th Street/SW 43rd Street are zoned General Commercial and
designated as Commercial in the Land Use Plan Map. As part of the 2016
docketing process, docket request 2016-A.4, the City Council authorized
staff to consider extending the Mixed Use designation to these parcels in
order to achieve additional flexibility in permitted uses.
8
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
Existing uses on the 43 acres are mixed commercial including drive-up
restaurants, gas stations, banks, retail, warehousing and automotive
servicing. Parcels directly to the north and east are in the City of Renton
and are zoned Commercial Office or Residential Multi-Family. Commercial
Office zoning in Renton allows for limited mixed use development,
including residential, under certain conditions.
I. Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan policies include an objective
to: “Conserve energy resources, improve air and water quality, and
support healthy lifestyles by establishing well designed, compact mixed-
use land use patterns that provide convenient opportunities for travel by
transit, foot, and bicycle.” The Mixed Use zoning overlay district opens the
door for this type of mixed use development.
J. Kent’s industrial valley employs over 60,000 people during
the day. Expanding opportunities for residential uses near employment
centers may promote more live-work lifestyles and add to the appeal of
the Kent Valley, especially in recruiting high-tech companies.
K. Data and tabular values in the 2015 Kent Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element are sourced from the 2005-2009 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data released by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). Updated CHAS data are available based
on 2009-2013 figures. The city received docket request 2015-2 to update
the tables in the Housing Element to reflect these updated data.
L. On September 1, 2015, Kent City Council adopted Ordinance
4164, which included a Land Use Plan Map amendment changing the
designation of properties on the southeast side of the intersection of S
212th Street and Russell Road (referred to in Ord. 4164, Exhibit P, Site
B2.a Valley West) from mixed MHP/I to entirely I. The amendment
9
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
inadvertently excluded the segment of a City-owned parcel on the west
side of Russell Road that also should have been changed from MHP/I to
entirely I. The city received docket request 2015-4 to amend the land use
plan map designation for this segment.
M. On _____________, the City provided the State of
Washington the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106
of the City’s proposed amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The sixty (60) day notice period has passed.
N. On _______________, the City’s SEPA responsible official
issued a __________________.
O. The Land Use and Planning Board held a workshop to discuss
these docket items on February 27, 2017. After appropriate public notice,
the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on
______________, to consider the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and forwarded their recommendation to the Kent City
Council.
P. On ______________, the Economic and Community
Development Committee considered the recommendation of the Land Use
and Planning Board and made a recommendation to the full City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilities Element is amended to include the revised Educational
10
5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
Service Areas & Facilities map, Figure CF-4, as depicted in Exhibit “A”
attached and incorporated by this reference (CPA-2017-1.2).
SECTION 2. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element is amended, replacing Table LU.1 2015 City of Kent
Land Use Designations with the revised table which includes MHP as
allowed zoning under LDMF and MDMF land use designations, as set forth
in Exhibit “B” attached and incorporated by this reference (CPA-2017-
1.3).
SECTION 3. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Parks and Recreation Element is amended to include consideration of the
City’s property surplus process as follows:
Level Of Service By City Region
…
The new performance-based Level of Service will allow
parks staff to track how much Recreational Value
Kent’s Park System is providing. Performance-based
LOS is a tool that has the potential to link what is in
our parks, the level at which they are funded, where
capital investments are made, how maintenance hours
are expended and acquisition and surplusing priorities.
These are exciting possibilities from a park planning
perspective, but at the same time this is a new system
that will be beta tested over the life of the 2016 P&OS
Plan. Changes are likely as staff learns how to use this
new planning tool.
11
6 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
Goals & Policies
…
• POLICY P&OS-4.1: Prior to acquiring,
surplusing and/or developing a potential park or
recreational facility, carefully evaluate its potential
contribution to the system, and only proceed if the
potential action investment is considered to be
complementary to the system and can contribute to the
system's overall performance.
SECTION 4. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are amended to reflect the
revised land use plan map and zoning district designations for the
properties at the southwest side of the intersection of S 180th Street/SW
43rd Street and SR-167 from C to MU and GC to GC-MU, respectively, as
set forth in Exhibit “D” attached and incorporated by this reference (CPA-
2017-1.5).
SECTION 5. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element is amended to incorporate updated data and data
sources, as set forth in Exhibit “E” attached and incorporated by this
reference (CPA-2017-1.6).
12
7 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
SECTION 6. - Amendment. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan Map is amended to reflect the revised land use plan map
designation for the properties at the southwest side of the intersection of
S 212th Street and Russell Road, as depicted in Exhibit “F” attached and
incorporated by this reference (CPA-2017-1.7).
SECTION 7. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 8. – 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 9. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
13
8 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
14
9 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2017
PASSED: day of , 2017.
APPROVED: day of , 2017.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2017.
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 KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
15
16
CP
A
-
2
0
1
7
-
1
,
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
– E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
p
– F
i
g
u
r
e
CF
-4
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
L
a
b
e
l
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
L
a
b
e
l
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
L
a
b
e
l
&
P
o
i
n
t
Ad
d
L
a
b
e
l
f
o
r
M
t
.
R
a
i
n
i
e
r
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Ad
d
L
a
b
e
l
f
o
r
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
Ad
d
&
La
b
e
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ad
d
p
o
i
n
t
a
n
d
l
a
b
e
l
f
o
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ad
d
l
a
b
e
l
f
o
r
M
t
.
R
a
i
n
i
e
r
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
17
18
CPA-2017-1, Exhibit B – 2015 City of Kent Land Use Designations –
Table LU.1
Land Use Element – Chapter Two Page 1
Table LU.1
2015 CITY OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
LAND
USE
AREA
(ACRES)
% OF
TOTAL AREA
ALLOWED
ZONING
Agricultural AG-R 53.5 0.3 A-10
AG-S 223.7 1.0 AG
Subtotal 277.2 1.3
SF Residential US 1,580.2 7.4 SR-1
SF-3 252.9 1.2 SR-3
SF-4.5 2,301.5 10.8 SR-4.5
SF-6 6,797.9 31.9 SR-4.5, SR-6
SF-8 630.1 3.0 SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8
MHP 158.8 0.7 MHP
Subtotal 11,721.3 54.9
MF Residential LDMF 818.7 3.8 SR-8, MR-D, MR-G,
MRT-12, MRT-16 ((, MHP ))
MDMF 840.4 3.9 MR-D, MR-M, MR-H,
MRT-12, MRT-16 ((, MHP))
Subtotal 1,659.1 7.8
Commercial MU 677.9 3.2 GC, CC, MRT-16, M2 (legacy)
NS 15.9 0.1 NCC, MRT-12, MRT-16
C 563.6 2.6 GC, CC,
CM-1, CM-2,
MRT-12, MRT-16
UC
TOC
492.0
294.3
2.3
1.4
DC, DCE, GC
MRT-12, MRT-16
MR-M, MHP
MTC-1, MTC-2, MCR, MHP
Subtotal 2,043.7 9.6
Industrial I 2,281.6 10.7 M1, M2, M3,
M1-C
MIC 1,992.9 9.3 M2, M3, M1-C
Subtotal 4,274.5 20.0
Park & Open
Space
OS 1,362.3 6.4 All
TOTAL 21,338.1 100.0
19
CPA-2017-1, Exhibit C – Excerpt – 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Parks
and Recreation Element
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element 1
Level Of Service By City Region
…
The new performance-based Level of Service will allow
parks staff to track how much Recreational Value Kent’s
Park System is providing. Performance-based LOS is a
tool that has the potential to link what is in our parks, the
level at which they are funded, where capital investments
are made, how maintenance hours are expended and
acquisition and surplusing priorities. These are exciting
possibilities from a park planning perspective, but at the
same time this is a new system that will be beta tested
over the life of the 2016 P&OS Plan. Changes are likely
as staff learns how to use this new planning tool.
Goals & Policies
…
• POLICY P&OS-4.1: Prior to acquiring,
surplusing and/or developing a potential park or
recreational facility, carefully evaluate its potential
contribution to the system, and only proceed if the
potential action investment is considered to be
complementary to the system and can contribute to the
system's overall performance.
20
CPA-2017-1, Exhibit D – Excerpts – 2015 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Districts Map and Land Use Plan Map
Change Zoning from General Commercial (GC)
to General Commercial – Mixed Use (GC-MU).
Change Land Use Plan Map designation from
Commercial (C) to Mixed Use (MU).
Parcels affected:
3123059060
3123059161
3123059109
3123059097
3123059079
3123059033
3123059167
3123059176
3123059162
3123059163
3123059014
3123059082
3123059105
3123059113
3123059118
3123059166
Parcels affected:
3123059060
3123059161
3123059109
3123059097
3123059079
3123059033
3123059167
3123059176
3123059162
3123059163
3123059014
3123059082
3123059105
3123059113
3123059118
3123059166
21
22
CPA-2017-1, Exhibit E – Excerpt – 2015 Comprehensive Plan,
Housing Element, Household Characteristics
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 1
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
In 2012, there were a total of 41,481 dwelling units in the city, an increase
of a little over 5,000 units due primarily to the Panther Lake annexation.
Kent’s housing stock is comprised of approximately 50% single-family and
50% multi-family housing. It should be noted that over 40% of the housing
stock is more than 30 years old and may be in need of repair or
rehabilitation.
The Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan both
encourage transit-oriented development. The Downtown Planned Action
Ordinance proposes new SEPA threshold levels below which no SEPA review
is required. Kent has also adopted increased SEPA thresholds for the rest of
the City, providing categorical exemptions to the maximum allowed by the
State.
According to the King County Countywide Planning Policies Goal CPP-H-1,
there is a countywide need for housing supply as follows: 16 percent for
those earning 50‐80 percent of Area Median Income, or AMI (moderate), 12
percent for those earning 30‐50 percent of AMI (low), and 12 percent for
those earning 30 percent and below AMI (very‐low). Kent will focus on
preserving and enhancing existing housing to maintain the affordability while
encouraging development of housing for residents at 120 percent + of
median income. Additionally the City will continue to collaborate with other
partners to construct housing affordable to those making less than 30
percent AMI. Currently approximately 50 percent of households are paying
less than 30 percent of their income for housing resulting in the more
affordable housing being occupied by households that could afford to pay a
greater percentage of their income toward housing costs. This forces
households with lower incomes into overcrowding, overpayment or
substandard housing. These housing problems are defined and shown below.
Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than
habitable rooms in a home. Overcrowding falls into two groups: moderate
(1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more than 1.5 persons per room).
Overburdened refers to a household that pays more than 30 percent of
household income towards housing. According to federal definitions,
overburdened falls into two categories: moderate (pays 30-50 percent) and
severe (pays more than 50 percent of income) toward housing.
Substandard Housing refers to a home with significant need to replace or
repair utilities (plumbing, electrical, heating, etc.) or make major structural
repairs to roofing, walls, foundations, and other major components.
23
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 2
Table H.2
Housing CostsAffordable Rental Units
Housing Occupancy in Kent
Total
Housing
Units
Occupied
Housing
Units
Renter
Occupied
Housing
Units
36,379 34,060 17,011
Number of Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent
% of Area
Median
Income (AMI)
<30%AMI 31-51% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-120% AMI Over 120%
AMI
Monthly Rent $0-$500 $500-$849 $850-$1370 $1370- $1999 $2000 or more
Renter-
Occupied Units
1,660 4,898 7,690 2,339 424
Percent of Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent
% of Area Median
Income (AMI)
<30%AMI 31-50%
AMI
All Units
Under
50% AMI
51-80%
AMI
81-120%
AMI
Over
120%
AMI
Monthly Rent $0-$500 $500-
$849
$850 $850-
$1370
$1370-
$1999
$2000 or
more
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Units
9.8% 28.8% 38.5% 45.2% 13.8% 2.5%
Source: 2006-2010 ACS Data
24
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 3
Income Monthly Housing Cost
Should Be
Units
Needed
Units Available
>30% AMI
or Less
= or > Lower than
$750.00
5133 4658
>50% AMI
or Less
= or > Lower than
$1250.00
4665 14270
>80% AMI
or Less
= or > Lower than
$1810.00
6230 7620
100% AMI = or > Lower than
$2500.00
3339 8709
<120% AMI
or More
= or > Lower than
$3000.00
19900 5550
Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS (Data Not Updated)
Table H.3
Housing Needs Summary Tables
H3.1. Housing Problems (Households with only one of the listed problems defined above.)
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
less
than
or
equa
l to
30%
of
HAM
FI*
greater
than
30% but
less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than
80%
but
less
than or
equal
to
100%
of
HAMFI
Tota
l
less
than or
equal
to 30%
of
HAMFI
greater
than
30% but
less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than
50% but
less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than
80% but
less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
Substandard Housing
50
105
-
-
155
15
-
55
-
70
Overcrowded - Severe
305
240
65
40
650
55
-
20
50
125
Overcrowded - Moderate
580
605
275
45
1,50
5
-
50
35
55
140
Overburdened - Severe
3,30
0
775
155
-
4,23
0
850
765
610
250
2,475
Overburdened - Moderate
655
1,960
960
225
3,80
0
180
525
830 1,245
2,780
Zero/negative income –
Housing burden not
computed
295
-
-
-
295
85
-
-
-
85
25
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 4
*Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Substandard Housing -
Lacking complete
plumbing or kitchen
facilities 60 35 55 45 195 0 0 30 0 30
Severely Overcrowded -
With >1.51 people per
room (and complete
kitchen and plumbing) 145 34 15 4 198 0 15 4 0 19
Overcrowded - With
1.01-1.5 people per
room (and none of the
above problems) 365 340 275 49 1,029 0 45 75 35 155
Housing cost burden
greater than 50% of
income (and none of the
above problems) 2,555 260 40 0 2,855 579 595 535 170 1,879
Housing cost burden
greater than 30% of
income (and none of the
above problems) 560 1,899 944 40 3,443 110 265 815 699 1,889
Zero/negative Income
(and none of the above
problems) 140 0 0 0 140 20 0 0 0 20
Data
Source: 2005-20092009-2013 CHAS
H3.2. Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing housing problems in table
H3.1): Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden)
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
less than
or equal
to 30% of
HAMFI
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than 80%
but less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
less
than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than 80%
but less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
At least one
of the four
severe
housing
problems in
table H3.1.
4,235
1,725
500
90
6,55
0
920
815
720
355
2,810
26
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 5
None of the
four severe
housing
problems in
table H3.1.
1,240
2,530
2,555
1,965
8,29
0
350
1,075
1,850
2,660
5,935
Zero/negativ
e income –
Housing
burden not
computed.
295
-
-
-
295
85
-
-
-
85
Data Source: 2009-2013 CHAS
H3.3. Housing Cost Burden > 30% HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI)
Renter occupied Owner occupied
household
income is
less than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater than
50% but
less than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
Total
household
income is
less than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
Total
Small Family (2
persons, neither
person 62 years or
over, or 3 or 4
persons)
2,310
1,475
435
4,220
275
435
720
1,430
Large Family (5 or
more persons)
680
515
135
1,330
125
230
155
510
Elderly Family (2
persons, with either
or both age 62 or
over)
135
115
45
295
115
130
145
Elderly non-family
760
385
50
1,195
300
295
160
755
Other household type
(non-elderly non-
family)
1,005
1,075
460
2,540
290
240
300
830
Total need by income
4,890
3,565
1,125
9,580
1,105
1,330
1,480
3,525
Data
Source: 20052009-2009 2013 CHAS
Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than
habitable rooms in a home. Overcrowding falls into two groups: moderate
(1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more thenthan 1.5 persons per
room).
Overpayment refers to a household that pays more than 30% of
householdof household income towards housing. According to federal
definitions, overpayment falls into two categories: moderate (pays 30-50%)
and severe (pays more than 50% of income) toward housing.
27
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 6
Substandard Housing refers to a home with significant need to replace or
repair utilities (Plumbing, electrical, heating, etc.) or make major structural
repairs to roofing, walls, foundations, and other major components.
Table H.4
Total Households Table
less than or
equal to 30% of
HAMFI
greater than 30% but
less than or equal to
50% of HAMFI
greater than 50% but
less than or equal to
80% of HAMFI
greater than 80% but
less than or equal to
100% of HAMFI
greater than 100%
of HAMFI
Total Households 7,130 6,145 5,620 5,070 16,220
Small Family (2
persons, neither
person 62 years or
over, or 3 or 4
persons)
3,020 2,260 2,020 2,080 8,745
Large Family (5 or
more persons) 895 880 850 840 1,825
Household with at
least 1 person age 62-
74 but no one age
75+
1,195 980 950 995 2,495
Household with at
least 1 person age
75+
730 700 385 425 690
Household with 1 or
more children age 6
or younger
2,119 1,540 1,170 840 2,585
Data
Source:
2009-2013 CHAS
Table H.4
Total Households Table
0-
30%
HAMFI
>30-
50%
HAMFI
>50-
80%
HAMFI
>80-
100%
HAMFI
>100% HAMFI
Total Households * 5,134 4,665 6,230 3,339
Small Family Households * 1,510 2,054 2,485 8,315
Large Family Households * 760 470 760 1,259
Household contains at least
one person 62-74 years of
age 739 645 715 435 1,650
Household contains at least
one person age 75 or older 519 535 410 184 590
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or
younger * 1,299 1,229 1,575 2,459
* the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI
Data
Source:
2005-2009 CHAS
28
CPA-2017-1, Exhibit E – Excerpt – 2015 Comprehensive Plan,
Housing Element, Household Characteristics
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 1
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
In 2012, there were a total of 41,481 dwelling units in the city, an increase
of a little over 5,000 units due primarily to the Panther Lake annexation.
Kent’s housing stock is comprised of approximately 50% single-family and
50% multi-family housing. It should be noted that over 40% of the housing
stock is more than 30 years old and may be in need of repair or
rehabilitation.
The Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan both
encourage transit-oriented development. The Downtown Planned Action
Ordinance proposes new SEPA threshold levels below which no SEPA review
is required. Kent has also adopted increased SEPA thresholds for the rest of
the City, providing categorical exemptions to the maximum allowed by the
State.
According to the King County Countywide Planning Policies Goal CPP-H-1,
there is a countywide need for housing supply as follows: 16 percent for
those earning 50‐80 percent of Area Median Income, or AMI (moderate), 12
percent for those earning 30‐50 percent of AMI (low), and 12 percent for
those earning 30 percent and below AMI (very‐low). Kent will focus on
preserving and enhancing existing housing to maintain the affordability while
encouraging development of housing for residents at 120 percent + of
median income. Additionally the City will continue to collaborate with other
partners to construct housing affordable to those making less than 30
percent AMI. Currently approximately 50 percent of households are paying
less than 30 percent of their income for housing resulting in the more
affordable housing being occupied by households that could afford to pay a
greater percentage of their income toward housing costs. This forces
households with lower incomes into overcrowding, overpayment or
substandard housing. These housing problems are defined and shown below.
Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than
habitable rooms in a home. Overcrowding falls into two groups: moderate
(1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more than 1.5 persons per room).
Overburdened refers to a household that pays more than 30 percent of
household income towards housing. According to federal definitions,
overburdened falls into two categories: moderate (pays 30-50 percent) and
severe (pays more than 50 percent of income) toward housing.
Substandard Housing refers to a home with significant need to replace or
repair utilities (plumbing, electrical, heating, etc.) or make major structural
repairs to roofing, walls, foundations, and other major components.
29
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 2
Table H.2
Affordable Rental Units
Housing Occupancy in Kent
Total
Housing
Units
Occupied
Housing
Units
Renter
Occupied
Housing
Units
36,379 34,060 17,011
Number of Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent
% of Area
Median
Income (AMI)
<30%AMI 31-51% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-120% AMI Over 120%
AMI
Monthly Rent $0-$500 $500-$849 $850-$1370 $1370- $1999 $2000 or more
Renter-
Occupied Units
1,660 4,898 7,690 2,339 424
Percent of Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent
% of Area Median
Income (AMI)
<30%AMI 31-50%
AMI
All Units
Under
50% AMI
51-80%
AMI
81-120%
AMI
Over
120%
AMI
Monthly Rent $0-$500 $500-
$849
$850 $850-
$1370
$1370-
$1999
$2000 or
more
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Units
9.8% 28.8% 38.5% 45.2% 13.8% 2.5%
Source: 2006-2010 ACS Data
30
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 3
Table H.3
Housing Needs Summary Tables
H3.1. Housing Problems (Households with only one of the problems defined
above.)
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
less
than
or
equa
l to
30%
of
HAM
FI*
greater
than
30% but
less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than
80%
but
less
than or
equal
to
100%
of
HAMFI
Tota
l
less
than or
equal
to 30%
of
HAMFI
greater
than
30% but
less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than
50% but
less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than
80% but
less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
Substandard Housing
50
105
-
-
155
15
-
55
-
70
Overcrowded - Severe
305
240
65
40
650
55
-
20
50
125
Overcrowded - Moderate
580
605
275
45
1,50
5
-
50
35
55
140
Overburdened - Severe
3,30
0
775
155
-
4,23
0
850
765
610
250
2,475
Overburdened - Moderate
655
1,960
960
225
3,80
0
180
525
830 1,245
2,780
Zero/negative income –
Housing burden not
computed
295
-
-
-
295
85
-
-
-
85
*Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income
Data
Source: 2009-2013 CHAS
H3.2. Housing Problems (Households with one or more housing problems in table H3.1)
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
less than
or equal
to 30% of
HAMFI
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than 80%
but less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
less
than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
greater
than 80%
but less
than or
equal to
100% of
HAMFI
Total
31
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 4
At least one
of the four
severe
housing
problems in
table H3.1.
4,235
1,725
500
90
6,55
0
920
815
720
355
2,810
None of the
four severe
housing
problems in
table H3.1.
1,240
2,530
2,555
1,965
8,29
0
350
1,075
1,850
2,660
5,935
Zero/negativ
e income –
Housing
burden not
computed.
295
-
-
-
295
85
-
-
-
85
Data Source: 2009-2013 CHAS
H3.3. Housing Cost Burden > 30% HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI)
Renter occupied Owner occupied
household
income is
less than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater than
50% but
less than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
Total
household
income is
less than or
equal to
30% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 30%
but less
than or
equal to
50% of
HAMFI
household
income is
greater
than 50%
but less
than or
equal to
80% of
HAMFI
Total
Small Family (2
persons, neither
person 62 years or
over, or 3 or 4
persons)
2,310
1,475
435
4,220
275
435
720
1,430
Large Family (5 or
more persons)
680
515
135
1,330
125
230
155
510
Elderly Family (2
persons, with either
or both age 62 or
over)
135
115
45
295
115
130
145
Elderly non-family
760
385
50
1,195
300
295
160
755
Other household type
(non-elderly non-
family)
1,005
1,075
460
2,540
290
240
300
830
Total need by income
4,890
3,565
1,125
9,580
1,105
1,330
1,480
3,525
Data
Source: 2009-2013 CHAS
32
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element Page 5
Table H.4
Total Households Table
less than or
equal to 30% of
HAMFI
greater than 30% but
less than or equal to
50% of HAMFI
greater than 50% but
less than or equal to
80% of HAMFI
greater than 80% but
less than or equal to
100% of HAMFI
greater than 100%
of HAMFI
Total Households 7,130 6,145 5,620 5,070 16,220
Small Family (2
persons, neither
person 62 years or
over, or 3 or 4
persons)
3,020 2,260 2,020 2,080 8,745
Large Family (5 or
more persons) 895 880 850 840 1,825
Household with at
least 1 person age 62-
74 but no one age
75+
1,195 980 950 995 2,495
Household with at
least 1 person age
75+
730 700 385 425 690
Household with 1 or
more children age 6
or younger
2,119 1,540 1,170 840 2,585
Data
Source:
2009-2013 CHAS
33
34
CP
A
-
2
0
1
7
-
1
,
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
F
– E
x
c
e
r
p
t
– 2
0
1
5
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
M
a
p
Am
e
n
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Pl
a
n
M
a
p
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
s
p
l
i
t
M
H
P
/
I
t
o
en
t
i
r
e
l
y
I
.
35
36
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax:253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
WASHrN0loN
ADDENDUM TO CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND
MIDWAY SUBAREA PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (ErS) (#ENV-2010-3) AND CITY OF KËNT DOWNTOWN
SUBAREA ACTION PLAN PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVTRONMENTAL TMPACT STATEMENT (SErS) (#ENV-zO12-30)
ANNUAL DOCKET AMENDMENTS TO KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
LAND USE PLAN MAP AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP
cP A-2O17-1 / RPP6 -2L7 064A
Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP
I. SCOPE
The City of Kent Economic & Community Development Department proposes
non-project actions that include the following six docketed amendments to
the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map:
1. Update Educational Service Areas and Facilities Map - Figure CF-4
2. Amend Table LU.1 - Include MHP as allowed zoning under LDMF
and MDMF
3. Amend Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
pertaining to surplusing properties as a result of the surplus of the
Naden properties.
4. Extend Mixed Use land use plan map and zoning districts map
designations along S 180th Street. This site is referred to as the "S
180th Street site".
5. Update CHAS data in Housing Element to include more recent
data.
6. Land Use Plan Map Revision - Amend designation for parcel
IL22A4-9056 from split designation of MHP/I to entirely I to correct
inadvertent omission, This site is referred to as the "Russell Road
site".
37
Addendum
Annual Docket Amendments to 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts
Map
cPA-20 17-1 / RPP6-2L74648
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned
Action EIS evaluated alternative growth strategies at a programmatic level
for the Kent Planning Area (City limits and Potential Annexation Area). The
EIS refreshed the environmental review conducted for the Clty's
Comprehensive Plan and analyzed additional growth that would be focused in
Downtown, the Midway Subarea, and five potential Activity Centers, The
Supplemental EIS for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
(Draft issued June, 2013 and Final issued October, 2013) evaluated the
growth potential for the expanded Downtown study area as well as a lesser
level of growth in the Midway Subarea.
The annual docket amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are consistent with the levels of growth
analyzed in these documents.
II. SEPA COMPLIANCE
On February 13,2010, the City of Kent issued a Determination of
Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action (ENV-2010-3). The City
solicited public comment on the scope of the DEIS during the comment
period and on October 22, 2AL0 the City of Kent issued a Draft EIS, The Final
EIS was issued and distributed on September L,20L1. No appeals to the EIS
were filed.
In 2At2, the City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzed three
alternatives and evaluated several environmental elements associated with
the update to the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) (ENV-2012-30),
The SEIS also evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was
evaluated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway
Subarea Planned Action EIS, The Draft SEIS was issued in June, 2013 and
the Final SEIS was issued in October,2OI3. No appeals to the SEIS were
filed,
No additional significant adverse environmental impacts are identified for the
proposed annual docket amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land
Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map; therefore an addendum to the
EIS/SEIS is appropriate,
ITI. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
This proposal is a nonproject action pursuant to WAC 197.LL, Future project
actions associated with the annual docket amendments to the Kent
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are
subject to and shall be consistent with the following: Kent Comprehensive
Page 2 of 5
38
Addendum
Annual Docket Amendments to 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts
Map
cPA-2017" 1 / RPP6-217 0648
Plan, Kent City Code, Environmental Policy, International Fire Code,
International Building Code, the City of Kent Design and Construction
Standards, the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, Public Works
Standards and all other applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time a
complete project permit application is filed.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review asit undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-
11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and
preparation of addenda to environmental decisions.
Nonproject Documents - An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan,
development regulation, or other broad based policy document is considered
"non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC t97-L7-704),
Phased Review - SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that
review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making
process/ (WAC 197-L1-060(5)). Future projects identified and associated
with implementation of the annual docket amendments to the Kent
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map may
require individual and separate environmental review, pursuant to SEPA,
Such review will occur when a specific project is identified.
Prior Environmental Documents - The City of Kent issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action on October 22, ?OLO and a
Fínal EIS on September 1,2011 (#ENV-2010'3). The Midway Subarea Plan,
Midway Design Guidelines, amendments to development regulations, Land
Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps were adopted by the City Council on
December t3,20tL, The City of Kent issued a Draft Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) in June, 2013 and a Final sEIS in October, 2013 (ENV-2012-30). The
SEIS evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was
evaluated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway
Subarea Planned Action EIS.
The proposed annual docket amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are consistent with the City of
Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS
and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS.
Scope of Addendum - As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an
addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the described
actions, This addendum regarding the annual docket amendments to the
Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map does
not identífy new significant adverse impacts or significantly change the prior
Page 3 of 5
39
Addendum
Annual Docket Amendments to 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts
Map
cPA-2017-1 / RPP6-2L70648
environmental analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum
process as outlined in (WAC-197-11-600(4)(c)).
ENVIRON MENTAL ELEM ENTS
All environmental elements are adequately addressed within the parameters
of existing codes and ordinances, as well as the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS, drafts and finals.
Furthermore, subsequent project actions would require compliance with SEPA
environmental policy which may include separate environmental checklists.
Projects will be analyzed for consistency with mitigating conditions identifiedin the EIS and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific
conditions.
The annual docket amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are within the range of growth analyzed in
the EIS and SEIS as shown on the following table:
Data Sources for Conrparisqn of Capacity/Pollcy Docr.:ments/Farecast Analysis
Orlçln of Dat¿,tBs HH
BUILÞÅþLE LANT}g
P H
7\qY-4,*,tlOr733
3,034
lul*{-fui{ L}Fm HH Lûr11glÊtårI qJ¿
Tc't¿ÇCrnr
CPP TARGEÏ
2.48fu
=::::-
13,490 9.36r.)
llÞP Iarget :031-3035 {Tar'3*ii 15 yrç r 4 years)3,1 5ê 1,498
CFP TãrgeÍ:006-:035 1),b4u lu,s5¡t
{åL {ìonrpl*led ûr ÕFh{ ':û13/X4 Canrpieted)ü 2,486
(Pp Llsled L¡y HH ?{t14 &" ûFþl r3,64t &,3?2
PSRT LUT TARGET
PSRC LUT 3031 Kêfit nu9 n ./$,,/1E 51.839
P5F.C LUT 1035 Kent iTotål 61}v,ttl Tärçet] (þlinus t:únstt"tì{t!ñnJ 8i"854 53,549
Fsl:. LUI' ¡\nnu.rl Grc¡\\'ll'r t jil31--.1u35/4 y€ar'sJ /a>4¡{.}
b5t, LUT 'ì YÊaru (:lorVtlì 3,140 1,72Ð
1*43, /93
t'5RC LIJT Ê.*pr:rted fü10 ('5eÈ methoelologyJ 61,65,1
Metl¡odc'laty to Deterniine :ü1û IOSSi 1035 jabs-2015 jcbs*$08û/10yr=B0t tûbs; 808;'itsyr=13,1?t)
i¡bs: f035 jc¡b: 73,774-!1,130=bl.b54 jobs represe¡rlin-q an estinlated jclrs for pgRC LUT 3CI1ü.
EXI$TIHG
JOIIJ PSIIC LU I tl,ä¡l¿I 4¿.¡9!
l,+a3.z7a 53,525
POLTCY DOCUT{Ë¡lTg
TMP :t31 KËnt PÊ"4 81,915 49,405
ldidrva'/ EiS Kent PAA 93,6û3 58,893
uownt¡)vjn 5LJ3 Kflnt þ'AA /3,3ü3 3/,¡U8
Page 4 of 5
40
Addendum
Annual Docket Amendments to 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts
Map
cPA-2017-1 / RPP6-217 0648
V, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A, SuMMany
Kent City Code sect¡on 11,03,510 identifies plans and policies from
which the City may draw substantive mitigation under the State
Environmental Policy Act. This nonproject action has been evaluated in
light of those substantive pfans and policies as well as the overall
analysis completed for the Cíty of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review
and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS,
B. DEGISIoN
The annual docket amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land
Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map are consistent with the range,
types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined
in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action
Supplemental EIS. No new significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with adoption of the annual docket amendments to the
Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map
have been identified.
Dated: March 27,20t7
Sig natu re:
Charlene Anderson, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official
CA\pm S:\Permlt\Plan\COMP-PLAN-AMENÞMENTS\2017\CPA'20r7-1\SEPA-Addendum-03072077.doc
Page 5 of 5
41
42
Planning Serylces
Location: 400 W. Gowe. Mail to: 220 4th Avenue Soulh . Kent, WA g8032.SBgS
Permit Center (253)856-5302 FAX: (2SO) 856-6412
www-KentWA.gov/perm itcenler
Environmental Checklist
Application Form
ECONOMIC Ù. COMMUNITY
DEVÊLOPM ENf
Please prlnf ln black ínk only.
KENT
Public Notice Board and
Application Fee...See Fee Schedule
To be completed by Staff:(tPSru
Jn )qu7Application #En\/ ,- Pþt"( - tv KIVA #
Beceived by:Date:slnltt Processing Fee:t'
A.Staff revÍew determined that project:
_ Meets the calogorically exempt criteria.
Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without
further consideration of environmental effects.
_ Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated lhrough conditions.
EIS not necessary
-
Has probable, significant adverse environmental impacl(s). An Environmental lmpacl Statement will be
prepared,
únEnvironmental lmpacl Statement for this project has already been prepared.
'-al-/7Signaturo ol Responsible Dale
B Com
c of or Act¡on
D.District
GH1.1 psd4008.5*15 p, I ol 22
43
wame:fiy¡-¡fl\¿ h^k¡[
Company Name: f.,ifu¡ nP [p,rnþ
Conlact Person:\)r¡ yt{ Oll t f\, r*r.i¡I-
c¡tv: V?nþ
Address:
State:\lû. zipgrÇt':f)-
búk;dt-ñ\unht¡a.ô,oJEmail:¡l
Fax:Phone(s):
Owner Name:
Company Name:
Contact Person
Address:
State:City:zip:
Fax:Phone(s):
Email:
¡ r'lli-r i
To be completed by Applicant:
SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS
Please fill out applicable boxes tor all ditÍerent professionals:
Company Name:
Engineer Name:
Exp. Date:tD#:
Address:
State:City:zip:
Fax:Phone(s):
Email
Company Name:
Engineer Name:
Exp. Date:tD#:
Address:
State:City:zip:
Fax:Phone(s):
Email:
Name:
Company Name:
Conlact Person:
Address:
State:City:zip',
Fax:Phone(s):
Email
Company Name:
Engineer Name:
Contact Person:
Address:
Stale:City:zip:
Fax:Phone(s):
Email:
Company Name:
Engineer Name:
Exp. DateltD#:
Address:
State:City:zip:
Fax:Phone(s):
Email:
WH1.1 psd4008_5_15 p.2of22
44
SE PA ENVIRON M ENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if
available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the
probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to
further analyze the proposal.
I n stru cti o ns fo r a pp I ica ntsz
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your
proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for
some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can
explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or
incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to
these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-
making process.
The checklist questions apply to all pafts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over
a period of time or on different parcels of land, Attach any additional information that will
help describe your proposal or its environmental effects, The agency to which you submit
this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information
reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Instructions for Lead Agencies:
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be
necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and
an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the
only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a
threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and
accuracy of the checklist and other suppofting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals" [help]
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete
the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FoR NoNPRoJEcrAcrIoNS
(pat D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words
"project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and
"affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects)
questions in Part B - Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the
analysis of the proposal.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97 -L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 1 of 48
45
A. Background thetpl
1, Name of proposed project, if applicable: lhelpl
Annual docket amendments to Kent's 2015 Comprehensive plan.
Note: The following items are included in the amendments; answers to all
questions in the checklist will correspond to the item numbers indicated below
where no number is indicated, the answer applies to all amendments.
1. Update Educational Service Areas and Facilities Map - Fígure CF-4
2. Amend Table LU.1 - Include MHP as allowed zoning under LDMF and
MDMF
3. Amend Parks and Recreation Element of the comprehensive plan
pertaining to surplusing properties as a result of the surplus of the Naden
properties.
4. Extend Mixed Use land use plan map and zoning districts map
designations along s 780th street. This site is referred to as the "s 7]0th
Street site".
5. update CHAS data in Housing Element to include more recent data.
6. Land use Plan Map Revision - Amend designation for parcel 112204-
9056 from split designation of MHP/I to entirely I to correct inadveftent
omission. This site is referred to as ffie "Russell Road site".
2. Name of applicant: [helpl
City of Kent, Washington
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: lherpl
Danielle Butsick, City of Kent
400 W. Gowe Street
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-s443
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 2 of 48
46
4. Date checklist prepared: lhelpl
March 3, 2077
5, Agency requesting checklist: Ihelp]
City of Kent, Washington
6, Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): lhelpJ
City Council adoption by May znd, 2077 (inctudes 60-day review period).
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. lhelpl
Not applicable.
L List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. [helpl
None known.
9, Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. l-helpl
No applications are pending.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known. [help]
These amendments to Kent's 2015 Comprehensive Plan must be provided to
the Washington State Department of Commerce for a 60-day review.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description,) [helpl
1. This portion of the amendment is a proposed change to the Educational
Service Areas & Facilities Map (Figure CF-4) in the Kent Comprehensive
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 3 of 48
47
Plan to correctly display all school labels on the map. Several of the labels
were inadvertently omitted from the map due to a map labeling error.
2. This portion of the amendment is a proposed change to the 2015 City of
Kent Land Use Designations Table LU.1 in Kent's 2015 Comprehensive
Plan. The amendment would add Mobile Home Park (MHP) as an allowed
use under Low-Density Multi-Family, and Medium-Density Multi-Family
Residential. This use is already allowed by zoning code; this would be an
administrative change to correct an inadvertent omission.
3. This portion of the amendment includes changes to the Parks and
Recreation Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan updating text to
address surplus of park properties. The Naden Properties were surplused
by the City of Kent in 2076, which was analyzed in a separate SEPA review.
When the Park and Open Space Plan is next updated, any purchase or
surplus of park properties can be incorporated into adjusted inventories
and other tables in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. This portion of the amendment is a proposed change to the Land lJse Plan
Map and Zoning Districts Map designations for 16 parcels at the corner of S
780th Street and SR-167 from Commerciat (C) to Mixed-tJse (MU), and
General Commercial (GC) to General Commercial - Mixed Use (GC-M|J),
respectively. The Mixed Use designation allows for two or more permitted
or conditional uses on the same site, under defined mixed-use
development standards, for example residential and commercial uses.
5. This portion of the amendment is a proposed change to the data tables in
the Housing Element which are based on 2005-2009 Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data to reflect updated data from
2009-2013.
6. This portion of the amendment is a proposed change to the Land Use Plan
Map (Figure LU-6) designation for a site on the southeast quadrant of the S
272th Street and Russett Road intersection. The Russell Road site includes
parcel #112204-9506, which inadvertently maintained split designations of
Industrial and Mobile Home Park (MHP); it should have been designated
solely Industrial (I). This change does not affect allowed uses on the site;
it is currently zoned Industrial Park (M1). The Russell Road site falls
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 4 of 48
48
ent¡rely within a designated critical area for the 100-year floodplain and is
part of a river bank, physically restricting it from being developed. The
above referenced parcel on the Russell Road site is owned by the City of
Kent.
L2. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known, If a proposal would
occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide
a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic ffiêp, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist, [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site includes 76 parcels affected by the proposed amendments to
the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations. The site is generally
at the southwest corner of the intersection of S 780th St. and SR-167 in Kent,
Washington. The parcels are bisected diagonally southwest-northeast by the East
Valley Highway. The parcels affected are: 3723059014, 3123059033,
3 123059060, 3 123059079, 3 123059082, 3 123059097, 3 123059 105,
3123059109, 3123059773, 3123059118, 3123059761, 3 123059162,
3123059163, 3123059766, 3123059167, and 3123059176.
The S 780th Street site totals approximately 43 acres. Of these 43 acres, 74 acres
are lands surrounding state and regional highways (SR-167 and E Valley Highway)
and are not developable parcels within the City of Kent.
(Map Attached - Exhibit A)
6. The Russell Road site is at the southwest intersection of Russell Road and S.
272th Street. It is directty adjacent to the Green River, between the river
and Russell Road. The entire 7/3 acre sife rs within the 100-yearfloodplain
and is part of fhe Russell Road Levee, a flood management embankment;
the majority of the site is also in the Russell Road setback.
(Map Attached - Exhibit B)
B. ENvTRoNMENTAL ELEMENTS l-hetpl
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-96O)
July 2016 Page 5 of 48
49
1. Earth Ihelpl
a. General description of the site: l-helpl
(circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Generally Flat
6. Steep Slopes
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? [helpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable.
4. Nearly the entire developable portion (30 acres) of the site is 0-75o/o slope;
however, sliver areas exist throughout the developable parcels in which the
slope is 75-25o/o. There is one 7,300 square foot area along the western
perimeter of the site which has slopes between 30o/o and 40o/o. This area is
densely vegetated and is not developed under the existing development
pattern.
Areas wlthin the highway right-of-way vary between 0-75o/o slope to 40-
75o/o slope. One 6,800 square foot area near the eastern perimeter of the
site has slopes that exceed 75o/o. These areas with slopes greater than
40o/o ãrê included in the city's steep slopes dataset as critical areas.
6. The Russell Road site ranges from 25o/o to 75o/o slope
c, What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and
whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. lhelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Based on 1998-2000 data from Washington Sfate Department of Natural
Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources, soils on the S 780th
Street properties affected by the proposed amendments to the Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations are Holocene era alluvial
soils. In the SR-167 setback area, glacial till type soils of the Pleistocene
era are present.
sEPA Environmental checklist (wAc 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 6 of 48
50
The majority of the suffaces on the S 780th Street site are impermeable,
meaning that there are buildings or pavement present. Of the total 43
acres to be rezoned, roughly 75 acres are permeable or unpaved, and 28
acres are impermeable.
6. Based on 1998-2000 data from Washington Sfate Department of Natural
Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources, soils on the Russell
Road site are comprised primarily of Holocene era alluvial soils. However,
this area is part of the Russell Road Levee, and may have substantially
modified soils and other materials, including riprap. King County has
proposed a levee improvement and setback project on and around this site,
which will likely result in further modification and filling of soils on this site.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so describe, [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. City of Kent data indicate no unstable soils on the S 780th Street site. Soil
datasets depicting landslide risk and erosion susceptibility were reviewed,
and this site falls well outside of all locations where these hazards are
identified.
6. City of Kent data indicate no unstable soils on ffie Russell Road site;
however, King County has identified this portion of the Lower Russell Road
Levee system as prone to scouring and slope instability. This area is part
of the Lower Russell Road Levee setback project and will likely be modified
and shored with scour protection as part of King County's proposed
improvements to begin in 2017.
e, Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total
affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill, [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed
f . Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe. lhelpl
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 PageT of 48
51
I
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97 -L1-960)
July 2016
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? [helol
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Currently, approximately 650/o of the site is covered with impervious
surfaces. If only the developable parcels are considered, and the highway
right-of-way is removed from the equation, 73o/o of the site is impervious,
with 27o/o remaining permeable or unpaved.
The current Zoning Districts Map designation for the S 780th Street site
General Commercial, requires new development to meet City of Kent
la ndsca pi ng req u i rements, i nclud i ng specia I provisions for properties
abutting E Valley Highway between S 780th Street and the SR-167
overpass. Eleven of the 16 properties are subject to this provision, which
requires a minimum of 15 feet of "Visual Buffer" type perimeter
landscaping. Properties abutting SR-767, which applies to 3 of the 16
parcels, must have 10 feet of "Visual Buffer" perimeter landscaping. Parcels
not subject to these special requirements must have at least 5 feet of
"Visual Buffer" perimeter landscaping. General Commercial zoning requires
at least 20 feet of front yard open space between the building front and the
front property line across the whole lot; side and rear yards are not
required unless the property abuts a residential area. Most of the
properties appear to meet these requirements, so it is unlikely that future
development under the current Zoning Districts Map designation would
substantially change the site's impervious to permeable surface ratio.
The General Commercial - Mixed Use Zoning Districts Map designation
eliminates the specific requirement for front yard open space, which could
conceivably increase the amount of impermeable surface; however,
developments in the GC-MU zoning district are subject to minimum
perimeter landscaping requirements and multi-family and mixed-use
design review for many elements of site design. Landscaping for mixed-
use developments must "integrate with and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood landscape", and "incorporate existing natural features of
Page I of 48
52
significance", among other provisions; multi-family residential
developments must also provide 750 square feet of open space per
residential unit. Because of these design review requirements, it is unlikely
the area would see any increase in impervious surfaces as a result of any
new development, and may even see an increase in permeable surfaces as
innovative landscaping techniques are incorporated into future designs.
6. The Russell Road site is entirely vegetated open space and part of a river
bank. Under Kent's Shoreline Master Program, the site is designated Open
Space - Urban Conservancy, so it is restricted from future development.
Beginning in 2017, modifications including scour protection will be made by
King County as part of the Russell Road Levee setback project, but this is
unlikely to result in an increase in imperuious surface.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any: Ihelp]
Not applicable. No erosion or other adverse impacts to the earth are expected
from these amendments.
2. Air [help]
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during
construction-operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe. Ihelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Sfreef sife rs adjacent to SR-167; E Valtey Highway, classified
as a principal arterial; and S 780th Street/SW 43'd Street, also classified as
a principal arterial. These roads may contribute to the presence of
emissions or odor on the site. The site is part of an EPA-designated carbon
monoxide and PM-10 maintenance area, meaning that the area at one time
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-96O)
July 2016 Page 9 of 48
53
exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide and
PM-10 emissions, and is under a statewide plan to attain and maintain
standards.
6. The Russell Road sife is adjacent to the Green River and Russell Road at S
272th Street. Vehicle traffic, inctuding truck traffic, on S 272th Street or
Russell Road may contribute to emissions or odor being present on the site.
The site is part of an EPA-designated carbon monoxide and PM-10
maintenance areat meaning that the area at one time exceeded National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide and PM-10 emissions,
and is under a statewide plan to attain and maintain standards. It is also
part of an EPA-designated maintenance area for large particulate matter,
but is under a limited statewide maintenance plan. According to PSRC's
2014 Regional Air Quality Conformity Analysis, the area has been
determined to have particulate levels at roughly 1/3 of the standard level,
and has little likelihood of exceeding air quality standards in the future.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any: [help]
No development is currently proposed which will be impacted by emissions
and odor. Impacts to future developments will have to be evaluated when
they are proposed. Potential mitigations could include shielding with trees,
shrubs or other vegetation, air-quality-conscious building orientation and
design, and other best practices recommended by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in their 2015 report entitled Best Practices for
Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools. Some of the potential
impacts may be addressed by the landscaping requirements in KCC 15.07.
3. Water Lhelpl
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state
what stream or river it flows into, [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 10 of 48
54
4. Narrow wetland bands exist at the southwest corner of the S 780th Street
site, and across the majority of the southern perimeter. A wide wetland
band (approximately 175 feet across) is present in three of the
easternmost parcels, where they abut the SR-167 right-of-way. This larger
wetland band runs parallel with the west side of SR-167 and extends as far
south as S. 796th Street where it may intermittently connect to Lower
Springbrook Creek.
6. The Russell Road sife rs immediately adjacent to the Green River, and is
part of the river bank. Depending on water levels, the site may be partially
or fully submerged by the river.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. lhelpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. lhelp]
Not applicable. No development is proposed
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the
site plan. Ihelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Yes. Portions of the S 790th Street site are in the FEMA Zone AH, meaning
that they are within the 1o/o âfiDUãl chance flood zone (100-year
floodplain), and could experience shallow flooding of 1-3 feet. See map in
Figure 7 below.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 11 of48
55
6. The Russell Road site is immediately adjacent to the Green River and ís
entirely within FEMA Zone AE, meaning that ít is within the 7o/o annual
chance flood zone (100-year floodplain). See map in Figure 2 below.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 12 of 48
56
sa¡s
Å
zoxÊ ÂH
o
o
ZdC Æ
zoìË
^Ê
1,2*
os
M¡C
0 ¿on¡ æ
Figure 7 - Docket # 2016 - A. 4 FEMA Flood Zones
Docker # 2016 - A.4 legend
Extend ll¡xed Use Designatlon along S. lSoth Str€et. FEMAloGYearFloodplein
(Change Commcrc¡al lãnd uee des¡gnation LAND USE
to Mlxed Use) ECommercial
Y71;)uu
ECD - Jeñuey, 2C t 7
Fiqure 2 - Docket # 2015 - 4 FEMA Flood Zones
Mfg/lnduslrial Cenler
Parks & Open Space
lnduslrial
Docket # 2015-4
Amcnd Land U¡e plån ¡{ap deslgnat¡oî for prrc€l ll22Û4-
9056 (S. 212th Strcet and Russ€ll Rd) from spl¡t
des¡gnat¡ons of I'loblle Hoñe Park (MHP) and Industrial (I)
to ent¡rely fndustrial (l) to correct an lnadvert€nt om¡s¡ion
lrom the 2015 Comprchenslv€ Plrn update.
ECO. J6nlary.2017
Legend
r-r Parcet LAND USE T--l SF-8u112204-9056 ØMHp l---lSF4.s
l,-,".ilÎåi;å|. ll os I rndustr¡ar
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 13 of 48
57
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge. l-helpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other
purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and
approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to
groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities
if known. lhelpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals, . . ; agricultural; etc,). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of
houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) are expected to serve. lhelpJ
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
c, Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known), Where will this
water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. lhelp]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe. l-helpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, describe. lhelpl
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 14 of 48
58
Not applicable. No development is proposed
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and
drainage pattern impacts, if any: [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
4. Plants [help]
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: lhelp]
_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_shrubs
_grass
_pasture
_crop or grain
Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
_water plantsr water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_other types of vegetation
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are admlnistrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site is primarily developed, impervious surface with
perimeter landscaping that includes deciduous trees, shrubs, and grass
(manicured lawn).
6. The Russell Road site is naturally vegetated open space, with gfpsg shrubs
and deciduous trees. This vegetation may be altered as a result of King
County's Russe/ Road Levee improvement project to begin later in 2017.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. lhelp]
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 15 of 48
59
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Coho salmon, federally threatened (although Puget Sound populations are
listed as a species of concern rather than threatened or endangered), are
known to be present in the freshwater streams on the site.
6. The immediate vicinity of the Russell Road site has documented presence of
bull trout; chum, sockeye, and chinook salmon; and steelhead. It is a
documented breeding ground for coho salmon and chinook salmon.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any: lhelpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and
do not apply to a particular location.
4., 6. King County noxious and invasive species data indicate no presence of
noxious or invasive species on any of these sites.
5. Animals [help]
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site
or are known to be on or near the site. lhelpl
Examples include:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Coho salmon have been documented as present in the freshwater streams
on the site. The wetlands on the west side of the SR-167 setback are
identified as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, listed by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a priority habitat. Great blue
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 16 of 48
60
heron and bald eagle breeding grounds are present within 2 miles of the
site. No documented evidence of other animal presence on the site could
be found, but this area can be expected to have typical urban wildlife
including crows and squirrels.
6. The immediate vicinity of the area affected by the land use designation
change has documented presence of migratory Dolly Varden (bull trout),
bull trout, migratory fall chum, chum, migratory winter steelhead, and
chinook salmon, and is a documented breeding ground for coho salmon
and fall chinook salmon. It also has documented presence of migratory
pink salmon during odd years, steelhead, migratory resident coastal
cutthroat trout, and migratory sockeye salmon. The area is also a
documented priority aquatic habitat and has regular concentrations of
waterfowl; bald eagle and osprey have been sighted within 1 mile of the
sife.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site
lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Coho salmon (federal threatened species) have been documented as
present in the freshwater streams on the site. Great blue heron (a state-
monitored species) and bald eagle (federal species of concern) breeding
grounds are present within 2 miles of the site.
6. The immediate vicinity of the area affected by the land use designation
change has documented presence of migratory Dolly Varden (bull trout),
bull trout, migratory fall chum, chum, migratory winter steelhead, and
chinook salmon, and is a documented breeding ground for coho salmon
and fall chinook salmon. It also has documented presence of migratory
pink salmon during odd years, steelhead, migratory resident coastal
cutthroat trout, and migratory sockeye salmon. Bald eagles and osprey
have been sighted within 7 mile of the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain, [helpJ
Yes. As part of the Puget Sound, the site is well within the area designated as
the Pacific Flyway for mÌgratory birds.
d, Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: l'helpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 17 of 48
61
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and
do not apply to a particular location.
4., 6. King County noxious and invasive species data indicate no presence of
noxious or invasive animal species on any of these sifes.
6, Energy and Natural Resources lhelp]
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc. [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe. lhelpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
c, What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any: lhelp]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
7. Environmental Health [help]
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. lhelp]
1) Describe any known or possible contamination atthe site from present or
past uses. Ihelol
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Three former hazardous materials sites are present within the site, all three
of which were Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) whÌch have now
been determined by the Washington State Department of Ecology to
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Paqe 18 of 48
62
requ¡re no further action. These sites include the Shell gas station at the
northwest corner of the site, the Chevron gas station at the southwest
corner of S 780th Streef and E Valtey Highway, and the former Forte
Rentals site, which is now occupied by Polar Service Centers. The Shell gas
station still had confirmed levels of benzene and non-halogenated solvents
above cleanup levels at the time of the NFA determination in 2003. The
Chevron site may still have groundwater that is contaminated with priority
pollutant metals.
Two LUST sites on or near the site have cleanup underway; these sites are
the 76 gas station on the southeast corner of S l9}th Street and E Valtey
Highway, and the former FedEx Freight property slightty outside the S 780th
Street site boundaries to the southwest, currently owned by BNSF. The 76
gas station site has groundwater and soil contaminated by benzene, diesel,
gasoline, and other petroleum; groundwater at the site is also confirmed
contaminated by lead. The former FedEx Freight site has petroleum
contamination to soil and groundwater.
One property on the site is awaiting cleanup, according to Department of
Ecology data. This site, referred to as the East Valley Crossings Property, at
the southwest corner of the intersection of S 780th Street and E Vattey
Highway, has confirmed soil contamination including petroleum, PCBs, and
priority pollutant metals. Groundwater has been confirmed to be
contaminated with priority pollutant metals, and is suspected to also be
contaminated with petroleum and PCBs.
According to the Tacoma Smelter Hume searchable map found at:
https : //fo rtress. wa. g ov/ecy/sme lte rsea rch/, the S 7 80th Street sife rs
shown to be in an area of potential arsenic contamination below 20 parts
per million (ppm). The State Department of Ecology recommends soil
sampling for properties in areas with estimated arsenic levels above the
sfate cleanup level of 20 parts per million. Properties adjacent to the S
780th Street site to the north are shown to be in an area of 20-40ppm.
Portions of the S 180th Street site are potential brownfields due to the
Department of Ecology's identification of the leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST) described above.
6. According to the Tacoma Smelter Plume searchable map found at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/smeltersearch/, the Russell Road sife rs shown
to be in an area of potential arsenic contamination below 20 parts per
million (ppm). The State Department of Ecology recommends soil
sampling for properties in areas with estimated arsenic levels above the
state cleanup level of 20 parts per million. Properties adjacent to the
Russell Road site to the north are shown to be in an area of 20-40ppm.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 19 of 48
63
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design, This includes underground hazardous liquid and
gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity
Ihelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do not
apply to a particular location.
4. The S 790th Sfreef site has several underground storage tanks; some may still
contain hazardous substances. The Department of Ecology regulated facilities
database shows an underground storage tank at the southwest corner of the site.
There are three underground storage tanks associated with gas stations; one is at
the northwest corner of the site at the Shell gas station, one is at the northeast
corner of the site at the 76 gas station (registered under BP Service Station), and
one is at the southwest corner of the intersection of S 780th Street and E Valley
Highway, under the Chevron station. Two of the underground storage tanks have
previously been reported as leaking, but the Department of Ecology cleanup sites
map reports that cleanup is underway. Three other cleanup sites are present on the
site; Department of Ecology reports these three cleanup sites as complete.
6. There are no known hazardous materials storage or transmission apparatus
on the Russell Road site.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or
produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time
during the operating life of the project. [helpJ
Not applicable. No development or construction is planned at this tÌme.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Ihelpl
Not applicable.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if
any: lhelol
Not applicable. No development or construction is planned at this time.
b. Noise Ihelp]
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? l-help]
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-960)
July 2016 Page 20 of 48
64
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site is at the intersection of two principte arteriats (E
Valley Highway, and S 780th Street/SW 43'd Street) and a busy freeway
(SR-167). At this intersection, S 780th Street is one of the busiest arterials
in Kent, with up to 38,600 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Traffic on
each of these roads creates noise from passenger vehicle and truck traffic;
the proximity of the site to all three makes traffic noise a consideration for
any future development at this site.
6. The Russell Road sife rs just south of the S 272th Street Bridge overthe
Green River; S 272th Street is a major east-west route through the center
of the Kent Industrial Valley and is classified as a principal arterial in Kent's
Transportation Master Plan. According to the Winter 2006 Traffic Counts
report, S 272th Street is one of the four busiest principal arterials in Kent.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for this section of S 272th St. are
25,300 trips per day, which can contribute to noise pollution in the area.
This route is a desÌgnated truck route, and provides access to freeways for
a portion of the 1,400 trucks leaving Kent's Manufacturing/Industrial
Center each day. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is 2.5 miles to the
northwest of the site; however, noise data collected in 2013 by the Port of
Seattle shows this site outside of the area impacted by air traffic noise.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a shoft-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
8, Land and Shoreline Use thelpl
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal
affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. lhelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 21 of 48
65
4. The current Land Use Plan Map designation of the site is Commercial, and
present uses include various restaurants and shopping with surface
parking, as well as gas stations and a truck and trailer service center. This
proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map
aligns the allowed uses on these 76 parcels with those to the west, along
the south side of S 180th Street, which are currently zoned General
Commercial - Mixed Use. The proposal is unlikely to impact adjoining or
adjacent properties in any appreciable way, although opportunities for a
mix of commercial and residential uses may promote shared parking
arrangements or better use of existing parking.
6. The Russell Road site is currently open space used for flood absorption and
recreation uses. The Green River Trail merges with Russell Road to the
north of the site, and a desire line (or goat track) indicates that pedestrians
continue to walk through the site along the shoulder of the road. This
amendment will not change the use of the site in practical terms, nor will it
impact surrou nding uses.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If
so, describe, How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial
significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If
resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest
land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Ihelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. None of the S 780th Street/SW 43'd Street parcels affected by the
amendment have been used as farmland or working forest lands in the
recent past.
6. The Russell Road site was annexed to the City of Kent in 1959 as part of the
3,000+ acre annexation referred to as the North-West Annexation. At this
time, much of the surrounding land may have been used as farmland. In
fact, land to the northwest of the affected site is currently used for
agriculture. This particular site, however, is on a steep slope banking down
to the Green River, and is part of a large marshy wetland, often even
submerged. This makes it unlikely that it was itself used as farmland in the
recent past.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest
land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the
application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: [help]
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 22 of 48
66
Not applicable
c, Describe any structures on the site. [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administratÌve only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Structures on the S 780th Street site site are those typical of a General
Commercial zone, including gas stations, a shopping center, and various
retail and food-sentice structures. There are also three gas stations along
the north side of the slte.
6. There are no structures on the Rusell Road site. The site itself is part of the
river bank, and is bordered on the east by Russell Road.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? lhelp]
Not applicable. No development is proposed
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? l-helpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The 76 parcels on S 780th Street site are currently designated General
Commercial (GC) on the Zoning Districts Map. This proposed amendment
would change the Zoning Districts Map designation of the parcels to
General Commercial - Mixed Use (GC-MU).
6. The Russell Road site is currently zoned Industrial Park (M1). This
amendment would not change the zoning or allowed uses on the site
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? lhelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The 76 parcels on the S 780th Street site are within the Commerciat (C)
Land Use Plan Map designation. This proposed amendment would change
the Land Use Plan Map designation for these properties to Mixed Use (MU)
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 23 of 48
67
6. The Russell Road sife rs currently designated Mobile Home Park (MHP) on
the Land Use Plan Map, and is zoned Industrial Park (M1); the city-owned
parcel on the site rs split-designated MHP and Industrial (I). This proposed
amendment would not change the zoning or allowed uses on the site.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site? [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Not applicable. The S 780th Street site is not within designated shoreline
areas.
6. The Russell Road sife is designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in
Kent's Shoreline Master Program.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county?
If so, specify. [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Portions of the S 780th Street site, primarily at the perimeters of the site
and abutting SR-167, have been inventoried by the City of Kent for
wetlands and steep slopes. A portion of the site is a designated flood zone,
classified by FEMA as Zone AH, meaning that it is susceptible to shallow
flooding. None of these critical areas on the site have been developed;
they remain heavily vegetated open space. The entire site is within the
Green River Valley and is considered a seismically hazardous zone.
6. The Russell Road sife rs within the seismic hazard area, has portions inventoried as
wetlands, is entirely within the 1o/o ãÍ1Íiuâl chance flood zone (100-year flood), and
is designated chinook salmon habitat. It is well outside of any other designated
critical area, including landslide and erosion hazard areaq and critical aquifer
recharge areas. While the site does have steep slopes leading to the Green River,
the site is not inventoried as a critical area for steep slopes.
King County will be constructing levee improvements in this location and setting
back the levee from its current location, beginning in 2017. According to King
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 24 of 48
68
County, the Lower Russell Road levee setback project area is one of the few places
on the Lower Green River without major development along the river, and provides
a unique opportunity for substantial habitat restoration and enhancement of
recreational opportunities, in addition to improved flood risk reduction. By setting
the levee back from the rÌver in this location, the project will provide greater flood
storage and conveyance capacity, increase shallow water habitat for ESA
(Endangered Species Act) listed species, enhance recreational opportunities, and
red uce long -term ma i ntena nce costs.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
l-helol
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. This proposal is a non-project action to amend the Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Districts Map designations for the 16 properties on the S 780th
Street site from Commercial to Mixed Use, and from General Commercial to
General Commercial - Mixed Use, respectively. This could potentially result
in the future development of multi-family residentlal structures, but it
cannot be known at this time how many people would reside or work in any
future projects on the site.
Based on market conditions and using recent mixed-use multi-family
residential development in Kent for reference, it is anticipated that two new
5-story multi-family residential buildings with approximately 750 units each
could be buitt on the S 780th Street site. This coutd result in 300 new units,
and based on a 2-person per unit average, 600 new residents on the site.
Because the site is currently used for commercial purpose, the number of
on-site employees is not expected to increase appreciably with the new
Zoning Districts Map designation.
6. The Russell Road site rs designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in
Kent's Shoreline Master Program. According to King County assessor data,
the City of Kent parcel is 700o/o unusable and is part of a river bank; it
would not be possible to develop the site to allow for residential uses.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 25 of 48
69
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. This proposal is a non-project act¡on to amend the Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Districts Map designations for the 76 properties on the S 780th
Street site. There are currently no residential uses on the site, as
residential uses are not allowed in the General Commercial zone outside of
a Mixed-Use overlay. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map
and Zoning Districts Map designations for these properties from
Commercial to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial
- Mixed Use, respectively, may displace a relatively small number of
commercial uses that cannot or choose not to stay if parcels on the site are
redeveloped to accommodate the increase in allowed density.
6. The Russell Road site is designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in
Kent's Shoreline Master Program, and is part of a river bank. There are
currently no residential uses on this site.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: lhelp]
Not applicable.
t-. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any: Ihelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map
designations for the S 790th Sfreet site to more adequately align with uses
near the site (specifically parcels to the west of the site along the same
arterial), and to reflect community demand for more dense mixed-use
development that accommodates residential uses and offers opportunities
for I ive-work I ifesty les.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-960)
July 2016 Page 26 of 48
70
Properties adjacent to the site to the nofth and east are in the City of
Renton. These properties are zoned Commercial Office and Multi-Family
Residential; Commercial Office zoning allows for limited mixed-use
development, including residential, given certain conditions, such as access
to transit. This indicates a general shift in uses for this area to provide
more amenities, residential opportunities, and increased retail support for
the valley's industrial core.
6. The Russell Road site is zoned Industrial Park (M1), and all land surrounding
the site is designated Industrial (I) on the Land Use Plan Map. The city-
owned parcel on this site was inadvertently split-designated as Mobile
Home Park (MHP) and Industrial (I) on the Land Use Plan Map; the
amendment described in this checklist is intended to correct this
inadvertent omission and ensure that the Land Use Plan Map designation
for this sife rs consistent and compatible with adjacent land uses, and
reflects its current Zoning Districts Map designation.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands
of long-term commercial significance, if any: thelol
Not applicable.
9. Housing [help]
a, Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing. [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. This proposal is a non-project action to amend the Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Districts Map designations for the S 780th Street site from
Commercial to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial
- Mixed Use, respectively. This could potentially result in the future
development of multi-family residential structures, but it cannot be known
at this time how many units may be built or whether they may be low-,
mid-, or high-income housing.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 27 of 48
71
As described previously, based on market conditions and using recent
mixed-use multi-family residential development in Kent for reference, it is
anticipated that two new 5-story multi-family residential buildings with
approximately 150 units each could be built on the S 780th Street site. This
scenario would result in 300 new units.
6. The Russell Road sife rs designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in
Kent's Shoreline Master Program. According to King County assessor data,
the City of Kent parcel is 700o/o unusable and is part of a river bank; it
would not be possible to develop the site to allow for residential uses on
the site.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing. lhelp'l
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4., 6. Not applicable. There are no exlsting residential units on either of the
sites affected by these amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: [help]
Not applicable. No housing impacts are anticipated.
10, Aesthetics l-helpl
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? [helpJ
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. No development proposals are currently under review for the S 780th Sfreef
site; however, the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Districts Map designations would provide for an increase allowable
building height. Under current zoning, the maximum buildìng height
allowed on the sife rs 35 feet or 2 stories; with special approval from the
Economic and Community Development directoL one additional story may
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-960)
July 2016 Page 28 of 48
72
be allowed. Additional stories may be approved by the Land Use and
Planning Board. The proposed amendment changes the Land Use Plan Map
and Zoning Districts Map designations for the S 780th Street site from
Commercial to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial
- Mixed Use, respectively. The General Commercial - Mixed Use Zoning
Districts Map designation allows up to 65 feet in building height.
The Mixed Use designation also provides for greater massing of the
building, allowing up to 600/o lot coverage in mixed-use developments with
residential use, as long as 5o/o of the floor area is commercial use. General
Commercial has a fixed maximum site coverage of 40o/o.
6. Not applicable. The Russell Road site is designated as Open Space - Urban
Consentancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. According to King County
assessor data, the City of Kent parcel is 700o/o unusable and is part of a
river bank; it would not be possible to develop the site.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Not applicable. No development is proposed related to this amendment.
View obstruction would depend on the design of future development, which
cannot be known at this time. These impacts will have to be evaluated as
part of future development proposals.
6. Not applicable. The Russell Road site is designated as Open Space - Urban
Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. According to King County
assessor data, the City of Kent parcel is 700o/o unusable and is part of a
river bank; it would not be possible to develop the site.
c Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: [helpl
No development is proposed as part of these amendments. Future
development proposals are subject to design review per KCC 15.09.45. City of
Kent mixed-use design review standards and multi-family residential design
guidelines would apply.The design review process is intended to ensure
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 29 of 48
73
appropriate orientation, architecture, and general design that is consistent
with the neighborhood scale and context.
11. Light and Glare [help]
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur? l-helpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Not applicable. No development is proposed related to this amendment.
Impacts from light and glare would depend on the design of future
development, which cannot be known at this time. These impacts will have
to be evaluated as part of future development proposals.
6. Not applicable. The Russell Road site is designated as Open Space - Urban
Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. According to King County
assessor data, the City of Kent parcel is 700o/o unusable and is part of a
river bank; it would not be possible to develop the site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views? lhelpl
Not applicable. No development is proposed
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
d, Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: [help]
Not applicable. No development is proposed.
L2. Recreation lhelpl
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-96O)
July 2016 Page 30 of 48
74
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity? lhelpl
7., 2,, 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. None known.
6. The Russell Road site is immediately adjacent to the Green River and the
Green River non-motorized trail.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe. lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. None known.
6. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan Map designation will not
impact any recreational uses on the site. The Russell Road sife rs
designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master
Program, and will remain open space.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: lhelp]
Not applicable. No adverse impacts are anticipated from these amendments.
13. Historic and cultural preservation [help]
a, Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are
over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local
preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 31 of 48
75
4. Structures on the S 780th Street site were constructed between 1969 and
2004. Three buildings are over 45 years old, constructed respectively in
7969, 1969, and 1970. These include a masonry building built in 1969
that is currently used for truck and trailer repair, a prefabricated steel
building built in 1969 currently serving as a convenience store with a gas
station, and a masonry building built in 1970 whose current occupant is a
bank. According to the Washington Information System for Architectural
and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, both of the older
structures have been remodeled since their original construction.
6. The Russell Road site has no structures that are potentially eligible for
listing; however, Russell Road, which runs adjacent to the site is a road of
h isto ri c s ig n ifica nce.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any
material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site?
Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such
resources. lhelpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The majority of the S 780th Street sife rs developed, and any near-surface
archaeological or cultural resources may have previously been disturbed,
removed, or compromised. No known cultural resources exist on the site,
although one above-ground resource has been identified on an adjacent
property to the east. Although portions of the site have undergone
archaeological survey, the majority of the site has not.
Any future development on this site may be subject to a separate SEPA
analysis or consultation with the State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, during which specific location and design will be
considered in terms of potential impact to cultural or historic resources.
Future development that involves ground disturbance that extends below
previous disturbance should have an archaeological survey.
6. There are no known archaeological resources on the Russell Road site. Past
archaeological surveys have included portions of the site, but no resources
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97 -11-960)
July 2016 Page 32 of 48
76
were identified. Alteration of this site to construct the levee embankment
may have compromised the integrity of any undiscovered materials present
on this site.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and
historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with
tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological
surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. lhelp]
King County Assessor's data via the ¡MAP online GIS application and the State
of Washington WIZAARD database were used to assess whether there was a
potential for cultural or historic resources to be present on these sifes.
Comments were also solicited from King County's Historic Preservation
Program regarding the S 780th Street site and tfie Russe ll Road site.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that
may be required. [help]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Any future development on the S 780th Street site may be subject to a
separate SEPA analysis, during which specific location and design would be
considered in terms of its potential impact to cultural or historic resources.
This may include cansultation with an archaeologist prior to constructing
new development on the site, and having a plan in place for inadvertent
d iscovery of a rchaeolog ica I resou rces.
6. Not applicable. The Russell Road site is designated as Open Space - Urban
Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. Work being done by King
County for the Russell Road levee setback project will undergo a separate
SEPA process.
L4. Transportation lhelpl
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area
and describe proposed access to the existing street system, Show on site plans,
if any. Ihelol
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 33 of 48
77
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site rs bordered to the east by the SR-167 northbound off-ramp.
The northbound lanes of SR-167 can be accessed via S 180th Street (also known as
SW 43rd Street) at the northeastern perimeter of the site; southbound lanes can be
accessed two blocks to the north of the site via SW 41st St.
The northern border of the sife rs S 180th Street/SW 43rd Street, which also serves
as the border between Kent and Renton. South 180th is classified as a principal
arterial in Kent's Transportation Master Plan; it has a variety of large- and smalF
scale commercial and retailuses fo the south in Kent and to the north in Renton.
South 180th Street connects to the residential areas on Kent's East Hill, and to
Southcenter commercial district in Tukwila to the west.
The site is bisected by E Valley Highway, also a principal arterial, which serves as a
north-south route through the Green River Valley.
The western border of the sife rs 88th Ave. S, a dead-end access road
serving businesses on the site, as well as business on parcels to the west,
which are currently zoned General Commercial - Mixed Use.
6. The Russell Road site is just to the south of the intersection of S 272th
Street and Russelt Road. South 272th Street is classified as a principal
arterial in the Kent Transportation Master Plan, and Russell Road is a
residentia I col lector a rteria l.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so,
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? lhelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Sfreef site is directly served by bus stops at the northern
border of the properties on S 780th Street. These bus stops are served by
King County Metro bus routes 153 and 906; route 906 is a dial-a-ride
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97 -L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 34 of 48
78
(DART) route between Fairwood and Southcenter. Route 753 runs between
Kent Station and Renton Park and Ride and Transit Center.
6. King County Metro bus routes 757 from Lake Meridian Park and Ride to
Downtown Seattle, 180 from SE Auburn to the Burien Transit Center, and
913 DART route from Kent Station to Riventiew sen/e the Russell Road site
with stops less than a quarter mile to the east on S 272th Street.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? [helpJ
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. This Ìs a non-project action to amend the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning
Districts Map designations for the 76 parcels on the S 780th Street site from
Commercial to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial
- Mixed Use, respectively. No development is currently under review for
this site, but any future mixed-use development would be required to meet
parking minimums in KCC 15.04.200 Mixed Use Overlay Development
Standards and KCC 15.05 Off-Street Parking Requirements.
6. No additional parking spaces are expected in the area affected by the
amendment to the Land Use Plan Map designation. No parking spaces will
be eliminated, as no parking spaces currently exist on the site.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If
so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). thelol
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. This is a non-project action to amend the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning
Districts Map designations for the 76 parcels on the S 780th Street site from
Commercial to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial
- Mixed Use, respectively. No development is currently under review for
this site; any future mixed-use development would be required to undergo
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 35 of 48
79
development review, which may result in improvements to transportation
infrastructure to maintain established levels of sentice. It cannot be known
at this time what these changes may include. Any improvements to sfreefs
or public right-of-way must also be evaluated against the city's Complete
Sfreefs criteria, per KCC 6.14.
Existing uses on the S 780th Street site are varied, and include drive-through
coffee and food establishments, high-turnover restaurants, drive-in banks,
service stations, and a shopping center. Out of these, the use generating
the fewest trips per day according to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2009 Edition) is the shopping
center, with an estimated 42.7 trips per day per 7,000 square feet. Other
current uses likely generate greater numbers of trips per day; for example,
based on the ITE Manual, a high-turnover restaurant such as Jersey Mike's
Subs could generate 127.15 trips perday per 7,000 square feet. New
multi-family residential development would be expected to generate
approximately 6.65 new trÌps per day per dwelling unit, a much lower rate
than is applied for the existing commercial uses. However, despite the
lower trip generation rate, increased density allowed by the Mixed-Use
overlay could still result in transportation impacts. Using the scenario of
two new 150-unit multi-family residential buildings as described previously,
and applying the trip generation rate of 6.65 per day, 7,995 new daily trips
could be generated on the site. Depending on intersection performance,
this could be sufficient to require developers to install road improvements.
The City of Kent requires most transportation corridors in the city to operate
at an "E" grade LOS, or level of service (with the exception of certain
corridors with special circumstances), meaning that signalized delays must
be less than B0 seconds. The S 780th Street intersections were not
analyzed in Kent's 2006 or 2077 LOS studies, so baseline conditions are
not currently documented. However, if models demonstrate that future
development allowed by the amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Districts Map will generate sufficient additional daily or PM peak
trips to increase signal delays and reduce the LOS of the street and
intersection, improvements such as street widening or signalization
improvements may be required.
6. No road or non-motorized transportation system improvements are
expected relating to this amendment to the Land Use Plan Map designation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 36 of 48
80
The King County Lower Russell Road Levee setback project, taking place
later in 2077, may result in some road or non-motorized improvements,
but these will not be related to the amendments described in this checklist
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water,
rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Ihelp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site is approximately 0.75 miles to the east of a major
freight rail line and Sounder commuter rail line but is not served by a direct
connection to either. The Tukwila Sounder Station is 2.5 miles to the
northwest along surface roads, and Kent Station is 4 miles to the south.
6. The site affected by the amendment to the Land Use Plan Map designation
is directly adjacent to the Green River, but the Green River is not federally
designated as a navigable waterway at this location. The Green River
becomes the Duwamish River approximately 7 miles to the north in
Tukwila, where it meets the Black River, from which point it is considered
navigable for the remainder of its length. The site is not in the immediate
vicinity of air or rail transportation; the nearest airport is Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport and is approximately 2.5 miles to the northwest. The
nearest railroad tracks are 7 mile to the east.
f . How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project
or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what
percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-
passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make
these estimates? lielp]
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. No direct impacts to traffic patterns are expected from these proposed amendments
to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map; however, cumulative impacts
of potential new mixed-use development can be expected. These impacts can be
roughly estimated using published trip generation rates.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 37 of 48
81
Existing uses on the S 790th Street site are varied, and include drive-
through coffee and food establishments, high-turnover restaurants, drive-in
banks, service stations, and a shopping center. Out of these, the use
generating the fewest trips per day according to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2009 Edition) is
the shopping center, with an estimated 42.7 trips per day per 7,000 square
feet. Other current uses likely generate greater numbers of trips per day;
for example, a high-turnover restaurant such as Jersey Mike's Subs could
generate 127.15 trips per day per 7,000 square feet. New multi-family
residential development would be expected to generate approximately 6.65
new trips per day per dwelling unit, a much lower rate than is applied for
the existing commercial uses. However, despite the lower trip generation
rate, increased density allowed by the Mixed-Use overlay could still result
in transportation impacts. Using the scenario of two new 150-unit multi-
family residential buildings as described previously, and applying the trip
generation rate of 6.65 per day, 7,995 new trips could be generated on the
site.
The majority of these new trips generated would likely be passenger
vehicles. New commercÌal or retail development would likely generate
similar rates of truck and non-passenger delivery vehicles to existing
conditions, although this would depend on the number and type of new
commercial and retail esta blishments.
6. No development is planned for the Russell Road site, and no additional
traffic or trips are expected to be generated.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of
agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally
describe. l-helpl
Not applicable
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: [helpJ
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are admÌnistrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The City of Kent assesses transportation impact fees for new development to help
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 38 of 48
82
ensure that Kent's transportation infrastructure keeps pace with the city's growth.
For example, the 2017 transportation impact fee rate for new multi-family
developments is $2,634.35. For a commercial shopping center, the city's fees are
$6.30 per gross square foot. These fees are assessed based on a particular rate per
PM Peak hour trip generation.
The city cannot permit new a development unless the developer can show that the
established level of service for the transportation system in the project's city-
designated mobility management zone can be maintained once the project is
completed. For large projects that generate significant numbers of additional daily
trips, the city requires developers to mitigate the impacts to the transportation
system by paying for and installing street improvements to restore an acceptable
level of seruice. In addition to street Ìmprovements, developers may also establish
transportation demand management programs to shift demand from single-
occupancy vehicle trips to transit or active transportation trips. These programs can
include strategies such as subsidized transit passe, bicycle facilities or services,
pedestrian amenities, or tolls or fees to discourage vehicle use.
6. Not applicable. No development is planned for the Russell Road site, and no
additional traffic or trips are expected to be generated.
15. Public Services [helpl
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (forexample:
fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe, [helpl
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. No direct need for additional public services will arise from these amendments to
the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations; however, the Mixed-
Use overlay expands the allowed uses on these parcels to include multi-family
residential uses. Any future residential development would likely affect the demand
for public services in this area, including increased demand for fire protection,
police protection, public transportation, healthcare, and schools, as well as storm
water and sewer infrastructure. The extent to which any future residential
development may impact these services is dependent upon the density and type of
housing. Similar to traffic impact fees, the City of Kent assesses impact fees for
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 39 of 48
83
fire protection services and schools to offset the additional costs to the city for new
development. The city also charges a drainage systems development charge to
offset the impacts of new development on the city's storm water and surface water
infrastructure, and developers may be required to pay for or construct
improvements to the city's drainage facilities to mitigate impacts to the public
system.
6. Not applicable. No development will be taking place on the Russell Road
site, and no impacts are expected to demand for public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
lhelpl
The City of Kent assesses impact fees for fire protection services and schools to
offset the additional costs to the city for new development. Drainage systems
development charges are assessed to developers in order to offset the impacts of
new development on the city's storm water and surface water infrastructure.
Developers may also be required to pay for or construct improvements to the city's
drainage facilities to mitigate impacts to the public system.
16. Utilities Ihelp]
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: [helpl
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic
system,
other
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. Typical urban services are available on the S 780th Street site.
6. Not applicable. The Russe// Road sife ¿s not developable due to physical
constraints, as it is part of a river bank, and is designated as Open Space -
Urban Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. It does not
require access to utilities.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 40 of 48
84
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed. [helpJ
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4., 6. Not applicabte. No development is currently proposed on the S 780th
Street site or the Russell Road site.
C. Signature lhetpl
The above ans rs are true a d complete to the best of my knowledge. I
leazunderstand th d age ts ying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Name of sign
Position and rganization Lono Ranoe Planner. Citv of Kent
Date Submitted: 03/L6|2OL7
D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions lhetp]
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in
conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the
types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at
a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms,
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise?
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2OL6 Page 4l of 48
85
4. No development is currently proposed for the S 780th Street site. The
amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map allow for
increased density and for multi-family residential uses on the site, which
could result in future development. The adjacency of the developable
properties on the site to inventoried wetlands could result in the discharge
of construction runoff and debris to water, if environmentally-sound
construction practices are not followed.
Future development on this site could result in additional vehicle trips each
day; the scenario discussed previously stated that an additional 1,995 daily
trips could be generated by new residential development on the site. This
could lead to increased vehicle emissions and increased traffic noise in the
area. However, a mixed-use development may offer more opportunities
for live-work lifestyles and non-motorized transportation, and reduce the
number of daily commute trips in the area.
As described above, this site has a number of underground storage tanks;
some of them have been previously reported as leaking. Upon
groundbreaking for construction, it is possible that these tanks could be
inadvertently damaged or punctured, causing a release of their contents to
the surrounding area.
6. The Russell Road sife rs designated Open Space - Urban Conservancy in
Kent's Shoreline Master Program, and as part of a river bank is physically
restricted from any development. This amendment does not change the
uses allowed on the site. None of the adverse impacts listed above are
expected as a result of this amendment.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
7., 2., 3., 5., 6. Not applicable. No adverse impacts are anticipated
4. The discharge of construction runoff and debris to water can be prevented
by using environmentally-sound construction practices to collect all debris
generated and prevent inadvertent runoff.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 42 of 48
86
Increases in vehicle emissions and traffic noise in the area could be
mitigated using traffic demand management (TDM) techniques to
encourage or incentivize alternative modes of travel. Well-designed bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure that creates a safe and pleasant environment
for non-motorized travel can also encourage residents and patrons of the
site to use transportation modes other than personal vehicleq as can an
efficient and accessible public transportation system.
During future construction, the location of underground storage tanks
should be marked, and construction practices should be used that prevent
inadvertent damage.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. No development is currently proposed for the S 780th Street site. The
amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map allow for
increased density and for multi-family residential uses on the site, which
could result in future development. The presence on the site of WDFW
priority habitat and sensitive fish species, as well as the proximity of
nesting and breeding grounds for sensitive birds of prey could result in
adverse impacts during construction. However, the city's Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) protects sensitive habitat areas from being developed,
and establishes standard buffer widths to prevent impacts from adjacent
land uses.
6. Not applicable. No physical changes will occur to the Russell Road site as a
result of these amendments.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine
life are:
7., 2., 3., 5., 6. Not applicable. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-L1-96O)
July 2016 Page 43 of 48
87
4. The city's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) protects sensitive habitat areas
from being developed, and establishes standard buffer widths to prevent
impacts from adjacent land uses.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts
Map designations are unlikely to have any direct impact on the use of
energy or natural resources. Indirect impacts of the amendments may
occur through future development allowed by the amendments, which may
be at an increased density compared to existing land uses. This may lead
to an increased use of water, electricity, and natural gas on the site;
however, energy- and water-efficient development would reduce this
effect. OpportunÌties for live-work arrangements based on provisions of
the GC-MU Zoning Districts Map designation may decrease the vehicle trips
generated, thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels.
6. No development is proposed or is likely to occur on the Russell Road site,
which is designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy in the Shoreline
Master Program. No impacts to energy or natural resource use are
expected as a result of the proposed land use designation change.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources arel
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. No development proposals have been received for the S 780th Street site.
Any impacts from future development to demand for energy and natural
resources may be partially offset by encouraging energy- and water-
efficient bu ilding desig n.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC L97-11-960)
July 2016 Page 44 of 48
88
6. Not applicable. No impacts to demand for energy or natural resources are
expected from this amendment.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental
protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or
endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands?
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The S 780th Street site includes an inventoried wetland. By amending the
Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations from Commercial
to Mixed Use, and General Commercial to General Commercial - Mixed
Use, respectively, the city will expand the types, combinations, and density
of land uses that may be permitted, while at the same time applying
prescriptive development standards and design review requirements. The
city has a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which specifically addresses
potential impacts to wetlands from proposed development. The provisions
in the CAO woutd protect the wetlands on the S 780th Street site from
suffering adverse impacts from any future development.
No known cultural resources exist on the S 780th Street site, although one
above-ground resource has been identified on an adjacent property to the
east. The majority of the S 780th Street site is developed, and any near-
surface archaeological or cultural resources may have previously been
d istu rbed, removed, or compromised.
Although portions of the site have undergone archaeological survey, the
majority of the site has not. Any future development on this site may be
subject to a separate SEPA analysis or consultation with the State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, during which specific
location and design will be considered in terms of potential impact to
cultural or historic resources. Future development that involves ground
disturbance that extends below previous disturbance should have an
a rch a eol og ica I su rvey.
SEPA Environmenta¡ checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 45 of 48
89
6. The Russell Road site is entirely within an inventoried wetland and is
currently protected by Kent's Shoreline Management Program through its
Open Space - Urban Conservancy designation. The change in land use
designation proposed as part of these amendments will not physically affect
the site in any way; it will only adjust the city's Land Use Plan Map to be
consistent with the site's current Zoning Districts Map designation and
match the Land Use Plan Map designation of all adjacent properties.
There are no known archaeological resources on the Russell Road site.
Past archaeological surveys have included portions of the site, but no
resources were identified. Alteration of this site to construct the levee
embankment may have compromised the integrity of any undiscovered
materials present on this site.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts
are:
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The City of Kent Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is in place to avoid or
reduce adverse impacts of development on wetlands and other crÌtical
areas. It may be advisable to consult an archaeologist prior to beginning
construction on the S 780th Street site, and to have a plan for inadvertent
discovery of archaeological or cultural resources.
6. In addition to the City of Kent's CAO, the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
is also in place specifically to protect shorelines in Kent from adverse
impacts of development. The Russell Road sife rs part of an area
designated as Open Space - Urban Conservancy and is prevented from
being developed.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 46 of 48
90
7., 2., 3., 5. Not applicable. These amendments are administrative only and do
not apply to a particular location.
4. The present uses on the S 780th Street site are commercial, and include various
restaurants and shopping with surface parking, as well as gas stations and a truck
and trailer service center. The Land Use Plan Map designation for the site is
Commercial, and the Zoning Districts Map designation is General Commercial. The
proposed amendments will change the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map
designations for the identified parcels to more adequately align with allowed uses
near the site (specifically parcels to the west of the site along the same arterial),
and to reflect community demand for more dense mixed-use development that
accommodates residential uses and offers opportunÌties for live-work lifestyles.
Properties adjacent to the site to the north and east are in the City of
Renton. These properties are zoned Commercial Office and Multi-Family
Residential; Commercial Office zoning allows for limited mixed-use
development, including residential, given certain conditions, such as access
to transit. This indicates a general shift in uses for this area to provide
more amenities, residential opportunities, and increased retail support for
the valley's industrial core. The Mixed-Use overlay allows for more
flexibility in land useq allowing multiple permitted or conditional uses on
the same property. These proposed amendments would allow for higher
density and increased height maximums; it would also allow residential
uses on parcels which are currently zoned for commercial uses only.
The properties affected by the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan
Map and Zoning Districts Map designations are not on or near designated
shoreline uses.
6. The Russell Road site is currently vegetated open space used for flood
absorption and recreation uses and is designated as Open Space - Urban
Conservancy in Kent's Shoreline Master Program. The Green River Trail
merges with Russell Road to the north of the site, and a desire line (or goat
track) indicates that pedestrians continue to walk through the site along
the shoulder of the road. This amendment will not change the use of the
site in practical terms (it is only an administrative map change to reflect
zoning), nor will it impact surrounding uses.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Not applicable. No adverse impacts to shoreline or land use are anticipated
from these amendments.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016 Page 47 of 48
91
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
Impacts to demand for transportation, public services, and utilities are
described above in Section B, items 14 through 16.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are
Measures to respond to increased demand for transportation, public services,
and utilities are described above in Section B, items 74 through 16.
7. Identify, if possible, whetherthe proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
These proposed amendments do not conflict with any local, state, or federal
laws. Any future development is subject to codes and regulations in effect
when a project is vested.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-f 1-960)
July 2016 Page 48 of 48
92
Land Use and Planning Board March 27, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Page 1 of 3
Date: March 27, 2017
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Frank Cornelius, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Jack Ottini,
Randall Smith; Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Danielle
Butsick, Long Range Planner; Adam Long, Assistant City Attorney
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
Chair Frank Cornelius called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm upon arrival of Jack
Ottini.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
Board Member Jones Moved and Board Member Smith Seconded a Motion to
Approve the minutes of November 28, 2016. Motion Passed 4-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
Anderson stated that this item will likely go before the Economic and Community
Development Committee on April 10, 2017. A short course on local planning will be
held on Thursday, March 30, 2017 requiring registration with the Department of
Commerce.
7. Public Hearing
Docketed Comprehensive Plan Amendments [CPA-2017-1]
Cornelius stated that this hearing considers proposed amendments to the
comprehensive plan, land use plan map and zoning district map.
Butsick presented six comprehensive plan docketed amendments for the 2015/2016
year; stating that amendments are submitted by residents, city council or staff.
These amendments were discussed at the Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
on February 27th. Staff recommends approval of these amendments to City Council.
The first amendment is administrative in nature; is related to the educational
services areas and facilities map; updates labels for Mill Creek Middle School and
Mount Rainier High School; adds the point and label for the Valley View Elementary
School.
The second amendment adds Mobile Home Park (MHP) zoning as an allowed zoning
designation under both low density multifamily and medium density multifamily
93
Land Use and Planning Board March 27, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Page 2 of 3
residential land use designations. Kent’s zoning code allows for mobile home zoning
in these land use districts. This amendment makes this table consistent with what
the zoning code says and fixes an inadvertent omission from the table.
The third amendment is administrative. Economic and Community Development
was asked to amend the comprehensive plan and make it reflect the City’s decision
to surplus the Naden properties. The amendment updates language in the Park and
Recreation Element to reflect the City’s decision to surplus those properties and
recognize the new surplus process.
The fourth amendment changes the land use plan map and the zoning districts
map, rezones 43 acres at the intersection of S 180th Street and SR-167 from
General Commercial to General Commercial/Mixed Use, and makes these properties
consistent with properties zoned General Commercial/Mixed Use to the west as well
as some Renton residential and commercial areas to the north and east. Key
Changes based on this zoning re-designation allows for increasing maximum
heights from 35 to 65 feet, allows increases in lot coverage, decreases some
required setbacks, and allows property to be developed at a greater density. Staff
reviewed the specific criteria required to consider rezoning to mixed use and
concurs that these proposed amendments meet that criteria.
It is likely that residential development on any of these properties might contribute
to some traffic impacts. New development is required to bring the transportation
system in the vicinity of the development up to the current level of service. Any
impacts would be mitigated. There are no parks in close proximity to this property,
one criteria for rezoning to mixed use. The multifamily design guidelines require
150 sf of open space per unit for multifamily residential; that can include indoor
recreation such as racquet ball courts or gyms, balconies and rooftop decks.
The fifth amendment updates the Housing Element Data to reflect the data
provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Study (CHAS) data report. This is a report that covers a range
of topics on housing affordability, substandard housing, overcrowded housing,
housing characteristics, and housing where households pay over 30 or 50 percent
of their income on rent. The newest data indicates that renters paying over 50
percent of their income for rent in Kent has risen from 3,443 to 4,230 households.
The sixth amendment changes the land use plan map to provide continuity with the
zoning map for an area that was left as MHP where the surrounding area was
rezoned to industrial. This land is designated as open space, urban conservancy in
our shoreline master program. The properties are part of a river bank that goes
down to the river. It is unlikely that it would be developed. We wanted to make
sure that our land use plan reflects what is in our zoning.
One comment was received from the public; a request to rezone a particular parcel
along 180th to allow for maximum height of 195 feet and allow for additional
94
Land Use and Planning Board March 27, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Page 3 of 3
flexibility in parking-such as reduced parking space sizes and a reduction in the
number of required spaces per hotel room or condo units. Staff is recommending
that this item be considered as a separate request unrelated to the rezone of these
properties as it differs from what the docket request was.
Chair Cornelius Opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no speakers, Chair Cornelius
closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
Board Member Jones MOVED and Board Member Smith Seconded a Motion
to recommend to the City Council Approval of the proposed amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map, and Zoning Districts Map as
presented by Staff. Cornelius Called for a Vote. Motion Passed 4-0.
8. Nomination and Election of Officers
Board Member Smith MOVED and Board Member Ottini Seconded a Motion
to elect Katherine Jones as Land Use and Planning Board Chair for 2017.
Motion Passed 4-0.
Board Member Smith MOVED and Board Member Jones Seconded a Motion
to elect Jack Ottini as Land Use and Planning Board Vice-Chair for 2017.
Cornelius called for the vote. Motion Passed 4-0.
Pamela A. Mottram
Administrative Assistant I
Economic and Community Development
March 27, 2017
95
96
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
April 10, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Countywide Planning Policies Amendment, Urban Growth and Potential
Annexation Area Boundaries
Meeting of April 10, 2017
SUMMARY: Initially adopted in the early 1990’s, the Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct
planning under the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This
framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. While
the CPPs have been amended periodically to address specific issues or revisions
required by the GMA, the first thorough update of the CPPs was adopted and
ratified by the cities in 2013 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION
2040, the GMA and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within
King County. For that update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)
also directed that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new
policy areas: climate change, healthy communities and social equity.
Included in the proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies are
three technical amendments and one substantive amendment:
• SE 240th Street near Covington – move the Urban Growth Area (UGA)
boundary to the north margin of the right-of-way to add the road section to
the UGA;
• 248th Ave SE near Enumclaw – move the UGA boundary to west margin of
right-of-way to add road section to the UGA; and
• 228th Ave SE near Enumclaw – move the UGA boundary to east margin of
right-of-way to remove the road section from the UGA.
• The one substantive amendment would retract the UGA west of the City of
Issaquah.
On February 13, 2017, the Metropolitan King County Council adopted Ordinance
18454 which ratified GMPC Motion 16-1. Now, the amendments are presented to
jurisdictions in King County for ratification. The Countywide Planning Policies
MOTION: Recommend/not recommend to the full City Council
ratification of an amendment to the King County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs) to amend the Urban Growth Boundary and Potential
Annexation Area maps as adopted by the King County Council under
Ordinance 18454.
97
become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent
of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of
King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be
deemed to have ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes
legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by
King County, which in this case is June 4, 2017.
Staff will be available at the April 10th meeting to discuss the amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
CA:pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2017\Countwide Planning Policies\CPP_2017-0004_ECDC_Memo_04102017.doc
Encl: Exh 1- Resolution, Exh 2- 3/6/17 King County transmittal letter, Exh 3- 12/13/16 King County Executive
transmittal letter to King County Council, Exh 4- 1/31/17 King County Council Staff Report, Exh 5- Ordinance No.
18454, Exh 6- GMPC Motion No. 16-1 with 6 maps
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
98
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the amendment
of the King County Countywide Planning Policies to
amend the Urban Growth Boundary and Potential
Annexation Area maps as adopted by the
Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to
the Growth Management Act.
RECITALS
A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under
the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210.
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and
other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of
GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans
are consistent.
B. On February 13, 2017, the Metropolitan King County Council
approved and ratified Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion
No. 16-1, adopted by the GMPC on September 28, 2016, to approve three
technical amendments to the Urban Growth Area that involve road right-of-
way adjustments to facilitate the proper provision of services in, or
adjacent, city potential annexation areas. GMPC Motion No. 16-1 also
99
includes one substantive amendment to retract the Urban Growth Area
west of the City of Issaquah.
C. The King County Council approved and ratified the
amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County pursuant to King
County Ordinance No. 18454.
D. Now the amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King
County for ratification.
E. The Kent City Council’s Economic and Community
Development Committee reviewed the amendments at its meeting on April
10, 2017, and recommended approval to the full City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. –Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendments to
the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King
County Council in King County Ordinance No. 18454, attached and
incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. – Public Inspection. The amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed
in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the
public.
100
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this resolution.
SECTION 4. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 5. – Corrections by City Clerk. Upon approval of the city
attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this
resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or
subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2017.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this _____ day of
__________, 2017.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
101
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
______ passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,
, 2017.
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
p:\civil\resolution\countywide planning policy kc 18454.docx
102
King County
$Þ1;, ¿,r,, _0.
fF",,'r'1.,'',r:, ;/" '.r J(,.,,' ; ;r¡ fl E'..".,'î...¡ j1'-' f f.,;,r,.'Ë#*$*,,r¡Ê ;i ì
- ,*r: &rd
itAR 0 6 ZoF
"ur,-l
*#-gÍ5çrr
",¡r.: fTi;dffÏ¡,tf.
March 6,2017
The Honorable Suzette Cooke
City of Kent
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor Cooke
We are pleased to fonruard for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
anlendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP).
On February 13, 2017, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and
ratified the amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance
will become effective Monday, March 6,2017. Copies of the transmittal letter,
King County Council staff report, ordinance 18454 and Growth Management
Planning Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this
amendment.
ln accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according
to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and
amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes
legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day
deadline for these amendments is Sunday, June 4,2017.
lf you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Monday, June 5,2017, to Melani Pedroza,
Acting Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
lf you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County
103
Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King
County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter
Sincerely,
&
Joe McDermott, Chair
Metropolitan King County Council
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: King County City Planning Directors
Sound Cities Association
Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning
Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst
Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
104
li{¡
King County
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
401 F¡fth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104-1818
206-263-960O Fax 206-296-0194
TTY Relay: 71I
www. kingcounty.gov
iìECIIV5D
Îi:i 0rrl l9 pH 3¡ 58
¡ .\-'i\i/Cil-r¡¡¡l.
:-"*k I
a --;
Decenrber 13,2016
The Honorable Joe McDemrott
Chair, King County Council
Room 1200
COURTHOUSE
Dear Counci hnernber McDermott :
This letter transmits an ordinance that will enable King County to to arnend two maps in theKing County Countywicle Planning Policies (CPPs) thãt revise rhe Urban Growth Areabourdary, as recommencled by the Growtli Managérnent Plaming Council (GMPC.)
This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion l6-1 that was unanimously approved by the GMpCon Septernber 28,2016. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMpC
'rotion on behalf ofunincotporated I(ing County in accordance with Cor"rntywide planning noticf C-t.
\4otion 16-1 approves the Urban Growth Alea changes as inclucled in proposed Substituteordinance 2016-0i 5-5.2 asrecomrnendecl by the King Cor"rnty CouncilTránsportatio'
Economy ancl Environment Committee on Septemuei zo, 2016. Motion l6-i appro'es tlir.eetechnical amemclents to the Urban Gror,v-th Area that involve road right-of'-way adjustr'entsfo fàcilitate the propert provisiotr of services in, or acljacent, city poàntial a'nexation ar.eas.There amendments are:
1' SE 240th Street uear Covington - move the Urban Growth Area boundary to the northmargin of the right-of-way to add the roacl section to the Urban Growth Area;2' 24811'Ave SE near Enumclaw - nlove the t-Irban Growth Area boundary to westmatgin of right-of'-lvay to adcl road section to the Ur-ban Gr.onlh Area; áncl3' 228t1' Ave Se near Enumclaw - move the Urban Growth Area bounclary to eastmargin of right-of:way to remove the road section tì'orn the Urban Gr.orvth Area.
Motion 16-1 also approves one substantive proposal to retract the Urban Groi,r,,th Area westof the City of Issaqual"r. This change would rernove fiom lssaquah's East Co.gar potential
Amexation Area parcels that are vacarlt, have Urban Reselve zoning. laclc vehicular access,ancl are mostly encoulnberecl by steep slopes.
This ordinance integlates the goals of the King cor-urty Strategic plan by recog'izing the roleof lancl use planning in sliaping environmentaily sustainable aìrd economically"viable lutLrre
King County is an Equal Opportunitl/Afrtrnretive Actio,, Emplo¡er
and contplies wiÍh the Antericans wilh Disabítitítes Act&'æ**
105
The Honorable Joe McDennott
Decenrber 13,2016
Page
for all people in King county' The county's role in the GMpc fbsters tlie ethic of rvorkingtogether for "one King county" by activeiy parlicipating in r.gion al organizàiion, unaclefining King County's lole in regional issues.
There are no fìscal inrpacts to King county government as a result of adoption of thisordinance.
If you have any questions, please contact Lauren smith. Director fbr Regional plarming,office of Perfbrmance, strategy and Budget at206-263-geoa.
Sincerely,
¡Ñ-
J-Ðo*Constantine
King Cor-urty Executive
Enclosures
King County Councilmembers
ATTN: Carolyn Busch, Chief of Staff
Melani pedroza, Acting Clerk of the Councilcanie s. Cihak, chief of policy Develop're't, King county Executive officeDwight Dively. Director, office of perf'ormance, strategy and Buclget (psB)Lauren Smith, Director, Regional planning, pSB Qr -"
cc
106
t{¡
King County
Metropolitan K¡ng County Council:fransportation, Economy and Environment conimittee
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
-
Adoption of recommendations from th-e Growth Management Planning Council (GMpC)
legarding amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) and po-tentialAnnexation
Area (PAA) maps.
SUMMARY
Proposed Ordinance 2017-0004 would amend the UGA and PM maps that are locatedin the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). These map updates are consistent with
tt U94 changes that were adopted in the 2016 King County Comprehensive ptàn
(KCCP).1
r Ordinance 18427
2 Motion 8733
3 RCW 36J0A.210
a Ordínance 10450
lf adopted byrthe Council, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of thepopulation of unincorporated King County and begin thé CPp ratifiåtion process ¡V inã
cities in King County..:.
BACKGROUND
The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seatle,
Bellevue, other cities and towns in King County, and special purpıse distúcts. The
GMPC was created inJ992 by an interlocat agieement2'iò r".þon"e:to " prouir¡on iñthelfúashington State Growth'iManagement nci lctun) requirinircities and'cóuniË i;work together,to adopt CPFs.3' Under the GMA, the CPPs servL as ffie framework foreach local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, which ensures countywide consistency
with respect to land use planning efforts.
As provided for in
"the interlocal agreement, the GMPC develbped and recommended
th.e'oríginaf-ÇfPs,_which were adopted by the King County Coúncita and' ratified by thecities in 1992. Subsequent amendments to the CPPé foilow the same aOoþtion
Agend4 ltem:5 Name
Proposed No.:2017-0004 Ðate:January 3tr',2017
107
process, which is now outlined in CPP G-1,1. and includes: recommendation by the
GMPC, adoption and ratification by tne KingrCo.unty Council, and ratification by the
cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by at least 30 percent
of the city and county governments representing at least 70 percent of the population of
King County. A city shall:be deemed to have ratified;an amendrnent,to the CPPs unless
the city digapproves it¡by legislative action within 90 days of adopjio¡ by{ing County.
ANALYSIS
GMPC Motion 16-1
On September 28, 2016, the GMPC unanimously adopted Motion 16-1, which is a non-
binding recommendation,to the Gounty Csuncil to amend:thè: UGA ¿¡fl pft{:,rnaps',in
the CFFs. Motion 16-1 recommends adoption of four chähges'to the UGA and PAA
maps; three of the changes are technical, and one is a reduction of the UGA adjacênt to
the City of lssaquah.6 Consistent wíth CPP adoption requirements, Proposg{
Ordinance 2017-0004 fon¡vards this GMPC recommendation to the Council for
consideration and pqssible approval. : : :: ,
Following GMPC action in September, these recommendations were informally
provided to the County Council for consideration prior to the vote on land use proposals
in the 2016 KCCP,7 which was adopted on December 5, 2016. The GMpc
recommended changes in Proposed Ordinance 2017-0004 are consistent with the
adopted ?016, KCCP. ,:
U GA Technical Correction s
Motion 16-1 incluOes tfiree technical changes to the UGA adjacent to the cities of
Covington and Enumclaw. lt recommends adjusting the UGA on SE 240th Street (Cig
of Covington),and. on,248th Avenuç,SE (City of Enurnclaw),so that the entire road fighþ
of-ways .are inside ihê. UGA. Adjqst the UGA qn 228th Ave SE (City of Enumclaw) so
that the entire ioad right-of-way is outside the UGA. The intent of these changes is to
clarify long-term maintenance activities for these roadways consistent with the
surrounding land uses, as allowed by KCCP policy T-211. lt would also allow.the cities
to incorporate the portion of the roadways that are being moved into the UGA.
5 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies, as amended
Eq, t Cougar Mounlain UGA Contraction,
Motion 16-1 also includes a proposal to reduce the UGA in the East Cougar Mountain
area adjacent to the City of lssaquah. This item Was requçsted þy the City of,lssaggqh
during.the 2016 KC.CP up{ate.pr,ocess. The City's proposal,waå to re¡nôve alt oithe
776-acre East Gouga¡: Mountain,area frpm their Pl\A,'as the City is no longer interested
in annexing the areä.
The recommendg.d map change would remove a por:tign of the area, 24 pa'rcels totaling.
]88 acres, from.the UGA and rqdesignate the land as l:ural. Rernoving,these parcelç
from the UGA was ¡sçemmended based on the limited access to thig arãa, the d'ifficulty
of providing an urban level of services, and the òurrent undeveloped nature of the
6 Maps of the proposed cha
7 Consistent with KCCP pol
nges are included in Attachment A to Proposed Ordinance 201
icy RP-106
108
parcels. ln practical terms, this change would have little effect on density as both the
current urban zoning8 and future rural zoninge of these parcels only allow one dwelling
unit per five acres.
The remaining 588 acres were not recommended for removal from the UGA at this time.
The reasoning provided for this was: 1) the properties are already at an urban-level
density, which would cause a discrepancy between potential future rural-level zoning;
and 2) it would create a permanent rural-service island that County service providers
could only access by traversing through a city. lt is anticipated that there will be
continued discussions with the City regarding its request to remove the remainder of the
area frop the UGA. lf desired, additional changes could be considered as part of the
County's next major update of the KCCP.10
Council Consideration
The GMPC recommended map changes meet the requirements for amendments to the
UGA as outlined in the CPPs.11 lf Proposed Ordinance 2017-0004 is adopted by the
Council, it would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County and begin the ratification process by the cities. lf the map changes are not
adopted by the County and/or ratified by the cities, the 2016 KCCP would be
inconsistent with the CPPs and may require future attention.
There is no deadline for Council action on the proposed map updates
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 2017-0004 (and its attachments)
2. Transmittal Letter
3. Fiscal Note
INVITED
. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performanıe, Strategy and Budget
I Urban Reserve (UR)
s RuralArea-5 (RA-s)
10 Currently scheduled to occur in 2020
11DP-14, DP-15, DP-16, and DP-17
109
110
ù KING COUNTY 1 200 King County Courrhouse
516'l'hird Âvenue
Seattlc, WA 98t04
KlngCounty
Signature Report
February 13,2017
Ordinance 18454
Proposed No.2017-0004.1 Sponsors Dembowski
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting and ratifying Growth
2 Management planning Council Motion 16_1.
3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COLINCIL OF KING COI,INTY:
4 SECTION l. Findings:
5 A- Growth Management Planning Courcil Motion 16-1 recommends that Urban
6 Growth Area Map and the Potential Annexation Area Map in the2012 King County
7 Countywide Planning Policies be amended as depictecl on the maps attached to Motion
I 16-1.
9 B. On September 28, 2016,the Growth Management Planrîing Council
10 unanimously adopted Motion l6- I , which recommends that the ZLI2King County
n Countywide Planning Policies be amended to adjust the Urban Growth Area boundary for
rz three technical amendments that involve road right-of-way adjustments and one
L3 substantive amendment to contract the Urban Growth Area boundary fi.om the city of
t4 Issaquah's Potential Annexation Area at East cougar Mountain
15 SECTION 2. The amendments to the 2012 King County Countywide planning
MI
1
111
L6
t7
18
Ordinance 18454
Policies, as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted by King County
and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King county.
Ordinance 18454 was introduced on lll7l20I7 and passed by the Metropolitan KingCounty Council on2113/2017, by tlie following voté:
Yes: 9 - Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Dunn,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Dernbowski, Mr. upthegrove, Ms. Kohl-'welles
and Ms. Balducci
No:0
Excused: 0
KING COTJNTY COUNCIL
KING COLTNTY, WASHINGTON
Chair
ATTEST:
Melani Pedroza, Acting Clerk the Coi.rncil
J r\J'Ç
APPRovED,ht, -2LlL;y or Frrôr t r¿rtJ 2017
County Executive
Attachments: A. GMPC Motion No. l6-l
2
112
Åtlaelllner:t A
I
2
J
I
5
fl
7
Õ
I
!0
tt
l:
l,ì
l-1
l5
I(r
l7
18
lç
20
?_t
'r1
23
2.r
25
26
1',7
28
2.)
3{}
3r
\1
--1+
i5
it:
cs!2&ll6
S¡rcrtscued llv [:rccr¡1 ive ('rtrtrur iitec
Glvt¡:,{i }IûTIO¡{ liû. 16-l
A Ivl{}1'lt}N ilrie ncling tlrc 2() l2 liing CoLrn(r' Ctrrrrrt3 r""idc Planr:irlg
Policics; addlcssirtg clritrrgcs tqr lhe Iirh¿rrt (ì¡'Lrt tl¡ ;\rea cl'Kirtg
Ccrunt1 ¿rtcl lht t'csulting changes tc tlie l ìt'balr Cror'.'tlt [Sottndary llrap
ancl llolcllliaI Ânn*r¿tic¡n .;\.rc:r r:lap.
Wll¡':ll.t:åS^ il¡r' \\jaslrinstcrr Slatc (ìrs--rr.th Mntra3crrtr'trt ¡\ct. R.('\d.' -ìó.7{)¡\.I l{)
re'c¡uircs cor.rulics trr clcsisrr¿lc an ulba¡: gr"an1[r arca rvithili r.,'lliclr itrl:an grorrth shall be
erlcouragccl ¿tncl outsidc oi'r.r'hie h glorrilr c¿lu llccuf ii'!t i-ç r¡itt ttrl:an irl ntlttrc: i¡tltl
$jf{tjRlrA*C. {lou¡r1v*,icle l)lenning l'rrlic¡, ç;-l ¡'g(r.rgnizcs lh¿li Kingi I'ounty rrtny
ilritiatc ¿urgtdnrcnls to thc [..irban Croutit Arca: a:rd
Wlflilit:AS: tlre King Clt--r¡rrly tixec*livc a¡r<J the Kirig C'uirrrt¡'('oune i! r'crltlcsl 1l'rr
{irowth ltlanagc'nrcnt Pi;rr:ning {',-rur:cil ciuisictcr tf:e ¿r1tat:llcil ã¡.¡lcn{l¡lunts lo lht t jrhltr
{ìrclr."-lh Arca fìll cvcnlual *cloptiort b}, 1¡* Kitr¿i ("oLrntt' tlaLr¡lcil anri raiilìcalir.rn [r,r, tltc
citir:sl u¡rcl
WI'll:Rþ.ÂS. Cr¡untr,n,icle Plunning Policics lll)-15 * ¡)l)- lll i,Lrtlirtc eriicria iì¡r
clianges t¡r the Lirùan Cron,ih ,4lea: a.t:<l
Wl-{i,if{¡rA:ì.cn\4a¡ 15.:0l6.the(ìroqthMirnagcrncr:tPlenningC'rruncil receirctia
bricfìng on allrl'thc po1€nti¿ilchanges ttl tlr¡: Llrtr¿u Crtlrvth Arc¿ Lt¡ldercoltsidelalion bv
the King L-outtty 1'ranspr-,'ri.atiln . Ucoltottt¡.'. ancl lnvi¡uttntenl Conllt¡ittee; and
WII[]R[:4.5. r]n Scplcrlrhe r 20. 2016, the f(ing [.'r:lrrnt]/ -!-r{nspût't¿ålion . L:crrnor*y.
and l--invirc:nnrcnt Comrnittec Ieceirnnren<Jed tl-:e {illlorving *meniltnents 1,-¡ llre LJI'iran
(iro*'[h Area hc c,:nsiciereclbt'the King C'oLtnt¡'('rir.rlreil as ¡rart oltheil ap¡:rt'ovaloi'1he
2() ló King ('r.rtttttl' ('ort-tpt'eltctrsivc Pla¡t.
NO'*r 1'l lfiRF;l:()l{l: Bþ. l1' RL'.Stll-VIt) th¿¡i thq: Gr¡,rrv{h lr4anagernettt I}lanning
Coune il cf'li ing {ìr-iurrt¡, hcrcby recoll'ulle ¡ids that lhe 20 I 3 K ing C'otrnt¡- ('ottnt-\'u,ielc
he anrenrletl as clc¡,'ie t*e1 {.rn tl'ìe aflaclrec{ nrap..;,-1Õj9
40
.+t
rl
-t3
ú*,Ðorr' Const¿rntine. ('hair h Managemcrri Plitnrting {'*unci!
113
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
6l
62
63
64
65
ATTACHMENTS
Maps to Be Amended (with technical fixes to titles. as noted below)
Urban Growth AreL Boundary - tou¡t$vrde
Ptanninq Policies.
Potential Annexation Areas-- Countywide Planning Policies g€tebe+
#=Ssplçnobcr20l6
For Reference - Detailed Site Maps Showing Specific Amendments to Urban Growth
Area Boundary. as well as Amendment to East Cougar Potential Annexation Area
Urban Growth Area Contraction and Revision to Potential Annexation Area - East
Cougar Mountain
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - SE 240th Street
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - 248th Ave SE
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - 228th Ave SE
114
Maps to Be Amended (with technicalftxes to titles. as n
Note: Call out boxes to be retnovedþllowing adoption by GMPC
Urban Growth ArcL Boundary - Countvwide Plannin
I
1
¡
I
t¿
r-r\, ';' t.
'þ:, i
--. t ¡'
''a ,
,1' ö"; I j .:_
I
t_
J:
f.,tti'1
nt
I.
I
tu,J aen .b¡ i.q . vr.L o, :q,Nt 6¡ r ûôxl k et
d44 *!Þdr..: d rSL r¡lN.^å 3:!(i nh*r' rê cÈr¡¡Ñ d Þ re tsi 4j oøe rqd rerd ¡u -¡frr d
4e.wibr !$rÉ!Þ ^¡& e d þ3r 6 s!
r.ôw d bl .-æ rÞsc h
r{s,6ir' d L Þ4 jsÞ + !.,tu ù¿4 lt ,ù'ø Ë16.' t
+Propertd
Urban G¡owth Aror Boundary
County Wid¡ Plannlng Pollelår,
Soptembü 20lt
01â 4 B I
lll5EËl!!Mn"e
Urıan Grqwlh Arga
Rurêl Area \fl rhscounty/\r Urbê4 G¡owth ar€a Bç[nd€ry I Fd,sl prodoclrên Þ¡ctrJctÊ l¡øpqaled City
¡ Rtral lM çent€tr Agdcrilural Producriø ÞlatÍcrr i.],--,j l¡unt"¡pal ì¡lateEhad6
O Urbfi cånt€rs f Oæn Slace lñbsl Lând¡k¡¿¡: ltr lø üll t *
115
Maps to Be Amended (with technical fixes to titles. as noted below)
Note: Call out boxes Ío be removedfollowing adoption by GMPC
PotentialAnnexationAreas:CounfywidePlanningPolicies
r"-- "--,'--.'- -...-
II
tt
I
I !" _:1t,
Aa.
ßnâ.n r
.jl!'
tü
¡
*t
-tç
:'
1l tþ
f
fÞiu,,,'dl1$*l *
e!':ii
n¡ii
¿
3
.'t
S-'1
#*,1å
iF¡r
o.,,' ., !F-*
f
*
{ n. --r'r:t{ å
'
,T¡, ¡
1 n-,{ .t
!ijÉ.?
t,
t¡
h.
"q.
{.4, t
{
lonhHt0hllm
F¡iT
î.
lltr¡!¡¡4!#
dl*b
ñ
.I
r
Fotentlrl
Countywldr
d'.t t "û,
I
'I
0*.*ril
gl
flld{Ë.r*¡
i
Froporrd
8rþbmber
116
For Reference - Detailed Site Maps Sliorvine Sþeci c Amendrnents to lJrhan Growtlr Area Boundarv- as
well as Amendment to East Potential Annexation Area
Urban Growth ,A.rea Contraction and Revision to Potential .A.nnexation ,Area - East r Mountain
Note: This change adds parcels to King CounÍy's unincorporated rural area. Il also removes
these same parcels from the City of Issaquah's PoÍentìal Annexalion Area.
?ü1tl Kinç Cnunty C:r:nr¡:reh*rrsive Pl*r¡
ls!*iu,*r,o*n ,E Ê¡rkå.Ricr*
Lånel ußÊ Pt*prrttlt
iË.# '*rr*Xenü & *l*ÊË ÊtôF* f- - , War*,.å,orf'oe ùs ñ!ri'S çðuñty,çrpryì -SÊiåce *leLùififfi******* -- sroun,* då iiHl-itrlyJåä]H,üfå', . ': {rrþei} Ërùr,sr ü¡:¡;,,}úê,'{ .-+--=+ Êsi!r,ùüd* ,;j i$.|:i åS., hffi,ll*ffrT.ijil,._",Fçvl{BårJ.t l---l paræt*
f] *ruu
EEI!!!!FI¡tt¡
.=iL
, ;.¡ú ¡Jú ååÉ lif¡s
ffl KinsCounty
¿:
rà
Þ{
rstr
;j
ÕÈ
t,
¡
I
;
{.
3Þåq$ân i
':.
I
I
¡
,.:|
' _': .: 1'
¡' ,i
:!.
r.! ,,, .
a.. i; -,.,.:i.
', : i'.¡
,': i. ,, :',,t,",.'i
/
";
: ': i :
! ,Ì..i.'. '.!, :; -:'..' r''':= -n
'i:¡ ;.,r - ,¡r, 1,,,
'.i.,,: ,..1
..'.
117
- Detailed Site
well as Amendment to East r Pofenfial Annexation Area
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - SE 240th Street
Area Bo
Mave UGA b*undary lo the nodh margin of
SE â40th Sl. lo include lh¡s secliÕn ûf the
right"ef"way in thç u¡þan aree,
e--"-.I -- -.--- -
äl
'd
J-.*. --¡-; - J
King Gounty
Urban Grawth Araa Boundary Amandmant
SË 24ûth Streel
Ái
r sï.
rl
- - -¡ Proposed UGA Boundary
-
Ëxisting UGA Boundary
Caunty froads
Percele h
![xhscorrnty
RûW lssue
King County
Covington
Jt
I
1l;
PAA
ovington
118
S fic Amendments to Urban
well as Amendment to East Cougar Potential Annexation Area
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - 248th Ave SE
sI{âI
PÍl
d8G {tth ar
.¡l
- - -, Proposed UGA Boundary
-
Exisling UGA Boundary
County Êoads
Farcels \
Ênulllelaw |¡|xngc*nty
ROW lssue
King Çourtty
Urban Growlh Arsa B$undary A*rendmcnl
?481h Avenue SE
I
a
i
:
ti
I
ti
I
a
r$Ro .tcnJo*
King County :
¡
!
t
at¿f
Movc UGA boundary tÕ !hê wêst nnargin al
24åth Ave SË to inelude this seclion ol the
righl-ol"way in lha urban arsa.PA A
j
i
¡
t
&
:
:
:
:!
119
For Reference - Detailed Site Maps Showins Specific Amendments to Urban Growth Area Boundary. as
well as Amendment to East Cougar Potential Annexation Area
Urban Growth Area Technical Amendment - 228th Ave SE
*.ta?N
a3illl
unty
Urban Growlh Arsa Eoundary Amendrnanl
1281h Avenua SE
Move UGA boundary to thê êãsl ffârg¡n ol
2å8th Avo SË to axeludÕ this êêÕtion of lho
right"otway {rarn the urban area"
yv
ã
- - -. Proposed UGA Boundary
-
Ëxisting UGA Boundary
County Roads
' '- Farcels
'.
Ënumclaw !!xr,sco.,*y
RÕW lssue
+King tounty
ä
120
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: April 6, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager
RE: Development Fee Increase Implementation Update
For Meeting of April 10, 2017
SUMMARY:
In late 2016, the City Council approved increases to Kent’s permitting and
inspection fees.
Staff will present an update on implementation of these fees.
EXHIBITS: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MG:pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2017\4-10-17\DevFeeIncrease_ECDCMemo.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
MOTION: None – Information Only.
121
122
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: April 6, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Planner, ECD
RE: Kaibara Park – Sound Transit Garage Site Alternative #4
For Meeting of April 10, 2017
SUMMARY: Sound Transit is analyzing properties in downtown Kent in order to
construct a second parking garage and provide non-motorized improvements for
the Kent Sounder Station. One of the sites under consideration is Kaibara Park, one
of Kent’s oldest parks, located on 1st Avenue between Smith and Meeker Streets.
The park contains a public garden, water feature, and numerous art pieces. It
commemorates the city’s relationship with its sister city in Japan, formerly known
as Kaibara. For reasons stated in the following paragraphs, staff is recommending
that Sound Transit remove the site from further consideration.
Kaibara Park is located close to the Sounder Station, and the operating assumption
has been that the park property was city-owned and could be sold to Sound Transit
after undergoing the city’s surplus process. Public ownership of a property can
reduce time and effort required to purchase and assemble properties. Furthermore,
the City Council previously explored opportunities to use the Kaibara Park site as a
parking garage, which would shield the downtown core from railroad noise, drive
redevelopment of the library site and in so doing create better connectivity with
Town Square Plaza across 2nd Avenue to the west.
From a technical engineering perspective, the park site is narrowly feasible to
accommodate a parking garage of sufficient size to meet Sound Transit’s cost-
effectiveness criteria. However, there would be no additional space available for
site amenities. The orientation and street frontage of the park is challenging from a
traffic engineering perspective because it would direct additional traffic into an area
of downtown that is not designed for heavy traffic volumes. Additionally, parks
create procedural hurdles for conversion to federally-funded transportation
infrastructure, and a possible nearby cultural resource may create additional
administrative challenges.
Recently, staff discovered that while the park is operated by Kent’s Parks and
Recreation Department, it is not a city-owned asset. Rather, the property is divided
into multiple segments, all owned by BNSF railroad but partially leased under a
MOTION: None – Information Only.
123
long-standing agreement with the City of Kent. The city-leased property also
includes Rosebed Park to the south. The remainder of the park property is used by
the City of Kent as park space under a public use easement but still is owned by
BNSF railroad likely due to the former presence of a railroad spur.
The agreements with BNSF railroad have been in place for so long that
documentation may be difficult to find. Purchasing the Kaibara Park properties from
BNSF would likely be a lengthy and complicated process. For example, when a local
government in Idaho purchased BNSF property for public access, negotiations with
BNSF took four years. This time constraint would significantly impede Sound
Transit’s ability to complete the project by 2023.
Staff will be present at the April 10th meeting to obtain feedback from the
committee on the Kaibara site.
EXHIBITS: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DB:pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2017\4-10-17\KaibaraPark_EDCMemo_v2.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
124
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: April 6, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator, ECD
RE: Kent Grain Elevator (105 Building) – Historic Significance
For Meeting of April 10, 2017
SUMMARY: Sound Transit is analyzing properties in downtown Kent in order to
construct a second parking garage and provide non-motorized improvements for
the Kent Sounder Station. One of the sites under consideration for a brief time was
the 105 Building adjacent to Kent Station. Sound Transit consultants discovered
that the 105 property has some level of historic significance, which could create
procedural challenges to redeveloping the property. Although Sound Transit
removed the site from consideration for a garage, staff wanted to make the
committee aware of the determination and what it could mean for future
development opportunities.
In 2008, under an interlocal agreement, the City of Kent contracted with the King
County Historic Preservation Program to conduct an inventory of historic properties
in Kent. The inventory documented 160 properties and they were entered into the
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) database.
The Kent Grain Elevator building at 105 W Smith Street, locally referred to as the
105 Building, was built in 1917 and was one of the properties documented by the
inventory. According to the King County Historic Preservation Program, the property
is eligible for listing as a Kent Landmark, and is listed as a significant site on the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s (DAHP)
database. Per the state archaeological historian, it is also eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
The DAHP database describes the Kent Grain Elevator building as historically
significant because it is the only remaining example of a grain elevator or any type
of agricultural facility in downtown Kent. Agriculture was a major contributor to the
development of the City of Kent and the Green River Valley, from hops production
in the 1880’s, dairy production from the 1900s to 1920s, and truck farming in the
1920s to 1940s. The City’s eventual development as an industrial center was a
product of its agricultural heritage, being a broad, flat valley with access to multiple
modes of transportation. The Grain Elevator is one of the few existing artifacts of
this important part of Kent’s history.
MOTION: None – Information Only.
125
Records show that the building was remodeled extensively in 1960, and anecdotal
evidence shows that several additional modifications have been made over the
years. The 105 Building is not a City-owned building. Nonetheless, state and local
historic preservation programs may encourage the City to retain the building if
possible, and mitigation may be required if the owner were to demolish it for
redevelopment of the property. The King County Historic Preservation Program is
currently exploring options to develop a funding program for restoration of
historically significant properties; it is possible that once it is established, the Kent
Grain Elevator could become an eligible property.
EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Kent Grain Elevator/105 Building Photos
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DB:pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2017\4-10-17\105Building_EDCMemo_v2.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
126
Exhibit A – Kent Grain Elevator/105 Building Photos
Page 1 of 3
127
Exhibit A – Kent Grain Elevator/105 Building Photos
Page 2 of 3
128
Exhibit A – Kent Grain Elevator/105 Building Photos
Page 3 of 3
129
130
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
Fax: 253-856-6500
400 West Gowe Street
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: April 10, 2017
To: Council President Bill Boyce and Economic and Community
Development Committee Members
From: Lacey Jane Wolfe, Senior Transportation Planner
Through: Ben Wolters, Director of Economic and Community Development
Item: 2018-2023 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
SUMMARY: Staff will present recommendations for updating the six-year
transportation improvement program (TIP). State law requires each city to update
its TIP annually (RCW 35.77.010). The TIP describes street, bicycle, pedestrian, and
traffic signal improvements, as well as planning efforts and preservation projects.
In order to be included in the TIP, projects must either be funded or have a
reasonable expectation of being funded.
The existing TIP was adopted in June 2016. Since then, several projects have been
completed; staff recommends these projects be removed from the TIP. Staff also
identified three additional projects that have a reasonable expectation of funding
and may be added to the TIP. The first project is to construct a right-in/right-out
intersection at the south end of Naden Avenue at Willis Street. The second project
is a local access street from the intersection of Naden Avenue and Willis Street. The
third project is improvements to South 248th Street, from 104th Avenue Southeast
to 116th Avenue Southeast.
In 2016, Kent staff prioritized all capital projects using these criteria:
• Preservation of existing facilities
• Neighborhoods
• Priority areas
• Health and safety
• Environmental quality
• High leverage value
• Plans, regulations, agreements
• Strategic initiatives
More work will be done in 2017 on the capital projects prioritization process.
Additionally, the upcoming update to the transportation master plan will inform that
process as well as future TIPs.
The draft project list indicates each project’s prioritization ranking among
transportation projects and also among all city projects (see Figures 1 and 2) for
the Committee’s information
Motion: Information Only
131
Figure 1. Draft Project List for the 2018-2023 Six-Year TIP and Ranking According
to 2016 Capital Projects Prioritization Process*
Project Description Rank Among
Transportation Projects
Rank Among All City
Projects
South 228th Street/Union
Pacific Railroad Grade
Separation
Not ranked –
under construction
Not ranked –
under construction
72nd Avenue South
Extension
Not ranked –
under construction
Not ranked –
under construction
Kent Regional Trails
Connector
Not ranked –
under construction
Not ranked –
under construction
Southeast 208th Street
and 108th Avenue
Southeast Intersection
Improvement
Not ranked –
under construction
Not ranked –
under construction
South 248th Street, 104th
Ave SE to 116th Ave SE
Not ranked –
new since 2016
Not ranked –
new since 2016
Naden Local Access Road Not ranked –
new since 2016
Not ranked –
new since 2016
Transportation Master
Plan 1 4
Willis Street Roundabout 2 6
Meeker Complete Street
Redesign
2 (64th Ave to SR 167)
2 (SR 167 to Railroad
Ave)
5 (Kent Des Moines Road
to 64th)
6 (64th Ave to SR 167)
6 (SR 167 to Railroad
Ave)
9 (Kent Des Moines Road
to 64th)
Railroad Quiet Zone for
Downtown Urban Center
3 (Phase 2)
5 (Phase 1)
7 (Phase 2)
9 (Phase 1)
76th Avenue South 4 8
132nd Avenue Pedestrian
Improvements 5 9
Panther Lake Signal
System Integration 5 9
Willis Street and Central
Avenue Intersection
Improvements
6 10
Naden Right-In Right-Out 7 11
South 224th Street
Extension 7 11
Safe Routes to Schools
Improvements at Meridian
Elementary
8 12
*Projects are listed in order of rank among transportation projects.
132
Figure 2. Draft Program List for the 2018-2023 Six-Year TIP and Ranking According
to 2016 Capital Projects Prioritization Process**
Program Description Rank Among
Transportation Projects
Rank Among All City
Projects
Street Preservation
Program
2 (in-house portion)
5 (contracted portion)
6 (in-house portion)
9 (contracted portion)
Traffic Signal Management
Program 3 7
Sidewalks, Sidewalk
Repair and the ADA
Compliance Program
4 8
Channelization
Improvement Program 4 8
Guardrail and Safety
Improvements 12 16
**Programs are listed in order of rank among transportation projects.
Exhibits:
None
Budget Impact:
Each project or program within the TIP has a different budget impact, which will be
noted in the narrative.
S:\PUBLIC\City Clerk's Office\City Council\Council Committees\Economic and Community Development Committee\2017\Pkt Documents\4-10-17\Six-
Year TIP Memo.docx
133