Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 04/27/2015 (2) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WA EN T WASH I N G T O N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD APRIL 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Navdeep Gill; Katherine Jones; Jack Ottini and Binoy Varughese CITY STAFF: ECD-Planning Services: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager. City Attorney's Office: David Galazin, Civil Attorney This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. These meetings will be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendments may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Charlene Anderson at: canderson@kentwa.gov. No public testimony is taken at the Workshop, although the public is welcome to attend. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the April 13, 2015 Minutes 4. Added Items 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE PLAN & ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: Consideration of the 2014 docket items: DKT-2014-4, and DKT-2014-6 thru DKT- 2014-8, as well as the Staff proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts maps, and city code. - Charlene Anderson COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Consideration of an update to the Comprehensive Plan; including amendments to the text, goals and policies of all elements; amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map. Also under consideration, are amendments to Zoning Code regulations related to definitions, allowed uses, development standards, and standards for review of map amendments. - Charlene Anderson For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City's website at: http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentlD=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at(253) 856- 5725. For TTYITDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic& Community Development Department, Planning Division at(253) 856- 5454. 1 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 20, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use and Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map and Text Amendments [CPA- 2011-3/CPZ-2011-1] [KIVA#2142820/2142822] For Public Hearing on April 27, 2015 MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/ modification of the map and text amendments recommended by staff. SUMMARY: On September 1, 2014, the City of Kent received applications for docketing Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map amendments for properties located in five areas of the City. Staff proposed consideration of additional map amendments. At their November 10, 2014 meeting, the Economic & Community Development Committee recommended consideration of four of the docketed map amendments as well as the staff proposed map amendments during the 2014-15 update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan. On November 18, 2014 the City Council concurred with that recommendation. Staff presented options for docketed and staff-proposed map and text amendments to the Land Use & Planning Board at the workshop on January 26, 2015. Maps relating to the proposals are attached. BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION: #DKT-2014-4 — Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for a 2.3-acre parcel (768280-0195) located at 2526 S 272"d Street from LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) to MU (Mixed Use)/CC-MU (Community Commercial-Mixed Use). Applicant (Agent): Baljit Singh and Amritpal S. Sahoter EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) MU (Mixed Use) Zoning Districts Map MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential CC-MU (Community Townhouse) Commercial/Mixed Use There is a single family residence on the site and the site is otherwise wooded. Much of the site terrain can be characterized as vegetated and sloped from east to west. The property abuts S. 272nd St. on the south and 26th Ave. S. on the east. Properties immediately north of the site have been the subject of residential platting activity. Immediately to the west is a multifamily development. The 2 Saybrook residential condominiums are located to the south across S. 272nd St. Immediately to the east across 26th Ave. S. is the Star Lake Park & Ride which is located adjacent to the I-5/S. 272nd Street off-ramp. Surrounding zoning is single or multiple family residential in both Kent and Federal Way. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain LDMF/MRT-16 1. The CC-MU zoning district allows both 100% commercial (e.g., retail, office) uses as well as mixed commercial/residential uses provided the commercial component encompasses a minimum of 25% of the mixed use development. 2. The surrounding area is residential in character; a determination would be made that commercial uses would be incompatible with the residential character of the area. Option 1 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU/CC-MU 1. The applicant states the property is close to the I-5 freeway exit and is on a very busy street (S. 272nd St.), so the best use would be consistent with CC- MU zoning. 2. One of the City Council's strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. #DKT-2014-6 — Change in Zoning Districts Map designation for three parcels (675670-0050 and -0060, 282205-9153) totaling 1.72 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 116th Ave SE and Kent Kangley Rd from O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Community Commercial); and change in Land Use Plan Map designation for one of those parcels totaling 0.416 acres from SF6 (Single Family Residential) to MU (Mixed Use) Applicant (Agent): Nick Wecker, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. as agent for Marty Jones, The Velmeir Companies EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MU (Mixed Use) and SF6 (Single Family All MU (Mixed Use) Residential) Zoning Districts Map O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-6 CC (Community (Single Family Residential) Commercial) Two of the parcels are currently vacant and there is a single family residence on the third (northeastern) parcel. Trees and scattered vegetation exist on the parcels. Much of the site terrain can be characterized as flat. The property abuts Kent Kangley Rd. on the south and 116th Ave. S. on the west. Properties immediately north and east of the site are residential. To the west, across 116th Ave. SE are residential uses. To the southwest, across Kent Kangley Rd., are multifamily residential condominium developments; to the south, across Kent Kangley Rd., is a small commercial area with a gas station. Parcels to the north, east, west and southwest are zoned single- and multiple-family residential. Parcels directly to the south, across Kent Kangley Rd. are zoned CC-MU. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 2 3 OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain MU/SF6 and O-MU/SR-6 1. The surrounding area is residential in character; office/multifamily mixed use is compatible with and provides a buffer for the adjacent residential uses. 2. Commercial uses would be incompatible with the residential character of the area. 3. See also staff proposals under "B" to eliminate the Office and Office/Mixed Use zoning designations. Option 1 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU/CC 1. The applicant states the concentration of multifamily residential along the Kent Kangley corridor creates a significant amount of pedestrian and transit riders and a demand for neighborhood-friendly retail uses. 2. The applicant is proposing a 14,500 square foot retail pharmacy with drive- through service and surface parking, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone that is tied to the pharmacy project. 3. One of the City Council's strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Option 2 — Expand Option 1. 1. This option would include two adjacent residential parcels (282205-9221 and -9270) in the MU/CC designation from Option 1. 2. The CC designation would be compatible with the CC-MU designation directly south across Kent Kangley Rd. and would not include properties that are part of the Seven Oaks Terrace and Seven Oaks Division III plats to the north of the property. Option 3 — Combination 1. This option would include the proposed amendments in Option 1, and for the expanded parcels under Option 2 would add a mixed use component using the Zoning Districts map designation of CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). The CC-MU designation allows commercial and residential uses. 2. The CC zoning district allows 100% commercial uses. The CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) zoning district allows both 100% commercial (e.g., retail, office) uses as well as mixed commercial/residential uses provided the commercial component encompasses a minimum of 25% of the mixed use development. 3. See also, below, a proposal to amend the development standards for the CC- MU zoning district to require a minimum commercial component of only 5% rather than 25% for mixed use development on properties of two acres or less in size. Staff Recommendation: Option 3. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 3 4 #DKT-2014-7 — Change in split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for two parcels (775780-0225 and -0222) totaling 1.6 acres located at 22202 and 22204 88th Avenue SE from SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential) and I (Industrial)/CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) to the adjacent LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) Applicant (Agent): Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. as agent for MPR Holdings, LLC EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) and SF6 (Single Family LDMF (Low Density Residential) Multifamil Zoning Districts Map CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) MR-T16 (Multifamily and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) Residential Townhouse) Both parcels are currently developed with a single family residence. There are a significant number of trees on the site. The terrain slopes to the west, with some slopes reaching 40%. The property abuts 88t" Avenue South on the west. Properties in the immediate vicinity are either vacant or single family residences on a variety of lot sizes. Farther south of the site is a multifamily development. The surrounding properties also are zoned for either single or multiple family residences. To the west, across 88t" Avenue South is SR-167. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/SF6 and CM- 1/SR-6 1. These parcels appear to be remnant land use plan and zoning map designations. Option 1 - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to LDMF/MR- T16 1. The applicant characterizes the current designations as "apparent mapping errors." 2. The applicant is proposing to develop these parcels and adjacent parcels as a 154-unit townhouse development, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone that is tied to the townhouse project. 3. The property is adjacent to the future 228t" St. Corridor project. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. #DKT-2014-8 — Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for three parcels (779000-0005, 222204-9113 and 212204- 9068) totaling 14.57 acres located at 3101 S. 240th Street and 24481 32nd Avenue South from C (Commercial)/GC (General Commercial) to TOC (Transit Oriented Community)/MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 4 5 Applicant (Agent): Matt Edwards, Edwards Development & Advisors, LLC as agent for Argus Investment Company, Garth Olsen & Cristina Kapela Dugoni EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) TOC (Transit Oriented Community) Zoning Districts Map GC (General Commercial) MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential The parcels are currently undeveloped and contain trees and other vegetation. The terrain is relatively flat. A wetland is located on the site. The property abuts S. 2401h Street on the north and I-5 on the east. Across S. 240th Street on the north are located a utility district property and a multifamily development. To the west are the Lowe's retail store, industrial uses and a mobile home park. A former landfill is located to the south. The site and surrounding properties were included in the Midway Subarea Plan. Zoning to the north is MTC-2 (Midway Transit Community II), to the west is MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential) and to the south is CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2) and MHP (Mobile Home Park). OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain C/GC 1. In 2011, the applicant requested the parcels not change to the proposed Midway land use plan and zoning map designations. A determination would be made that circumstances have not changed since those designations were adopted. Option 1 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to TOC/MCR 1. The Transit Oriented Community/Midway Commercial Residential designations provide additional flexibility in the types of land uses permitted on the property, consistent with the Midway Subarea Plan. 2. The applicant states the plans for the property are primarily residential, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone tied to a residential project. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. A. STAFF PROPOSALS — Expand Commercial Opportunities In Strategic Locations In The Industrial Area: Al. Intersection of West Valley Highway/S. 196th Street. Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps for 28 parcels totaling 104.7 acres from M-1 (Industrial Park) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 660021-0010, -0020, -0030, -0040, -0050, - 0060, -0070, -0080, -0090, -0100, -0110, -0120, -0130, -0140; 788880-0220, -0250; 382900-0025, -0030, -0040, -0055, - 0065; 000020-0041; 883660-0140; 331060-0185, -0250, - 0260, -0261, -0285 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 5 6 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts M1 (Industrial Park) M1-C (Industrial Map Park/Commercial Except for approximately 38.7 vacant acres of the Pacific Gateway site bounded by 62nd and 681h Avenues S. east/west and S. 196th Street and S. 1991h Place north/south, the parcels are developed with a variety of warehousing, manufacturing and service uses. The 38.7 acres have been cleared and graded. The terrain of the properties is relatively flat. The properties generally abut 68th Avenue South (West Valley Highway) between S. 190th Street and S. 199th Place (if extended east). Surrounding zoning is generally M1 (Industrial Park District). However, properties north of S. 196th Street between 62nd and 66th Avenues S. are zoned M2, Limited Industrial. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/M1 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing, warehousing and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains I (Industrial) and Zoning Districts Map is changed to M 1-C 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The S. 196th Street/West Valley Highway intersection is a major nodal location. 2. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. 6. An analysis of vacant and redevelopable lands in this area indicates capacity for job growth. Option 2 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial-Mixed Use) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 6 7 1. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile- oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. A2. S. 1801h Street (south side) from 72"a Avenue S. to Lind Avenue (if extended). Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps for 15 parcels totaling 44.17 acres from M-1 (Industrial Park) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0003, -0006, -0007, -0008, -0012; 125371-0010, -0050; 312305-9121, -9129, -9151; 362304- 9018, -9086, -9096, -9100, -9101 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts M1 (Industrial Park) M1-C (Industrial Map Park/Commercial Further, except for the Puget Power and Railroad rights of way, as well as Springbrook Creek, whose existing designations will be retained, follow parcel lines and thereby remove split land use plan and zoning districts map designations by effecting the following designations: 125371-0060, 362304-9005: Change Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps from I (Industrial)/MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to I (Industrial)/M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 7 8 125372-0016: Retain POS (Parks and Open Space) Land Use Plan Map designation and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) 125372-0010, 312305-9013, 362304-9004 and -9103: Change split Land Use Plan Map designation of I (Industrial)/MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) to MIC and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to M2. This area is located on the south side of S. 1801h Street between 72nd Avenue S. and Lind Avenue (if extended), and is a major east/west arterial. Springbrook Creek runs through a portion of the area. The properties are developed with various warehousing, service and bulk retail uses. To the north, across S. 1801h Street, are a variety of bulk retail, offices and food services. Properties to the east are zoned GC (General Commercial), to the west M1-C (Industrial Park-Commercial), and to the south M2 (Limited Industrial). To the north in the cities of Renton and Tukwila, the zoning is Medium Industrial, Commercial Office, Commercial Arterial, and Commercial Light Industrial. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/M1 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing, warehousing and service uses, and the split designations would be retained. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains I (Industrial) and Zoning Districts Map is changed to M1-C. The split designations would be resolved as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The area along S. 1801h Street is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses and is consistent with the type of uses allowed to the north in adjacent jurisdictions. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated no vacant or redevelopable parcels that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 8 9 5. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use). The split designations for parcels 125371-0060, 362304-9005 and 125372- 0016 would also be changed to MU/GC-MU. However, the other 4 split-zoned parcels would be amended as noted above. 1. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated no vacant or redevelopable parcels that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile-oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses; manufacturing and warehousing uses are not allowed in the GC zoning district. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. A3. NE corner of intersection of 72--d Avenue S. and S. 277tt" Street. Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps for 2 parcels located at 27430 72nd Avenue S. totaling approximately 32.6 acres from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 000680-0036 (southern portion) and 000680- 0064 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 9 10 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts M2 (Limited Industrial) M1-C (Industrial Map Park/Commercial The property currently is used as an automotive terminal and vehicle transport operation. It abuts 72nd Avenue S. on the west, the UP Railroad on the east, and S. 277th St. on the south. SR 167 is adjacent to 72nd Avenue S. farther west. Alaskan Copper Works is located north of the site. The property is generally flat. A majority of the property is paved, but there is a wetland inventoried on the northwestern portion of the property. Property to the north is zoned M2 (Limited Industrial). Property to the west, across SR 167, is zoned AG (Agricultural General). Property to the east, across the railroad tracks, lies within unincorporated King County, is zoned A-10, Agriculture, and is part of the Lower Green Agricultural Production District. Property to the south, across S. 277th Street, is within the City of Auburn and is zoned M1, Light Industrial. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/M2 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing and warehousing uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains I (Industrial) and Zoning Districts Map is changed to M1-C 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The intersection of 72nd Avenue S., SR 167, and S. 277th Street is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation, and employment growth could occur. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 5. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 10 11 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) 1. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile- oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses; manufacturing and warehousing uses are not allowed in the GC zoning district. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. A4. East Valley Highway and S. 212Lh Street. Maintain Land Use Plan Map designation of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and change Zoning Districts Map designation for 14 parcels totaling approximately 86.8 acres from M2 (Limited Industrial) to MI-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 012204-9045; 122204-9002, -9063, -9068, - 9075, -9080, -9088, -9090, -9091; 631500-0420, -0421, -0422, -0440, -0460 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial No Change Center Zoning Districts M2 (Limited Industrial) M1-C (Industrial CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 11 12 Map Park/Commercial) Furthermore, for parcel numbers 122204-9075 and -9080, remove the split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations by changing the portions of the parcels designated C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). Existing uses on the property are industrial including warehousing and outdoor storage. The property abuts 84t" Avenue South on the east, the BN railroad tracks on the west and S. 2121" Street on the south. The property is generally flat. There are inventoried wetlands within the area. A majority of the property is paved. Property to the north is zoned M2 (Limited Industrial). Property to the west, across the railroad tracks, is zoned M3 (General Industrial), and to the east is zoned GWC (Gateway Commercial). See also B3, below. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain MIC/M2, as well as have split designations 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing and warehousing uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to M1-C. The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The intersection of S. 212t" Street and East Valley Highway is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 12 13 5. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 - Same as Option 1, except Parcel Numbers 631500- 0420, -0421, -0422, -0440, -0460 would not be considered for amendments 1. The excepted properties are located farther away from the intersection and would remain industrial in character. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. B. STAFF PROPOSALS - Eliminate certain zoning districts, simplify, consolidate. B1. Eliminate the Office (0) Zone, including O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) B1.a: East Hill North: Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for 39 parcels totaling approximately 36.82 acres from O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 101100-0010, -0015, -0020, -0025; 172205- 9015, -9079, -9084, -9130, -9178; 202205-9004, -9047, -9068, - 9091, -9098, -9099, -9112, -9117, -9120, -9121, -9133, -9208; 414163-0000; 783080-0268, -0269, -0270, -0271, -0273, -0275, - 0289, -0290, -0291, -0292, -0293, -0299, -0430, -0431, -0432, - 0433, -0450 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MU (Mixed Use) No Change Zoning Districts 0 (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed CC-MU (Community Map Use) Commercial/Mixed Use) Furthermore: • Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of O (Office)/CC (Community Commercial) for Parcel Number 783080-0006 so that the entire parcel is zoned CC. • Change the split MU (Mixed Use) and SF8 (Single Family Residential)/O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-8 (Single Family Residential) Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 13 14 designations for Parcel Numbers 783080-0294, -295 and -0425 so that the entire parcels are MU/CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). • Maintain the split MU (Mixed Use) and LDMF (Low Density Multifamily Residential) Land Use Plan Map designation for Parcel Number 202205-9066 and change the Zoning Districts Map designation for a portion of the parcel from O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Existing uses on the properties are generally office and service uses, with scattered single family residential and senior or assisted living housing. The spine of the properties is 1041" Avenue SE, although there are portions around the intersection of 100t" Avenue SE and SE 2401" Street and there is a portion of the Kent-Meridian High School property also proposed for change in designation. The area has mild slopes. There are some scattered wetlands inventoried in the area. Single and multiple family residential as well as commercial uses and zoning surround the properties. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain MU/0 or O-MU, as well as have split designations 1. The parcels would be retained for office and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated redevelopable parcels in this area that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. The East Hill North area can provide opportunities for increased commercial uses and small business development. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 14 15 Option 2 - Land Use Plan Map remains MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to CC (Community Commercial). The split designations would also be resolved by changing the designations to CC rather than CC-MU. 1. The CC zoning district does not allow mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. B1.b: East Hill South: Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for 53 parcels totaling approximately 56 acres from O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 116400-0100, -0110; 221570-0000; 292205- 9005, -9006, -9064, -9065, -9068, -9083, -9084, -9086, -9087, -9088, -9094, -9101, -9102, -9107, -9114, -9127, -9143, -9169, -9174, -9175, -9185, -9190, -9233, -9234, -9235, -9245, -9252, -9274, -9304, -9333, -9334; 292205-UNKN; 667310-0005, - 0010, -0015, -0020, -0025, -0030, -0035, -0040; 883040-0005, -0007, -0011, -0010, -0012, -0013, -0015, -0020, -0030, -0031 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MU (Mixed Use) No Change Zoning Districts O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed CC-MU (Community Map Use) Commercial/Mixed Use) Furthermore: • Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the following parcels with split Zoning Districts Map designations from O (Office) and CC (Community Commercial) to CC: o 292205-9044, -9117, -9192, -9250 Existing uses on the properties are generally office and service uses, single and multiple family residential, churches and schools. The properties are generally located south of Kent-Kangley Road. The area has mild slopes. There are streams or scattered wetlands inventoried in the area. Single and multiple family residential or other commercial zoning and uses surround the properties. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain MU/0 or O-MU, as well as have split designations 1. The parcels would be retained for office and service uses. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 15 16 Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated redevelopable parcels in this area that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. The East Hill South area can provide opportunities for increased commercial uses and small business development. 6. See also Docket #DKT-2014-6, above. Option 2 — Land Use Plan Map remains MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to CC (Community Commercial). The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. The CC zoning district does not allow mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. Option 3 — Same as Option 1 except in addition to the parcels with split Zoning Districts Map designations, the following parcels would also be zoned CC (Community Commercial): Parcels 116400-0100, -0110; 292205-9094, -9169, -9190 1. These parcels are immediately adjacent to the CC zoning district. Staff Recommendation: Option 3. B1.c: East Hill East: Change the C (Commercial) Land Use Plan Map designation to MU (Mixed Use) and change the Zoning Districts Map for one (1) parcel totaling approximately 16.5 acres from O (Office) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Number 282205-9164 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 16 17 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) MU (Mixed Use) Zoning Districts O (Office) CC-MU (Community Map Commercial/Mixed Use The property is generally vacant although there is a single family residence and associated buildings at the southern end of the parcel. There are also streams and a large inventoried wetland located on the site. The property abuts Kent Kangley Rd on the north and SE 270th Street on the southwest. Single and multiple family residential uses and zoning generally surround the property, although there are commercial uses and zoning located to the east. Some buildable areas appear to be only on the north and south sides of the property, with sensitive areas in between. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain C (Commercial) and O (Office). 1. The parcel would be retained for office and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map changes to MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from O (Office) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated there may be a redevelopment opportunity on this parcel that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment, although the effect of the wetland and streams has yet to be determined. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC-MU zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. Option 2 — Land Use Plan Map changes from C (Commercial) to split designations of MU (Mixed Use) north of the southernmost CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 17 18 stream and SF6 south of the southernmost stream, and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from O (Office) to a split zoning of CC-MU on the north side of the stream and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) on the south side of the stream. 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated there may be a redevelopment opportunity on this parcel that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment, although the effect of the wetland and streams has yet to be determined. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC-MU zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. 6. The existing residence on the south side of the property is accessed via a residential street to the west. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. B1.d: Valley South: Maintain the C (Commercial) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for two parcels totaling approximately three (3) acres from O (Office) to CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2) Parcel Numbers: 346280-0260; 346280-UNKN EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) No Change Zoning Districts 0 (Office) CM-2 (Commercial Map Manufacturing-2) The larger property is developed with an office building; the small parcel appears to be part of the Green River Trail, although King County is unclear about the parcel ownership. The property abuts Central Avenue South on the west and the Green River on the south. A mixture of commercial and industrial zoning and uses are located north and west of the property and multifamily zoning and uses are located to the east. Property across the Green River to the south is CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 18 19 located within unincorporated King County in the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain C (Commercial) and O (Office). 1. The parcels would be retained for office and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains C (Commercial) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from O (Office) to CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2). 1. The CM-2 zoning district provides areas which combine retail and small-scale, light industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and specialty manufacturing. Office uses are allowed within the CM-2 zoning district. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CM-2 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. B1.e: West Hill: Maintain the NS (Neighborhood Services) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for two (2) parcels totaling approximately .63 acres from O (Office) to NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 282204-9153, -9158 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map NS (Neighborhood Services) No Change Zoning Districts 0 (Office) NCC (Neighborhood Map Convenience Commercial) The southern property zoned 0 (Office) is a health care services office building; the property to the north is a single family residence. The properties abut Military Road on the east. The on-ramp to Interstate 5 is approximately 600 feet to the west of the properties. Single family residential zoning and uses are north, east and west of the site. There CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 19 20 is a gas station just south of the properties. Farther south, across S. 272nd Street, there is a church to the southwest and single family residences to the southeast. Star Lake is approximately 1,000 feet to the southeast. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain NS (Neighborhood Services) and O (Office). 1. The parcels would be retained for office and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains NS (Neighborhood Services) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from O (Office) to NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial). 1. The NCC zoning district provides small nodal areas for retail and personal service activities convenient to residential areas, and ready access to everyday convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. Examples of allowed uses in the NCC zoning district are medical and neighborhood clinics, financial and personal services, grocers, eating and drinking establishments without drive-throughs, gasoline stations, drug stores and florist stops. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment, although the single family residence arguably could change to another use allowed in the zoning district. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The NCC zoning district provides flexibility in allowed uses. 4. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. 5. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. B2. Eliminate the MA (Industrial Agricultural) zoning district 1132a. Valley West: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designations of OS (Open Space) and I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map for 21 parcels totaling over 93.7 acres to M1 (Industrial Park District) Parcel Numbers: 000620-0011, -0017, -0020, -0025, - 0027, -0034; 102204-9016, -9021, -9024, -9027, -9153, - CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 20 21 9176, -9191, -9196, -9217; 112204-9014, -9025, -9026, - 9056, -9066, -9075 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map OS (Open Space) and I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts MA (Industrial Agricultural) M1 (Industrial Park) Map Furthermore: • Maintain the split Land Use Plan Map designations of I (Industrial) and MHP (Mobile Home Park) for Parcel 112204-9065 and change the portion of the parcel with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). • Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of OS (Open Space) for Parcels 112204-9073, -UNKN and 000620- 0005 and -0018, and change the portion of the parcels with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). • Parcel Number 000620-0023: Change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of MR-G (Garden Density Multifamily) and MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). This is a publicly-owned parcel just north of Veterans Drive. The area is predominantly the Green River Natural Resource Area, other publicly-owned park and open space or vacant properties. However, there are single family residences along Russell Road, as well as animal care and industrial agricultural uses in the area. There are wetlands inventoried in the area. South 2121" Street is located at the northern boundary of the area, the Green River/Russell Road is to the west, 641" Avenue South to the east, and the MA zoning district generally has its southern boundary at the electrical power right of way that runs east/west. Russell Road is designated a scenic and recreational road and is a limitation on the intensity of industrial uses that have access to that road. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain OS (Open Space)/I (Industrial) and MA (Industrial Agricultural). 1. The parcels would be retained for industrial agricultural uses. Option 1 - Land Use Plan Map remains OS (Open Space)/I (Industrial) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). The split designations would also be changed as noted above. 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the environmental amenities are protected through a high level CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 21 22 of development standards. It is unlikely the nature of publicly-owned properties would change. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate significant redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The M1 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. The Economic Development Plan supports small business entrepreneurs. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. 1132b. Valley North: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designations of OS (Open Space) and change the Zoning Districts Map for one (1) parcel totaling 6.78 acres and the portion of Parcel 000020-0043 that abuts this parcel to M1 (Industrial Park District) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0044 and portion of 000020- 0043 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map OS (Open Space) No Change Zoning Districts MA (Industrial Agricultural) M1 (Industrial Park) Ma The parcel is developed as Briscoe Park and the adjacent parcel is vacant public property and open space that abuts the Green River. Industrial development is located to the east. A multi-use master planned development called Tukwila South is planned for the areas on the opposite side of the Green River. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain OS (Open Space) and MA (Industrial Agricultural). 1. The parcels would be retained for industrial agricultural uses, although it is unlikely the park would be redeveloped. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains OS (Open Space) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 22 23 environmental amenities are protected through a high level of development standards. However, it is unlikely the publicly-owned park and open space would redevelop into industrial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The M1 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. However, it is unlikely the public open space and park would redevelop into industrial uses. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. 1132c. Valley South: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of OS (Open Space) and change the Zoning Districts Map for 5 parcels totaling approximately 12.7 acres and the portion of Parcels 242204-9085 and -9178 that are zoned MA to AG (Agricultural General) Parcel Numbers: 242204-9108, -9176; 252204-9001, - 9008, -9022; and portions of 242204-9178 and -9185 that are zoned MA EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map OS (Open Space) No Change Zoning Districts MA (Industrial Agricultural) AG (Agricultural Map General) The parcels are publicly-owned, partially developed for fish habitat, and planned for park use. The area lies west of SR-167 and is otherwise generally surrounded by the Green River. To the north are general commercial uses. Properties across the river are in large part agricultural uses. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain OS (Open Space) and MA (Industrial Agricultural). 1. The parcels would be retained for industrial agricultural uses, although it is unlikely the publicly-owned properties would be redeveloped. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains OS (Open Space) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from MA (Industrial Agricultural) to AG (Agricultural General). CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 23 24 1. The AG zoning district provides for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. However, it is unlikely the publicly-owned park and open space would redevelop into these types of uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. Although the AG zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses, it is unlikely the public open space and proposed park area would redevelop into other uses. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. B3. Eliminate the Gateway Commercial (GWC) zoning district. Change the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map for 62 parcels totaling approximately 82 acres from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 072205-9010, -9023, -9026, -9096, -9101; 122204-9006, -9007, -9028, -9040, -9048, -9049, -9052, - 9065, -9068, -9071, -9073, -9082, -9087, -9094, -9095; 132204-9001, -9354, -9355; 182205-9009, -9355, -9356, - 9357; 383000-0005, -0007, -0014, -0020, -0023; 775780-0010, -0020, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0035, -0041, -0042, -0043, -0044, -0055, 0060, -0070, -0071, -0074, -0090, -0091, -0094, -0100, -0102; 775980-0010, -0020, -0021, -0022, -0023, -0030, - 0031, -0032, -0033, -0035 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) I (Industrial) Zoning Districts GWC (Gateway Commercial) M1-C (Industrial Map Park/Commercial Furthermore: • Parcel Number 072205-9010: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M2 (Limited Industrial) • Parcel Numbers 122204-9001: Change Land Use Plan Map designations of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 24 25 designation of M2 (Limited Industrial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 122204-9080 and -9075: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designations of C (Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and change portion of parcel with Zoning Districts Map designation of GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M2 (Limited Industrial) • Parcel Numbers 383000-0006, -0015, -0021, -0022, 122204- 9107 and 775980-0040: Change portion of parcels with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/ GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M3 (General Industrial) • Parcel Number 775780-0072: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/Gateway Commercial to I (Industrial)/CM-1 (Commercial Manufactu ring-1) • Parcel Number 775780-0080: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change portion of parcel with Zoning Districts Map designations of GWC (Gateway Commercial) and CM-1 (Commercial Manufactu ring-1) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 775780-0101: Change Land Use Plan Map designations of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map designations of M2 (Limited Industrial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 072205-9024: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map designations of GWC (Gateway Commercial to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). This parcel still would have split designations. Furthermore, changing the GWC zoning district may require amendment to KCC 15.04.020 and .030 regarding Group Homes Class III for Secure Community Transition Facilities, allowing them in the newly-designated zoning districts within the same boundaries as the previous GWC (Gateway Commercial) district. The Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning District was established in 1989 as a result of the Valley Floor Subarea Plan and East Valley Zoning Study and applied to areas along East Valley Highway (aka 84th Avenue South). The GWC zoning district was designed to create unique, unified streetscapes, encourage mixed use developments, recognize the significance of the automobile, provide commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular corridors yet avoid highway strip commercial development. The market has never caught up with the vision for the area and would suggest alternative uses. Existing uses CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 25 26 include a mixture of warehouse/distribution, truck and auto repair, restaurants and taverns, apartments, offices, hotels, medical and other uses. The spine of the area is 84t" Avenue South, extending generally from S. 212t" Street on the north to SR 167 on the south. The area is surrounded by the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, although to the southeast is Commercial Manufacturing-1 and a mobile home park. There are inventoried wetlands in the area. See also A4, above. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain C (Commercial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial). 1. The parcels would be retained for mixed use/residential, small scale industrial, retail and services with no outdoor sales, storage or display. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map changes from C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and the Zoning Districts Map changes from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). The split-zoned parcels would also be amended as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the surrounding industrial area. The spine of 84t" Avenue South is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated vacant and redevelopment opportunities on parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have not had the market support, and the market would in fact support alternative uses. The Gateway Commercial zone is has been difficult to develop. The M1-C zoning would allow industrial uses but also provide flexibility for additional uses to serve the industrial area. 4. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 5. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 6. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 26 27 7. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 - Land Use Plan Map changes from C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and the Zoning Districts Map changes from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to the abutting zones of M2 (Limited Industrial) and M3 (General Industrial) west of 84th Avenue South, and CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) and M2 (Limited Industrial) east of 84t" Avenue South. 1. This option expands the industrial land area within the city on the west side of 841" Avenue South, and on the east side expands allowable commercial uses. 2. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 3. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 4. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 1, with a Zoning Districts Mae amendment for Parcel 775980-0021 from GWC to M-3. C. Eliminate inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map C1. Vista Landing: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation from SF4.5 to SF6 to correspond with the Zoning Districts Map designation of SR-6. Parcel No. 292205-9211 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map SF4.5 (Single Family Residential) SF6 (Single Family Residential Zoning Districts SR-6 (Single Family Residential) No change Ma The timing of the Vista Landing Rezone application (RPP4-2063517) and the planning project to reconcile single family zoning and land use plan map designations (RPP6-2065041) created a discrepancy in the maps. Ordinance No. 3842 passed June 5, 2007 was the result of the CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 27 28 long-range planning project to ensure Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations were the same. The Land Use Plan Map designation for Parcel no. 292205-9211 changed from SF6 to SF4.5. Two months later, Ordinance No. 3855 passed on August 7, 2007 rezoned the parcel from SR-4.5 to SR-6; at the time of application the parcel had a Land Use Plan Map designation of SF-6. Changing the Land Use Plan Map designation back to SF6 will reconcile the discrepancy. The Vista Landing Subdivision to create 13 single family residential lots on the parcel was approved in 2007, has not yet been recorded, and will expire March 17, 2017 unless recorded. OPTIONS: Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map would change to SF6 (Single Family Residential). 1. The maps would correct the discrepancy created from project timing anomalies. Staff Recommendation: Option 1 C2. Fern Crest: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 251701-0060, -0070, and -0760 should be designated SF8 and SR-8 on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps respectively. • Tract L of Fern Crest Division 2 should be designated Urban Separator/SR-1. • Parcel 152205-9085 and -9168 should be designated entirely Urban Separator/SR-1. EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map SF8 (Single Family Residential) and Refine boundaries of US (Urban Separator) the designation Zoning Districts SR-8 (Single Family Residential) and Refine boundaries of Map SR-1 Residential Agricultural) the designation This is generally a housekeeping amendment to reconcile the map designations. There are steep slopes immediately east of the Fern Crest subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C3. Megan's Meadow: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 28 29 • Parcel Numbers 543760-0030 through -0090 and 543760-0160 and the adjacent access tracts should be designated SF6 (Single Family Residential) and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps respectively. EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map SF4.5 (Single Family Residential) SF6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning Districts SR-6 (Single Family Residential) No Change Ma This is generally a housekeeping amendment to reconcile the map designations. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C4. Maplewood Grove: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 512698-0000 which has a Land Use Plan Map designation of MU (Mixed Use) and a Zoning Districts Map designation of MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) should be deemed consistent: o Correct Table 4.1 in the Land Use Element to allow MRT-16 zoning as implementation of MU. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C5. West Hill - 46th Avenue South: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 677780-0010 through -0050: The Land Use Plan Map designation of MDMF and a Zoning Districts Map designation of MR-D (Duplex Multifamily Residential) should be deemed consistent: o Correct Table 4.1 in the Land Use Element to allow MR-D zoning as implementation of MDMF. The properties are developed with duplexes. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C6. Bonel Mobile Manor: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 29 30 • Parcel Number 232204-9052: Change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of MHP (Mobile Home Park) and GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) to MHP in its entirety. EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MHP (Mobile Home Park) No Change Zoning Districts MHP (Mobile Home Park) and GC-MU MHP (Mobile Home Ma General Commercial/Mixed Use Park This is generally a housekeeping amendment to reconcile the map designations. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C7. Frager Rd South Right of Way: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations so that the right-of-way is not designated A-10 (Agricultural). A-10 is a zoning district typically reserved for properties which are part of the King County Agricultural Production District or whose development rights have been purchased by King County. EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map AG-S (Agricultural Support) No Change Zoning Districts A-10 (Agricultural) AG (Agricultural Map General) This is generally a housekeeping amendment to reconcile the map designations. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C8. Central Avenue South: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 918370-2430: Change the Zoning Districts Map to CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2) to be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial). EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) No Change Zoning Districts SR-6 (Single Family Residential) CM-2 (Commercial Map Manufacturin -2 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 30 31 The property is currently being used for auto repair, up to the point it abuts the hillside of East Hill, above which are single family residential developments. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C9. Scenic View Condos: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 758070-0000: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation to MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) to be consistent with the Zoning Districts Map designation of MR-H (High Density Multifamily Residential). EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) Zoning Districts MR-H (High Density Multifamily) No Change Map The property is currently developed as the Scenic View Condos. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C10. Earthworks Park: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 292205-9322: Change the Zoning Districts Map designation for a portion of the parcel from MR-G (Low Density Multifamily Residential) and SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map. EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map OS (Park and Open Space) No Change Zoning Districts MR-G (Low Density Multifamily SR-4.5 (Single Family Map Residential) and SR-4.5 (Single Residential) Family Residential) This housekeeping amendment resolves what appears to be a mapping error. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 31 32 C11. 1161h Avenue SE and SE 274 Wy: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 322205-9001 and -9205: Change the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for a portion of the parcels from SF4.5/SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential). EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map SF4.5 and SF6 (Single Family SF6 (Single Family Residential Residential Zoning Districts SR-4.5 and SR-6 (Single Family SR-6 (Single Family Map Residential) Residential This is a housekeeping amendment to resolve split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations. The properties are publicly owned, include a storm water detention area, trees and sensitive areas. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C12. North Central Commercial: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of MU (Mixed Use) and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations as follows: • Parcel Number 132204-9018, -9108, and -9113: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations from M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) to GC-MU for the entire parcel. • Parcel Number 132204-9052 and -9221: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations from M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC (General Commercial) to GC for the entire parcel. This area includes single family and multiple family developments, a mini-warehouse facility, a commercial parking lot and a vacant parcel. Sensitive areas are located within the area. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C13. 10Ot—" Avenue SE and SE 24O1h Street: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation of LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) to CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 32 33 MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) to be consistent with the zoning designation of MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) on the following parcels: Parcel Numbers: 172205-9027, -9088, -9092, -9110, -9133, - 9134, -9142, -9146, -9147, -9149, -9150, -9153, -9160, -9216; 365740-0000 (365740-0010 through -0100) Multifamily development exists in this area. Staff Recommendation: Approval. In the review of the above amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text, and the amendments to the Zoning Districts Map, staff considered the standards of review for comprehensive plan amendments (KCC 12.02.050), and for granting a request for rezone and rezoning to M1-C (KCC 15.09.050(C) and (D)). As noted in the comments for each amendment above and considering the January 30, 2015 memorandum from Fehr and Peers finding no significant effects on the performance of the overall transportation system, staff found the proposed amendments meet the standards of review, as proposed to be amended below pertaining to granting rezones to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). CODE AMENDMENTS D. Broaden allowed uses in industrial zones to include supportive retail and commercial activities. The Kent Zoning Code describes uses that are allowed in the industrial zoning districts (M1, M2, and M3). In the M1 (Industrial Park District), the allowed uses generally include manufacturing, wholesale distribution, retail and service uses such as restaurants, financial, business and educational services. In the M2 (Limited Industrial District) the service uses are limited to 25% of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. In the M3 (General Industrial), the uses are generally limited to only manufacturing and wholesale distribution. Furthermore, there are areas in the M1 district that are designated M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) where additional retail and service uses are allowed, e.g., auto repair and drive-through food and drink establishments. The purpose of the M1-C zoning district is to allow certain limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The M1-C designation typically occurs at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials intersect. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 33 34 Staff proposes the following amendments: • Broaden the uses in the M1, M2 and M3 areas such that manufacturing and warehousing uses are allowed to sell the product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or warehousing use on the site. • Clarify KCC 15.04.080(5) as follows: o Uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five (25) percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. For example, in the case of a business park with several buildings, 25% of the buildings' combined floor area may be devoted to these retail and service uses. For single building parcels, 25% of the floor area of the single building may be devoted to these retail and service uses. • Broaden the uses allowed in M1-C such that grocery stores would be allowed without a size limitation. Also allow tire, battery and accessory sales for both industrial or personal vehicles and equipment. E. Standards Of Review - KCC 12.02.050 and KCC 15.09.050(C) and Staff proposes to amend #6b of the Zoning Districts Map Amendment criteria as shown below. Land Use Plan Map Amendments (KCC 12.02.050) 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 34 35 concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Zoning Districts Map Amendments (KCC 15.09.050(C) and (D)) 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. S. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. 6. Furthermore, for rezones to M1-C: a. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as being appropriate locations for commercial-type land uses. b. Except for city-wide mapping proposals, rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. F. Community Commercial-Mixed Use Code Amendments 1. 15.02.260 Mixed use development definition and 15.04.200 Site coverage for the CC-MU overlay a. Add a provision that for parcels two acres or less in size, the gross floor area of the commercial component in the CC-MU zoning district may be a minimum of five percent rather than twenty-five percent. i. This provision creates viability for a mix of uses on small parcels. 2. 15.04.200 Design Review for CC-MU overlay a. Clarify that Mixed-Use Design Review is required, as noted in the development standards of 15.04.190. G. Secure Community Transition Facilities Amend KCC 15.04.020 by creating a line item for Secure Community Transition Facilities, with a note #24, allowing them as a Conditional Use Permit in the portions of the zoning districts that replace the GWC (Gateway Commercial) zoning district boundaries through the proposed Zoning Districts Map amendments detailed under B3., above. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 35 36 Amend 15.04.030(23) as follows: Secure community transition facilities are permitted only On the GWC zening distriet. within the boundaries depicted on the following map (Insert map depicting former GWC boundaries). I -- LI �3 Q.... SI- y�7r . .s 2LI I tr— W ,_ -- } i — x 4r29St. Amend 15.04.030(24) as follows: 24. allowed ;n +hoo,,,,,; diStFiGt A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 36 37 subject to a six hundred (600)foot separation from any other class II or III group home. In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of six hundred (600)feet to be"within line of sight." During the conditional use permit process for a secure community transition facility, "line of sight' may be considered to be less than six hundred (600)feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than six hundred (600)feet. This distance shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings,from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state-wide, regional, or county-wide nature. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of proposed code amendments. CA/ah Attachments: Docket Applications;Maps;January 30,2015 memorandum from Fehr and Peers s:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlan Update\LU PB\042115_LU PB_Hearing—Map—and Text—Amendments ca.doc cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Kurt Hanson,AICP, Economic Development Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Project File CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 37 38 39 DKT-2014 -4 Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for parcel (768280-0195) located at 2526 S 272"d Street. Cx r m,. a �® r nn ng, ery cep Location:400 W:Gowe Mail=to:220 4th Avenue South Kent;;WA'98032-5895 Permit Center(253);856-5302 FAX,.(253) 856=6412 ' ENT www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcdnter .WASMINGTON PLANNING SERVICES to the Co sPlan Please'print in black ink only. Re and Development gulations Application Name: UT-2 014A Docket#: OFFICE USE ONLYC� IM Date Application Received: r c�-� Received by: -a Applicant: nn Q66 S Nj—b S1 Name: 'JC S 4 'S1 Atct-l(t Sako&Daytime Phone:,904-1(1 -32) o Mailing Address: D D Fax Number: City/State/Zip: 19_eyl]s.M WA (3 Signature: Professional License No: E-mail: A,La6ese nAaf L•Coiq Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from ppli nt) Name: Daytime Phone: Mailing Address: Fax Number: City/State/Zip: E-mail: Signature Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the suggested change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the relevant criteria listed below: • Detailed statement of the proposal and reason • How the change would be compliant with the for the amendment; Growth Management Act; • Anticipated impacts of the change, including • How the change would be compliant with the the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies; and presented; How functional plans (e.g. subarea plans, utility • Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g. development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program) support effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change. E? ' a-(e- 'e-e- GL _ eelu -�: 2 1lU 8 c r eT'5 e0ro q eXI and zo so Q b 5o &e Ae� LI be RECEIVED SEP 0 2 2014 GHl-2 PSD4098•6/30/08 p.]of 3 CITY OF KENT PERMIT CENTER 41 PK ENTERPRISES GENE DEC 3® 2014 City of Kent CI OF K NT 2014 Economic&Community Development EC AM,20 E 400 West Gowe Street COMMUNj-�y Kent, WA 98032 RE: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Re-Zone) of Subject Property Located at 2526 S. 272"d Street, Kent,WA 98032 (Singh Property) Dear Staff: On behalf of Mr. Baljit Singh and Mr. Paul Sahota, PK Enterprises is formally requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Re-Zone) from High Density Multi-Family (MRT-16) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) at the abovementioned property. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 768280-0195 and it lies within the SE Quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., Washington. The site is approximately 2.32 gross acres (101,059 SF) and is located along a high traffic corridor with immediate access to 1-5 in both directions. There is a transit facility (Park-and-Ride) to the east of the property (across S. 270'h Street). The proposal would allow a mix of retail uses (i.e. gas station, other transit-oriented uses, office, etc.)--Ideal for the current conditions/uses at the property. The proposal does not preclude high-density residential development (condominium, townhome, etc.) from being developed which is the original intent of the current zone. Once a year, the City Council reviews proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The basis for approval is the general welfare and consistency of the change within the community. In doing so, the council will review the underlying zoning and will be required to revise (as needed) with the new land use designation. This proposal will require a new zoning designation from high density residential to a commercial/mixed-use: Therefore; the following is information in support of the action-for council to consider in their decision based on Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 15.09 that is most applicable to this request. KCC 15.09.C.—Standards and Criteria for Granting a requested Re-Zone. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Response: The proponent has made a request for the property to be re-classified to Community Commercial/Mixed Use. Thus, the re-zone request would be consistent with the new comprehensive plan designation. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site will be compatible with the development in the vicinity. Response: Again, the proposed comprehensive plan/re-zone will be compatible with development in the immediate vicinity. There is adjoining high-density development to the west and across S. 272"d Street—a use allowed under the new zone. 23035 SE 263R° STREET • MAPLE VALLEY, WA • 98038 PHONE: (206) 227.7445 - PKENTERPRISES_MVQCOMCAST.NET 42 Additionally, the presence of the Park-and-Ride with many users is perfect for providing transit-oriented commercial uses at the site. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Response: S. 270th Street serves the Park-n-Ride and is controlled by an existing signal (with S. 272"d Street). Given the topographical conditions ingress and egress to the site will be from S. 27oth Street, thus, there would not be direct access onto S. 272"d Street— a more highly traveled road with freeway traffic. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan/re-zone would not adversely affect the existing traffic conditions once the property is developed. (Note: At the time a building permit is sought, the circulation pattern will be reviewed further by staff to insure any impacts are reviewed and mitigated for before moving forward.) 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Response: The current zone restricts the development on the property to only high- density residential. The costs for development are increasingly going higher and it is not feasible to only have residential development at the site. The applicant has been approached by end-users in support of commercial development, which would help offset the costs of development. Therefore, the new land use designation provides more flexibility and an opportunity for the owners to improve the property more successfully. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city. Response: The request meets the intent of this provision in the city code. KCC 15.09.E.—Rezone to Mixed Use Overlay. 1. The proposed rezone is contiguous to an existing mixed use overlay or is at least one (1) acre in size. Response: The property is 2.32 acres, thus, it meets this requirement. 2. The proposed area located within close proximity to existing residential uses and existing commercial uses which would support residential use. Response: There is high-density residential to the south and west of the site. Furthermore, there are existing commercial uses to the west and east(opposite side of 1- 5) that support not only the immediate community, but also travelers along this busy corridor. The proposed comprehensive plan/re-zone will provide the opportunity for new businesses to support the existing conditions in the area. 3. The proposed area is located in close proximity to transit stops, parks and community facilities. Response: As stated before, the Park-and-Ride is adjacent to the site. 2 43 The following is a list of persons involved with this project: Owners: Mr. Baljit Singh 16850 International Blvd. South SeaTac, WA 98188 206.841.6264 Mr. Paul Sahota 16906 SE 180t' Place Renton, WA 98058 206.793.3380 Consultant: PK Enterprises 23035 SE 263`d Street Maple Valley, WA 98038 206.227.7445 Contact: Phillip Kitzes Enclosed is an exhibit that depicts what is possible at the property with the new land use designation. We appreciate all your time and effort to review this material. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 206.227.7445. Sincerely, PK ENTERPRISES PHILLIP KITZES Enclosure CC Mr. Baljit Singh, Owner Mr. Paul Sahota, Owner 3 44 • � V �� � -� i 1` 1:� �— ►ter,_,- • E -- - - --- _ -- A­ ------------ f-J - - _ -- _� _ ----- GAS STATIC I \ • -4w 1 • - STORMI UWDER uj Lu ir #1 1 ETAIL Or CNI RETAIL 0 Ao OIFICE/REIAILIMULTI,FAMILY MIXED USE:OFFICE/RETAIL I MULTI-FAMILY !@� / V@ V:Sr Syr • .7@ � �� �� r 40 ' �O@i. .�#i;Ov.!@�@f::.e e� �4• ; .f°d;/@��4!. �•J@. �. - -`"+r.�e_�-f-��- y-r. AL pt Pill 1 / \ T.... /: .-1/i r.H[ _. __.—--- - f•UIMUf7 - flit LY( 45 DKT-2014 -6 Change in Zoning Districts Map designation for three parcels (675670- 0050 and -0060, 282205-9153) located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 116t" Ave SE and Kent Kangley Rd. 46 Location 400 W Gowe g Mall to:220 4th Avenue South m Kent,WA 98032 5895 Permit Ceni`er(253)856 5302 FAX (23)856 6412 uvwuv kent wa uslpermitcenter' w , a.: PLANNING SERVICES ' ompo ens, an to ®easy p�®n� on ack in ®a®y. e t Reg Mat and Dev ' lopmen U Mons Application Name:___ 7 Docket - . ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY Date Application Received:OFFICE USE Received by: Applicant: Name: Marty Jones, Project Manager,The Velmeir Companies Daytime Phone: (206)455-1756 Mailing Address: 5757 West Maple Road Fax Number: City/State/Zip: West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Signature: Professional License No: E-mail: mio es[velmeir.com Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant) Name: Nick Wecker, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Daytime Phone: (425)656-7469 Mailing Address: 1821572nd Avenue South Fax Number: City/State/Zip: Kent,WA 98032 E-mail: nwecker@barghausen.com Signature ') :A/ Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the suggested.change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the relevant criteria'listed below: Detailed statement of the proposal and reason How the change would be compliant with the for the amendment; Growth Management Act; Anticipated impacts of the change, including How the change would be compliant with the "the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies;and presented; How functional plans (e.g.subarea plans, utility Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g. development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program) support effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change. Please refer to the enclosed Written Statement with Findings GHI-2 PSD4098.6/30/08 p.1 of 3 47 WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH FINDINGS Request for: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment(Rezone) Parcels: 675670-0060 675670-0050 282205-9153 August 2014 PROJECT SCOPE The project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue S.E. in Kent, Washington. The property consists of three (3) parcels; two (2) parcels are zoned Office-Mixed Use and one (1) parcel is zoned for Single Family Residential. According to the King County Assessors Report, two of the three parcels are currently vacant while the remaining lot contains a 1,600 square foot single-family residence. The project consists of a 14,500 square foot retail pharmacy with drive-through service and adjacent surface parking for 60 vehicles. The project proposes to utilize two driveways including full access to 116th Avenue S.E. and limited right-in/right-out access to Kent-Kangley Road. It is our understanding that the current zoning of the property disallows commercial retail uses. Additionally, one of the parcels (282205-9153) is designated as Residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The project proposes to consolidate the three parcels, expand the Mixed Use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and rezone the property to Community Commercial. This zoning allows retail with drive-through uses and supports the City's vision for the area, as represented in the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. DOCKET CRITERIA A. Detailed Statement of the proposal and reason for the amendment Response: The applicant requests a Map Amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan by expanding the Mixed Use designation at the northeast corner of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue to include parcel 282205-9153. This would allow the northeast corner property to handle the size and capacity of retail uses such as the proposed CVS pharmacy. Additionally, the applicant requests a Rezoning of the subject parcel 282205- 9153, from Residential (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC). The request for Map Amendment and Rezone would allow retail with drive-through uses. B. Anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and issues presented Response: The Kent-Kangley Road corridor between 104th Avenue SE to 124th Avenue SE is one of the most densely populated corridors in the City. The corridor is in close proximity to senior housing and features a substantial amount of multi-family residential housing. This concentration of residential land uses causes a significant amount of pedestrian traffic and transit riders along the corridor. It also creates a large demand for commercial uses 48 that provide a variety of retail necessities within close proximity to densely populated areas that rely on alternative modes of transportation. CVS pharmacy is a neighborhood friendly use offering a variety of goods and services including the dispensing of prescription medicines that provide convenience to the local community. Furthermore,the location of the retail pharmacy would create shorter trips and promote alternative modes of transportation such as walking, cycling, and public transit due to the property's close proximity to the densely populated residences. C. Why existing comprehensive plan and development regulations should not continue in effect or why existing criteria no longer apply Response: The subject property located at the northeast corner of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue has remained vacant for the large part of the last two decades. Recent street widening and frontage improvements to 116th Avenue have made this property a desirable location for higher intensity commercial uses. By expanding the Mixed Use designation to include parcel 282205-9153, this would create property at the northeast corner of Kent-Kangley and 116th Avenue with the proper size and capacity to accommodate retail uses that would utilize the property more efficiently. D. How the change would be compliant with the Growth Management Act Consistency with the Growth Management Act Planning Goals GMA Categories Project Characteristics Urban Growth: encourage The proposed CVS pharmacy project will offer a variety of retail goods development in urban areas and services and provide job opportunities for the area while requiring where adequate public facilities only minimal increased service demand on existing services. With the and services exist or can be widening of 116th Avenue and related frontage improvements, the provided in an efficient manner. intersection will have the necessary capacity to handle the additional vehicular trips and pedestrian trips created by the retail use. The City of Kent's public infrastructure would not be adversely affected by the project. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the The subject property is developable land located along a densely inappropriate conversion of populated corridor within city limits and the County's Urban Growth undeveloped land into Area (UGA). As growth projections in the City become a reality, the sprawling, low-density need for retail services and job opportunities within Kent will increase development proportionately. This project utilizes property that is ideally suited for retail presence due to the proximity to high levels of traffic generated at the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue. Transportation: Encourage Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity- Review of the final site plan will efficient multimodal determine the number and location of pedestrian connectivity to transportation systems that are anticipated frontage improvements; enabling pedestrians to access the based on regional priorities and retail pharmacy from Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue. Bicycle coordinated with county and city traffic will be accommodated onsite through the placement of bicycle comprehensive plans. racks near the entrance of the retail pharmacy. The specific number 49 and locations of these bicycle racks will be determined through subsequent review processes. Public Transit—This section of the Kent-Kangley Corridor is identified in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as a "high boarding area for transit". King County Metro provides multiple bus routes that service the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue (157,159,164, 914). These routes provide frequent, daily service that connects the subject site to the Lake Meridian Park and Ride, downtown Kent, and to other areas of King County. Housing: Encourage the There is no residential component associated with this project. availability of affordable housing However, the nature of services that the retail pharmacy will provide to all economic segments of the would support households of all income groups, and by extension, all population of this state, promote types of housing in the City of Kent. Careers in services retailing, a variety of residential densities whether full-time or part-time, are attractive to a number of age and and housing types, and income demographic cohorts, and the retail pharmacy project would encourage preservation of support a variety of residential densities and housing types. existing housing stock. Economic Development: The level of traffic generated along the Kent-Kangley corridor is a Encourage economic positive factor for driving retail growth within the City. Intersections of development throughout the principal and minor arterials are typically designated as activity centers state that is consistent with where retail uses often thrive and promote a concentration of new adopted comprehensive plans, commercial and mixed uses that can further enhance and develop an promote economic opportunity activity center. The intersection of Kent-Kangley and 116th Avenue is for all citizens of this state, perfectly suited to support an activity center where a new concentration especially for unemployed and of commercial uses can provide services to the densely populated disadvantaged persons, and neighborhoods in the area. encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient In addition to the goods and services, CVS pharmacy brings a national economic growth, all within the brand and solid reputation to the area that the community would capacities of the state's natural support. Furthermore, CVS pharmacy would enhance the intersection resources, public services and of Kent-Kangley and 116th Avenue by helping make the intersection a public facilities. destination for local residents, as opposed to a pass-by location for residents traveling in and out of the City. Property Rights: Private This proposal does not infringe on the rights of the existing property property should not be taken for owners. The retail pharmacy shall serve as a complementary use and public use without just benefit to the nearby residential properties. compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. 50 Permits: Application for both The City of Kent staff has proven to be very helpful and extremely state and local government cooperative throughout the feasibility stage of this project in permits should be processed in determining the development processes for the project; including the a timely and fair manner to specific details of the various entitlements necessary for review. Our ensure predictability. development team looks forward to the progress of the subsequent review processes associated with this project. Natural Resource Industries: The subject property likely does not contain soils suitable for Maintain and enhance resource- agricultural production. Additionally, the site is not designated as based industries, including Agricultural Land or Forest Land in the City of Kent Comprehensive productive timber, agricultural, Plan. The proposed retail pharmacy is a compatible use for the site and fisheries industries. due to the location and proximity to densely populated areas and the Encourage the conservation of substantial traffic generated from Kent-Kangley Road. productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. Open Space and Recreation: The project will not interfere with established or proposed open space Encourage the retention of open and recreational opportunities. space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. Environment: Protect the Pending final site plan approval, the project will provide for the onsite environment and enhance the treatment and storage of stormwater runoff; addressing flow control state's high quality of life, and water quality requirements. including air and water quality, and the availability of water. The project site is located along a principal arterial where exhaust emissions and noise from vehicles traveling on the surrounding road network is present. The project will incorporate site improvements including on-site perimeter and internal landscaping that will be aesthetically pleasing and will enhance the pedestrian environment into and around the site. Citizen Participation and The entitlement process for Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map Coordination: Encourage the Amendment provides opportunity for public comment, staff-level involvement of citizens in the review, formal review at public hearings, and the final decision-making planning process and ensure process by the duly elected or appointed representatives of the coordination between community. communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. 51 Public Facilities and Services: Any quantifiable impacts to existing public facilities and services will be Ensure that those public adequately addressed by plan design and/or improvements, or through facilities and services necessary payment of impact fees and enhanced revenues. to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Historic Preservation: Identify To our knowledge, the project site does not contain any land or and encourage the preservation structures of historical or archaeological significance. of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. E. How the change would be compliant with the Countywide Planning Policies Response: The overarching goal for Development Patterns in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies is that "growth in King County occurs in a compact, centers-focused pattern that uses land and infrastructure efficiently and that protects Rural and Resource Lands". The project site is located within an urban area that contains densely populated neighborhoods and a mix of commercial uses along the Kent-Kangley corridor. The project would utilize vacant land within this urban area and redevelop the property for the establishment of a retail pharmacy. Furthermore, the retail pharmacy would utilize public infrastructure and services that are already in place and with sufficient capacity, including all utilities and existing road network. F. How functional plans (e.g. subarea plans, utility plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g. transportation improvement program) support the change Response: Street and sidewalk improvements were completed along 116th Avenue as part of LID 359 in 2007. The project added traffic lanes, bike lanes, installed public sidewalks, and undergrounded power transmission lines. This effort enhanced the pedestrian environment and allowed the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue to handle additional vehicular traffic more efficiently.The latest version of the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) calls for improvements to Kent- Kangley Road, between 104th Avenue and 124th Avenue, consisting of new mid-block pedestrian crossings and upgrades to the existing crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons. These improvements will supply the necessary public infrastructure to support the retail pharmacy by allowing pedestrians and vehicles to safely access the project site. e� , 52 ���` /s CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING,SURVEYING 1Z Li August 29, 2014 LNG ENG �� HAND DELIVERY (253) 856-5302 ECIFI T E Sharon Clamp Planner 'AUG2 9 201 City of Kent ,_ , 220 4th Avenue South %MCITY 0�1sJiC,ANIt F Vtil A Kent, Washington 98032 q E�C)i�0itil.u1Uwgn1 OE.VE'?OPsa EN Re: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning CVS Pharmacy Project 26046 116th Avenue SE, Kent WA 98030 Our Job No. 16997 Dear Sharon: On behalf of our client, Velmeir Companies, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached application, site plan, and written narrative to initiate the processes as described below: 1. A request seeking a Map Amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, changing the designation of the subject property on the City's Land Use Map, Parcel 282205-9153, from Residential to Mixed Use designation. 2. A request seeking the Rezoning of the subject property (referenced in No. 1 above), changing the zoning from Residential to Community Commercial. Pending approval of these processes, Velmeir Companies is planning to seek approval to construct a 14,500-square-foot CVS Pharmacy with drive-thru at the address referenced above. The project's preliminary site plan (SK-1) outlines the proposed location and building orientation for the retail pharmacy. Additionally, the project would provide site improvements including, but not limited to, on-site landscaping, perimeter landscaping (including buffers for adjacent residential areas), frontage improvements (primarily along Kent-Kangley Road), pedestrian pathways and amenities, asphalt paving, exterior lighting, utility connections and related improvements, plus on-site stormwater/drainage management improvements addressing both water quality and flow control issues. Submittal Packages The following is a list of submittal materials to initiate the concurrent processing of the Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Should any items prove to be missing or if additional documentation is needed, please contact me and I will expedite our response. I can be reached via telephone at (425)656-7469 or via email at nwecker@barghausen.com. 1. One (1) copy of the City of Kent Docket Form for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, completed, signed, and dated 2. One (1) copy of the Written Statement prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., addressing the City's relevant approval criteria 3. Three (3) copies of the 11-x 17-inch Preliminary Site Plan (SK-1) including aerial overlay 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com 53 Sharon Clamp Planner City of Kent 2 August 29, 2014 The applicant understands the timeframe for approvals, but stands ready to provide any assistance and/or additional documentation, plans, reports, or studies deemed necessary for the City of Kent to complete its review in a timely manner. Please keep our team apprised of the review process and subsequent regulatory benchmarks. On behalf of the applicant, I wish to thank the City of Kent for their assistance in preparing a submittal package that will adequately address the requirements of each entitlement process. We look forward to future cooperative efforts to bring these processes to a favorable conclusion. Sincerely, Nick A. Wecker Assistant Planner enc: As Noted cc: Geza de Gall, Velmeir Companies Marty Jones, Velmeir Companies Jay Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dan Goalwin, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Chris Jensen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 54 I CRITERIA CHECKLIST I 1i I, I PROJECT DATA IIi. PROPPSED TRANSFORMER PARKING PROVIDED 60 ( i 1 1. LOCATION PARKING REQUIRED 58 4.0 PER LOGO SQUARE FEET) i / �' I %HIGH\SOLID TO OF WALL �8.0' \' \ I TOP OF WALL = 426:0' LOADING AREA PROVIDED 1 LOADING SPACE 10'X 70' NORTH I I WOOD FENCE �OT.OF W�416.0' -\ t271.63' 1\ OF WALL=416.b' NON-PROTOT PI CAL e DUMPSTER LOG\ \ LOADING AREA REQUIRED 1 LOADING SPACE 45' PRdPOSED I ( \ - LAND INFORMATION FULL;pCCEsS 1 ��•-- C'---- -- -- cvs TOWNSHIP/SEC/RANGE NW-28-22-5 GRAPHIC SCALE I ;� DRIVEWAY I I T 10' ISBL/20�' BSBL\+ I \ PARCEL NUMBERS 675670060,6756700050,2822059153 ima SOUTHERN 14,500-LEFT BOUNDARY SURVEY NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME 0 20 401 --TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME I , ❑ I -, 1ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PHASE 1 NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME CHAMFER DRIVE—THRU GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME _ NEW STORE _ P OF =424.0' STORE NUMBERDETENTION EVALUATION 24,000 CF LIVE STORAGE ONL i ' _ T. OF -416.0'CUT FILL EVALUATION APPROX. 7,800 CY CUT 1 i ' OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS POTENTIAL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG KENT-KANGLEY RD. I I I : (PROPOSED RECEMNG KENT KANGLEY RD&116TH STREET EASEMENTS NOT TITLE REPORT AVAILABLE,POWER-SIGNAL ESMT A CORNER 1 i .•:DOOR,LOCATION.• .• .' . ;_•_ a6 ONE' 1 KENT,WASHINGTON W \ PROXCTTYPE, NEWCONSTFi11CTI0N ZONING INFORMATION I '' ` ••I �16.9' �- `'�• o-. 1 -� DEAL TYPE P�FOR 88INCE EXISTING ZONING 0-MU OFFICE DISTRICT W MIXED USE OVERLAY I � I� -'�)' 'j'I �� pP 30.' 3: ALMA-ENT ZONING RESIDENTIAL I ,� .a•• •••J• *� �'. CS PROJECT NUMBER 844W CONDITIONS OF R¢ONING CONSISTENT WTITI COMP. PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT IN VICINITY 'ol I . .+ � I � I BUILDING HEIGHT LIMB 40 FEET * - - O PLaNrER J �• �'• , OPERATIONS INFORMATION I I I I ` I DRIVE-THRU ALLOWED YES I i I ^•09.00' I I iLp, 1 I FI. 24-HOUR SERVICE ALLOWED YES EX.2-DOMESTIC " BE WINE SALES ALLOWED YES WATER ISERVICE AND ,., MINUTE CLINIC ALLOWED AND PERMITTED USE YES METER PDX, 1 STALL �I I I 5' 4' 18 85• DRIVE- RU SfGNAGE LOCATIONS&REQUIREMENTS BY OTHERS I 3/4'D•EDUCT .IETER I ' WINDOW I LANDSCAPE INFORMATION FOR IRRIGATION II J N m I I f�� y F{ L M E I R 1 • EXTERNAL REQUIREMENTS 10 ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL,5 m ABUTTING STREETS I }}} I 1 1 C O M P A N I E S INTERNAL REQUIREMENTS ,MIN PARKING AREA&ISLANDS AT END OF EACH ROW I I / I 10 �1 � b mwwt MIN.SIZE 100 S ACCESS INFORMATION 1 I ` 3.691 CURB CUT EVALUATION YES Wm�- DECELERATION LANES N A '^I III r`1\• I I 14,500'TYPE A LINES OF SIGHT NO OBVIOUS ISSUE IDENTIFIED I (n III \\ N0 EZZANINE o 0 ENGINEER JURISDICTIONAL CONTROL CITY OF KENT h�7;❑ 1� ! N I —\60 PAR ING SP S I I 1 N �GHA�js STORM &UTILITY INFORMATION N,_^ ! I n \� I• I I I N Q STORM AVAILABILITY YES `�i1.1.. i I 90 2 \ ELECTRIC AVAILABILITY YEs I--III ( SITE �REA = 4,77 --SF I o e - TELEPHONE AVAILABILITY YESUTY ES I C]' 1.72 AC ES 0 2 WATER AVAIlA81LNY YES " I \ EMER CY I 6 n I 12'MAX.HIGH sa Qe• SEWER AVAILABILITY YES I �I I�tn I I I �_ 0 F.F.EL� 4 .0' EGR R 1 BLOCK WALL W/ �r7NC ENG%"' GAS AVAILABILITY S I �I'M I ._ I \ 1 FENCE ON T6'SOLD OP SITE DATA SITE AREA TOTAL SITE AREA= 1.717 ACRES(74,779 S.F.) PERVIOUS AREA 16.548 S.F. li I IMPERVIOUS AREA 58.231 S.F. 78% T Mp CHnECT: MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA BUILDING AREA 14,575 SF BUILDING DENSITY 14,575 SF(M.1 . 11DISTINGiHYDRANT40 I 74,779 S.F.(LOT) I,:.EX.8- " ISIUB ❑i 'P j I 1YATER I MAXIMUM BUILDING DENSITY MAX FAR 0.40.MAX •HAX LOT COVERAGE 40% �� I 1•• 1:TO BE USED FO�t I VVV VVV I uFlRE SEW CE I I \ I 1 SITE PLAN LEGEND II j -' WANSFOPoIFR eoz ON PAD NEAvr Dutt cancRETE J I EX. 6'$EWER STUB I ITO BE SED FOI2 I \ i a• ❑ ' •a-,: _ � \ 1 TOP OF WALL =419.0' n STAHOPAO Wtt ASPHALT � �, 11 n ---EnsnNc WArnc 9a+u � \\� j TO BUI 0 NNE ON I I ,\ ��-_:; ., � �. ". �:�S.Q.<II. _ + OT. OF WALL=416.0 - - -- --- o PLANTER ® NU49FR OF PARKING SPACES HEAVY Wtt ASPHALT b ACCESSULE PARKING SPACES DOT SPEOnCATION ASPHALT I I 10 I ® 1 1J \ TYP. I G .ty j / • ' SEAL• C COVPACT PARKNG SPACES \ - LANDSCAPE PLANER ✓ I M8-11 DEOIERI WJIX ``` \ I - (Hr TRW() _ d1•4 - ��V I ESTRIAN PATH �JI L- -- v -------- `` •a I ''•\ a KRISTAR WATER •� ------ I \\ U-TURNS NOT ) QUALITY MANHOLE \, PROHIBITED I \ 7/ \ 10' LS8�20' B L \ 413.5 \` \r \�(� /\ TYPE 2 C13 r \ ±84.86' •� \ 170'X35'X7'DETENTI 'o PYLON SIGN \\ �\ /�� S•/ WATER DU LT WOOD�°C° REVISIONS/SUBMITTALS: � . CONNECT STORM DRAINAG \ \B� O. I 4' TREAT BRA UNIT - SIGNALI \TO EXISTING 18"STORM *7> STORM WATER \ SS INTERSECTION STUB I \\ \ 4B(\ ' '\ - \ \ � FMTILWORK VOLUMES: m �\ \ N NET CUT:7,800 CY \ !`\ •� \` m < STRIPPINGS(ASSUMES 1'): 2,350 CY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DEAD-END TRANSMISSION \ `�\ `�• LINE POWER POLE e05m ti .. aaa aaaaa �� TIYD ��\ ,O �\ DRAWING BY: dj U-TURNS NOT PROHIBITED 41 DATE: 7-28-14 0.0 J �\• JOB NUMBER: BCE 16997 �� \ \w�•e a \ ,o PROPERTY DEDICATION TITLE: \\n REQUIRED I EX. 18a STORM STIB- //ii1\�1 �. w aaaa=aa \ `' SITE PLAN IX.\10'WATER LINE I 4 L i SHEET NUMBER: I i u U n Il A'pr2 DRIVEWAY: air- �•'a� S K—1 V `�'���'/ �J� Y"�.E,,'� '•tea, \ \\\\�\. v M �' ` ` \ �, •F [�a•aaO\ \\ COMMENTS: e NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION VELMEIR gL 77 'rI ' �M � � ••\ \ \\ `a`t�aaSi `aaa•�•�•Y \\ - __ -►v 55 DKT-2014 - 7 Change in split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for two parcels (775780-0225 and -0222) totaling 1 .6 acres located at 22202 and 22204 88t" Avenue SE. 56 _,_._ 7�_ Sere®cep _ Location:400"W.Gowe Mail to:220 4th Avenue South •Kent;WA'98032=5895 ® Permit Center(253)856-5302 FAX:(253)856-6412 www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter W.ASHINGTON PLANNING SERVICES s Docket Form for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Please print in black ®ask only. Regulationsand Development Application Name: Docket#: 1 -- ( —� OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY Date Application Received: Received by: Applicant: Name: MPR Holdings, LLC Daytime Phone: (253)630-7700 Mailing Address: 15215 S.E. 272nd Street, Suite 201 Fax Nu e . 253 6 -1 4 City/State/Zip: Kent WA 98042 Signature: Professional License No: ---------- E-mail: ran g@eaglecree m A ent/ onsultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant) Name: Daniel K. Balmelli/Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Daytime Phone: (425)251-6222 Mailing Address: 18215-72nd Avenue South Fax Number: (425)251-8782 City/State/Zip: Kent, WA 98032 E-mail: dbalmelli@barghausen.com Signature Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the suggested change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the relevant criteria listed below: • Detailed statement of the proposal and reason • How the change would be compliant with the for the amendment; Growth Management Act; • Anticipated impacts of the change, including • How the change would be compliant with the the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies;and presented; • How functional plans (e.g.subarea plans, utility • Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g. development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program) support effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change. Applicant seeks a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to correct and change the split land use designations on APN 775780-0225 and APN 775780-0222 (Lot 1 Kent SP-77-11 and Lot 2 Kent SP-7711 respectively)from"SF-6"and"I"to the land use designation LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)to reflect the surrounding properties' land use designation of LDMF to the east and south, and correct apparent mapping errors that caused the split land use designations on the subject parcels. (See attached existing Comprehensive Land Use Map of designated area and existing zoning district designation.) Applicant also seeks this mapping change to accommodate Phase II (Units 137 through 154)of a 154-unit town home project complete with its own recreation center. (See attached Site Plan and Elevations of the subject proposed project.) GH1-2 PSD4098•6/30/08 p. 1 of 3 16821.003.pdf 57 Annual Docket Evaluation Criteria For MPR Holdings, LLC Map Amendment 1. Comprehensive Plan text amendment addresses a matter appropriate for inclusion in the comprehensive plan Response: Item does not apply. We are seeking a Map Amendment only. 2. The proposal demonstrates a strong potential to serve the public interest by implementing specifically-identified goals and policies of the comprehensive plan Response: The existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies the area south of S.E. 222"d St and east of 92"d Ave S as predominantly LDMF (Low Density Multi Family) and MDMF (Medium Density Multi Family). The applicant proposed Map Amendment strongly supports this designation and provides for appropriate town-home development consistent with Land Use Goal LU-3 and Policy LU-3.3, which encourages medium and high-density residential development in the Urban Center. The proposed Map Amendment also serves the public interest by eliminating what appears to be a mapping error that imposes split land use designations of "I" (Industrial) and "SR-6" on two individual parcels that are better served by the adjoining land use designation of "LDMF" (Low Density Multi-Family), which allows for town-home and condo development. 3. The proposal addresses the interests and changed needs of the entire city as identified in its long-range planning and policy documents, including the comprehensive plan Response: The proposed Map Amendment will allow for a town-home project to be built in Phases that will provide for housing needs of the city consistent with the Housing Element Goals and Policies noted in the Comprehensive Plan document, specifically, Goal H-2, Policies, H-2.2 and H-2.3. ( Please note the attached site plan and proposed elevation drawings of the town-homes, which also provides for an on-site recreation center amenity for residents of the housing project). 4. The proposal does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the city council. Response: The City is required under GMA to update their Comprehensive Plan in 2015. The proposed Map Amendment is part of the Docket Form process that allows the Council to review appropriate Map Amendments for inclusion in the Comprehensive 58 Plan update. We believe that the applicant's request is appropriate and should be supported by staff and Council under this Docket Form request process. 5. The proposal can be reasonably reviewed within the timeframe of the current annual work program and existing staff and budget resources Response: The Annual Docket Process provides for a timely review of change requests for the required GMA update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This process is currently budgeted and appropriate staff identified to review and recommend suggested changes and present them to the Council for action. We respectfully request that our Map Amendment be approved through this process. 6. The proposal has not been voted on by the City Council in the last three (3) years... Response: The applicants Map Amendment request has not been considered previously, and not within the last three (3) years, by Council. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Standard of Review For MPR Holdings, LLC Map Amendment 1. The Amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare Response: The applicant owns the adjacent property which is designated LDMF and is zoned MRT-16. He will be initiating a town-home development on this property as Phase I under the allowed zoning. Applicant seeks to have the subject smaller parcels designated similarly, through the proposed MAP Amendment, to allow for construction of Phase II of the proposed town-home development. 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan Response: The applicant will be extending S. E. 222"d St to 88th Avenue South (Frontage Road) to serve the town-home project. This new road provides access and also a border between the Land Use LDMF and zone MRT-16 and the existing SF-6 to the proposed north of S.E. 222"d St. This proposed action will correct what we believe to be a 59 mapping error which erroneously designated split land uses of "I" and "SF-6" on each of the two (2) subject parcels. 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community Response: The proposed map amendment will allow for completion of S.E. 222"d St. that will serve the proposed town-home project and provide for future connectively to an additional overpass structure to be constructed over SR 167 if determined necessary and funding provided by the City and State. More importantly, the applicant will be providing affordable town-homes for the residents of the community consistent with the Housing Needs Goals and Policies, specifically, Goal H-5; Policy H-5.1 and Policy H- 5.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Response: The surrounding land use and zoning districts call for low and medium density multi-family development. The land use, zoning, transportation and capital facilities are present .in this location and can serve the Applicant's proposed Map Amendment for the subject smaller two (2) parcels. As noted in "3" above, the applicant is also proposing to extend S.E. 222"d St. and provide for future connectivity to the frontage road along SR 167. i i 60 Z PROCEDURE!NARRATIVE A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A'SOKKIA 3100'TOTAL STATIONTOPCON GF-5,TOPCON PS TOTAL STATION AND A'IDS RANGER'DATA BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: z COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH FIELD NOTES WAS PERFORMED,ESTABLISHING THE I- LLJ PVGULAR,DISANCE.AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS,PROPERTY PARCEL A(TAX LOT No.775780-0758) LINES,AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATLRE5 AS 11111.HEREON.A'UETZ B-2A'AUTOMATIC THAT PORTION OF TRACT 15 OF SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION TO KEM,AS PER PLAT _ LEVEL WAS USED i0 CHECK AND ESTABUSH THE ELEVATION OF BENCHMARKS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: RECORDED IN VOLUME fi OF PLATS,PAGE 52,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, -) N Q CONTROL POINTS.THE RESULTING DATA MELTS OR E%CEEDS THE STANDARDS FOR LANQ WASHINGTON,LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY o BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAC 332-130-090. LEGEND& YR0 U"�NOS) STATE HIGHWAY NO.5 AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No. z ClJ © PPSR YrL4T (TAX LOT No.775780-0225) 5262487. LL DATES OF SURVEYS Lac UV LET C) FOUND REEA4 UP AS NOTED (PER RAIJIER TITLE ORDER NUMBER 661810,GATED NDVEMBER 14.2013) `o U O O FIELD SURVEYS BY BARGHAUSEN CDNSUL7ING ENGINEERS,INC.CONDUCTED DURING Na0{uIIER / ( ) PARCEL 1 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO.SP-T7-11,RECORDED UNDER PARCEL 8(TAX LOT No.775780-0220) FIELD 200E AND APRIL 2014E ALL FOUND SURVEY MONUMENTS INC. SHOWN ARE LABELED I PR,TR PELF +" awe CC"I�L STMON RECORDING NO.7705090838,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. LOT 1 OF POHL NO.2 SHORT PLAT NO.SP-82-9,ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT � o � W RECORDED MARCH 17. 1983 UNDER RECORDING NO.8303170675,IN KING COUNTY, AIWDM BOY.(AS NOTED) " �. 5780-0222 fn VrtiH DATE OF VISITATION. ® �PIM MBE �awsr TAX LOT No. 77 WASHINGTON. F- (PER CHICACO TIRE COMMITMENT NUMBER 0017398-04,DATED MARCH 7.2014) YlASHI G �� � G GHAT/ 0 CAT(N SSSN(a) PARCEL 2,KENi SHORT PLAT NUMBER SP-77-11,RECORDED UNDER RECORDING PARCEL R1 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PND UTILITY PURPOSES ON,OVER AND UNDER A �� 0 W W � HORIZONTAL DATUM-BASIS OF BEARINGS: NA083(91) P S CIXK7FIE _ P �►i F SAw,Rf SWR MA6�(SSIB) NUMBER 7705090838,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STRIP OF LAND 15 FEET IN WIDTH EXTENDING FOR 7.50 FEET ON EACH S1DE OF THE u O ur) SDU"R{01'17'07'WEST,AS MEASURED BETWEEN COY OF KENT HORIZONTAL CONTROL T,T 7a � T� FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE:BEGINNING AT THE INTEP.SECTION OF THE = Q F' W MONUMENTS 8089 AND 896. YY p ® GAS UETFR Gua THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 90 FEET OF THE NORTH 321.08 FEET,AS MEASURED EASTERLY UNE OF SAID FRONTAGE SERVICE ROAD WITH THE NORTH UNE OF SAID ".�ti14�J` DQ GAS vxt{ ALO!JG THE EAST ONE,OF TRACT 22,SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDRtON TO KENT, TRACT 23 OF STUD SHINN'S CLOVERDALE ADDITION,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME x Q 2 a VERTICAL DATUM-NAVD 88 DM BATFR VALVE(n'4 - - WAiFR Ur ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 52, 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 52, RECORDS OF ICING COUNtt,WASHINGTON;' THENCE NORTH -O SHSD.Rf 5-1A R UK_Q RSE H1DPi.NT(FN) - IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,LYING EASTERLY OF THE FRONTAGE SERJiCE ROAD PROJECT BENCHMARK ELEV.=33.73 FEET ® TONS UWNDLE - UK ADJACENT TO SR167,PS.H.NO.4,VALLEY FREEWAY; 89'46'00'EAST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 23 A DISTANCE OF 7.57 ® WATER UDTS(w) - PMEN maws ALSO THE SOUTH 90 FEET OF THE NORTH 321.08 FEET,AS MEASURED ALONG THE FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID CENTER UNE;THENCE SOUTH 1 Z V P(rx)- D,T]aff7D 07'45'39'WEST 195E FEET;'THENCE HE L O7KAV N"WEST US O FEET FEET, THE E, W 4V Z COI'OF KENT VERTICAL BENCHMARK MONUMENT N0.896-TOP OF 4'r 4'CONIC. a SCAN WEST UNE,OF THE WEST 142.01 FEET.AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF pOINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 37 FEET; W N Z MONUMENT W/LEAD P;TACK IN MONUMENT CASE AT INTX.OF SE.228W ST.&88th -// r' FFRCE TRACT 23,OF SAID SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION. AVE.E C THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF S41D CURVE,7HP.OUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF �J AREAS: TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD ON,OVER AND UNDER A STRIP OF LAND 15 1ON48100".AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67-03 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 65'48'00'EAST TO THEFEET W IL WIDSITE BENCHMARK ELEV.=$4.83 FEET APN 775780-0225 = f43,455 SF (t1.0 AC.) CENTERUNE:TM EXTENDING FOR 7.5 FEET EACH 510E OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1,AND THE END OF SAID CENTER UNE. F ?� MAC NAIL w/WASHER(BCE NO.2)SET ON E.SIDE OF 88th AVE.E.IN ASPHALT O 25 50 100 ® 0 ~ Z ORP/EWA1`TO SITE,T N.OF MAILBOX NO.22320E _ APN 7757$0-0222 = f25,887 SF(t0.6D AC.) BEGINNING DIPITH AT NORTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 3ROF SAID SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION; PARCEL C (TAX LOT No.775780 No.SP Y <= z�.h APN 7757$0-0220 = f38,1$O SF(t0.88 AC.) LOT 2 OF POHL NO.2 SHORT PLAT N0.5P-82-9.ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT NOTES: SCALE i--=60" THENCE NORTH 89'46'00'EAST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 23 A DISTANCE RECORDED MARCH 77, 1983 UNDER RECORDING NO.8303170675,IN KING COUNTY, LL APN 775780-0223 = ±172,026 SF (f3.95 AC.) DF 7.57 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID CENTERLINE; WASHINGTON. O 1.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND FEATURES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD THENCE SOUTH 745'39'WEST 195.32 FEET; m 4 OBSERVATION.NO IAWKINGS, DEVELOPMENT PLANS,AND/OR AVAILABLE RECORD APN 775780-0221 = ±3SD,S82 SF (�S.DS AC.) THENCE SOUTH 3B'00'00'WEST TO THE NORTH UNE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL D(TAX LOT No. 775780-0221) - } DOCUMENTS WE REVIEWED.THE TRUE LOCATION.NATURE AND/OR EXISTENCE OF BELOW APN 775780-0155 = ±12,847 SF (t0.30 AC.) PARCEL AND THE END OF THE CENTERINE. TRACTS 28 AND 29 OF SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION TO KENT,AS PER PLAT \ p H GROUND FEATURES,DETECTED OR UNDETECTED,SHOULD BE VERIFIED. RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 52,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. - 2. POWER AND UGHT COMPANY EASEMENT REC.NO.41B6349 IS AN -UGET SOUND (� / IE 18'CONC E=29.27 /;// 'AS CONSTRUCTED'EASEMENT AND IS NOT PLOTTABLE AS DESCRIBED. 'S / IE 18'CONC W=29.94 � e� tE 12-CMP 5=30.89 \ \\\\\\�� FND REM n/CAP SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 'Ta69s/aoo16' Pi7WERSEPOLE• RAVSFORME R PROPANE TANKS - \ \` \ \� j(r 2)WY To: /l1O DROP PCNI{R OFNERATOR /IIII / 1\ \ \\�' ����\\\\V 9' /nEuM' �i���xED RBR.w/CAP'34145• THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IJPP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY UPON WHICH R 6 BISm \r\ '',naJ M1(vd,'�D E ED AS WERE MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIREC11ON AND CORRECTLY REFLECTS THE CONDITIONS OF M+A�X r! A N.. ti"t \\\\\ ` `1 . ` `� ,F 'IRON e r THIS SITE AS OF THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY- _ ` 1 39 SO ,(� ND PE8A9/CAP =y - �//i -W�A�F Y4 l ` , \ \\\ �/ ) 1\\ \ \ - � �/....-- '�+ 40. MRYKED'COK 544' 'S25 3os'�";�. l("`,^,.\\ \I / 1 5'25W 44 1 1 \ 11 1 \ \ `�� N OWEN B.H0.1E.P.LS. 8/262014 / (kANCH 2O14)S x- `.9?t 1A=7.D /ter-' En \\ 1\A� \ x)p \ \\\\\\\\k"x 1�Cl\Ill\\\\\1 ' I111 IIIII I )�ll \ \ UL'p= .55 W Lo DATE / 2. 1 WASHINGTON REG151RATION NO.40016i =f/' � \.`,� J = �- i , �� R J N A\ Vv 111111111 II it�lllllll11/Illl�ljll l4ll(If/f' ������ ' - c) �\\ l �I llllll11111 (( IIII 11 I `' ` ` �- _/ cl' 00 -, '' /`/ o�jIIII IIIIIII)11111�v �.� '��5� n 1� � \\I Ii I Ii IIIIIII l I �lA 11��,1�111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIII I �� - ,- a fi 4C/0S0i1E6RE a S�Q,`r o` '/ �lJ7{{/s No \\ IIII\\X, sF��3/25,2D,4 ,I��;� � , I IR� I) ,�GONG REr. t I fI ll�� \ x,.w /�i//� ,��` \ ;��1��11111�G�1111 \ 71 r VVVAA �tllllli111 IiIIIIIIIUIiIIIII III 11111111111 -�`��'� ,,'-. cn :z 1 ns eoo2zs III I i I V lj�//�l� i tv I I i I i IIIIII 11111/11 V �/ Z xv � ����\� 1111 \V III II iI11II11111 11 IIII 11111111 ��� , / �, II II11 IIIII 11 1111111111111IIII1IlI1111111i1111111 . % N 111\\I111{II II 111111111 IIIII ll RJO i'LP. 20A' pa�.'•• •. MO � KEIIY�. ABR ''(II IiII II 111 il'�(i 111 x� Icv \ ^ \I l I I(ll)IIIIII \ \1111111I\ll\IIIIII\(�I(iII�II�ll�lllllllllllll lllllllll�llllllllll � V M4Ro IO14) 111\1 1 I Il 1 i 1 III 111 `(\\1`I\ -,,\ ,II1WIIII \ ,�� O / FAO 4X4 C'ONC. \\\`\\\\`\I\\I \ LL / (WRUJ12014) '• . - t' -' S25�Y#5S1 - , ll l ////////'S / �. / / 1 II �/'+-`�_C' \ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\\\\1`\\1\11 \I\11\\\ \ :, �'� :�->< � :� r v�! IIIIII / �/ ;�x;-��;�� /( (�•� IIIIIII - '1�1�1\l lA 11 A1V�\11�1 �111_ IIII I1�1111V A \ ��� \\\\ e� I 12'CMP 6=327E ��\ ` D \\\\\\VA T\ l j a 111� \�\\\\ \\\\\\ \ \\; SITE BENCHMARK ... ,; / \' �1 ���/i �� I.-'�-:x�,�D .,�•: TOP OF"MAG'NAtL ELEV=34.63 FEET / 1 �_� � I �' 77700-M \\\ MAILBOX ,n. Yx .. �; ,� 'I IIII i1I U�S'il_ I Il IIIIII (( iII \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\\ \ \\� \\ \\ ff 12'CUP N=71.73 I IIII(II n� x•,axui��„ ' - I 1 (``t .v .a. xu. II II \\ \ \� \ \\\ \\\\\ \ � ,. �II\\\ \\\\ \\ \\'\�\\\ ROCK LOT ra / en g�v x ��\ If I I \ \\\\\ \\V�`\\\\\ \ \\\\ @� I \ \\\\\ \ \\\ \\\\\\ _ �.. x� IIIII IIl1l°� \\\\\ DLO/g 83 05) p! . .y, 111 I \.�•' n 1'ECL ANT �Ga,r-Xd�Nz`_ = xx y 1 ,JII I i I I I 1111 I I 1 I\`k\ x�n \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\\\\\\I\\ O Z E (HFPW RAM) FAUCET b.02.7�230970 , '.�. i I I \ I I 1 \ \ _ W\\\ \\\\ \\\� \ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \\ � \\\ \\ \\\1\ Q Zz REC.N L M I �' \\\\\\\\\\\ Z ���. ,,,✓ J"" '•/ \ I 1 Y \ \ t �r� IE 36'G W=27.55 x� I `:y yII11I \� A v VA\vA � (�I, Via., x� A V A 111 I i 1 I I 1 V I a ,IIIII I I111 f i I I f I 1\\V A\��\\ \\\!V' VAS\\v,1 a� AF; I \ \\ $\ \ 1!1I � (IIIIIII I I I \\ \\ \\ JI \v�y��� \ Ih .� �,'_�/ \ ) I 111 ' IIII I11\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\ v IE 12'Cup /--��� \\\\\\ iI_g�II IIi I��I I I \\ p r �� IE tY CMP N=31.86,. II z I I X III i( 1 �s rl Y I/ / \\\\ / E ,I • Fil " I I I f S \ L0T2 ,an m / �� i I I ( ( I Y.-.� U fA P tY 11 ill(( IIIIII\ \\ \\\ ,,I�: �a;�=/ � xar � x,.n,, .I a IIII\\�.••. '��\�\� \ x�_ ,.��•,, __ � � � ,�-.��1���;tl/ � IIIII I I I IIi i((I i I I I I i��\�I I I I I 1 i\\\\\\\\\\VAS T\ o�H,. AR EL k (I� u .1IE 12'CUP s=31.6 `/776 T ND YFlSIfREUENi _ / I ✓<v WETLAND MAPPED \\ GOWN BARBED m 6/23/2005 2 \ �, j /x _-i /oL �zm ���I I�\`\�\�� =J� ��_ ��\• \\\\\\\I\}\ v�x�, cl4 I I( L /� { \ \\\ ( b Yfl FOICE i )7/� c!. I �,` FLAG yAt _[ / \ 589'39'38'L'I 550.12' zv= zvv -'Wro N-'L9 x6 P�A 1,-�ys� %iJxwg/ /5 f�.Ud I I I+ L 58939 A�Eo+. C CDC e T39'39'38Y(Iy224.68' r. BOLLARD S89'39'38 T.4 r�=-_==W,b& i (5-SEG Coe) ,I�� Ix � S x , 1`1 (-.zv„ z MD.37(3'S CONIC.CU'L < T T a'`K'u011 TIN (C(1Y LADE BO89) ' o PND REBAR/GP'DRM15042'` W/BRAS PIN E N i CO 2.1� / tF C.ViC.VotN.w CASE (UARCH 2114) (HELD) a k pMN i W/1 1/2'BRASS DISK,') IS 12'CUP W=31.28 ( ) (MARCH 2099 D!L a0,g5• Ill &PUNCH,DId.t0.40 {E IY CUP 5E=31.66 Q•' (RQp),,I (0.42,S.()F H END CONIC.96�EWAIJC (APRIL 2014) SECTION IN.) (APRIL 2014) R 0 A ROSS DECKMAN ARCHITECT 207 4TH AVENUE S.E_ PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 98372 zsa.eao.saas zs3.eaa.sson E au.sSancRCnrtEtt.tou N89'4421-E 674.73' SOUTH 222ND STREET 3850 ___ __ _ REGISTERED �..�.._.._..�.._..._..�.._.._..s,.®.._. ..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..�.._..—._.._.._..—.._..�.._.._..�.._..� 1 \ ARCHITECT .—.._.._.._.._. ' /—_________________________________________________________________________ _______________ 1 I 1 .:::...�:...,.,�.._.:......:.. , STOTE OF WASHKMAN IGTON 1 1 1 lio 113 I , to6 / 1 1 1 I 114 107 62 59 —25'STEEP SLOPE \ 1 BUFFER \ 115 106 - 63 SB —15'BSBL 116 105 _ 64 / - 117 104 65 / 154 - 118 103 - 66 55 \ I I 1s2 119 ,oz - 67 54 _ I I 1 \\\\ I `�O ;•/� 151 - _ 120 101 121 100 m ' 69 52 I I I \\ 149 122 99 70 51 O 1 I I \\ I 98 O 71 50 I 1 I \\ 1 ! 148 %/ 124 97 - - 72 49 47 U 1 1 OPEN SPACE { j TOE OF STEEP 46 1 1 1 TRACT 1 I I 1 Q - 125 96 _ 73 46 �_ \ \ SLOPE AREA _ I 47 % _ --- 126 - 74 127 94 - - 75 46 1 128 4576 1 1 1 I Q 92 142 129 77 j - 130 97cli p. 49 - 78 \ \ \ \ I I fn f•�...:":...: 140 •I x � 90 79 42139 / _ I 80 41 1 \ REC. 87 87 39 - - 1 I Lu / 62 1 1 I I LLJ /•�/ .q� - 85 _ 84 37 ` ; i I V LL Y STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY - ' ROAD'A' SITE 2 ` 34 35 PLAN 3 - 33- 1/ I _ I ! a - _ 1 I- 32 \ WETLAND\I 5 31 \M�ITIG TION1 6 7 8 9 1D •11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26• 29 30 11 I ! EXISTING WETLAND f I REVISIONS N89'39'37'E 1,248.98' 0 N SITE PLAN SCALE:1"=40'-0' JOB No. 1405 ISSUE DATE 4-19-2014 REV. DATE DRAWN BY PR SHEET A1.0 R D A ROSS DECKMAN ARCHITECT 207 4TH AVENUE S.E. PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 93372 z CONT.RIDGE VENT w...—3 z1.eau-s� �� uactnEa.rou CLASS"A'COMP.SHINGLES 12 �3850 REGISTERED 9 1x3 TRIM @ BARGE 1 ARCHITECT TOP OF PLATE \ 5/4x8 BARGE BOARD ROSS E.DECY.AIAtJ STATE OF WASHINGTON 6'TOPTRIM - DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS F.F.(SUBFLOOR) - 4"TRIM ¢TOP OF PLATE 4"CORNER TRIM METAL SIDING(BOARD&BATTEN) N _ III FIBER CEMENT SIDING(SHAKE) F.F.� (SUBFLOOR- ___PL O —— — TOP OF ATE (5BEX SURE)SIDING 10"BELLY BAND _ FIBER CEMENT SIDING 1,F.F.LLAB)—— _ r (5'EXPOSURE) PROVIDE MINIMUM 5%SLOPE FOR A STONE VENEER MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE TiT ` SHED ROOF OVER ENTRIES,TYP. BUILDING 1 ELEVATION DECORATIVE KNEE (ENTRY) BRACKETS BUILDING 2 ELEVATION(MIRRORED) CONT.RIDGE VENT CLASS"A"COMP.SHINGLES ----- —_-- 1x3 TRIM @ BARGE 12 \ —_ _ — 514x8 BARGE BOARD J z 07 STOP OF PLATE ————_ - ---- - -- / W Li DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS ~ O LU u�p'ujF-17 4"TRIM LL Y I u F.F.(SUBFLOOR) - 4"CORNER TRIM o ——————— —- METAL SIDING(BOARD&BATTEN) 19,Top FPLATE----- PRESENT. FIBER CEMENT SIDING ELEVATIONS (5"EXPOSURE) ¢F.F.(SUBFLOOR) - - 10"BELLY BAND OP-F`PLATE——— _ _ -WEATHERED COPPER FIBER CEMENT SIDING (METAL SALES 24GA/RAILING) M r (5"EXPOSURE) -COLONIAL RED STONE VENEER (METAL SALES 24GA/PAINT COLOR) REVISIONS ,F.F.(SLAB) —————_ - �� APPALOOSA 0 (PAINT COLOR) Q PROVIDE MINIMUM 5%SLOPE FOR A \ DECORATIVE KNEE DURANGO MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE (PAINT COLOR) -PORPOISE g BUILDING 3 ELEVATION (ENTRY) SHED ROOF ,o NO, i4D5 ISSUE DATE 4-19-2014 ANONYMOUS REV. DATE (PAINT COLOR) DRAWN BY LH CULTURED STONE S H E E T Pto SITE PLAN M ' OF FOREST HILLS =21MN9, PORTIONS OF THE SE 114 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 7,TOWNSHIP 22 N,RANGE 5 E,W.M. ° :222rD Si°A1" CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON 167 SITE Z J / E16'aINCE- I � :�' C•�Nl"�,�J ..G,fJ�`� Iy ^Y J � / 292T II I lEtE RISzW'cM R S 3c 69 rCC` �Z`w'•: �('' a \\ ' �. •I&490/40016' • •�• VICINITY MAP 01' 60' i(nCI L0 30 60 120 — It RDMR . Ns DRM W PRJP ff TMW6 /I I, \ \' % Fro R .,� I SITE DATA (o O M1EA VN1LT I• ifR P�Mvrt N{FA 406AAiPR \ \ _C '9 T—T� '3ri{s i.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:775780-0195,0220,0221,0222, ILL ln NOT u+ueDx I — ! DEVELOPED AS A d AY \ � oc7' 0223 and 0225EL / Flo rE�q/ur 2.CROSS SITE AREA:630.749 S.F.(14.48 AC.) (ram"z014) S874525M 122 130.19\ _ _\ 45' W .i \�VM�Ry=� H� _ 3.EXISTING USE:1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE I Ass -1 E IYcuv sSS1D1 (3?'I" _yr D / {v(io v \ _ I \� ���` 4.PROPOSED USE: 148-UNR TOWNHOMES 5-ZONING:MR-T16(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE) EX.PH 6.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:LOW DENSITY MULTf-FAMILY 7.MR-T16 REWIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH:80 FEET / E 12'w N=w.as.::JJI��. ^(� gti yE, s D/, - / �> .•C •"•k a �0 \ \- v.° o \ J 1 I 0(1� I I I I i�_ B.MR-T16 REWIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA 8.500/3.500 S.F. • �(v A •' 4 1 /�' S I. / I r I rr=s9.o - I i I I I I �� 9.PROJECT DENSITY: 10.21 DU/AC ��� 10.BUILDING SETBACKS: OJ.��, e �a ) E F YC I FRONT YARD(STREET):10 FT' r R I Y I ° \ \ [ -- ./I I I i I I I I '•u.\ o SGARAGEIDE SIR20 Er(FT DRIVER):15 FT O /•A".-�. IA /o°ncri SIDE YARD. Fr NRFAR YARD:20 FT � # 11.MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE:40 PERCENT Z 7 z, kr o : c rs 1 \ ` I I I ` 12.BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM:30 FT 3 STORIES a \` \ \ry �\ I\ I \ `�I �C��'"•,_ 13.SOIL TYPE:ALDERW000 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM J O \ \ \ \ 1 1 & g \ i lI - 0-6 PERCENT SLOPES(AgB) Z Ip { 1 g m rt`0,. 1 ,R I -'.I \ I \ __ i \. 1 C\� \ 14.SOURCE OF BWNDARY AND FIELD VERIFIED BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING J Z //o CAy ,' e, �QQ(.'. / ( .1 a c("LF - _ {� o`; I IQ IP}�-pJ_4A \ \ \. \ \a\ ENGINEERS,INC.2014 Q /J '� fz7Wv e3` /KBR�Zni\I �{ \' Gl UTILITIES/SERVICES W 0 SSITE 8KENCHDP O 'AAG NAIL 6 4� 1 ° \ \ - - - '2r_o 'I 1 _- I n m ° $ r `�I )I ' 1 \ \ \ P \ \ \ \ \ \ I' WATER/SEWER:CITY OF KENT U J N r- / ELEV=34.63 FEET Ip ~ � _. wn0 5'25 31AOT. �r=era s I,T ..�1 \I I \ \ \ \ \\c{ s��\y \ \ >I K2EM.WATM98VE0}Y E SOUTHw ; w I I I I _ caao T ° I 1 `. \ \�Q (253)856-5600 J Q c / E 12'CYP N=31>3 V y�lo -t- ��� R34249�10'� ` - S � p _ rsiw Y 3un/ _ L T 1 \�` ` o f1 1 ri; ! - _ �.0 >,\. ��� L\ \ \\�\ \. \ ` ` \ \ \I POWER/GAS: PUGETSSOUND OUTH ENERGY a ur KENT WA 98032 W CV _ rT-s39 I ° �\ \ \. \ r�'J (253)395-6850 WATER su+rACE 02 T!f �. \ ['t• PHONE: OKST AVENU COMMUNICATIONS K3ENT.WA_980 2VENUE SOUTH LE vSEP3725388 A X. I `yI \ \ \ \ \ FIRE: 220 OF KENT o 30'ac W n5 �( a° L / - .q• \ I \ n/ 2r-a,c° 1 ° 220-4TH AVENUE SOUTH OPh i KENT WA 98032 E iz"crry s 31 e1 ' P /E t+•`a:p'' r '`Ts sm— EFAm _ ((225533))885562--5600 P1 SCHOOL: KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 12033 S.E.256TH STREET KENT,WA 51¢'aFe ' C C ROAD'A 950 e" , DHAL EN _ I I11 OS/'D V20 DEVELOPER EAGLE CREEK AND DEVELOPMENT.U.C. EL A S.E.272ND ST„SURE 1201 - KEW.WA 98042 x W RU=33�9 � WF11NA YIPPm \ \ 59.0 a i ,I 9\ � •°� / ENGINEER/SURVEYOR/PLANNER 569'19' 'N 1372.15' _ �Oxu558939'36 u7.4 1 r�-_ _-ar-a Po__ r, - 76979' 550.12' 'mre 1�,esa - - - -w4DJL -E u c[' e R�(e E o_�e' E P E n c E 569'34'38Y/550.12' L- - 589'39'3811 a 2DA1'/ (i 1/4 w) BARGIIAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. 1 (C11Y 1m.6nW9 - r1m(d.6A4/[AP T8NI5n{z' . -� ,�' rlm.3X3'calf.Val IOq EEez lmN.N (xAR[H zooe7 ,-, .,a KENTS WA 798032VENUE SOUTH II w/I Vz 1i..65 E rz-cuR W=31.z6 ^,-"� ^t'" l W/ (iEi�aj (425)251-6222 $ III A PLcmN,al 3n. E 12"UR 5E=31.bfi - �_ O (owz'S or rmn ,cr t,F:V•l (wacN xms) FAX(425)251-8782 s M1.1 01I caK-smEWxX �4•'n.r• _ i ) r CONTACT:DANIEL K.BLLMELU � u •01 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: p PARCEL A(TAX LOT No. 775780-0155) w " THAT PORTION OF TRACT 15 OF SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION TO KENT,AS PER PLAT AREAS' RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 52,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. yJ N w g i BASIS OF BEARINGS: NAD83(01)HORIZONTAL DATUM - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: WASHINGTON. LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY >r3 N N o ,4PN 775780-0225 = ±43,455 SF (t1.0 AC.) STATE HIGHWAY NO.5 AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No. 4PN 775780-0222 = ±25,887 SF (t0.60 AC.) SOUTH 01'17'07'WEST,AS MEASURED BETWEEN CITY OF KENT HORIZONTAL CONTROL (TAX LOT No.775780-0225) 5262487. Z o O DO w� MONUMENTS 8089 AND 896. (PER RAINIER TIME ORDER NUMBER 66181D,DATED NOVEMBER 14.2013) 4PN 775780-0220 = ±38,180 SF (f0,88 AC.) PARCEL 1 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO.SP-77-11,RECORDED UNDER PARCEL 9 (TAX LOT No. 7 7578 0-0220) n 3 �ti b 4PN 775780-0223 = f172,026 SF (t3.95 AC.) VERTICAL DATUM-NAVD 88 RECORDING NO,7705090836, RECORDS OF KING COUt T,WASHINGTON. LOT 1 OF POHL NO. 2 SHORT PLAT NO.SP-82-9,ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT N N E5 RECORDED MARCH 17, 1983 UNDER RECORDING NO.8303170675,IN KING COUNTY, r ^ APN 775780-0221-= ±350,582 SF (f8.05 AC.) WASHINGTON- N Z N N s� PROJECT BENCHMARK ELEV. 33.73 FEET (TAX LOT No.7 75780-02 2 2) a0 w at CITY OF KENT VERTICAL BENCHMARK MONUMENT NO.896 -TOP OF 4'x 4'CONC. (PER CHICAGO TITLE COMMITMENT NUMBER 0011398-04,DATED MARCH 7,2014) E PARCEL 2,KENT SHORT PLAT NUMBER SP-77-iT.RECORDED UNDER RECORDING PARCEL 81 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UDLITY PURPOSES ON,OVER AND UNDER A LEGEND E. W/LEAD&TACK IN MONUMENT CASE AT IINTX.OF SE 228h ST. &88Lh NUMBER 7705090838,IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STRIP IN LAND 15 FEET N WIDTH EXENDING FOR 7.50 FEET EC ON SIDE OF THE 6 BAT,wawa(M IOKD) AVE.qVE.E. FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE (� © FOWa1 VNAT + THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 90 FEET OF THE NORTH 321.08 FEET,AS MEASURED EASTERLY LINE OF SAID FRONTAGE SERVICE ROAD WITH THE tJORTH LINE OF SAID �j` ,H/S LLKRUW SITE BENCHMARK ELEV..34.03 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE,OF TRACT 22,SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION TO KENT, TRACT 23 OF SAID SHIJN'S CLOVERDALE ADDITION.AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VDLUME G, avx @❑ YAltt1 UIwR O TOM REW/GP(AS NOTED) ACCORDING TO THE PIAT THEREOF,RECORDED IN VOWME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 52, 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 52, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON;' THENCE NORTH O POWiR IIETTR MAG NAIL w/WASHER(BCE NO. 2)SET ON E.SIDE OF 881h AVE. E. IN ASPHALT _ $ p P0AR POLL 0 9A2'r1Y CONTROL STATIIXN IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON,LYING EASTERLY OF THE FRONTAGE SERVICE ROAD 89'46'00'EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 23 A DISTANCE OF 7.57 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIDN AND DEPTHS 1 t7 DRIVEWAY TO SITE, 7' N.OF MAILBOX NO,22320. FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID CENTER LINE:THENCE SOUTH OF ALL SERVICES AND UTILITIES W THE FIELD Q i m ARICTON BOX(AS Wn ADJACENT TO SR167,PS.H.NO.4,VALLEY FREEWAY; MI m ASPRAIJ ALSO THE SOUTH 90 FEET OF THE NORTH 321.08 FEET,AS MEASURED ALONG THE OT45.39'WEST 195.32 FEET:-THENCE SOUTH 07'00'W'WEST 80.22 FEET TO THE I ® TfLERXXE MA4HOU NOTES: WEST LANE,OF THE WEST 142.01 FEET,AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 37 FEET: APPROVED l9 ❑ CATCH aksm(C8) 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND FEATURES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD TRACT 23.OF SAID SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION. THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O S94TARr 5EWB WIMOLE(59M) c&K%7E OBSERVATION. 140 MARKINGS,DEVELOPMENT PLANS,AND/OR AVAILABLE RECORD I D3'48'W',AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67.03 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 6548'00"EAST TO THE Cy OF KEW �b�1 NyJ E ® OS WIER DOCUMENTS WE RENEWED.THE TRUE LOCATION, NATURE AND/OR EXISTENCE OF BELOW TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD ON,OVER AND UNDER A STRIP OF LAND 15 NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1.AND THE END OF SAID CENTER LINE. V OO v CRAY4L FEET IN WIDTH EXTENDING FOR 7.5 FEET EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED ENGINEERING DEPT CAS vAL1E - GROUND FEATURES, DETECTED OR UNDETECTED,SHOULD BE VERIFIED. CENTERLINE: [f;d PARCEL C (TAX LOT No. 775780-0223) WATER DFW(WV) — WATER LPd BEGINNING AT THE NORTH LINE OF OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID FRONTAGE SERVICE LOT 2 DF POHL NO.2 SHORT PLAT NO.SP-82-9,ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT --------- Q F41E HIT>r.4la(�) _= S44RARr SEWER UE 2.PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT REC. N0.4186349 IS AN ROAD WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 23 OF SAID SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION; RECORDED MARCH 17, 1983 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8303170675.IN KING COUNTY. DATE:-------- r ED WATER MAS3101E ______- STORM DRAJYCE DIE 'AS-CONSTRUCTED'EASEMENT AND IS NOT PLOTTABLE AS DESCRIBED. THENCE NORTH B9'46'DO'EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 23 A DISTANCE WASHINGTON. ° N ® WATER INTER(Wv) -K-1 A7WTR IAIOFX4011A9 OF 7.57 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID CENIERLRJE; I - _ 9C41 r(ex)- �OIIIK/0 THENCE SOUTH 745'39"WEST 195.32 FEET; APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON 0' o // O FOxE PARCEL D (TAX LOT No. 775780-CLOVERDALE PRIOR INSPECTOR E HOURS THENCE SOUTH 38"00'UO'WEST TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACTS 28 AND 29 OF SHINNS CLOVERDALE ADDITION TO KENT,AS PER PLAT PRIOR TO STARTING THE ACTUAL � 3 PARCEL AND THE EIJD OF THE CENTERIINE RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 52,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, I WORK AT 859-338 V 4 61 DKT-2014 - 8 Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for three parcels (779000-0005, 222204-9113 and 212204-9068) located at 3101 S. 240t" Street and 24481 32"d Avenue South. 62 x wices. 3 f� ocatlon�4 30 1l Lowe* la l to:220 4th Avenue South Kent,WA 0324895 £ 'ermit Center(253 8 1 5302 FAX#(253)85$ 412 x �- anrnuvu,yl,kentwa ins/perrnatcenter LArlr+�����`scevlces; � ` + ' In K a si 'lease print in black ink only and Development Regulations Application Name: Docket#: 261j-r5 OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY Date Application Received: Received by: Applicant: Argus Investment Company 206.794.7300 Garth Olsen Name: Garth Olsen & Cristina Kapela Dugoni Daytime Phone: 206.459.2664 Cristina Dugoni Mailing Address: 9761 Beacon Avenue South Fax Number: City/State/Zip: Seattle, WA 98118 Signature: cnk/W Leoni Professional License No: E-mail: garthgolsen@gmail.com cristina@davisinvestors.com Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant) Name: Edwards Development&Advisors,LLC, Matt Edwards Daytime Phone: 425.985.3835 Mailing Address: 1300 Dexter Ave N, Suite 120 Fax Number: City/State/Zip: Seattle, WA 981 E-mail: matt.edwards@edwardsdev.com Signature � ����! Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the suggested change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the relevant criteria listed below: • Detailed statement of the proposal and reason • How the change would be compliant with the for the amendment; Growth Management Act; Anticipated impacts of the change, including • How the change would be compliant with the the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies; and presented; • How functional plans (e.g. subarea plans, utility • Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g. development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program) support effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change. Please refer to attached sheet. REe I VED- Cl1Y DE K I PERMIT CENTER G111-2 PSD4098.6/30/08 p. 1 of 3 63 anon 4Q0 W Gowe Mail to:220 4th Avenue South,a l<ent,1NA 98032 5895 Permit Center: 253 856 5302 FAX. 253 856-6412 ent.wa.us/perrritcenter 'ASHINaT.ON ' PANNING SERVICES ComprehensiveDocket Form for Amendments to the Introduction at their first meeting in December.Proposed docket This application form is intended to provide a amendments not included for action in the annual docket or record of suggested amendments to the cycle will be considered in future docket reports for City of Kent comprehensive plan text, area-wide a period of three (3) years. If the city responsible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use official determines that an EIS, supplemental EIS, Plan Map or amendments to development or other appropriate environmental review is regulations.This process differs from the Code Text warranted, applicants proposing amendments to Amendment process in that this suggested the comprehensive plan land use plan map may be amendment will be compiled on a list or docket with responsible for a full or proportionate share of the discretion used to determine the appropriateness or costs of preparing necessary documents as priority on the annual work program.Code Text determined by the responsible official. Amendments and requests for site-specific Annual Docket Evaluation Criteria amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan Plan Map can be submitted outside of this text, area-wide comprehensive plan land use plan docketing method by submission of a complete map and development regulations on the annual application and appropriate application fees. docket may be appropriate for action if the following The purpose of the docket process is to allow the criteria have been met: public to request changes, without fee, to the city 1. The proposed comprehensive plan text comprehensive plan or development regulations. amendment addresses a matter appropriate for Docket Form inclusion in the comprehensive plan; Complete the attached docket form and provide all 2. The proposal demonstrates a strong potential to information requested on the application along with serve the public interest by implementing any appropriate supplemental information by specifically-identified goals and policies of the September 1 st or the first business day in comprehensive plan; September of each calendar year. 3. The proposal addresses the interests and changed needs of the entire city as identified It is strongly recommended that an applicant in its long-range planning and policy submitting a docket form meet with Planning documents, including but not limited to the Services staff prior to submitting the form. comprehensive plan; There is no application fee required for suggested 4. The proposal does not raise policy or land use changes through the docket process. issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the Annual Docket Evaluation Process city council; Planning Services will compile proposals for 5. The proposal can be reasonably reviewed amendments, distribute them for review and within the timeframe of the current annual work comment by the responsible city departments to program and existing staff and budget determine appropriate action, and solicit public resources;and comment. Planning Services shall then identify all 6. The proposal has not been voted on by the city items appropriate for the current annual cycle and council in the last three (3) years.This time limit present the annual docket report to the City Council may be waived by the city council if the GH2-2 PSD4098.6/30/08 p.2 of 3 ..... ........... ..... ........ 64 proponent establishes that there exists either an obvious technical error or a change in circumstances justifies the need for the amendment. Comprehensive plan Amendment Standard of Review Planning Services may recommend and the city council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny amendments to the comprehensive plan text or land use map designations based upon the following criteria: 1.The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare; and 27he amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan;and 37he amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community;and 4.The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use,transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. NHl-] PSD4098.6/30/08 p.3of3 65 Argus Investment Company August 14,2014 Docket Form for Amendments Page 1 of 4 Docket Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone The statement below responds to the criteria set forth in the Docket Form for Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. STATEMENT 1. Detailed statement of the proposal and reason for the amendment. This proposal is a request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation on Parcels 779000-0005, 222204-9113, and 212204-9068, located at 3010 S. 240th Street within the Midway Subarea in Kent, WA. The current comprehensive plan designation is Commercial and the current zoning is GC (General Commercial). We request that the parcels be designated TOC (Transit Oriented Community) in the Comprehensive Plan and then rezoned to MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential). The three parcels are currently undeveloped and contain a total of 14.57 acres. There is one access point located along S. 240th Street, and an access easement within the south parcel through a neighboring mobile home park. The Kent/DesMoines Light Rail Station is planned to be constructed at S. 240th Street. The site is located behind the Lowe's in Midway, and 1-5 is located on the east side of the property. The project has not yet been designed but based on the site area; it is most likely that the project will feature multiple buildings. It is anticipated that the project will develop dwelling units, and will include social and recreation areas for residents. The parcels were originally intended to be incorporated into the adjacent TOC (Transit Oriented Community) Comprehensive Plan Designation. As described below, the redesignation of these parcels supports the goals of the Midway Subarea Plan by encouraging dense and varied commercial-residential activities which support light rail and mass transit options thus promoting a pedestrian-oriented character. 2. Anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and issues presented. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning changes would not have significant impacts on the surrounding area. The property is already designated for commercial development. The proposed amendment will simply provide for an increased variety of uses, including residential uses, which is desired in areas proximate to light rail stations. Development impacts would be very similar to those that would occur under the current Commercial comprehensive plan designation. There will be increased traffic, increased storm water generation, increased noise, and more intensive use of available utilities and public services. However, these impacts can be mitigated at the project level. Additionally,the Final EIS for the Midway Subarea Plan, dated September 2011, included the subject parcels in its evaluation and anticipated higher-intensity development on the subject property. Thus,the potential impacts of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment have already been evaluated and any project development of the site being reviewed will be done in compliance with applicable development regulations and will be subject to mitigation requirements determined as part of the development review process. Edwards Development&Advisors,LLC 1 1300 Dexter Avenue North,Suite 120 1 Seattle,WA 98109 1425.985.3835 66 Argus Investment Company August 14, 2014 Docket Form for Amendments Page 2 of 4 3. Why existing comprehensive plan and development regulations should not continue in effect or why existing criteria no longer apply. The existing comprehensive plan designation should not continue as the proposed designation of TOC (Transit Oriented Community) is consistent with the adjacent property to the west and the designation of the property as TOC in the comprehensive plan and MCR on the zoning map will better support the goals of the Midway Subarea Plan by providing housing and other transit supportive uses in proximity to the planned light rail station at S. 240h Street. It will also integrate the property more fully into the surrounding Midway Subarea Plan. 4. How the change would be compliant with the Growth Management Act. The change is consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020). In particular, the proposed change supports the following goals of the Growth Management Act: A. URBAN GROWTH—Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner(RCW 36.70A.020(1)). The proposal encourages infill development in an area that has been previously planned to accommodate higher density development and that has adequate public facilities and service to accommodate the development. B. REDUCE SPRAWL—Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development(RCW 36.70A.020(2)). The proposed designation of transit oriented community will bring the subject property into alignment with surrounding higher-density land uses, which enables more efficient land use and discourages sprawl. In particular,the ability to provide additional housing through the comprehensive plan amendment will reduce the pressure to construct sprawling, low density development elsewhere. C.TRANSPORTATION—encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans (RCW 36.70A.020(3)). The proposal encourages higher-density development in close proximity to a proposed regional light-rail station and nearby local metro lines. This type of development will contribute to the success of these multimodal transportation systems by providing residences in close proximity to the systems so ridership is increased and vehicle emissions are reduced. The additional residential and commercial uses will contribute to a lively and active transit-oriented community. D. HOUSING—Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock(RCW 36.70A.020(4)). Edwards Development&Advisors, LLC 1 1300 Dexter Avenue North,Suite 120 1 Seattle,WA 98109 1425.985.3835 67 Argus Investment Company August 14, 2014 Docket Form for Amendments Page 3 of 4 The proposal will enable the provision of more housing stock. Increased supply of quality, high-density housing is critical to providing affordable workforce housing, well- located near services and transportation. The comprehensive plan change will not impact existing housing stock. E. ENVIRONMENT—Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality,and the availability of water(RCW 36.70A.020(10)). The proposal will enhance air quality by enabling the construction of more housing in close proximity to multimodal transportation systems thereby reducing the need for vehicle trips and their resulting emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. S. How the change would be compliant with the Countywide Planning Policies. The proposed comprehensive plan change particularly supports King County's policies encouraging transit-oriented development and sustainable transportation planning. EN-16—Plan for Land use patterns and transportation systems that minimize air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including: ® Maintaining or exceeding existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulates. ® Directing growth to urban centers and other mixed use/high density locations that support mass transit, encourage non-motorized modes of travel and reduce trip lengths. ® Facilitating modes of travel other than single occupancy vehicles including transit, walking bicycling, and carpooling. ® Incorporating energy-saving strategies in infrastructure planning and design. ® Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or zero net lifetime energy requirements and "green" building techniques. ® Increasing the use of low emission vehicles, such as efficient electric-powered vehicles. EN-20—Plan and Implement land use,transportation,and building practices that will greatly reduce consumption of fossil fuels. ® The proposed comprehensive plan change supports sustainable transportation systems by locating high-density commercial/residential within walking distance of a future light rail station and near existing bus lines. Further this proposal takes advantage of its location within the Midway Subarea, where increased densities allow for better walkability and ease of access by foot and by bicycle. DP-2 — Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes housing at a range of urban densities,commercial and industrial development, and other urban facilities,including medical,governmental, institutional,and educational uses and parks and open space.The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and support public transportation in order to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel for most daily activities. Edwards Development&Advisors, LLC 1 1300 Dexter Avenue North,Suite 120 1 Seattle,WA 98109 1425.985.3835 68 Argus Investment Company August 14,2014 Docket Form for Amendments Page 4 of 4 The proposed change will produce a mix of uses that are convenient to and support public transportation so there is a reduced reliance on single occupancy vehicles. DP-5— Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment,and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling,transit, and other alternatives to auto travel. ® The proposed change will decrease greenhouse gas emissions by enabling the construction of more housing in close proximity to multimodal transportation systems that provide a convenient and effective alternative to travel by automobile. H-10— Promote housing affordability in coordination with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans and investments and in proximity to transit hubs and corridors, such as through transit oriented development and planning for mixed uses in transit station areas. ® The proposed change will increase the supply of housing and other related uses in proximity to an important transit hub thereby helping to create a transit oriented community. Increased housing supply will help to make the housing more affordable to the workforce. 6. How functional plans (e.g. subarea plans, utility plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g.transportation improvement program) support the change. The Midway Subarea Plan supports the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning for this site. In addition,the development of a light rail station within close proximity to the site supports the greater variety of uses than would be allowed under a GC (General Commercial) Zone. Edwards Development&Advisors, LLC 11300 Dexter Avenue North,Suite 120 1 Seattle,WA 98109 1425.985.3835 a f ■.� � �. r 70 � ,Ar� r ti � �1 �` ', ,` Rim_ f . Amy s WT -P Nlk f _ I I I i I CAo Air I?li, I ito U. r■ 3, y l .4v ilt IN .�.'• . 0 I 1 ; 1 SITE SURVEY FOR ARGUS INVESTMENTS LOCATED IN THE N. W. 114 AND S. W. 114, OF THE N. W. 114, OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTES: 1. THE BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY REPRESENT DEED LINES ONLY,ACTUAL OWNERSHIP MAY OTHERWISE BE DETERMINED. 2.A SEPARATE RECORD OF SURVEY HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR THIS SITE .THIS MAP IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=200' 200 0 200 FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT BASIS OF BEARINGS: 264o.e1 (MEAS.) W/2" BRASS DISK 1N CASE N88'4B'45W 254OM' (RS) _ 7 0 \ ` AT CENTERLINE OF S. 240TH SE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE NORTH 16,'� 045IS P BEARINGS) 7 n ` VISITED 3-15-07 N89'36'19'E 2674.96' CALC. V 15 SECTION LINE OF THE N.E. U OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 22, _I 1 5 _ _ ( ) RANGE 4 E, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING 21 121 21 -�-- NORTH BB'48'45- WEST, AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD o FENCE LINE IS t 14.2'E. 58B 4B 3E I IA0936'19'E .a I OF PROPERTY CORNER OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 31 OF SURVEYS AT PACE 117. 33483,OM' I 16453' (KCSC) MON UNDER RECORD NO. 8203239001, RECORDS OF KING I I I I N. 114 CORNER COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1 A I I PER (R2) i 248+43 8 I NOT VISITED 1 1 7 125' REFERENCE SURVEYS: FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT \ l 1 i 7 FOR 10, DES MEE45 W/ 1/2" BRASS PLUG IN CASE i r'• SEWER DISTRICT UNDER 1. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 31 OF SURVEYS AT INTERSECTION OF 24TH AVE. S. 1 �r1 m' RECORDING NO�.B70F9�R39MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED AT PAGE 117, UNDER RECORD NO. 198203239001, RECORDS &S. 240TH ST SEE i VV OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. VISITED 1-17-05 µ� T.L. NO. 779000-0005 I DETAIL 1 ' FOUND B'• DWMETER WOOD FENCE 2. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 171 OF SURVEYS 205,372 SO.FT. 1 i POST 4.5' TALL (HELD AS CORNER) (4.71 AC.) I. Tat AT PAGE 263, UNDER RECORD NO. 2004051290004, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. g Ln1 v ® SET 1/2' R[BAR AND CAP '40016/18898" II SET LEAD AND TACK IN ROCK J. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 59 OF SURVEYS lµ, '� a AT PAGE 257, UNDER RECORD NO. 198802249018, RECORDS Inn 1 .a L7 SET LOT BOARD AS 5' OFFSET OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1 1M u11 W TO PROPERTY CORNER 4. WSDOT MAP DATED APRIL 23, 2004 IN DRAWER 71, M1BB 33 DIN SEQUENCE 08, SHEET 4 AND 5 OF 22 �yy2. I,g m' ' (R1) PER REFERENCE SURVEY ill i ei 3 (132) PER REFERENCE SURVEY 12 I N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CORNER OF , FENCE IS ..1 (PER FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY FILE ti.1' W. OF NO: NCS-273325-WA3, DATED JANUARY 03, 2007) PROPERTY LINE i 1 PARCEL D., SEE DETAIL 1 FENCE IS E. �W 1 OF PROPERTYRTY LINE THAT PORTON OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE n 1 NORTHWEST QUARTER.,AND THE NORTH QUARTER OF ^Z I 1 125' THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST N a i r N � e QUARTER OF SECTON 22, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE g c�a hh 2239+00 `r 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING m + / ' FENCE LINE IS t2.0' W. 120 WESTERLY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO, i,AS 0 1` 7 d tt CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE '" NO. 535009; I i OF PROPERLY CORNER Nv EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST '150 Z . @ o QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR CORNER OF 1!¢1 Q1; COUNTY ROAD. FENCE 11..5' W. OF I 1¢ ANGLE POINT OF FENCE IS ( 'Z'�ya w PROPERTY LINE 1 0; f3.2' E. OF PROPERTY LINE �O➢, �J° SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: T.L. NO. 212204-9068 599.171E7 I j 1 o 61,560 SQ. FT. 249m, I 1m TAX PARCEL EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CON 1.87 AC. CONTAINED THEREIN. I 1'a #222204-9113 RECORDING IFORMATON: SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 RECORDING NO. 8709290994 W I 1� ±347,931 SQ, FT. DISTRICT;IN FAVOR OF: DES MOINES A MUNICIPAL CORPORATON i 1" 1 U 01 q FOR: SEWER MAINS WITH THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES o I 1 L m q AFFECTS: THE WEST 10 FEET OF PARCEL D I I„ do N N CONDEMNATION IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, I 1 •� o ° OF RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY DECREE I j 150, 00 UTTERED (UNDISCLOSED), CAUSE NO. SC535009 I t FENCE LINE IS LJ CD Q NL18 '4325W PROPERTY CORN�3.7z E W. 1/4 CORNE 2232+63.14 CENTER OF SECTION w 0CALCNOT�R RI CALC PER(R2) Y o '^ EITED - - - ~ Em d5- tcn SB9'19'OB•E 2662.73' (GILC. 0 ® ul o I 01 ° �. L O C � I ° mN ® II o N ° V La{7: I 0- Ld Q V N Q 2U F 0 UN Z L. CO C14 T Uual cd tlq pc d a) Z On mN N tn INSTRUMENT USED:CEODNETER 500 AND/OR TRIAOLE56a3DR200+ N 3Z METHOMIRAMM R 011E1ry15 LY WA�M-1 I-M 00 INDEXING DATA:KW."1 4 AAD 5'.W. 1/4,N.W. 1/b SEC 22,122 NQ3M,R4 FAST,W.LL PROJECT NAIVE-BETTY LOU KAP CREATED:Man Feb-21 12:23:01 2005 11PREV.PLOT:Tue Jut 17 14.49:07 200 PLOTTED:Wed.,Jul.25,2007, 15:46,56 C:Chris P.JOBS 2007-0221ot areos.p� 1 -5 MIDWAY SITE FEASIBILITY EDWARDS DEVELOPMENT November 2014 p�rncln fig — — fram¢work' I • - --^' - - � � .� o-f � _ 1 J""', Y t�M _ �M Y �., �`J �'� 17, ,+�. 5` �r�� .'7. _ ..•g -� Ir Alt, WL {M '*-- • — - - o t.d - .Id ;;{. iL Al vw-- 14 Swtdi a�1 T ,is I Ott All 4� tv -44 ' __ '! - yt -!i „T l� •` - Y ! 'i��� 1` � .� l� L I ,A 1 � 7 � +I�'{ I r I Aerial Photo / BING Maps / 2012 2 PROJECT INTENT CITY VISION ; PROJECT VISION The goal of the project is a development that will create a transit-ori- I V I I D V VA T SUBAREA PLAN The project approach aligns well with the Midway Subara Plan. tinted neighborhood, The site is well suited to residential use, with a For Midway as a whole, the future will have significantly different Plans for the property are primary residential, at the edge of the strong community feel, with neighborhood amenities and a comfort- land use patterns, with high densities in support of rapid transit p g pp p mixed use district that will emerge as transit shifts auto-oriented land able walking environment, investments, with a quality public realm. Walking will be safe and uses, It can feel like a real residential neighborhood, connected to Two alternatives are shown here: a denser neighborhood with pleasant, transit, mixed use and open space. buildings that typically have six stories with structured parking, and The intent of new transit oriented zoningand the Midway Subarea a lower density that would be a "garden apartment" model, with sur- y The site is particularly well suited to people associated with High- Plan is to line Community College and related businesses. It could serve face parking. The site is considered in zones, and the eventual mix students, faculty and staff in a variety of appropriate housing types. of uses and massing could be a mix of the typologies, transform the Midwaycommunity into a sustainable urban area Y Others will be attracted to this neighborhood for its proximity to tran- We have carefully looked at the Midway Subarea Plan, and believe which enhances commercial development and optimizes its sit that allows access throughout the region, geographic location, wide range of transportation options, edu- cational the approach aligns well with Kent's goals for the station area. institutions, and views. Circulation is through a multi-modal street that forms the spine of Midway Subarea Plan, p 2 the neighborhood. Traffic is reduced by keeping parking access at the perimeter of the site. The street will be a pleasant route for CIRCULATION For the immediate area around the South 200th Street Station, the pedestrian and cyclists within the neighborhood and connecting to , Site access is from S 240th on the north end, Where S 240th Subarea Plan has a specific vision: transit, dead-ends at 1-5 is an opportunity for a graceful turn-around, On Link Light Rail is the center of this bustling urban community the south, the site is accessed via an easement connecting to g g Y The buildings wrap open spaces that can be tailored to the needs known as Midway with a station located near the combined of residents. Play areas, recreational spaces and passive park Pacific Highway South. The circulation strategy is a straightforward campus of Hi hline Community College and Central Wash- connection through the site, keeping it as pedestrian and bicy- p g y ri space is imagined. ington University. An elevated pedestrian-bridge connects the cle-friendly as possible, To this end, parking access would come in campus to the business and residential community located Storm water management could occur along the east edge of the off of S 240th or the primary circulation on the south. east of SR-99, property, as described in the Midway Subarea Plan, with the exist- ing wetland as a major feature. PARKING Because students ride transit more and student housing is To the extent possible, parking is located on the property edges. available nearby, Highline Community College and their partner Central Washington University have expanded the campus into That will minimize vehicles in the heart of the neighborhood, and the old eastern parking lot. The intellectual capital generated by create a buffer to the freeway and other edges. We are assuming these institutions has attracted a variety of companies focused one parking space per unit; the denser option relies on structured on technology and medical innovation. p 17 parking to allow for the higher density of unit. Open space and sustainable treatment for stormwater are part of AMENITIES AND SUSTAINABLE STORMWATER the vision for Midway. Open spaces are located along the circulation spine. These green spaces can offer a diverse set of uses along a walkable route—play areas, passive uses, space for gardening if desired, and attractive green storm water infrastructure. The areas along the perimeter are very suitable for sustainable strategies for storm water, as suggest- ed in the Midway Subarea Plan, [frame-mark cultural glacemaklno SITE ANALYSIS The site is over 14 and a half acres, with Interstate 5 to the east and S. 240th Street to the north. The terminus of Link Light Rail will be J very close, near the intersection of Pacific Highway South (SR 99) and S. 240th Street. The topography is generally gentle, with a wetland created by 1-5 on the east side of the property. + - Access is via South 200th on the north side of the property; S 240th ends at 1-5. Access exists in the southern end of the property from an easement connection to Pacific Hightway South. Internal z circulation will connect through the property north-south. Y Because the freeway cuts off connections, the site will have little through-traffic, and is well suited to being a quieter, residentially N{1 focused area: Landscaped buffers are expected on along property lines to screen 1-5 and neighboring properties. 71 t - Freeway noise is an issue, and measures to mitigate the noise may - be warranted. It is possible that taller buildings may have a view of Mount Rainier R w across the freeway. TO 446 Aerial Photo/ BING Maps/ 2012 4 NOISE FROM I-5 SITE ANALYSIS 20' REQUIRED FRONT 15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WETLAND:ASSUME BUFFER (MIGHT BE OK AT 10') CREATED THEREFORE -------------- EXEMPT FROM REGULATION ------ ------------ LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' _ T1(MIGHT BE OK A 0') '--71 --- C�-t- U -- \, r 10'EASEMENT 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER r Q U)i1! 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER r I 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER I I �I I I NEARBY: !p NEW LIGHT FAIL I'I HIGHLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 0 LANDSCAPE BUFFER ka m w cultural Ploc¢mokina EASEMENT 5 FIVE OVER ONE STRUCTURED PARKING a T7UTMT - _ 4-r 1 J -- r ` - r .77 7-7 LLL 77 J - _ r T �. i 71 �t 1 I I I I FIVE OVER ONE I I Scale: 1":100' 12 I I Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-4 71 Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) ►. N � � fib N 00 N ,td S 269 St US SR-1 S LDMF ►=• LU Plan: LDMF to MU Zoning: MRT-16 to CC-MU FP s MRT-16 F s F i' Fri El Ftif FF FF�• ��per ,FFFp€r �rFf FJ�jFIRFr--. � � �F� - t•FF�Frr! IFFF �FFtr �'�F F r F �rpjF 14 T MRT-16 � FF rF �FEIF rl�fFjFr9 F F LDMF II II V� F� F � � l�FiIIpFF FlFI�P' , r-FFA• s II • �'MDMF � F � � � Ffr• Fre PIE OF - �' I _ - ..►. a AfFFFF� Fr! �rFr!Eepp pFrFrP' OF Ft S 2+72 St r ..�.. . Legend ' �.,.. b• �� ' Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change �_- Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations �' - Parcels ■ Kent CityLimits 10ENT �y;�+ -r ���■��■% ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-6 72 Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Office/Mixed Use (O-MU) and Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC) "_ i iu►" 1 Aft LU LU Plan: MU (no change) �s \ Zoning: O-MU to CC .- .. 14.. ,��.. K y � 'LU Plan: SF6 to MU ♦♦ _ Zoning: SR-6 to CC � ♦ s+°` w -- 1 LrDMF MR- Option 2: / ~ Also change these two parcels: LU Plan: SF-6 to MU Zoning: SR-6 to CC MU MU CC- 3_ F�eh Option 3: tka Also change these two parcels: hg�ey LU Plan: SF-6 to MU N Zoning: SR-6 to CC-MU Legend W E_ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change A�4 - . # � Affected Parcels) w .j' ` Existing Zoning Districts a - -� Existing Land Use Plan Designations r 3E 264 PI Parcels -�.E ECD-Feb. 2015 #DKT-2014-7 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 73 Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Split Industrial (I) and Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) Zoning: Rezone Split Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1) and Single Family Residential (SR-6) toMultifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) i. SR-6 k. S 222 St mod a Y LU Plan: SF-6 to LDMF g� Zoning: SR-6 to MRT-16 . � I _ Aq t LU Plan: I to LDMF ` Zoning: CM-1 to MRT-16 ' _ n MRT-16 . LDMF Legend , S Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) _ H R-G EmExisting Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 " arm .. Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-8 74 Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Commercial (C) to Transit Oriented Community (TOC) Zoning: Rezone from General Commercial (GC) to Midway Commercial- Residential (MCR) ._ MTC-2 ® �® MM FJ© LO - T ® 1 LU Plan: C to TOC 1 " Zoning: GC to MCR � 1 ' M c s M TOG N®� L' � � =H MW ME MAIM 1 1 r: S 244 StNMI ; Legend 1 }- Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change 1 Affected Parcel(s) 1 Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations 1 Parcels 1 ' ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Al. Intersection of West Valley Hwy/S. 196th Street 75 Option 1: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Park (M1) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Industrial (I) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from M1 to General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) � - � -`� - I�,1 � �►- •- . ... -Write.- ' ��� , M2 Option 2: LU Plan: Change from I to MU Zoning: Rezone from M1 to GC-MU 4 L Option 1: Sr194 Sf p S T93 PI -,r LU Plan: No Change S 194 Zoning: Rezone from M1 to MI-C 00 St co. M2 r Q > MIC 0 Q ! S199PI - - G �0'0 Sty R ' Legend W , S ' Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change p Affected Parcel(s) � ., Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels.�, ECD-Feb.b. 2015 �u .-.. p � M8 nd Pull S�b�88 Zs � � .W N Sa . U LL a fa w U N d p1 - - - og o LA+� o 41 D cn 0 4J r 4-J ice.+ . ,- •- 0 0 0 O _ U) L. J a L a °. rn cn Lf) a ~ � N ca c N a N � o _ N O a) " � c ++ J N n C c _ O C C U U cn o ,0) m m u c L E X X f'0 N a rl av cJ Q) d Q W W d Y _ 1001- 2 1 i _ J \ur J L N 0 f U ^ ono w O-N �./ 0 N 0 N fC ! O I{ Q O1 Q 01 U N s sa, U O O N UUN UUN O 0_ +1 O_ � � s O fOZ � fOZ � . C � �' � U \ p rL D o p 0 � C7 � \ w Ca Ol Ca i p.� iUN rl +' p +' O •L O. N O. Nil 1 00 to U) o m c o a °' J N p.J N , U) U) 'a Efl. Doc � f *, w g U C O -a *a -� = o " Q OZ � + - � N V) V C 0 fC C 0 CL C C O rl D O N S 0 N 0 mN I +, C S Z N *_' U N a y — CLm _ oc 0 a 00 C a) ce C G7 � •� J y� _ ,C U m ,C C fl.m ,C C 'C �� 0 0 O O c c c E 0 c c , Q JNQ JNQ sue; =TW - A3. NE Corner Of 72nd Ave S. and S. 277th St. Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrnts Option 1: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (MI-C) Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Industrial (I) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from M2 to General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) f _ .v,7 1 M� ti m ' Option 1: _ LU Plan: No Change x N Zoning: Rezone from M2 to M1-C _ f 1 Option 2: LU Plan: Change from I to MU 1 - Zoning: Rezone from M2 to GC-MU 1 t 1 1 r :.. AG-S AG N M2 U 1 � 1 '1 I r 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 liil r1e1�11�11■1i71'7�'1"■'7�'It'IL71 _ __� Legend •x_ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) ---M Existing Zoning Districts ' Existing Land Use Plan Designations j Parcels ■ Kent City Limits ' 'll■11■' ECD-Feb. 2015 A4. East Valley Highway and S. 212th St. Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Option 1: 78 Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) Amend Split Zoned Parcels Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Remove 5 parcels from Rezone Consideration Amend Split Zoned Parcels [ k S 202 St Option 2: a LU Plan: No Change F _= = Zoning: Same as Option 1, me'µ except does not include rezoning these five parcels { rn A2- S-206aSt II Option 1: r I . LU Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from M2 to M1-C MIC Q S 210 St t 1; r� 4-4 00 SAL 2,10iSt .I :. ' Legend W N E �A Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Split Zoned Parcels: p r~ = Affected Parcel(s) ti LU Plan: C portion to MIC s ' Zoning: GWC portion to M1-CLIU WW � Existing Zoning Districts Vie Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 Bi.a East Hill North Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Option 1: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change; Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) and Office/Mixed Use (O-MU) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) Amend Split Zoned Parcels Option 2: LU Plan: No Change; Zoning: Rezone O and O-MU to Community Commercial (CC) Amend Split Zoned Parcels Jz- DM _ rn O � *� Option 1: a LU Plan: No Change r Zoning: O & O-MU to CC-MU MR-M s Y r- ":_ 4,14 SMD E 241 PI Option 2: — LU Plan: No Change �® Zoning: O & O-MU to CC iv Split Zoned Parcel: -' SEfi243 St�� w Rezone O portion to CC 'i._ o �a Q ill F CC- VI o � �� SE 244 St w ���■� -8 w LoftLi1 P S lit Zoned Parcels: ' LU Plan: Change SF8 portion to MU Option 1: Rezone O-MU portion to CC-MU SE 246�P1,�� + Option 2: Rezone O-MU portion to CC SE 2471' �� OSIT N ' � SE 248 St AAA �t ■® lilt Split Zoned Parcel- i. w LU Plan: No Change r . f ® 'SF'6 Option 1: Rezone O-MU �� - �� portion to CC-MU SR- Option 2: Rezone O-MU 11HR-G portion to CC S�® a F�MDMF � Y , - Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change � 4 a Affected Parcel(s) ULL L SE 250 PI - Existing Zoning Districts ACC=MU Existing Land Use Plan Designations C Parcels -.KT-16 ECD-Feb. 2015 _ APS a� - UCD . a �s 1-1E �. II C O CZ cz CL F'tC K K C: + I'II- Q ` r x N I 11jr N = E E a N J 3S N 7 O O 0) c y .' +, cn c f (oC IL V� ° coy' s �' ILA, r J ' 3 a Q w w a .". q4,.. p1 • V V a0OP .+ " O O 3SIdOLL C r " ' �X • �0 atC O E O +' Q bid I __u O 0 G E t c f c � awwn'� °f �:..: O O O W „1 — ,A , a 1 V/ _ V f0 p ':.""' . - C O C .p 13I O. ti s ir�ti`alA F O - I N O N ++ N - v Nv pl O1 k�. -- ° , ^D � �" � - p m mV UI Z m fC Z fC �+ O I U 1 o Z u� a 3 a� = +1 Oi W aO sO ayo " �L O � a�iO 0 = N UN = N I sots OO x • J ++ p += J ML- 4 e I a ++ f�A = (A = Z Vf = I —_- J Ln J Q J Q •aa a O EOO QE� I 'oLLM CG J W oC N ` Q OC Bi.c East Hill East Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendrR�nts ZZSS Option 1: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Commercial (C) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) Option 2: LU Plan: Change from C to MU north of the southernmost stream; Change from C to SF6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream Zoning: Rezone from O to MU north of the southernmost stream; Rezone from O to SR-6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream ♦♦ r u . kLDMF 4 _ " ♦\ 1 I 11 all•" - " ♦ Option 1: A !, l� LU Plan: C to MU • r Zoning: O to CC-MU _ `F s w P- se r rp 40 R44 f Option 2: QSR-6 North of Stream: LU Plan: C to MU Zoning: O to CC-MU , F *♦ South of Stream: �♦ LU Plan: C to SF6 ►�. Zoning:0 to SR-6 Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change L D M F, Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Stream ® " Parcels KENT Bi.d Valley South ZSLand Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendTy's Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Commercial Manufacturing 2 (CM-2) TtMHP t w , H P T , � ► 'or Ali C MDMF ;- .. y J 4 MR-M r F" F�F f > a j LU Plan: No Change Zoning: O to CM-2 oll, y ij; ,gyp i* 4k� CS - _ � ���11■11■11■11■11■11■11■11■11■U�11 Ap 11I11111111111111I/11/II/1 77-77 _Q Legend S d Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) QExisting Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels �u■ut ■ Kent City LimitsNr �n■u■% ECD-Feb. 2015 Bi.e West Hill ZZSSLand Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendTy's Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) AL Stt SF-6 SR-'w, AMP RL — - S 2�'A St a �" LU Plan: No Change 1Y rt Zoning: O to NCC a' NS 1 Ik _Y . ,,.a ,il :; � � . .n"+_,•fir � ,.• ry ,� • .'i*'.III ' .A: ■.� a!?x _III � '.. •Y :y � 14 is - g Le end ° Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) rM Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations r.! } Parcels ���■�� 0 Kent City Limits %eHT r ECD-Feb. 2015 AL B2.a Valley West ZZSSLand Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendTT's Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) OS OS OS a v MA 11 , �� I MHP - il -c us Split Zoned Parcel: I LU Plan: No Change Maintain split zoning; rezone MA portion to M 1 F�4'—S:21,6�St y Sr2,16rSt.j■ LU Plan: No Change " Zoning: MA to M1 k Via. M s MA J� OS.. Split Zoned Parcels: ! LU Plan: No Change Zoning: MA portion to M1 ��I •,I - .os MhE ,'_�Sf226tSt Split Zoned Parcel: "`- - LU Plan: No Change i r Zoning: MA/MR-G portion to M1 T ` � - N Legend wE !�`" Veterans-Dr• Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change _ � -� _ - �, - Affected Parcel(s) - _ Existing Zoning Districts L � Existing Land Use Plan Designations LDM F Pa rce I s � Si232�P.1r� ECD-Feb. 2015 B2.b Valley North ZZSSLand Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendTr's Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) rrrfr -- LU Plan: No Change L� k=: J Zoning: MA to M1 ^�+ 77 1� • ��♦ice •- I� x 4 i,.,i ��♦�� S 190 St ♦�i Legend S Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change - - Affected Parcel(s) ����p�����n■u■u■u■u■u■n■n■u■n■ntin�lun��� Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ' :. tic. �4art�iilG LIHEIIELb Kent City Limits _ 'll■11■: ECD-Feb. 2015 L B2.c Valley South ZSl�Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendTr's Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Agricultural General (AG) MDMF,. ' ' Prager Rd$ MU r= GC 1 R-h'56 Q MDMF�'� AG-R S 1-10 LU Plan: No Change ~` Zoning: MA to AG F . M2 Os N Legend 5 Y S r AG-S AG Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) +. Existing Zoning Districts '••'' S 262 St �� Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ■ Kent City Limits �u■u■: ECD-Feb. 2015 s .w PAff MM C Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments B3. Eliminate Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning District - OPTION 1 87 Land Use (LU) Plan: Commercial (C) to Industrial (I) Zoning: Rezone from GWC to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) Amend Split Zoned Parcels '�.� If [[ L i t Obi Ji'`11yr^I' 1L■`1 - .n...�•.. ���' ` _ •*.. '�__ rR I�`• �Ii� -(�II :tea .-+1 Split Zoned Parcel: ; ;. ` C 11 �. Split Zoned Parcels: C LU Plan: C portion to MIC i1 LU Plan: MIC/C to I GWC C portion to M2 s ' I'• Zoning: M2/GWC to MI-C I a ' GW SR-4' ARF.•" 7r S 21�2 St M2 IS IT �- .' ---- Split Zoned Parcel: Split Zoned Parcel: LU Plan: C to I Q� LU Plan: C to MIC Zoning: GWC to M1-C o Zoning: GWC to M2 — ` = S MIC _ 1 a a Split Zoned Parcel: g LU Plan: MIC/C to ? Zoning: M2/GWC to M1 MIC Split Zoned Parcel: �� 1 LU Plan: C to I i 4!5- SF�4.5J � Zoning: GWC/CM-1 to M1-C t 1- 15 Split Zoned Parcels: 74 � Ss218�St LU Plan: C to MIC Zoning: GWC to M3 ' GWC _ Split Zoned Parcel: �> a LU Plan: C to I f' Zoning: GWC to M3 IHP C0 ��S�222*Sty_ " 5 s.21 — 1 Legend 1 1 w ` - Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) J, � Existing Zoning Districts r a _ Existing Land Use Plan Designations Lai- Parcels ..KEHT ;..�. 1 ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments B3. Eliminate Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning District - OPTION 2 88 Land Use (LU) Plan: Commercial (C) to Industrial (I) Zoning: Rezone from GWC to the Abutting Zones of Limited Industrial (M2) & General Industrial (M3) West of 84th Ave S.; Rezone from GWC to the Abutting Zones of Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1) and M2 East of 84th Ave S. +ti...�.. `� GWC 1 Q > 1 C SY21,U 5t o �S.2.1.0 St .SR-45 .. SR-1 SR- _ L 2 R-G o_ N 1 US NIIC s M IC S F, � 1 "•�� SR-4.5�� 1� .�_ c'" i Ss21�8�St GWCa � a _ 00 M3 IHP ®_ y SR-6 S jjjj �S-222.St co H5PM/+ ■��v� LM'1 - S-2f \ 1 Legend W1 S e j I Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) r 1 i Existing Zoning Districts JR a1� Existing Land Use Plan Designations s 11 Parcels i SS 22g1b--- _ ECD-Feb. 2015 ;�.+ _ _ 1 -�' ice- SR-6 •- - Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrrffts C1. Vista Landing Z5� Land Use (LU) Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 Zoning: No Change DMF os L] LU Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 ''' Zoning: No Change .., SR-6 �` ' is S 267 Si SE 267 St SR . i ' SE 268 St rt Legend W E Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) US .. !! _ F- "' Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations t' Parcels au■u■ Kent City Limits ` E"T ���■��� ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrwts C2. Fern Crest �l1 Land Use (LU) Plan: Redefine boundaries of Urban Separator (US) and Single Family Residential (SF8) Zoning: Redefine boundaries of Single Family Residential (SR-8)and Residential Agricultural (SR-1) LJ SF-4.5 `j -fir SR-4.5 !� s 0001 \ r , - LU Plan: US portion to SF8 00\ \ - - Zoning: SR-1 portion to SR-8 SE 224 St LU Plan: SIPS portion to US � Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 021 , tea: t LU Plan: SF8 portion to US ,^ Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 SE x y OS s. 1: Jr � * _ SE 1� a i[ k�.,_ ry - ,L226iP1: . � �,WL- . ` � �,■■ -IMSE4; � LU Plan: No Change 40 Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 MMMM= Al P1. Ir Legend N rill. Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change it Affected Parcel(s) SF-4.5 II II Existing Zoning Districts ; ® .'•�; � � Existing Land Use Plan Designations Q Parcels M fi ® all■11� .i r �11■Ili Kent City Limits (CENT +4 SE 230 St ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendfirts C3. Megan's Meadow Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Single Family Residential (SF4.5) to Single Family Residential (SF6) Zoning: No Change W �. 1 :., AN y N � � r M SE 238 St � �j Y 1 '��,5 *•� �` t LU Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 1 Zoning: No Change OW ;;"774' 1%4 SF - Ip YIlk. ? 411 SR-6 !! II II i ` : SE 234 St - - N Legend W E Y„ S. _ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change " Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels . ECD-Feb. 2015 C6. Bonel Mobile Manor yLLand Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendfirts Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) portion to Mobile Home Park (MHP) . S 242 PI ��• c� II MR-M�. � • _ OS MDMF W Smith Ct y h f 47007. _ — mom s ' 4 . MHP , F t'^' �� P o : LU Plan: No Change MHP ` A Zoning: GC-MU to MHP PA it AN 1 ,A Nam �q 4 — 1 n . •� 1k - , W,A r Cc-Mu Legend S t } Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change I li Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts r Existing Land Use Plan Designations MDMF MR-M Parcels K��, ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendnWts C7. Frager Rd South Right-of-Way �.5 Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone Right-of-Way from Agricultural (A-10) to Agricultural General (AG) T: w ;MD MF MR-I t M U� . � •-r r R y,A LU Plan: No Change 1 Zoning: A-10 to AG r t � 7• 44 , . . - 1 , e '. 1h •E • ,,: 1 d 4 S' A-10 F t A*A\,t. It Legend WE Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change ► '; �• all Existing Zoning Districts CO Existing Land Use Plan Designations fq CO g-- - Parcels kEnl 1 * F ECD-Feb. 2015 kin 1' ti C8. Central Avenue South y4Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Commercial Manufacturing-2 (CM-2) slearview 17;CD 4 �T _ LU Plan: No Change Zoning: SR-6 to CM-2 10, or r . a - C li r.- � W,ynwood Dr S W L �i ' Legend _ s ` Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change -- Affected Parcel(s) A Q Existing Zoning Districts ,,•.� OF f ti ' _ Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels kr^ {' ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendnWts C9. Scenic View Condos y� Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Zoning: No Change 1 A 1 UC DCE-T GC-MU LU Plan: LDMF to MDMF Zoning: No Change a F�Titus St LDMF MR-H +� J�,r .tea • Y �LFY4r- � rr ,.q J SF-6 ". SR�6 Legend WI Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) 1 ' Existing Zoning Districts 4 Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels • ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendnwts C10. Earthworks Park �b Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone portion from Low Density Multifamily (MR-G) to Single Family Residential (SR-4.5) 4• � ,I , . SR-1 V1 jW ®R r LU Plan: No Change r Zoning: MR-G portion to SR-4.5 maw _ *rm 7. t77 +• �■ VW LDMF .�' rr. ,. SR-8 �SFMS ,. 1 "Now 4 .) SF=6 '+A� •� N W Legend W `ice ■ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change J^ Affected Parcel(s) SE 268 St �� Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations US row Parcels _ �! 'w ECD-Feb. 2015 C11. 116th Avenue SE and SE 274th Way y'Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendfirts Land Use (LU) Plan: Change portion from Single Family Residential (SF4.5) to Single Family Residential (SF6) Zoning: Rezone portion from Single Family Residential (SR-4.5) to Single Family Residential (SR-6) VL b ' 1 SE 2,72 PI w SR-6 a Q SE 2 72 P a SF-6 I r r \ fi _ w a r. OS '� . • 90 LU Plan: SF4.5 portion to SF6 ►( •M�" ' Zoning: SR-4.5 portion to SR-6 . aSF W+F N Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) QExisting Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations -'` -- Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 � s4 C12. North Central Avenue Commercial �Z5Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrrf►ts Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone Split-Zoned Parcels from Limited Industrial(M2) and General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) to GC-MU; Rezone Split-Zoned Parcels from Limited Industrial (M2) and General Commercial (GC) to GC. E ♦ • MIC M3 4d C yr ♦♦ LU Plan: No Change ♦ = Zoning: Rezone M2/GC to GC ♦♦♦ Novak Ln GC-MU Ir M R-G - s LDMF LU Plan: No Change . 0-MQa-__sii Zoning: Rezone M2/GC-MU to GC-MU ' -.j r ` Legend „'L�O�F - Proposed Zoning/ Land Use Plan Change 1 -8 Affected Parcel(s) SF Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations II17. Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendnWts C13. 100th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street yy Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Zoning: No Change lift SFFl-6 MR-6 LU Plan: LDMF to MDMF Zoning: No Change ' S 236 St 1 u.,, .ft „ --`. W M RT-Aj6 L II ' = 1 IF - - —� II �SEt2317 S_t�`t iI 7� N ® � LDMF s. OL - - �Y 1 r` MDMFAW u I r nC r 'FAR N Legend WE -� MU Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change S 240 St— " �- Affected Parcel(s) MEL 9� p Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels �E„Y .,i ECD-Feb. 2015 • 'o iL..tl ' --- 100 FEHRtPEERS MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2015 To: Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson, City of Kent From: Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers Subject: Review of Transportation Implications of Dockets and Potential Land Use Map Amendments We have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan amendments documented in the January 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the Land Use and Planning Board. Our review focused on potential implications of these proposals to the transportation system in the context of the Transportation Element. Since most of these proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some perspectives on the likely transportation impacts. In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes can be incorporated into the travel model for more detailed analysis during the next Transportation Master Plan update. The following table summarizes our review. 1001 4t"Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Seattle, WA 98154 1 (206) 576-4220 1 Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 101 Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson January 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Land Use Proposal Comments DKT-2014-4 Relatively small parcel located along S 272nd St. Although S 272nd St and Pacific Highway corridors are both very congested, the change in traffic is unlikely to substantially affect the level of service conditions in the area. DKT-2014-6 Located at corner of Kent Kangley Rd and 1161"Ave SE. Proposed to rezone to commercial and likely construction of a pharmacy. The two affected corridors would be LOS D in 2035 and the proposed land use is unlikely to change those conditions. Property access would need to be examined given the heavy traffic at that corner. DKT-2014-7 Proposal to change to multifamily housing along 881"Ave SE. Likely development of up to 154 townhouses. This location is not adjacent to one of the transportation corridors, but the traffic from this development would access via 841"Ave S, which operates at LOS D. Local street access would need to be analyzed. DKT-2014-8 Proposed to change to transit-oriented commercial-residential within the Midway area. The Transportation Element included assumption of growth in Midway, so this change would likely be compatible with that analysis. More detailed analysis was prepared as part of the Midway EIS. Expand Commercial Would allow some commercial land uses in addition to current Opportunities in Industrial industrial uses. The intent appears to allow for commercial uses and Area (Al-A4) service providers to support the large employment base in the industrial areas. While retail generates higher traffic volumes than industrial uses, the type of retail envisioned would be less likely to generate new trips from outside of the existing industrial area. The overall transportation impacts would therefore be fairly limited. Eliminate Office Zone (131) This change would make certain parcels on the East Hill more developable with mixed commercial uses. These would serve the nearby residential areas and offer more services to the neighborhoods. The transportation effects would likely be positive by creating commercial opportunities closer to residences. Eliminate the MA Zoning Affects a dispersed number of properties in the valley. This appears District (132) to be more of a housekeeping change in zoning that would likely have few changes in transportation conditions. Eliminate Gateway Located along 841"Ave South to the north of SR 167. It seems that Commercial Zone (133) the land uses with the proposed change would continue to be auto- oriented commercial, which is consistent with the land uses analyzed in the Transportation Element. Without further analysis, it is difficult to assess the potential change in traffic generation. 102 103 LAND USE PLAN & ZONING DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENTS EXHIBITS 104 105 Hart, Aleisha From: Richard McPherson <richard@mcphersonhomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 4:29 PM To: Anderson, Charlene Cc: Hart, Aleisha; Gilbert, Matthew; Satterstrom, Fred; Dave DeVore Subject: RE: Land Use and Planning Board Workshop re: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update Importance: High exhibit #_. - - Date P,e 'd Staff Land Use &Planning Soarrd. <_"" td=""> city of;Cent Ms Anderson, Thank you for your email. I am sending you this request on behalf of Mr David DeVore, whom I represent both as a long-time personal friend, and as his real estate broker. The comment and request we would like to have considered, regarding the pending re- zone of the DeVore property is this; we understand that the current staff proposal is for this property zoning classification to be changed from "O" to C/MU. This should improve the marketability of his, as well as the several other O zoned properties, which will, of course, have positive long-term tax revenue implications for the City. These changes should definitely be most helpful. However, given the significant wetlands challenges facing Dave DeVore's 16.51 acres, we are requesting adding the MF (multi family) zoning classification to this parcel. Currently,with the O zoning, as I understand it, a variance would most likely be granted for construction of Senior housing. However, there seems to be, at least an off-chance possibility, that the needed rezone from O, to C/MU could inadvertently, make senior housing, as it is most commonly developed today, more of a challenge. Because of the significant challenges already facing this property, it is my professional opinion - and based upon the several serious inquiries by seasoned developers we have had already this year - that adding the (MF) multi-family zoning designation to the proposed C/MU, would definitely greatly enhance the desire ability and usability of this property. (Also, as Mr. Satterstrom and I discussed briefly and informally at the first Land Use & Planning Board hearing, given the limited 'turf' that can be built upon, bordering Kent-Kangley, there might well be the need by a buyer/developer to request a height variance, even with the zoning changes, proposed and requested.) Finally, Ms Anderson, on behalf of Dave DeVore and myself, "Thank you" again for taking the time to review and submit this additional request for staff consideration and - hopefully- for submission to the Board. If our request needs to be presented in a i different format, etc., please let me know, and I will be happy to do so. - R - III Richard E. McPherson, CNE 1 106 Managing Broker/Owner McPherson Homes & Land Inc. Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 206.200.7447 Fax: 425.786.0065 richard@mcphersonhomes.com www.mcphersonhomes.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: REVISED: 2-9-15 Land Use and Planning Board Workshop re: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update From: "Anderson, Charlene" <CAnderson@kentwa.gov> Date: Fri, February 13, 2015 8:27 am To: 'Richard McPherson' <rchard@mcphersonhomes.com> Cc: "Hart, Aleisha" <AHart@kentwa.gov>, "Gilbert, Matthew" <MGilbert@ kentwa.gov> Mr. McPherson, If you do intend to make comments, it would be good if you could send me a letter as soon as possible so that it can be included in my analysis as well as entered as an exhibit at the Land Use & Planning Board hearing. Regards, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Planning Services I Economic &Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5431 canderson@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook ..1'°P'1#5-ice- YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Gilbert, Matthew Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:09 PM To: 'Richard McPherson' Cc: Hart, Aleisha; Anderson, Charlene Subject: RE: REVISED: 2-9-15 Land Use and Planning Board Workshop re: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. McPherson, Comments on the proposed comprehensive plan update and rezone should be sent via email to Charlene Anderson , Planning Manager at canderson@kentwa.gov, in a letter to Charlene (address is in my signature block below), or in person at the public hearing. As a party of record,you will receive notice of the time and date of the hearing. I hope this helps. Best Regards, Matt Matt Gilbert, Principal Planner Planning Services I Economic & Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 2 107 Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5435 mgilbert@KentWA.gov CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON KentWA.Aov Facebook YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL From: Richard McPherson [mailto:richard(a)mcphersonhomes.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:23 AM To: Hart, Aleisha cc: Dave DeVore; Gilbert, Matthew Subject: RE: REVISED: 2-9-15 Land Use and Planning Board Workshop re: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update <=1111td=11 1t> Ms. Hart - Thank you for adding me to your list of recipients for the emails concerning the City's land use discussions. Unfortunately, I received the email below, too late to attend that one, but do want to be notified about future ones. In my phone conversation with Matt Gilbert last week, he suggested I contact you about the possibility of making comment regarding the DeVore property rezone that is in the works. How can I do this, and may I do it directly with you, in person, by phone, or email - or at a specified hearing with the planning board? Thanks again - R - Diehard E. McPherson, CNE Managing Broker/Owner McPherson Homes & Land Inc. Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 206.200.7447 Fax: 425.786.0065 richard(@mcphersonhomes.com www.mcphersonhomes.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: REVISED: 2-9-15 Land Use and Planning Board Workshop re: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update From: "Hart, Aleisha" <AHart(cbkentwa.gov> Date: Fri, February 06, 2015 10:19 am To: To Parties of Record: You are receiving this email because you have completed a survey or have requested to receive information for the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update. 3 108 You are invited to attend a Land Use and Planning Board ("LUPB") Workshop being held on February 9, 2015, where we will be discussing updates to Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Please find attached, the LUPB Workshop Agenda. If you would like more information regarding this Workshop and/or to view the complete Agenda Packet, please click on the link below: http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004 If you wish to be removed from this list, please respond via email. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TTY/TDD service all the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic & Community Development Department, Planning Division at (253) 856-5454. Thank you, Aleisha Hart, Administrative Secretary Planning Services I Economic & Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5461 AHart@kentwa.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.aov Facebool< -5`vvF`4r YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL 4 109 Hart, Aleisha From: Richard McPherson <richard@mcphersonhomes.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:09 PM To: Satterstrom, Fred Cc: Anderson, Charlene; Gilbert, Matthew; Dave DeVore Subject: Rezone update request Exhibit ;2 rl��a, Date R e'd_..,3 _ 6 Sta Land Use &Planning Bard G°itY of Kent Good Friday afternoon, Fred - At the last Land Use and Planning Board meeting a couple of weeks ago, someone mentioned that you are planning to retire soon. Seeing that this coming Monday's meeting has been cancelled, I thought I would send you this quick email. First, if this s true, IO wish you a long and pleasant retirement. Second, given our brief impromptu conversation about Dave DeVore's property, after the previous meeting, I would appreciate it if you could send me a note saying again that - given the significant wetland challenges his property faces, it would make sense for a height variance to be approved. As I mentioned, I am really glad the City is in the final tags of hearings on rezone of Dave's and other "O" zoned parcels, so that they can finally be developed. We have had several serious inquiries already this year from developers who specialize in Senior Housing. The rezone as proposed will certainly make a big difference there, and hopefully, the new zoning can include MF so as to make it totally doable for this purpose. I suspect you saw the email sent to Charlene Anderson on 2/18 requesting consideration of this, in addition to those already proposed. Given the significantly reduced footprint is land is going to have, I agreed with your comment that the normal height restrictions would make sense, especially as concerns Senior housing. Thanks again, Fred, and I wish you a great retirement enjoying hobbies you have been putting offal these years. - R - Richard E. McPherson, CNE Managing Broker/Owner McPherson Horses & Land Inc. Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 206.200.7447 Fax: 425.786.0065 richard(@mcphersonhomes.com www.mcphersonhomes.com 1 110 111 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION 40 Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager 4 Phone: 253-856-5454 ENT Fax: 253-856-6454 w A S H IN r,7 ON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 20, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Comprehensive Plan Update For April 27, 2015 Public Hearing MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of the nine chapters or elements of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, including associated Background and Technical Reports, Maps and Memos as recommended by staff. SUMMARY: The City is scheduled to complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) by June 30, 2015. Staff has presented all but the Capital Facilities Element to the Board in previous workshops; amendments to those elements since the workshop have been noted in track-change mode. The chapters and elements replace previous versions of the Plan. BACKGROUND: At the August 11th Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff introduced the Comprehensive Plan update project, the schedule, and the public outreach activities. Since that time, the Board has reviewed all of the chapters or elements in workshops, except the Capital Facilities Element which is new. This update to the Plan refreshes the current conditions and trends, integrates recent planning initiatives, complies with state, regional and local mandates, and reformats the Plan. Some of the Chapters and Elements include Background Reports; the Transportation Element includes as background a Technical Report, four maps and two memos dated 1/30/15 and 2/16/15. Staff will be present at the April 27th public hearing to present the materials and answer questions. BUDGET IMPACTS: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval CA\ah:S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011- 1_CompPlanU pdate\Chapters_For_Public_Hearing\Staff_Report_LUPB_042715.doc Encl:Plan Chapters or Elements; Background Reports; Transportation Element Technical Report; Fehr & Peers Memos dated 1/30/15 and 2/16/15; Exhibits X through X cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Hayley Bonsteel Project File 112 113 Chapter One - KENT PROFILE AND VISION Formatted:Font: 18pt What you will find in this chapter: • Introduction to the Plan • How the Plan was developed • Organization of the Plan • Population and Employment Data • Vision and Framework Policies Purpose Statement: To introduce the Kent Comprehensive Plan and provide the City's community profile, context, and vision for 2035 w..rc K t,, BmgmgtheWandNam. Introduction �r� Welcome to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Citywide, Kent is Bringing the World Home. Bringing the World Home" is What is that place called "home?" The Plan the result of a campaign describes the vision for 2035 and provides goals initiated by the Lodging Tax and policies for achieving it through the following: Advisory Committee to • Jobs and services market Kent. The proposed 0 Economic choices branding and marketing Locations for categories of land uses slogan captures the diversitt Housing in Kent businesses, trade, Parks and recreational opportunities school districts and residents. System for getting around htto://downtownkentwa.com/wo- • Ways of communicating content/uploads/2014/04/kent- • Natural resources branding1joa Utilities you depend on • Aesthetic values • Sustainable funding for desired goods and services The Plan is used by staff, elected officials and others in making decisions regarding funding of capital facilities and projects, implementing development regulations, and developing future neighborhood or specific department master plans. Furthermore, the Plan provides to the community and other public agencies a clear expression of the City's choices for accommodating growth and implementing the vision for 2035. Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 1 Kent Gernprehensive Plan — 114 How the Plan was developed + The foundation of the Plan is the City of Kent Strategic Plan which was developed by the City Council and describes the vision for Kent in 2025. Kent isa :f-, and The Strategic Plan identifies five goals and several r r;: objectives for supporting the community values. The Plan also satisfies the requirements of the Demlop and Implement State's Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW FundingnModei 36.70A) which identifies thirteen (13) planning goals that guide development and adoption of local . comprehensive plans and development regulations. Furthermore, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) as dopart of VISION 2040. VISION 2040 uses the concept of people, prosperity and planet in presenting the regional strategy for accommodating the 5 million people expected to Create�J ir]iihp;'iCCrl live in the region by 2040. The MPPs are regional guidelines and principles used in certifying local policies and plans. Additionally, as required by the GMA, jurisdictions within King County ratified the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) as a framework for development of consistent county and city comprehensive plans to meet state and Createconnectiow, regional goals. For People and Places By completing surveys, sending in comments, talking to Kent's elected officials, and participating FosterfncdusivenP, in workshops and public hearings, residents of Kent and other interested parties also contributed extensively to development of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. r . Organization of the Plan Kent The Plan includes 7 elements required by GMA: Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Transportation, Economic Development, as well as Parks and Recreation. Kent adds an additional element related to Human Services. Each element identifies its purpose and key issues; describes its systems; and includes goals, policies, maps and http://kentwa.gov/content.asr)x?id=119 other graphics to tell its story and manner of 6&Menu=DropDown achieving the Cit 's vision. References in the Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 2 April 17, 2015^,4areh 17� 115 element and appendices provide additional analyses and details for the element. Each element has been reviewed for consistency with State, regional and countywide goals and policies, other elements in the Plan, and the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Consistency in this context means that the plan is not in conflict with these other plans and policies. Public Participation , During the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan update there were many opportunities for public involvement. There was a customized Create Kent 2035 Web presence and '77 survey launched in August, 2014 at National Night Out. Not only did staff distribute the survey at the numerous National Night Out events but they also advertised thlsurvey through Neighborhood Council e-mail lists, business cards ;- - and posters around City Hall, to-downtown businesses and -the downtown library. Staff also attended service club - meetings and other community events to solicApublic ate" comments on the update to the comprehensive plan. It was especiaofortuitt that the City partnered Formatted:Indent:Left: 2",Right: 0" WHAT PRav{�Es You WITH with Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, InterIm AGREAT auAL(TY OF LIFE. CDA, and OneAmerica on a SpeakOut during Kent Cornucopia Days where over 100 Kent residents participate Futurewise and partners also translated t e survey into Spanish, Russian, Somali Vietnamese as well as compiled the results . . f over 900 responses to the survey. Ad onally, Futurewise and Mother Africa •� successfully engaged the immigrant and refugee community in four workshops to discuss issues Ar relevant to the participants and to provide training ZAon engaging with public and elected officials. See the Background Report for SpeakOut and Survey �"' results. The results of the survey indicate that community safety is the overall top priority as well as the most important element of making Kent a better place to live. Beautification, cleanliness and attractiveness placed second in making Kent more livable. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 3 April 17, 2015^,;areh 17� 116 Community Profile History Kent's roots stretch back to 1890, the year it was incorporated with a population of 763 people. Kent was a major grower of hops and berries, and at one time, it was considered the Lettuce Capital of the World. Dairy farming was also an important sector of Kent's early economy. In 1899, the first can of Carnation Milk was produced in Kent. In the 1950's, industrial production began to develop on Kent's valley floor. In 1963, completion of the Howard Hanson Dam, a flood-storage facility, hastened further economic change in the Valley. With the dam, Kent was transformed from a rural community with farm land that was routinely flooded by the Green River each winter into the industrial powerhouse it is today. Today From its roots in hops and lettuqJ fa ming to toda aerospace Formatted:Justified,Right: 1.1" and hi h-tech manufacturin K nt has come a Ion waysince 3 it was first incorporated. Now as a hub of innovation with an official OFM population estimate of 121,400 as of April 1, 2014 See Table 1.1 Kent is 1obally onnected co'Mmunit . In 2015 Kent celebrates its ImUh anniversary. Kent is also part Formatted:Superscript of the fourth larciest warehMing and distribution center in the "Pt. nation, is the sixth largest city in Wash 19ton and is the third largest city in King County, estimate e€121400 as of April T2014 (See Tabs 1.1). A culturally rich destination, Kent features captivating neighborhoods, award- winning parks, exceptional school districts and nationally accredited police and fire departments. In recent years, Kent has experienced impressive economic growth, and is nationally known as a prime location for manufacturing. By the year 2035, Kent is planning for growth to approximately 54,000 households and 82,000 jobs (See Table 1.2). The data in this Community Profile highlight population and growth targets, ethnicity, household character and employment. The data will be used in drafting each of the individual elements of the Plan, and additional finer- grained detail also may be incorporated within the individual elements. Table 1.1 Population Rankin Seattle 640,500 Spokane 212,300 Tacoma 200,900 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 4 April 17, 201';P4areh 17� 117 Vancouver 167,400 Bellevue 134,400 Kent 121,400 Source: April 1,2014 OFM official estimate Table 1.2 Growth Forecasts Households Jobs PSRC Forecasts 2035 53,549* 81,854 2010 Baseline (2010 Census for HH;Jobs are 42,793 0 61,654 Calculated from PSRC data Growth Targets 2035 (Countywide Planning Policies, 10,858 5,648 as extended for 2006-2035 Buildable Lands Capacity (as of 12/31/2011) 53,525** 83, Capacity to Accommodate PSRC Forecasts 2035 - 24 + 1,424 *Using an average 2014 OFM population per occupied usehold of 2.58,the population estimate is 138,156. **Buildable Lands Capacity applies historic trends to fu rowth on vacant and redevelopable lands. The capacity numbers do not include potential additional capacity provided by zonin nges in Midway and Downtown Subarea Plans. Ethnicity Kent is an ethnically diverse community (see Table 1.3). Kent School District students speak over 100 different languages at home (see Table 1.4). This diversity creates a vibrancy that can be seen in small businesses and local cultural festivals. Table 1.3 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics Subject Kent city,Washington v Estimate Percent ACE Total population 120,964 120,964 One race 113,245 93.6% Two or more races 7,719 6.4% One race 113,245 93.6% White 70,901 58.6% Black or African American 11,237 9.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 757 0.6% Asian 20,197 16.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,840 3.2% Some other race 6,313 5.2% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 5 April 17, 2015^,-4aFeh 17� 118 Two or more races 7,719 6.4% White and Black or African American 1,595 1.3% White and American Indian and Alaska Native 911 0.8% White and Asian 1,410 1.2% Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 85 0.1% Race alone or in combination with one or more other races Total population 120,964 120,964 White 6,526 63.3% Black or African American 13,976 11.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 1,968 1.6% Asian 23,817 19.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 5,266 4.4% Some other race 7,68 6.3% HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 120,964 120,964 Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 20,354 16.8% Mexican 16,594 13.7% Puerto Rican 383 0.3% Cuban 177 0.1% Other Hispanic or Latino 3,200 2.6% Not Hispanic or Latino 100,610 83.2% White alone 59,035 48.8% Black or African American alone 10,886 9.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 728 0.6% ian alone * 19,981 16.5% tive Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 3,840 3.2% Some other race alone 269 0.2% wo or more races 5,871 4.9% races includingl Some other race 289 0.2% Two races excluding Some other race,and Three or more races 5,582 4.6% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data,please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin:2010,issued March 2011. Table 1.4 Language Spoken at Home Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Population 5 years and over 111,120 111,120 English only 66,063 59.5% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 6 April 17, 2015^,4aFeh 1 , 2 119 Language other than English 45,057 40.5% Speak English less than"very well" 20,955 18.9% Spanish 14,488 13.0% Speak English less than"very well" 6,923 6.2% Other Indo-European languages 11,121 10.0% Speak English less than"very well" 5,392 4.9% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 15,726 14.2% Speak English less than"very well" 7,408 6.7% Other languages 3,722 3.3% Speak English less than"very well" 1,232 1.1% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Household Character The age of Kent's population represents growl families Table 1.5). The housing mix is nearly evenly splieen single mily and multiple-family housing (See Table 1.6). A st 84% of those over 25 years of age in Kent have completed their high school education (See Table 1.6). Recent household income statistics show a mean household income level of $67,853 (See Table 1.8). abl A f ulati Under 5 years 8.1 A 5 to 9 years 7.0% 10 to 14 years 7.1% 15 to 19 years 7.2% 20 to 24 years 7.8% 25 to 29 years 7.9% 30 to 34 years 7.0% 35 to 39 years 7.3% 40 to 44 years 6.90/. 45 to 49 years 7.5% 50 to 54 years 1W. 0% 55 to 59 years 4.8% 60 to 64 years .8% 65 to 69 years 3.6% 70 to 74 years 1.9% 75 to 79 years 1.5% 8 years 1.2% 85 years and over 1.3% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Table 1.6 Housing Mix Units in Structure Total Housing Units 44,932 1-unit detached 47.4% 1-unit,attached 5.3% 2 units 1.4% 3 or more units 41.8% 3 or 4 units 5.2% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 7 April 17, 2015^,-4areh 17� 120 5 to 9 units 12.1% 10 to 19 units 12.9% 20 or more units 11.7% Mobile home 3.8% Boat,RV,Van, Etc. 0.3% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Table 1.7 Education Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Population 3 years and over enrolled in school 31,286 31,286 Nursery school,preschool 1,256 4.0% Kindergarten 1,586 5.1% Elementary school (grades 1-8) 13,836 44.2% High school (grades 9-12) 6,789 21.7% College or graduate school 7,819 25.0% EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Population 25 years and over 75,934 75,934 Less than 9th grade 6,350 8.4% 9th to 12th grade,no diploma 6,193 8.2% High school graduate(includes equivalency) 20,136 26.5% Some college,no degree 17,984 23.7% Associate's degree 7,062 9.3% Bachelor's degree 13,317 17.5% Graduate or professional degree 4,892 6.4% Percent high school graduate or higher (X) 83.5% Percent bachelor's degree or higher (X) 24.0% Source: 10-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates An'(X)' ans that the estimate is not applicable or not available. Table 1.8 Household Income Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent INCOME AND BENEFITS(IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS Total households 41,854 41,854 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 8 April 17, 2015^,;aFeh 17� 121 Less than$10,000 2,470 5.9% $10,000 to$14,999 1,757 4.2% $15,000 to$24,999 4,706 11.2% $25,000 to$34,999 4,112 9.8% $35,000 to$49,999 5,815 13.9% $50,000 to$74,999 8,134 19.4% $75,000 to$99,999 5,681 13.6% $100,000 to$149,999 6,138 14.7% $150,000 to$199,999 2,095 5.0% $200,000 or more 946 2.3% Median household income 55,244 (X) dollars Mean household income 67,853 (X) dollars Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates An'(X)'means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. Employment Kent is a regional employment center. The current employment trends and future forecast illustrate the importance of Kent to the economic health of the region (See Table 1.9). Table 1.9 Employment Trends Forecast by Sector Employment by Year Employment Sector 2010 2025 2035 Manufacturing-WTU 29,705 33,069 36,960 Retail - Food Services 9,095 11,036 12,333 FIRE-Services 16,628 22,529 25,178 Government-Higher Education 3,606 3,934 4,191 Education K-12 2,620 2,949 3,192 Total Employment 61,654 73,517 81,854 Source:Puget Sound Regional Council-April 14,2014 Land Use Targets developed by counties and municipalities to align with the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy in place as of December 2013. Vision and Framework Guidance In preparation for Kent's first comprehensive plan adopted under the State's 1990 Growth Management Act, the Kent City Council in September 1992 passed Resolution No. 1325 which adopted local goals to be used as the policy framework for the Plan. With this update, the Plan uses the following planning guidance in the development of goals and policies in each element. The planning guidance is consistent with the State, regional and countywide goals and policies. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 9 April 17, 2015^,;aFeh 17, 2�5 122 Vision Kent is a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers. Urban Growth Foster a growth pattern that accommodates 20 years of projected population and employment growth in compact, safe, and vibrant neighborhoods and jobs centers. Transportation Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system for all users which will support current and projected growth using context- sensitive design. Public Facilities and Services Provide a full range of public facilities and services to support the envisioned urban growth pattern in a sustainable manner. Housing Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income levels and household needs. Urban Design Support an urban design strategy and development pattern that create places that attract people and promote active lifestyles. Human Services Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the community's growth, vitality and health. Economic Development Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods, growth centers, and the overall community. Natural Resource Industries Promote, support and protect natural resource-based industries, such as agricultural industries that provide local access to healthy foods. Open Space and Recreation Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces, recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons in the community. Historic Preservation Preserve and enhance Kent's cultural, physical and environmental heritage as a means of sustaining vibrant and unique places that are the roots of the community. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 10 April 17, 201';;areh 1�2S 123 Environment Protect and enhance a sustainable natural environment, including critical areas, endangered species and aquatic habitat, air and water quality, and large-scale natural resources. Property Rights Protect private property rights from arbitrary and discriminatory actions while considering the public's interest. Permits Establish a fair, timely, efficient and predictable permit process. Community Involvement Provide for culturally competent and accessible public participation in the development and amendment of City plans and regulatory actions. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 11 April 17, 201[;P4areh 1�2 � 124 125 King County Equity Project Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, Interim CDA, OneAmerica SpeakOut Results and Summary Kent Cornucopia Days Event: July 11-13, 2014 Introduction Kent's annual family festival, Kent Cornucopia Days, CREATE KENT 2035 took place in Downtown Kent from Friday July 11 th through Sunday July 13th, 2014. Futurewise and partners designed and implemented an interactive outreach booth, called a SpeakOut, about community issues for residents of Kent and other areas of King -- County. The purpose of the SpeakOut was to gather input from the broader community about issues related to Kent's f . upcoming Comprehensive Plan. A SpeakOut designed to be a way to gather information and opinions from community members in an easy and convenient way. The City of Kent provided a set of questions regarding housing, transportation, the environment, and quality of life. These questions correspond to issues the city staff is working as they update the Kent Comprehensive Plan. These questions were incorporated into the content of the SpeakOut panels,providing substance to the overarching theme of envisioning"Kent 2035." Participants were given a set of stickers and markers so that they could answer questions on large panels that were hanging in the booth. The content of the questions allowed us to effectively gauge opinions, record meaningful comments, and compile quantitative data on the issues. Meanwhile, the interactive nature of the SpeakOut encouraged a high response rate and added to the fun, family-oriented atmosphere of the festival. 1 126 .,w TMNmuxnoN iRANSPORTAVlOW I \ \ M' Throughout the weekend, the rate of participation varied with the number of people at the fair at any given time. Friday morning was, predictably, very slow, while Friday afternoon and evening were very busy. The weekend days were generally somewhat slow as well as the area was experiencing a heat wave. In total, at least180 King County residents participated in the SpeakOut, including 101 residents of Kent. Most of the participants were accompanied by many family members. When a participant began the survey, they were assigned a color based on their residence. King County was divided into the following areas: Kent, East of Kent,North of Kent, South of Kent, and Unincorporated King County. Because the same color was used for each question, at the end of the event we generate d a list of geographically color-coded survey responses (with corresponding sticker colors). The number of participants by residence is shown below, divided into geographic locations. 2 127 SpeakOut Topics SpeakOut participants considered the following issues, and"voted" on panels with stickers, wrote in comments with colored markers, and drew their commute on a simplified graphic map of King County: • Housing type and specific housing needs • Quality of life/important community services and amenities • County spending on air and water quality and green spaces • Favorite outdoor recreational activities • Route of daily commute (to job, school or other daily activity) • Transportation issues, and potential improvements to public transit While respondents were asked to answer every question, and to answer each question once (except in instances where multiple stickers were used), the results contain some degree of error stemming from incomplete surveys or multiple comments/votes by the same person. This is expected in such an informal outdoor setting with family members and other distractions. Because the questions are mostly inherently qualitative, the wording of comments was rarely identical. The data tables below group similar comments together, again meaning that errors exist due to the loss of exact language in some cases. Additionally, as noted above, in most cases a family was represented by one participant, so one sticker or comment represents several people in a household. SpeakOut Results Results are summarized below and shown in detail in Attachment 1. Despite uncertainties, some important trends can be identified in the data. The data below highlight Kent results. Similar data for participants from other cities in King County can be found in Attachment 1. This summary highlights the most frequent response for the pre-listed potential answers, as well as additions made by community members that turned out to be important feedback points. 3 128 Location HERE DO YOU LIVE? The first panel asked"Where do you live?" Participants from Kent were asked to put a Place a dot where you live! sticker close to their home whereas other participants were asked to put stickers in • seatlla B�ih+�. renlon boxes to identify their city or other home to location. CC Byfl{.Mt ' �L The areas represented and number of respondents were: v'l Kent Blue 101 Auburn, Covington,Maple Valley, North Bend,Pacific(Green) 28 Bellevue,Burien,Renton, SeaTac, • / Seattle,Tukwila(Orange) 27 dos F• — Zno, Des Moines,Federal Way, federal way unincorporated king county Puyallup, Tacoma(Pink) 19 tocpmp :atlb•r�.: Y�'P R'�"°�� Y r•,Ay aublda of kh,g...AV Unincorporated King County(Yellow) 5 Type of housing HOUSING Next,participants were asked to describe the type of housing that they and their family Place a dot next to the housing type that you would like would like to live in during the next ten to live in within the next 10 years! years. This prompted participants to ,bi. w,i• identify their current type of housing or to 'a� i ;im,:•;m `yl t identify a change in housing they would like to make. 75% of Kent respondents (73 �'°"m°` 7TIky..a ai .ax.km.a pw of 97)placed their sticker next to "single family home." 66% of those who wanted to live in a single-family home identified 3-4 bedrooms as an ideal size. 12 participants - wanted to live in apartment buildings and °m no one from Kent placed a dot next to skinny lot single family homes. 129 Importantly, participants did not favor the idea of shared outdoor space: of those who indicated townhomes or apartment buildings, no participants wanted a shared yard or shared rooftop space. Addenda included shared housing and SRO/boarding houses. HOUSING IS describe the type of housing that fits the needs Of your family. TIM4-o cccsSibG Fat 1a'ole ., hous i F&U a ✓ J affordabtc ;'2ft„ J rnooP AP"4 1 f1 Wa�ka�,'e "tp0[/�}IOfI�- Elem �vu47r� Mti!'Pf 16 M?a4 uav%%Sus45- ,&A si&server; kyf „uty 6W[Ifs 5W4W5 lex,6�C. s�ace,�oadisA��hood ��fSO �t-. �kis�de �w��p+hrtiny �, Neel SOfPGATIY� 446 (b16�.11YG�1 (-off Ives wA S►aw 16,%- d lo- ulnv,111 �1✓kd;w4 PcS� LESS CLIME,MORE sy-PO ' I J� Participants were then asked to write comments about their specific housing needs. There were 133 total comments from Kent residents (some participants put check marks next to multiple comments, resulting in higher total response rate). The most common responses were related to affordability of family and senior housing (18%), desire for more yard or garden space (12%), improved safety(9.7 %), and larger lot sizes (8.3%). These comments are roughly consistent with the selections of housing type above, where most respondents desired a 3-4 bedroom single family home. 5 130 Quality of Life u Participants were asked Put' �/ to place stickers on their OV I D E S YOU top two choices for W H A R ? quality of life features, A EAT QUALITY OF LIFE • including services, ~ �� places, or recreation place iiiiii6k stickers on the things that are most important to you for good quality of life in your community. opportunities within (or fill in your ownl) • their communities. It Ors appeared that someg• safe •`• � � . • people interpreted this • 00• mmunir good walki gi agreatschoo • biking trails s� question as an •system • •� opportunity to point out access to good food well-mated things they love about public assets their community, while -� -- - others pointed out areas clean water and where they wanted to - environment see improvement. - lu ull--I III Overall, there were 218 o e good cell t responses from shopping within coverage walking distance residents of Kent. The •• live close to less train noise •,work top five responses were, • • • • recreational transit option,to in order, safe opportunitl; • *get to worl2' communities (16%), attractive streets•• energy- variety great school system efficient % of senior programs buildings grams . (13%), walking and •• ro great access biking trails (9.6%), air to health • • • services h variety of no graffiti/ and water quality Jun (7.8%), and living close • to work(5.5%). Other favored options included shopping within walking distance, transit options to get to work, access to health services, and access to good food. No participants from Kent prioritized energy efficient buildings and only two people supported a greater variety of housing options. 6 131 Environment and Open Space Participants were asked to place their sticker on a range between low investment and higher investment in environment and open space improvements. Sixty-nine Kent residents responded to this question. The RONMENT A14D EN SPAT - - distribution of stickers was divided into thirds, with the lowest third indicating Place o sticker on the dine to share haw mach you think favoring less investment, the I gout community should invesi in clean air, clean water, middle third representing \� �a and open space, , generally favoring continuing . it current levels of spending, '` Ll and the top third favoring . increased spending. Twenty-four people (35%) felt that current spending is appropriate, and 42 people (61%)thought that more money should be spent in this area. 9 Outdoor Recreation Participants were asked to write WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE down their favorite outdoor RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY TO DO OUTDOORS? recreational activities: 40 of 110 bikeridi+�q��� '�'�sauro�r�✓ WHAT DO YOU (36%) respondents listed their NEED TO BE ABLE yghti5 TO ACCESS YOUR RECREATIONAL ❑Put favorite outdoor activityas Ty���i�JT�65�tOrRE EASILY? 1'u° �fi n7� /k�yQ�ar+�y✓ � R• rs. s'••ro� P f walking, hiking and running, 4.Iti" 1'tr+6•e.�M.•'s NoexriLexs e I CS "�^� while 14 (13%) noted cycling was 1/A i V,;Y\ V� I"+�✓� �, �yE?,An their favorite. Afollow-up L'&UV4N '/r Quay &J"4 OF VAiL.6�MENeTt+e:s question asked what respondents �aY 1P5 Ars fie' QScar�` Spfj�L's�ty.f P.ri.i��. lµyaer T(AjMtS �� h��" ,t needed to better access their J NhLC1`"p` y MINIakICC favorite activity. 17 of 79 3 aC41r xTf respondents (22%)requested r trails, 11 people (14%) requested v�,,c. m 1��-vy��re,.\s sidewalks, 6 (7.6%) wanted park Sd�wolk maintenance, and 5 (6.3%) asked , f p•k� 'f�.I' (643 for bike lanes. r� =Ml Ad Zi i A 7 132 Commute TRANSPORTATION SpeakOut participants were asked to draw a line Mop your commute by drawing a line from where you representing their most common commute on a live to where you work! . simplified graphic of King County. It was explained everelt verbally to respondents that the route could be to a t,tU+ g Drente„ -� Bellevue workplace, to school, or to a place they regularly travel. seol°c west ill the k69 e ' Of 73 commuters whose route began in Kent, 19 (26%) dex '°w sc ° east mill hill covingtar+i. drew lines to Seattle, 11 (15%) to Renton, and another !noi"°s hill on - 11 within Kent. wntaw rederol way soda eak. m ddion -` uninwrporated tacamo Transportation The final set of questions in the SpeakOut concerned transportation practices, concerns and potential improvements to public transit. 9"T R A N S P O RTAT I O N i The questions prompted respondents to vote on what transportation issues were Place dots to vote on transportation issues! most important, how participants travel (Or fill in your own!) p p p Which transportation issues are most important to you? most often, and what might help mote sidewa lks side`'°Hi 4 ���• participants take public transit more? better-pmrtected streets mare bike paths better bike solely 37 of 102 people (36%) cited traffic as railroad separations the biggest transportation issue in Kent. 0r 1 18 of 102 people (18%) agreed with a ,Sow do you travel most often? write-in comment that more transit F:dn ng options are needed. 56 of 101 ng us • 0• respondents (55%) also said they ing commute by car most frequently, and 19 ore roil _ people (19%)ride the bus most ftequently. It seems that expanded bus What would help you take transit more? and train service is desired, as 25 of 108 tower cast more routes •00 people (24%)want more routes, and 13 more buses per route 60* +aster tro'el time of 108 12% want more buses per route. no stop near me�M ( ) `'eO"e1sa,B1y Write-in ideas included later hours for tree witl buses and trains, faster commute times and more stops in residential areas. 8 133 Summary The data collected at the SpeakOut shows a general trend of preferences for low-density development while also desiring high-density amenities and accessibility. Requests for less traffic congestion and more public transportation, sidewalks, and bike lanes show the need for easy access to work, school, shopping, and recreation. Residents of Kent value single-family homes on large lots and appreciate natural spaces for parks and trails. Responses on important city services varied from the need for affordable housing assistance and social services to quality of life services such as cleaning up litter and maintaining trails. 11 . htt l;ts VIA -S YOU WITH 4 gthe WHAT PRO GREAT auALITY of LIFE? - YjYMiril rl,.ren en Iha m;ngs Inol are moel impodont io np. Yr avr I Illo m y0ur cOmmunnY. x µ"r^r.v d e yeu fm goatl puollYy o • ' dd• rLR'�a. Y 4 J ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE ^' �.a• J TRANSPORTATION ma Y� aunmme by dmwnn9 a line from where Yp° PIOce dots to vole on trans `P' -`r`O"� P Pve to wN.-troy wo'k� (Or fill in your Own!) POr lion issuesf _ - ereeen eKd r,a,,,p,nmo,lave= nerwm m,o.. >n i fiP k ? ,eahwn ai, YTO �✓ r � l) /� rcF.[P—yra...a,4n.l,rraoE ir wrrmq, �'' _ CoAn1,1n-6+afc.r.,k.,rdu�.i.l t�'mY en erran Nil °°�I+slun. CraSu.flr rww eo reene.�i In a ��'�� �.trXI�Y/ i ' �+ar ndy the eur •..,..«..• romacLry 134 Attachment 1: SpeakOut data by residence of respondent in order of questions in booth Housing: Place a dot next to the housing type that you would like to live in within the next 10 years! Housing type Kent Auburn, Bellevue,Burien, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington,Maple Renton,SeaTac, Federal Way, King County Valley,North Seattle,Tukwila Puyallup,Tacoma Bend,Pacific Apartment building 2 2 2 1 0 Apartment building with 6 1 2 0 0 balcony Apartment building with 0 0 0 0 0 rooftop communal outdoor space Attached home/townhome 3 2 2 0 0 (higher density)with private yard Attached home/townhome 0 1 0 0 0 (higher density)with shared yard Attached home/townhome 3 4 1 0 0 (medium density)with private yard Attached home/townhome 0 1 0 0 0 (medium density)with shared yard Duplex/triplex/four- lex 1 0 0 1 0 Mid or high rise mixed use 0 0 1 1 0 apartment with commercial space or near commercial district Mid-rise mixed use 3 1 1 2 0 apartments Mixed use apartments with 1 1 0 0 0 recreation options Senior housing 3 0 1 0 0 Single family residence(1- 15 2 3 3 2 2 bedrooms) Single family residence(3- 48 11 8 4 3 4 bedrooms) Single family residence(5- 10 5 4 2 0 8 bedrooms) Skinny lot single family 0 0 0 0 0 home Addenda: Shared house(6 bdrm) 1 0 0 0 0 Mobile Home/Cabin 0 1 0 0 1 SRO/Boarding House 1 0 0 0 0 10 135 Housing: Describe the type of housing that fits the needs of your family Housing Needs Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments(Kent Comments(non- Maple Renton, Federal residents) Kent residents) Valley, SeaTac, Way, North Seattle, Puyallup, Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific ADA 1 0 0 0 0 accessibility Affordability 24 7 6 4 3 Family housing Family(6),senior (19),sr housing (2),student (4), housing,density rent/mortgage not okay but w/ more than 1/3 private outdoor income space, 1-2 BR(2), retirement housing Animal friendly 6 1 0 1 0 Apartment complex 1 0 0 0 1 More apartments One bedroom allows pets,2 bedroom affordable and walkable Appliances 3 1 0 0 0 AC,W/D, AC Dishwasher Cleanliness 1 0 0 0 0 No litter Comfortable 3 0 0 0 0 Comfortable but affordable,small (2) Communal housing 1 0 0 0 0 Community 1 0 0 0 0 Costs 1 0 0 0 0 Help w/moving costs,Southside services Development 1 0 0 0 0 Some,not too much Home/land ownership 3 2 1 2 1 Privacy and land, acreage,land in unincorporated Homeless assistance 1 0 0 0 0 More family homeless shelters Housing options 2 0 0 0 0 Flexible space Large lots 11 4 1 0 0 Location 5 1 2 2 0 Walking distance Walkable to to parks(2), shopping and walking distance restaurants, to downtown(2) walking distance to distinguished schools,walking distance to amenities, walkable to 11 136 downtown Low income housing 1 0 0 0 0 Mixed use 1 1 0 0 0 Like platform Mixed family house w/many bedrooms,wide open green spaces to walk/run/bike Outdoor spaces nearby 4 1 0 1 1 Dog park, Preserve big trees beautiful parks when (2),open green developments go spaces to walk, in,more beautiful run,bike parks, Quiet and peaceful 5 3 0 2 0 Settled,private, quieter Retail 2 1 0 0 0 Non-Safeway Restaurants and grocery store, shopping shopping and restaurants Safety 13 2 1 0 0 Low crime,safe neighborhood Schools 3 0 1 0 0 Section 8 options 1 0 0 0 0 Senior housing 0 0 1 0 0 Sidewalks 2 1 0 0 0 Repair,both sides Both sides of Rd of Rd. Single family house 8 4 4 1 1 3 bedroom, 1-2 Sun room,many bedroom,4 bedrooms w/ bedroom 3 bath room to run,new deck,downsize to 2BR,pool and garage,yard, small lot walkable to downtown,nice affordable 4 bed house Supportive housing 2 2 0 1 0 Sober living(2) Sober living in Covington, Tacoma Townhouse/multi- 1 0 0 1 0 Multifamily okay family Trails 1 1 0 0 0 Bike trails Access to nature trails from housing developments, access Transit 8 1 1 0 0 Public transit(5), Access,space for near light rail, a garden(2) bicycle to work (2) Yard/garden 16 3 3 3 0 Pool and garage, 12 137 What Provides You with Great Quality of Life Place stickers on the two top things that are most important to you for good quality of life in your community. Service or Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional amenity Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments(Kent Comments Maple Renton, Federal residents) (non-Kent Valley, SeaTac, Way, residents) North Seattle, Puyallup, Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific Access to good 5 2 5 3 0 food Attractive streets 5 1 3 1 0 Clean water and 17 3 2 2 1 environment Energy efficient 0 1 2 3 0 buildings Good cell 5 2 0 1 0 And wifi coverage Good 21 8 7 5 0 Horse trails,bike Places to walk, walking/biking lanes(4) bike lanes trails Great access to 6 3 1 1 2 Social services health services Great school 29 8 7 1 1 system Less train noise 6 1 0 0 0 Live close to work 12 0 1 0 0 No graffiti/junk 5 2 0 1 1 Enforcement cars Recreational 9 5 7 1 0 opportunities Safe community 35 9 8 6 3 Shopping within 10 8 2 1 0 walking distance Transit options to 10 3 7 6 2 et to work Variety of housing 2 1 1 0 0 options Variety of senior 4 0 0 1 0 programs Well-maintained 7 0 3 1 0 public assets Addenda: Air quality 0 0 1 0 0 Bars walking 3 0 0 1 0 distance Better metro 3 2 1 0 0 options Better shopping 1 0 0 0 0 downtown Church 2 1 0 0 0 community Free bus system 2 0 0 0 0 914/916 Good childcare 1 0 0 0 0 13 138 options w/work Less gov't/less 2 0 2 0 0 corruption/low taxes Library System 3 0 2 1 0 Longer trains at 2 0 0 0 0 night More grocery 3 0 0 1 0 Other than Safeway stores (2) More high tech 1 0 0 0 0 jobs—less commuting to Seattle Nature/views/ 2 0 0 1 0 waterfront People 0 0 0 1 0 Privacy/quiet 1 3 0 1 1 Roads 5 0 1 0 0 14 139 Environment and Open Space: Place a sticker on the line to show how much you think your community should spend on clean air, clean water, and open space Region of Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional spending Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments(Kent Comments(non- spectrum Maple Renton, Federal residents) Kent residents) Valley, SeaTac, Way, North Seattle, Puyallup, Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific Lowest 3rd 3 0 2 1 0 Do not sell river bend 9 hole course Middle 3rd 24 6 5 4 3 Need more Spend wisely, maintenance of More on plants they plant maintaining not on news aces Highest 3rd 42 13 8 7 0 More on this but not more taxes 15 140 Environment and Open Space: What is your favorite recreational activity to do outdoors? Activity Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington, Burien,Renton, Federal Way, King County Maple Valley, SeaTac,Seattle, Puyallup, North Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific 4x4 0 1 0 0 0 Airsoft 1 0 0 0 0 Basketball 0 1 0 0 0 Bike Riding 14 2 2 2 2 Bird Watching 0 1 0 0 0 Boating/water sports 0 0 0 1 0 Camping 6 1 0 1 0 Enjoying outdoors/open spaces 1 0 1 0 1 Exercising 2 0 0 0 0 Exploring 3 0 0 0 0 Fishing 2 0 0 0 1 Gardening/Farming Gardening/Farmmg 7 3 1 1 0 Geocaching 1 0 0 0 0 Going to Park 4 1 2 0 1 Golf 2 1 0 0 0 Horseback Riding 2 0 0 0 0 Kayaking 2 0 0 0 0 People Watching 0 0 1 0 0 Picnic/BBQ 4 0 1 0 0 Playing Outside 2 0 0 0 0 Racing 1 1 0 1 0 Sailing 0 0 0 0 0 Soccer 3 1 0 0 0 Softball 2 0 0 0 0 Swimming 5 3 0 0 0 Walking/Hiking/Running 40 11 8 10 7 Walking/Playing with dog 5 1 0 1 0 Watching Sports 0 1 0 0 0 Water Park 1 1 1 0 0 Yard/Patio 0 0 0 0 1 16 141 Environment and Open Space: What do you need to be able to access your recreational activity more easily? Service Kent Auburn, Bellevue Des Unin.King Additional Additional Covington, ,Burien, Moines, County Comments(Kent Comments Maple Renton, Federal residents) (non-Kent Valley,North SeaTac, Way, residents) Bend,Pacific Seattle, Puyallup, Tukwila Tacoma Better transit 5 0 0 1 0 Buses,don't cut Bus to water service(2),nicer front bus drivers, 167 Bike Parking 0 2 0 0 0 Bike Paths and 5 1 1 0 0 Bike lanes Further trails Trails Clean water, 2 0 0 0 0 swimming opportunities Dog Park 3 1 0 0 0 Off-leash parks Covington Drinking fountains 1 0 1 0 0 Equipment 1 1 0 0 0 Kayak rentals Golf courses 1 1 0 0 0 more cheaper Interactive maps of 2 1 0 0 0 Yearly maps Trails/Amenities Lakes 1 1 0 2 0 Motorized lakes More boating access,cleaner Maintenance 5 0 2 0 0 Clean campsites, Trail trail maintenance maintenance Money 1 1 0 0 0 Neighborhood 1 0 0 0 0 Activity group No homeless camps 2 0 0 0 0 in public zones Open spaces 3 1 0 0 1 Smoke free space Quiet fields, (2) Parking 0 0 1 0 1 Parks 6 0 1 2 1 More/safer/not just public rec tot lots,more hours, areas,more playgrounds(2) Places to dance 2 0 0 0 0 Public Pool 2 0 0 0 0 Water parks Rec center 1 0 0 0 0 Retirement 0 0 0 0 1 Safety 2 1 0 0 0 Fewer gangs Safe ball courts, Sidewalks 11 1 0 4 Better,more, West valley, lighting, 132nd St lighting,more, trees/safer feel Soccer fields 3 0 0 0 0 Time 0 1 0 0 0 Trails 17 5 3 6 3 More parking(2), More trails, more multi-use shaded,well lit, trails w/access, priority for horse trails open space, more,jeep trails, more/easier trails,more 17 142 Waste 2 1 0 0 0 Less trash,more Access to yard waste pickup compost Water fountains 0 0 1 0 0 Transportation: Map your commute by drawing a line from where you live to where you work! (Or where you commute most often) Commuters in Kent: Lake Meridian To Covington 1 Lake Meridian To Seattle 3 Lake Meridian To Renton 1 Lake Meridian To East Hill 1 Lake Meridian To Puyallup 1 Lake Meridian To Downtown 2 Downtown To Seattle 4 Downtown To West Hill 1 Downtown To Surrounding 2 Downtown To Renton 2 Downtown To Burien 1 East Hill To Downtown 4 East Hill To Auburn 3 East Hill To Tacoma 2 East Hill To Ed ewood 1 East Hill To Puyallup 1 East Hill To Unincorp.King 1 East Hill To Issaquah 1 East Hill To Bellevue 6 East Hill To Everett 3 East Hill To Renton 4 East Hill To Lake Meridian 1 East Hill To Federal Way 2 East Hill To Seattle 8 The Lakes To Federal Way 1 The Lakes To Des Moines 1 The Lakes To Bellevue 1 The Lakes To Seattle 2 Scenic Hill To Renton 1 Scenic Hill To SeaTac 1 Scenic Hill To Renton 1 Scenic Hill To Seattle 2 Riverview To SeaTac 1 Riverview To Renton 1 West Hill To Surrounding Area 1 West Hill To Downtown 1 West Hill To Federal Way 1 West Hill To Seattle 1 West Hill To Renton 1 Total(In Kent) 73 18 143 Transportation: Map your commute by drawing a line from where you live to where you work! (Or where you commute most often) Commuters Outside of Kent: Commute # Commute # commuters commuters Renton To Surrounding Area 1 Tacoma To Redmond 1 Renton To Seattle 1 Tacoma To South Seattle 1 Renton To Covington 1 Pacific To Tumwater 2 Renton To Kent 2 Pacific To Kent 1 Renton To Redmond 1 Pacific To Tacoma 1 Renton To West Hill 1 Lakewood To Seattle 1 Renton To Tacoma 1 Uninc King County To Auburn 1 Renton To SeaTac 1 Federal Way To Olympia 1 Renton To Kenmore 1 SeaTac To Surrounding Area 1 Covington To Lake Meridian 2 SeaTac To Seattle 1 Covington To Downtown Kent 1 Burien To Bothell 1 Covington To Seattle 3 Burien To Seattle 1 Covington To Renton 2 Burien To Tacoma 1 Covington To Tacoma 1 Burien To Des Moines 1 Covington To Des Moines 1 Seattle To SeaTac 1 Auburn To Seattle 2 Seattle To Tacoma 1 Auburn To Renton 3 Seattle To Rainer 1 Auburn To East Hill 1 Seattle To Everett 2 Auburn To Downtown Kent 1 Seattle To Federal Way 1 Auburn To Puyallup 1 Seattle To Downtown Kent 3 Auburn To Unincorporated King County 1 Seattle To Surrounding Area 3 Auburn To Redmond 1 Bellevue To Auburn 1 Auburn To Everett 1 Bellevue To Downtown Kent 1 Auburn To Bellevue 1 Maple Valley To SeaTac 1 Auburn To Federal Way 1 Puyallup To Downtown Kent 1 Auburn To Surrounding Area 3 Des Moines To White Cedar 1 Tacoma To Surrounding Area 1 Des Moines To Renton 1 Tacoma To Auburn 2 Des Moines To East Hill 1 Tacoma To Seattle 1 2 1 Des Moines To Seattle 1 Total(Outside Kent) 76 19 144 Transportation: What transportation issues are most important to you? Issue Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments Comments Maple Renton, Federal (Kent (non-Kent Valley, SeaTac, Way, residents) residents) North Bend, Seattle, Puyallup, Pacific Tukwila Tacoma Less traffic 37 8 7 5 0 More sidewalks 10 4 3 2 0 Nature park/trails, Covington Hills to lib sidewalk Better-connected 2 1 1 0 0 streets More bike paths 9 1 1 1 0 Better bike safety 5 1 2 0 0 Railroad 4 2 0 0 0 safety separations Addenda: More transit 18 4 9 3 4 Expand light Weekend options rail(2) options,light rail,bike racks on UA buses Later buses 1 1 4 2 0 locally Daily trains 4 0 0 1 0 Better designed 2 0 0 1 2 Hwys More housing 1 0 0 1 0 near transit More parking for 6 0 0 0 0 sounder/more times of departure Slower Speeds 1 0 0 0 0 881 St Infrastructure 1 0 0 0 0 Central Ave maintenance tire damage, crosswalks Reliability 0 1 0 0 0 Less lights 0 0 0 1 0 Safe Rts to 1 0 0 0 0 School(Healy O'Brian Russell) 20 145 Transportation: How do you travel most often? Transportation Kent Auburn, Bellevue,Burien, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington,Maple Renton,SeaTac, Federal Way, King County Valley,North Seattle,Tukwila Puyallup,Tacoma Bend,Pacific Biking 3 1 2 1 0 Walking 10 0 3 0 0 Riding the bus 19 2 11 3 1 Carpooling 3 0 2 0 0 Driving 56 20 12 9 4 Taxi/rideshare 1 1 0 1 0 Commuter rail 7 1 0 1 1 Addenda: Scooter 1 0 0 0 0 Schoolbus 1 0 0 0 0 21 146 Transportation: What might help you to take transit more? Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments Comments Maple Renton, Federal (Kent (non-Kent Valley, SeaTac, Way, residents) residents) North Bend, Seattle, Puyallup, Pacific Tukwila Tacoma Lower cost 12 4 3 0 0 More routes 25 5 6 4 0 Intercity buses,bus to Wynco,bus to Bellevue More buses per 13 1 2 2 0 route Faster travel 12 3 7 3 1 time No stop near me 10 3 0 0 6 More Covington bus stops Cleaner buses 2 2 1 0 0 safety 9 1 1 1 0 Free wifi 2 0 0 1 0 Addenda: Better Sidewalks 2 1 0 0 0 ADA 1 0 1 0 0 accessibility Comfortable 1 0 2 0 0 seats Better bus 1 0 0 0 0 community service More trainibus 9 2 0 0 0 Weekend Weekend times train train Park and ride 6 1 0 1 0 light rail and sounder Credit cards 0 1 0 0 0 accepted on buses Don't cut metro 1 1 0 0 0 Don't cut 1 0 1 0 0 914/916 Less crowded on 0 1 0 0 0 event days Transfer passes 1 0 1 0 0 easier More people 0 0 1 0 0 taking transit A different job 0 1 0 0 0 22 147 Kent Survey - Fall 2014 Snapshot of Results Draft results Dec 10, 2014 Introduction The City of Kent created the Kent 2035 survey (with input from Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, and OneAmerica)to gather input from Kent citizens on a broad range of issues related to the City of Kent's long-range Comprehensive Plan. The City primarily deployed the survey online (459 respondents). Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza, OneAmerica and Mother Africa conducted the survey in the field using a printed copy(460 respondents). The survey was translated into Spanish, Russian,Vietnamese and Somali and interpreted into Arabic and Tigrinya and Somali This report is a preliminary summary and analysis of the survey responses collected under these categories: • On-line respondents: 459 respondents who took the online survey based on emails and other communications from the City of Kent. • Kent Food Bank: 26 food bank visitors surveyed by Futurewise and El Centro de la Raza • Wilson Playfield: 199 parents and relatives and friends viewing soccer games surveyed by El Centro de la Raza and Futurewise • Immigrants and refugees: This grouping includes 158 immigrants and refugees surveyed by MotherAfrica, 16 immigrants and refugees surveyed by OneAmerica, and 13 Latino community members surveyed by El Centro de la Raza. These 187 surveys responses do not duplicate the surveys in the other categories. • Kent Senior Activity Center: 65 seniors and center staff surveyed by Futurewise, El Centro de la Raza and OneAmerica Most of the survey questions asked respondents to rate options.Two questions were open-ended in which participants wrote in answers (not all survey respondents answered all questions.) As shown in the results below,some community priorities such as safety are a major concern for all Kent survey respondents. Other issues, however—such as housing—show differences between the groups surveyed. 1 148 Race/Ethnicity and Age of Respondents Overall Race/Ethnicity • 55% of all respondents identified race as "White." • 22% identified race as "Black." Number of Respondents in Each Age • 8% identified race as "Hispanic." Bracket -All Respondents • 6% identified race as "Asian." 250 • 6% identified race as "Other." 200 • 2% identified race as "Pacific Islander." 150 • 1% identified two or more races. 100 • 1% identified race as "American Indian." 50 _ . . As a note, this question was optional and was phrased as 0 rac%thnicity, the responses are not 100%inclusive m<20 ■20-29 ■30-39 ■40-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 because the survey categories did not include a complete list of options that are typically available in the census. Age-see graph to right Number of Respondents in Each Age Online Respondents Bracket- Online Respondents Race/Ethnicity 140 • 76% identified race as "White." 120 • 6% identified race as "Asian." 100 • 5% identified race as "Black." 8° • 5% identified two or more races. 60 • 4% identified race as "Hispanic." 40 ■ • 1% identified race as "American Indian." 20 _ 0 • 1% identified race as "Pacific Islander." ■<20■20-29 ■30-39 ■40-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 Age-See graph at right. Number of Respondents in Each Age Food Bank Visitors Bracket - Food Bank Visitors Race/Ethnicity • 54%identified race as "White." 15 • 25% identified race as "Black." 10 • 8% identified race as "Other." • 4% identified race as "Asian." 5 • 4% identified race as "Hispanic." 0 � . • 4% identified two or more races. ■<20 ■20-29 ■30-39 ■40-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 • 1 participant wrote in "Middle Eastern." Age-See graph at right. 2 149 Soccer Game Attendees Race/Ethnicity Number of Respondents in Each Age • 44%identified race as "White." Bracket - Soccer Game Attendees • 17% identified race as "Hispanic." 100 • 12% identified race as "Asian." 80 • 11% identified race as "Black." • 6% identified race as "Pacific Islander." 60 • 5% identified two or more races. 40 • 4% identified race as "Other." 20 _ . ■ _ • 1% identified race as "American Indian." o • 2 participants wrote in "Middle Eastern." ■<20 ■20-29 ■30-39 ■40-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 Age-See graph at right. Immigrants and Refugees Race/Ethnicity Number of Respondents in Each Age • 84% identified race as Black. • 14% identified race as "Other." Bracket - Immigrants and Refugees • 1% identified race as "White." 60 • 1% identified two or more races. 50 • Of those respondents who identified "Other," 40 40%wrote in "Iraqi," and 2%wrote in 30 "Pakistani.' 20 • Of those respondents who identified "Black," 10 ■ . _ 14% added "Kenyan," 12%added "Zambian," 0 11% added "Sudanese," 10% added "Somali (Bantu)," 9% added "Eritrea," 8% added ■<20 ■20-29 ■30-39 040-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 "Gambian," 6%added "Somali," 2% added "Senegalese," and 1% added "Congo." Age-See graph at right. Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) Number of Respondents in Each Age Bracket - Senior Center Race/Ethnicity • 83% of seniors and staff identified race as 40 "White." 30 • 5% identified race as "Black." • 5% identified race as "Asian." 20 • 5% identified race as "Hispanic." 10 • 2% identified race as "Pacific Islander." — — - a Age-See graph at right. ■<20 ■20-29 ■30-39 ■40-49 ■50-59 ■60-69 ■>69 3 150 Community Priorities for Quality of Life 1=Not Important,2=Somewhat Important,3=Important, 4=Very Important, S=Essential Overall Priorities for Kent citizens(all respondents) are community safety, clean groundwater, schools, Quality of Life-Overall-904responses Junk and roadways. Maintained public assets, Healthy food healthy food, safe parks, affordable recreation, W dean Gm°nde,ater mernet less junk, quality housing options and attractive 4 �el�Ye 8e streets all ranked highly as well. Housing Quality Conan& Maintained Public Assets less Train Noise E E Community SaFety Schools Work Closeness P Attractive Streets Roadways E PuhlicTransir VeAety of senior Programs Safe Parks pu° Affordable Recreation Shopping Tna{Is 0.00 0,50 1100 1,50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 SAC Average Comm(1,51 Online Respondents Community safety is the top priority for the Quality of Life-Online Respondents-450 Responses online respondent group,with roadways, clean Junk groundwater and schools ranked highly as well. Healthy Fond w Oean Groundwater Internet Celi Coverage Housing quality options Maintained Public Assets Less Train Noise E E Cnmmuntty Safety schools woJd-- ,_,5tr_ss Y Attrats ysPsbVanexyofSenmsrksAffordabloningib 0.00 0.50 L00 3.50 2A0 2.50 3,00 3.50 4.00 4.50 "0 Average Crrncem(1.5( 4 151 Food Bank Visitors Quality of Life-Food Bank Visitors-25 Responses Public transit and clean groundwater were the top Junk E H I[hy Fa tl priorities for food bank visitors, followed closely by - nraoc on�d ra er community safety and quality housing options. Cell[vyerage H¢usI064uallry OpO¢ns Malnumed Publk Assess t Less Tnin Nipse E community 5afeey Schools Work Closeness Attr..eStm- pRvaEwaya Public Transit Yaffety M 5enipf Programs Safe Parks Affordable Reereabon Sboppiba Trails 0.00 OSO 1.Oo 1.50 2.00 2so 3.00 3.50 a.0o 4.50 5.00 Average conamil-sl Soccer Game Attendees Quality of Life-Soccer Game Attendees-196 Responses Soccer game attendees rated community safety as the - J..k Heahhy rood highest priority, followed closely by schools,then clean W Ckan Gromrowattr inlernet groundwater and roadways. Gel�na„� Housing Duallry Optbns Mairndlne i Pnblie A,— LeaTreln Nobs E e tanmumry sarery schavfs Wark closeness Allractlye Streets � Roadways Public Transl[ VaH¢ry of 5¢niar Programs Safe Parks ng� AAvrdable Recreatbn bi Shopping Tails MO C50 1.00 1-50 200 250 3.00 350 400 450 300 Awalpe conoem(I-s) Quality of Life-Immigrants and Refugees-167 Responses Immigrants and refugees E °` —Uhy food For immigrant and refugee participants, quality housing CkanGmnndwa er options was the most important, followed closely by _ n,emer Celli rage community safety, healthy food and schools. Recent Rnnsingq slay op vns p Maintained Publ— immigrants more evenly distributed their priorities. z ex ram E Community Safety schools Work Ckasenes � m rve red Roadways Public TransN variety of 5e n for Programs Safe Part¢ Atfordabk R—tion Shopping T ai O.00 O.SO 1.00 1.SO 2.W 2.SO 3.0� 3.SO 4.06 9.SO S.Ob Ar¢rag¢Unoern[S-5] 152 Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) Qualltyof Life-Senior Activity Center(Seniors and Staff)-60Responses Seniors and Senior Activity Center staff chose = pnk E Healthy Food community safety as the highest priority,followed y nea Gpu�drate, closely by junk and roadways. Cell Coverage H—ing I]yality ppdOd, Malntafned PuWfc Anet, Less iraln Md. eC.—un lty5a(ety V Schools Work❑—.,, YAtlsaCtive Streets Roadways F PubNc Transit Varkty d 5e0m Programs Sale Park, �& Adordadleaecreadon 5hpppho Tleils 0-00 0.50 100 1.50 2.00 2-50 3-00 350 4.9 4.50 5.00 Average Concern(1-SI 6 153 Housing The survey results show that respondent groups have different housing needs. Immigrants and refugee respondents and food bank visitors had the highest rate of response that they struggle to pay for housing relative to the other groups surveyed. Overall • 39%struggle to pay for housing(rent plus utilities). • 53% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms fit their family's needs. • 8% indicated apartments fit their family's needs. Online Respondents • 27%struggle to pay for housing (117 out of 443). • 57% indicated single family homes (3-4 bedrooms) (253 out of 443)fit their family's needs. • 3% indicated apartments (13 out of 445)fit their family's needs. Food Bank Visitors • 82%struggle to pay for housing (18 out of 22 people). • 68% indicated single family homes (bedrooms not defined) (15 out of 22 people)fit their family's needs. • 14% indicated apartments(3 out of 22 people)fit their family's needs. Soccer Game Attendees • 33% (61 out of 185)struggle to pay for housing. • 74% indicated single family homes (3-4 bedrooms) (148 out of 192 people)fit their family's needs. • 3% indicated apartments (only 6 out of 192) fit their family's needs. Immigrants and refugees • 71%struggle to pay for housing (110 out of 155 people). • 31% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms (51 out of 166 people) fit their family's needs. • 25% indicated apartments (42 out of 166)fit their family's needs. Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) • 41%struggle to pay for housing (24 out of 59). • 26% indicated single family homes with 3-4 bedrooms fit their family's needs, 8%indicated single family homes with 1-2 bedrooms fit their family's needs, 16% indicated single family homes with bedroom number unspecified fit their family's needs. A total of 35 out of 57 respondents identified single family homes of one type or another. • 12% (7 out of 57) indicated apartments fit their family's needs. • 14% (8 out of 57) indicated senior housing fit their family's needs 7 154 Struggle to Pay for Housing 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% ❑verall Online Food Bank Visitors Soccer Game Immigrants and Senior Center Respondents Attendees Refugees Single-Family Homes fit their needs 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% ❑verall Online Food Bank Visitors Soccer Game Immigrants and Senior Center Respondents Attendees Refugees Apartments fit their needs 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% - ❑verall Online Food Bank Visitors Soccer Game Immigrants and Senior Center Respondents Attendees Refugees 8 155 Environment The survey asked how often (never, sometimes, or always) respondents do activities "at home or in your daily life that affects the environment." Overall • 79% of all respondents always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. • 51% of all respondents always recycle food waste. • 31% of all respondents always use reusable bags. • 10% of all respondents always take public transit. • 14% of all respondents always grow their own food. Online Respondents • 89% always recycle glass, metal, plastic etc. (400 out of 451). • 56% always recycle food waste (251 out of 448). • 33% always use reusable bags (146 out of 445). • 6% always use public transit (28 out of 443). • 16%always grow their own food (72 out of 444). Food Bank Visitors • 70% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (16 out of 23). • 43% always recycle food waste (9 out of 21). • 52% always use reusable bags (12 out of 23). • 46% always use public transit (10 out of 22). • 14%always grow their own food (3 out of 22). Soccer Game Attendees • 78% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (151 out of 193). • 51% always recycle food waste (97 out of 189). • 30% always use reusable bags (58 out of 192). • 14%always take public transit(26 out of 189). • 12%always grow their own food (22 out of 192). Immigrants and Refugees • 48% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (75 out of 156). • 34% always recycle food waste (50 out of 147). • 22% always use reusable bags (35 out of 162). • 10% always use public transit (16 out of 158). • 8%always grow their own food (13 out of 158). Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) • 86% always recycle glass, metal, plastic, etc. (47 out of 55). • 59% always recycle food waste (33 out of 56) • 40% always use reusable bags (23 out of 57). • 14% always use public transit (7 out of 51). • 14% always grow their own food (7 out of 51). 9 156 Transportation Overall Heavy traffic or congestion was identified as the primary transportation issue (30%) for the next five years. Other concerns that rated highly include easy access to major roads (17%), more public transit (16%), and railroad separation (16%). Other Biggest Transportation Issues- Overall More Bike Paths 87 133 4% 6% More Sidewalks Congestion 231 652 11% 30% •Congestion N Easy Access to Major Roads ■Railroad Grade Separation •More Public Transit More Public Transit •More Sidewalks 337 F More Bike Paths 16% other Easy Access to Major Roads Railroad Grade Separation 377 336 17% 16% 64% of all respondents indicated Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use - Overall that their primary Easier to Find/Understand transportation mode Route and Schedule is to drive alone. nformation7% fthe Bus/Train Came - More Often More options for I Need to Feel Safer 15% ■Ifthe Bus/Train Came More where people need to on the Bus/Train often 10% go (19%) would help ■More Options for Where I motivate the overall Need to Go S r-A Bus Stop Near My Home group to use transit more.Additionally I Need To Fee IS to from the B ■Lower Cost to Ride the Bus / Options for faster travel time and 11% 1 Need to Go more frequent service 19% ■Faster Travel Time toMy were identified as Destination im I Need To Feel Safe Walking motivators. to/fro mthe Bus Station Faster Travel Ti to My Destination A6 I Need to Feel Safer on the 15% Bus/Train Bus Stop Near My Home y Easier to Find/Understand Lower Co Route and Schedule R7de the Bus 14/ Information 9% 10 157 Online Respondents 76% of online respondents drive alone (362 out of 474 people) as their primary mode of transportation.The biggest transportation issue for this group is congestion (30%).The next most important transportation issue is railroad grade separation,then easy access to major roads and more public transit. Increased ridership for public transit may result from providing more options where people want to go, as well as faster travel times. Biggest Transportation Issues- Other Online Respondents Mom Bike Paths 73 67 6% 596 Congestion More IfdQwalks M6 778 3o7G 10% ■Congestion ■Easy AUtIS to Major Roads •Railroad Grade Separation ■More Public Transit Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Online More Flu ■Mare Sklewalks v Respondents 7A •Mute Bike Paths Easier to Find/understand ■other Route and Schedule information If the Bus/Train I Need to Feel Safer on me Mae Often the eus/Train 5% Easy Acress to Major 10% •B the BuslTrain came Mort often Ra ilrpad Gra Roads separation 203 ■Mae Options for where I Need to 240 1696 1 Need To Feel safe Go 19% tolfrom the Sus 10% ■A Bus Stop Near My Home 8 Cower Cost to Ride the Bus ■Faster Travel Time to My option for Destination e I Need to GO 215% ■1 Need To Feel Safe walling tnlfrom Faster Travel Tim 0 the Bus Station My Destination I 78% Need to Fell Safer on the BuslTain ■Easier to FindX nderstand Route and Schedule information Food Bank Visitors tower COB!to Ri the Bus A Bus stop wear Congestion is also the primary transportation 3% My Home 13% issue for visitors to the food bank (30%). 35% drive alone (13 out of 37),while 27%walk and 27% ride the bus (10 out of 37 each). Lower cost and more frequent service would help this group take transit more. More options where people need to go and bus stops closer to homes would help as well. Biggest Transportation Issues- Other Food Food Bank Visitors Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Food Bank Visitors More Bike Paths 2% 5 12% Easier[oFind/understand Congestion Route and Sd�edule 13 Inih)—a0urk 30% !Bus/Tlain Came More More Sifill dewal a $% ■If the Buslhain Came Mae 9% •congestion [Need to Feel Often on me Bu •Easy Access to Major Roads ■More Options for where I Need •Railroad Grade Separation LOGO •More Puhlic Transit ■A Bus Stop Hear My Home •More Sidewalks I Need To Feel ■More Bike Paths hall mr olytionsfor ■Lower Cost to Ride mr Bus Mnie Pub 5 •Other I Heed to GO tn% 36% ■Faster navel Time to My Destination Faster navel Ti My Destinatio ■1 Need To Feel Safe walking 5% taRrom the Bus Station Hail road Grade Easy Access to Major •1 Need to Feel Safer on me Separation Roads Bus/Train 5 9 ■Easier to Find/undersland Route 12% 21% and Schl Irdontwtion Laver Cost to Ride the Bus us Stop Near r6% Mytiome 11 1696 158 Soccer Game Attendees Congestion is again the primary transportation issue for attendees at soccer games (35%). 62% (143 out of 242) drive alone, and another 19% (45 out of 232) carpool. More options for where people need to go would help this group take transit more, followed closely by increased frequency and faster travel time. amer Biggest Transportation Issues- More Bike Path, 9 Soccer Game Attendees 34 z% 8% Mnre Sid ewal"° °n1esti°°57 143 Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Soccer Game 14% 35% Attendees .Tnnge,tinn •Easy Access to Major Roads Easier to F i ndlunders[and •Railroad Grade Separation Route and 500ule If the Bus/Train Came It More Public Transit Information More Often •More sidewalks 16% It More Bike Paths I Need to Feel Safer ■ff the ifuv7cain Came More Often on the BuslTrai More Publi •other 9!i ■More Options for Where 1 Need to S7 Go 14% ■A Bus Stop Near My Nome IN"dT Wal odgto ■Loner Cost to Ride the Bus Railroad Grade my Access to Major options lot Separation R°ads I Need to Go 35 73 l9% •Faser Travel Lime to My Destination 9% 16% ■I Pk d To Feel Safe Walking to/from the Bus Station Faster Travel ■I Need to Feel Safer on the evs/Train My Destird" zsas ■Easier to Frd/1J nderHand Route Bus Stop and 50edule Information Immigrants and refugees rEo NearMyrfvme Ride the Bus 134Y; The immigrant and refugee respondents 7096 prioritized easy access to major roads (22%) and more public transit (22%) along with congestion (22%) as the top transportation issues. 57%(123 out of 215) drive alone, while 18%(39 out of 215)take the bus. Frequency of service,faster travel times, and closer bus stops to homes would help this group take transit more often. Biggest Transportation Issues- N4om Bike paths other Recent Immigrants 21 1 7% � Mare Sidewalks Congestion 7) 35 23`k 11% ■congestion •Easy Accessto Major Roads Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Immigrants and ■Railroad Grade Separation Refugees ■Mare puhlK Transit ■Mae Sidewaks; Easier to Find/Understand Mere Pupli[ Route and Schedule If the BusfTrai ■Mare el Rants Informati°n 69 Came More Often 22% mother 16% Easy Access to Major I Need to Feel Safer at the Rus/Tmin Came More Often Roads on the 9n,/Tra 69 11% ■More Options for Where I Need to 22% Go se W _ ■A Bus Stop Near My Home More Options for �6 here I Need to Go 15% 12% ■Lower Cost to Ride the Bus Need To e3 Sate Walkingt° om the ■Faster Travel Time to My Bus St Destination 13 •I Need To Feel Safe Walking to/from the Bus station us slnp Near ■I Need to Feel Safer m the My Home Bus/Train 14% Faster Travel ■Easier to Find/Understand Route My Destination and Schedule Information 12 IS% Lower Cost to Ride the Bus 11% 159 Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) Congestion is once again the primary transportation issue for this group (36%). More public transit was also identified as a secondary priority in transportation. 58%of respondents (42 out of 73) drive alone, and 21% (15 out of 73) ride the bus. Bus stops closer to homes would help this group take transit more, as well as more options for where people need to go, as well as safety walking to and from stops. Other Biggest Transportation Issues- More Rike Paths 4 Senior Activity Center 8 3% 5% More Sidewalks 15 12% congestion 45 36% 0Congestton Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Senior ■Easy Access to Major Roads Activity Center ■Railroad Grade Separation ■More Public Tmnsit Easier to Find/UndtF$l.nd ■More Sidewalks Route and Schedule It the Bus/Train Information Came More Often ■More Bike Paths 10% 11% More Pu ■Other ■d the Bus/Train Came Mere 2 2z%` I Need to Feel Safer often on the Bus/Train 995 ■More Options for where I More Options for Need to Go ere I Nerd to Go Railroad Easy Access to Major 17% ■A Our,Stop Near My BOme Separation Roads 10 18 8% 14% I Need To Feel ■lower Cosl to Ride the Sus toffrom the ]5 ■Faster Travel Time to My Destination us Stop Near My ■1 Need To Feel Safe walking Faster Travel Ti Hnmc to/from the Bus Station My Destination I,Y% 7% ■I Peed to Fee I Safe r on I he Bus/Train Lower o R id Ihr Br,s ■Easier to Find/understa rid 1 j'y Route and Sche dine Information "Where would you take an out-of-town guest?" In an open-ended question, Kent residents overwhelmingly indicated that they would take out-of-town guests to Kent Station,followed by parks,trails, and lakes. There were four specific locations of Places to Take a Guest in Kent parks/trails/lakes that respondents identified most ShoWare frequently: Lake Meridian,Soos Creek Trail, Green � Chain Restaurants River Trail and Lake Fenwick. For local businesses, Senior Center Kent commons there were four most identified: the farmers market, Home .� Maggies on Meeker, Mama Stortini's and the Outside Kent Local Business Carpinito farms. Downtown Kent Parks,TraGs and takes Kent Station 0 50 ion 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Number of Respondents 13 160 "What would make Kent a better place to live?" Respondents were asked in an open ended question "What would make Kent a better place to Live." Safety(174 responses)was mentioned most frequently,followed by the need for more beautification, cleanliness, and attractiveness (74 responses).There were also many concerns mentioned about the homeless population (52 responses)—ranging from a desire for fewer homeless people in Kent to desiring more services for them. Many survey respondents also mentioned a need for downtown revitalization (55 responses), more grocery(23 responses) and retail (47 responses) options, as well as restaurant options(38 responses). Many responders asked for "something to do" and included ideas such as theaters and bars. Similarly, survey respondents identified that Kent is not a "destination." There appears to be a desire for the creation of a unique Kent identity(at least 15-20 responses). Additionally, sidewalks (45 responses) and roads/infrastructure (51 responses)were cited by many as being important for a better Kent. The online survey respondents included over 20 comments stating a desire for fewer apartments and less low-income housing, and no comments requesting more housing besides condos/higher income. In contrast,the other survey respondents(Senior Activity Center, immigrant and refugee, soccer game attendees and food bank visitors) included many specific requests for apartments, and few requests for fewer apartments. Overall, many respondents mentioned better schools(58 responses) as important for making Kent a better place to live. 14 161 Categories of Comments for All Responders to "What would make Kent a better place to live?" Jabs IJJJJJJJJJ■ Downtown Revitalization Less Police(includes discrimination,brutality) JJJ■ °w More Police a Homeless Services/Less Homeless c Better Schools o Restaurants - u Retail More Grocery Options Crime/Safety/securlty(includes gangs,drugs,guns) C Trees and Vegetation Parks and Green Space Less Lout-Income Housing/Apartments Affordable Housing More Houses/Apartments More Condos/Higher Income Housing Sidewalks Traffic/Congestion 0 n � Transportation/Transit/Access � m Roads/infrastructure Bike Lanes/Trails Youth and Child Activities(Includes after-school programs) 0 0 Recreation Facilities(includes YMCA) v Athletic Facilities(Specific) Community Identity/Community Center � Entertainment/Events Destinations � LbWer Taxes More Respect and Inclusion of Cultures 'o Orderliness/Law Compllarim c ° family-Friendly v Affordability(General) i Beautification/Cleanliness/Graffiti/Appearance/Maintenance I� More Parking Enforcement/Junk Car Removal hI !o '20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 180 200 Number of Respondents 15 162 163 Chapter Two - LAND USE ELEMENT Formatted:Font: 18pt What you will find in this chapter: • Foundation and framework for the Element • How anticipated future growth of households and employment can be accommodated; • Goals and Policies for vibrant commercial centers, well-designed neighborhoods and job centers; and consideration of healthy environment and lifestyles. Purpose Statement: To foster a growth pattern that ensures Kent is a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers.4n+plenients limited reseWees; and enSUFes land uses that create Purpose The Land Use Element guides the general distribution and location of various land uses, as well as the scheduling of capital improvement expenditures. It also will guide the character of the development pattern which has impacts on aesthetics, mobility, housing, environmental and public health, and economic development. Finally, the Land Use Element provides the internal consistency among all the elements which translates into coordinated growth for the City of Kent. "d Issues Formatted Table Creating Places What is that place called home? What attracts people to Kent and what keeps them here? As the City accommodates growth, it must be creating vibrant places. Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions The City must coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure land use decisions of one jurisdiction are not adversely affecting other jurisdictions. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element('%4) Page 1 164 Communication Open, interactive, and transparent communication with Kent residents and businesses creates our City. ff Background The Growth Management Act (GMA) is concerned with the conservation and wise use of our lands and infrastructure; that growth occurs in a compact and livable urban form; the creation of a sustainable economy; and the opportunity for the residents of the state to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. State, regional and county land use policies provide the statutory framework for the Land Use policies and how they relate to other chapters in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan); how the City identifies Kent's Potential Annexation Area; and the need to coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and regional agencies. The GMA requires cities to inventory, designate, and protect critical areas and resource lands through development regulations. Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and development regulations protecting Agricultural Resource Lands fulfill those GMA requirements. Existing Zoning Pattern The City of Kent has five general categories of land use plan main designations: agricultural, single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial. Within each of these general categories, there are several zoning districts which allow varying levels of land uses, bulk and scale of development. Table **LU.1 shows the land area of each of these zoning categories and Figure **LU-1 shows the distribution of these zoning districts. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 2 165 Table *-&LU.1* 2015 CITY OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS LAND AREA % OF ALLOWED Formatted Table USE (ACRES) TOTAL ZONING AREA Agricultural AG-R 51.353.5 030.3 A-10 AG-S 221.0223.3 3-31.0 AG Subtotal 272.3276.8 3:61.3 SF Residential US 875.41,637.2 5-.37.6 SR-1 SF-3 64.588.8 0.40.4 SR-3 SF-4.5 7452,301.2 4.-510.7 SR-4.5 SF-6 6,394.-86,769.9 38.931.4 SR-4.5, SR-6 SF-8 401.3631.2 -242.9 SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8 MHP 115.0166.4 "0.88 MHP Subtotal 897.411,594.7 52.353.8 MF Residential LDMF 761.5836.14:63_9 SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, � MRT-12, MRT-16 MDMF 765.7824.4 4 63.8 MR-D, MR-M, MR-H, MRT-12,MRT-16 Subtotal1,5 2 7.21,660.5 9.37.7 Commercial U 11611,5614.0 4 62.8 GC, CC, O, MRT-16, M2 (legacv) -7-.215.9 0.040.1 NCC, MRT-12, MRT-16 856..5707.0 4-73.3 GC, GWC, CC, O, CM-1, CM-2,N MRT-12, MRT-16 UC 292.4492.0 -1 62.3 DC, DCE, GC MRT-12, MRT-16 MR-M, MHP TOC 271.7 1.3 MTC-1, MTC-2, MCR, MHP Subtotal 1,848.62,100.6 31.29.8 Industrial I 2,232.i2,285.3 TT510.6 MA, M1, M2, M3, M 1-C MIC 1,968.-61,984.3 12.09.2 M2, M3 Subtotal ",�84,269.6 35.519.8 Park&Open POS 2,z04481,641.1 12. 7.6 Not Applica All Space Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 3 166 TOTAL 16,44621,543.3 100.0 *Will require further revisions with approval of proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts maps. FIGURE ***LU-1 ZONING DISTRICTS ZONING DISTRICTS ] Ptin t �•! y mow... C Potential Annexation Area Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) identifies areas within the unincorporated King County Urban Growth Area (UGA) which the City has committed to annex. There have been 13.6 square miles annexed into Kent since the PAA was established. There is approximately nine-tenths of a square mile remaining to be annexed. Kent city limits and the PAA together form the Planning Area for the City's Land Use Plan Map and fer all the elements in the Gernprehensive Plan (see figure ***). Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 4 167 FIGURE ***LU-2 POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA x w• � Figure x-n axon%,�. —__ 3 sexoe`'�r '� [;�ca�rmunHxrxanonA>:Er. y �,••J "„sr w I=aw lAlltS Y RVI�RPEP. UR& UMO AMA x v a �R:f V suns ae sn'w. tl llL r_j I 'y r istrcer G xxee s. SE aw_�i ; slatla a+etrrx l SCALE:a =4,M' -- Formatted:Left Critical Areas and Resource Lands The city of Kent contains numerous areas that can be identified and Formatted:Font: 11 pt characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Critical areas,areas" aFe defiRed as wetlaigds, aquifer reEhaFge aFeas, fish and wildlife habitat eenservatmen areas, frequently fleeded and geelegic hazaFd aFeas. Designated "Resource Lands" within Kent are agricultural in nature and are considered to have long-term commercial significance. The development rights for the Agricultural Resource Lands in Kent were purchased under King Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T120'^'�= Page 5 168 County's Agricultural Preservation Program during the 1980's, ensuring they will remain in agricultural land use in perpetuity. The City has adopted policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. The Green River, a notable natural feature in Kent, is considered a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and falls under the jurisdiction of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Other water bodies subject to SMP policies and regulations are Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area, Panther Lake and portions of Big Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek and Springbrook Creek. See Figure LU-3 -There are other significant natural resources in Kent th t-are protected by the Critical Areas Ordinance.The approximate location and extent of critical areas Formatted:Font: ii pt within the city are shown on the City's critical areas inventory maps. These Formatted:Font: ll pt maps are, used for informational purposes and as a general guide only; the _ Formatted:Font: 11 pt actual presence or absence, type, extent, boundaries, and classification of Formatted:Font: 11 pt critical areas on a specific site shall be identified in the field by a qualified professional and confirmed by the department, according to the procedures definitions, and criteria established by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Due to Formatted:Font: ii pt over 2,414 acres of wetlands located KeWs Planning AFea. inventori wetlands are illustrated on Figure ***. The ether predeminant natural feature Kent is steep slepes. Slepes imn excess ef 25% aFe feund aleng beth East Hill and West Hill. TheFe alse several ravines that typically are associated with creek beds. These hillsid along East Hill and West Hill PFeVide a natural, wooded border to the more develeped Green River Valley aFea, and they are a distinEt part of the Cityls natural landsEape. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 6 169 FIGURE FLU-3 TNVENTORIED WETLANDS—STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND BUFFERS 8C IeaS'n 1 m s STREAM CLASSIFICATON L:a3ai �[ i ..'F 6[.rrsar AND BUFFERS r• 'i ' I�r LEGEND I C]mTExnu nNn]�rwTme]nn�. + -- - � —rwnn<neeeWeaem •9B �1 is e]r \ �salnnrnd NG-2Tw � 9; � _ �Nun-winuiW Cker4 .. xne�r i iI -� � _ Inraumued Nk]leide :\ •,fier`°°' l� � ,w r Valley Orivlev J •t �� l e sE aw �• ,.-:., s uni t:i•-man, A�� There are add+t+enal regulatory constraints placed on Agricultural Resource Land. When the development rights are purchased from Agricultural Resource Land, covenants dictate uses and some development standards. Because Agricultural Resource Land is protected for farming only, the GMA requires that adjacent property owners who propose development must be notified of the protected status of the Agricultural Resource Lands ,1-e-ted status to ensure there are no conflicts between land uses. Kent's Agricultural Resource Land and the County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District are illustrated in Figure FLU-4. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 7 170 FIGURE FLU-4 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE LANDS mRu�r-_------a,eea, J —.._ S 8 , '— Ws AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE LAUDS rxasr .�p �Y �-�._ 14 Figure xx.x LEGEND x a se06'S � fa�• �� �v0*Eiia•L Ar�Exw*CM�a RUR G OMH MU F fIRPAN GRONRN AREA sres, a yyii„ S�EHr.wA,cul*wN� 53 _ rscseurtcF u7�o LDMR GREEN MYER,SGRic, fe L R QMUGH p8m1QT ,:. -IT � N 9E�a a sae ae r a,nw 2 S E:1 .4.000' 33 Fi� w 4 ni Analysis of Development Capacity The GMA requires jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate the forecasted 20-years growth of households and employment. Working with the 5State and local jurisdictions, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) established household and employment targets for 2031. Because the GMA planning horizon is to 2035, Kent extended the CPPs growth target on a calculated straight line out an additional four (4) years from the 2031 targets. A f°^al, but critical componentfneastw-c— of determining and future development potential is the analysis of development capacity. Development capacity refers to an estimate of the amount of development; which could be accommodated on vacant and re-developable land based on existing zoning and environmental constraints. It serves as a benchmark from which to gauge to what extent current land use and zoning policies can accommodate growth. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 8 171 The 2014 methodology to estimate capacity for household and employment is based on the Buildable Lands Program (RCW 36.70A.215). Under Buildable Lands, the City is required to conduct a review and evaluation to detemnine adequacy of the current supply of 'lands suitable for development" to and to evaluate the effectiveness of local plans and regulations. , The Buildable Lands Program requirescollects annual data collection to determine the amount and density of recent development, an inventory of the land supply suitable for development, and an assessment of the ability to accommodate expected growth for the remainder of the twenty (20) year planning horizon. Figure FLU-5 shows the location and extent of vacant and re-developable sites in Kent. Table **LU.2 summarizes the household and employment capacity for the Kent Planning Area based on Buildable Lands Analysis, and provides the existing household and employment as of 2010. FIGURE FLU-5 KENT VACANT AND RE-DEVELOPABLE LAND Formatted:Left 1 BUILDABLE LANDS - CAPACITY arc.... IXGCNn :-_ ..—. 4: E�snv uxn 7 DEVELOPMENT STXFUS �a -�� t•r�-ter s A - -- - Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 9 172 TableA-xLU.2 KENT PLANNING AREA 2010 and 2014 RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY Activity Type 2010 Existing 2014 Capacity Total Households 42,793 10,732 53,525 Employment 61,654 21,624 83,278 Evaluation of Development Capacity & Growth Targets As stated in the Kent Profile and Vision chapter, the Kent Planning Area's growth target for residential from the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) is 9,360 households, and its employment target is 13,490 employees to the year 2031. The planning horizon for Kent's Comprehensive Plan is 2035 which required a mathematical extension of CPPs targets. The result is a residential 2035 target of 10,858 households and an employment target of 15,648 jobs. Targets are not inherently a reflection of market trends in a specific city. Over the next two decades Sound Transit will continue to expand the Link Light Rail which could dramatically shape the communities with stations. Midway Lthe Kent-Des Moines area along the SR 99/I-5 corridor) is slated to have a rail station by 2023. Midway is also an area that did not figure into the Buildable Lands Analysis s+neebecause there are no new developments from which to calculate capacity. The capacity in Kent's Downtown Urban Center and Midway is difficult to predict out to 2035. What is known is that there is substantial capacity in both of these areas to provide new housing and employment in Kent.' (inseFt a feetnete: talk abeut subaFea plans, their analysis, and additienal capacity) It is clear that there is adequate housing capacity and more than adequate employment capacity to accommodate the 2035 targets (see Table ***LU!3) 1 Land Use Scenario 4.0 in the Midway Subarea Plan adopted on December 13, 2011 anticipated a light rail station, with transit-oriented development and future capacity for 11,821 housing units and 9,481 jobs in the Midway Subarea. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan adopted on November 19, 2013 looks toward a dense, mixed- use urban center that complements transit. The plan expanded the downtown subarea to approximately 550 acres and considered different growth alternatives ranging from 5,285 - 20,001 for households and 23,496 - 30,076 for jobs from the 2006 base year to 2031. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T128'^'�= Page 10 173 Table-�LU.3 EVALUATION OF HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY TO MEET TARGETS FOR CITY OF KENT Residential Target: 10,858 households Residential Capacity: 10,732 households Employment Target: 15,648 employees Employment Capacity: 21,624 employees Summary The Land Use Element provides the vision for the City's growth for the next twenty (20) years. The vision is established in both the Land Use Map and the Land Use Goals and Policies. It reflects the sState, regional, and local policy framework previously identified, as well as the City's policy documents and capacity analysis. More importantly, it reflects the preferences and views of the citizens as they were expressed in the City's public participation process. LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES The Land Use Goals and Policies cover a broad spectrum of issues. However, it is important to note that all of the Goals and Policies function together as a coherent and comprehensive vision of future growth in the community. This is reflected in the Purpose Statement for this Element. URBAN GROWTH The Land Use Element provides the overall comprehensive vision of future growth for the community. As mandated by the Growth Management Act, it is fundamentally important to establish the policy framework for managing this growth, particularly with regard to controlling and discouraging urban sprawl. The following Goals and Policies establish and reinforce that framework: Goal LU-1: Kent will ensure a land use pattern that provides overall densities in the Planning Area that are adequate to efficiently support a range of public facilities and urban services. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 11 174 Policy LU-1.1: Establish land use map designations that accommodate a portion of the City's overall growth targets into Kent's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-1.2: Do not extend any urban services to adjacent Unincorporated King County Rural Areas, Policy LU-1.3: Monitor household and employment growth trends and consider changes to the land use plan map and development rec7ulationselafx7es to ensure Kent meets the density on the—net buildable acreage allowed by the zoning district desianation. Goal LU-2: Kent will locate public facilities and services with sensitivity to community needs and environmental conditions. Policy LU-2.1: Work with regional and state entities when public capital facilities are considered to be leeateRfor location in or near the City to ensure that impacts and benefits are equitably dispersed. Policy LU-2.2: Promote and support public transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation within compact urban settings. Policy LU-2.3: Give funding priority to capital facility projects which are consistent with the City's Land Use Element and support projected housing and employment growth targets. Policy LU-2.4: Via a public participation process, allow certain public and private infrastructure, community open space, and social service facilities that serve the general population the freedom to locate throughout the City. URBAN LAND USE Downtown Kent is the heart of Kent. The Downtown Planning Area contains Kent's Urban Center as recognized by Countywide Planning Policies and the Puget Sound Regional Council, and affirmed by the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP). There are other urban nodes and corridors in Kent that contain a mix of residential and commercial uses. The Midway Subarea Plan focuses on an important node that by 2035 will contain a light rail station near Highline Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 12 175 Community College. The following Goals and Policies reflect community values and are consistent with the Plan's framework: Goal LU-3: Kent will focus household and employment growth in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers to provide adequate land and densities to accommodate a large portion of the adopted twenty(20) year housing target of 10,858 new dwelling units and 15,648 new jobs within Kents Planning Area. Policy LU-3.1: Encourage mixed-use development that combines retail, office, or residential uses to provide a diverse and economically vibrant Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Policy LU-3.2: Encourage medium- and high-density residential development in suppert ef high eapeeity transit in the Urban Center that supports high-capacity transit and is affordable to all ranges of income.attr-aethe and constructed with high quality materials.- Policy LU-3.3: Utilize the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines to ensure development in the Urban Center is attractive, constructed with high-quality materials, devel ps maximizes livability and reinforces a sense of place. IddNIIkL Policy LU-3.4: Designate Activity Centers in areas which currently contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-density housing; are supported by transit; or have an existing subarea plan. Policy LU-3.5: Periodically evaluate household and employment forecasts to ensure that land use policies based on previous assumptions are current. Policy LU-3.6: Monitor economic trends and consider land use changes and incentives, to maintain the vitality of the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Goal LU-4 Kent will plan and finance transportation and other public infrastructure which support medium- and high---density mixed-use development of the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 13 176 Policy LU-4.1: Establish transportation levels--of--service (LOS) which facilitate medium- to high-density development in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers that are consistent with concurrency requirements. Policy LU-4.2: Focus future public transportation investments in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Policy LU-4.3: Enhance pedestrian circulation systems and bicycle lanes in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers with an emphasis on circulation systems which link adjacent neighborhoods to centers. Policy LU-4.4: Take actions to ensure that adequate public parking is available to facilitate development in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers, and monitor the effectiveness of actions taken. Policy LU-4.5: Plan and finance City water and sewer systems to support medium and high-density development in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers, and work with outside purveyors where necessary. Policy LU-4.6: Redesign existing downtown parks, and expand the system where feasible, to maximize passive recreational opportunities for residents, employees, and visitors in the Urban Center in support of a healthy lifestyle. Policy LU-4.7: Ensure designated Activity Centers provide recreational opportunities for a diversity of residents, employees, and visitors to support a healthy lifestyle and create a livable community. Policy LU-4.8: Designate a portion of Midway as an Activity Center to ensure that local and regional infrastructure investments are captured in order to prepare and transform the neighborhood into a dense mixed- use center served by Sound Transit Link Light Rail. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 14 177 Goal LU-5: Kent will emphasize the importance of good design, pedestrian first, and healthy-living for development in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Policy LU-5.1: Adopt and maintain policies, codes, and land use patterns that promote walking, biking, public transportation, and social interaction to increase public health and sense of place. Policy LU-5.2: Ensure that the street standards in the Kent Construction and Design Standards street standards support and are consistent with the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines. Policy LU 5.3: Ensure that the Kent Construction and Design Standards support the community vision for designated Activity Centers, including enhanced pedestrian and cyclist circulation, public transit opportunities, and an emphasis on aesthetics and public safety. Policy LU-5.4: Continue to undertake beautification projects in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers, including pedestrian amenities, street trees, art-pfejec4 and parks. Policy LU-5.5: Implement design review for development in designated Activity Centers. Policy LU 5.6: Encourage development of public or semi-public spaces for retail, office, or residential areas in designated Activity Centers. Policy LU-5.6: Develop site and parking design standards in designated Activity Centers which support public transit and are pedestrian-friendly. Policy LU 5.7: promote food security, local food production, and Formatted:Font: Not Bold public health by encouraging locally-based ocally-based food production, distribution and choice through urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers markets food access initiatives and shared resources. Palley l=U 5.7., Institute a Statien Area Plan in anticipatien ef Sound Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 15 178 HOUSING There are many factors which influence the development of housing in Kent. The central issue is how to accommodate the City's 2035 housing target while supporting the diversity of households found in the community household size, age, ethnicity, marital status, income, special needs). There is also a desire to balance jobs and housing in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Additional factors that influence housing are detailed in the Housing Element. The following Goals and Policies create a framework to support a wide variety of housing choices as Kent grows: Goal LU-6: Kent will provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the twenty (20) year housing target of 10,858 new dwelling units within the Kent Planning Area. Policy LU-6.1: Evaluate,ai:0-monitor and modify, if necessary existing land use plan map designations to ensure adequate densi capacity to accommodate 20-years of household and employment growth,anmedff-y the desigRatiens if necessary. Policy LU-6.2: Establish flexible regulatory methods, such as shadow platting and minimum densities, to ensure future land division that supports urban densities. Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where human and community services. 00W Goal LU-7: Kent will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City to meet the community's changing demographics. Policy LU-7.1: Ensure residential development achieves a substantial portion of the allowable maximum density on the net buildable acreage. Policy LU-7.2: Allow and encourage urban density residential development in the designated Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 16 179 Policy LU-7.3: Allow and encourage a variety of multifamily housing forms and densities within designated commercial mixed-use land use areas. Policy LU-7.4: Allow a diversity of single-family housing forms and strategies in all residential districts (i.,—e.g., accessory dwellings, reduced lot size, cottage or cluster housing), subject to design and development standards, to ensure minimal impact to surrounding properties. Policy LU-7.5: Allow attached single-family housing within multifamily land use areas (e.g., MRT-12 and MRT-16), and as demonstration projects in mixed-use land use areas. Goal LU-8: Kent will revise development regulations to encourage single-family and multifamily development that is more flexible and innovative in terms of building design, street standards for private roads, and site design. Policy LU-8.1: Support the achievement of allowable density in single- family developments through flexibility and creativity in site design. Policy LU-8.2: Establish residential streetscape patterns which foster more opportunities for healthy-Jiving and community interaction. Policy LU-8.3: Develop design standards for high-quality, compact, innovative single-family housing to ensure such housinghigh quaky d v e ,,.ent integrates well into surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-8.4: Allow more flexibility in single-family and multifamily residential setbacks, vehicle access, and parking, particularly on small lots, to encourage more compact infill development and innovative site design. Policy LU-8.5: Lay out neighborhoods that are oriented to the pedestrian, provide natural surveillance of public and semi-public places, and foster a sense of community by orientation of buildings, limiting block lengths, encouraging continuity of streets among neighborhoods, inerease—connectivity to public spaces, and suppert—safe pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular movement. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T129'^'�= Page 17 180 Policy LU-8.6: Establish design standards and parking requirements for accessory dwelling units to ensure that the neighborhood character is maintained. Policy LU-8.7: Integrate multifamily housing with the surrounding neighborhood, through site design, ineerperating-architectural features common to adjacent single-family design, and provide pedestrian connectivity and landscaping. Policy LU-8.8: Adopt minimum density requirements for residential development. COMMERCIAL Kent consists of dispersed commercial nodes and corridors that serve the surrounding residents. Opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and re-developable properties throughout the City. The following Goals and Policies will contribute to economic vitality throughout the City: Goal LU-9: Kent will promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen commercial activity, and maximize the use of existing public facility investments. Policy LU-9.1: Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas. Policy LU-9.2: Develop City investment incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas, which may include improved sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, and outdoor public spaces. Goal LU-10: Kent will examine the City's commercial districts based on regional, community, and neighborhood needs to support economic vitality and livability. Policy LU-10.1: Examine commercial nodes, corridors, and subareas for existing attributes and deem opportunities to revitalize the commercial eppertun. connect with surrounding residential neighborhoods, and support multi-modal transportation facilities; Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T120'^'�T Page 18 181 Policy LU-10.2: Ensure opportunities for residential development within existing business districts to provide support for shops, services, and employment within walking distance. Policy LU-10.3: Ensure in the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zoning district that all new development and redevelopment will employ building and site design elements which will minimize impacts to surrounding residential uses, include pedestrian-oriented amenities, and develop with minimum parking provisions. Policy LU-10.4: Promote redevelopment of existing commercial properties by limiting the conversion of additional residential land use plan map designations to commercial land use plan map designations. Policy LU-10.5: Establish guidelines for design of edges where commercial and mixed-uses abut single-family and medium- to low- density multifamily residential uses. Goal LU-11: Kent will provide attractive, walkable, commercial areas that are focal points of community activity. Policy LU-11.1: Establish design standards for commercial and mixed- use development which isare complimentary to the surrounding neighborhoods and accommodates transit, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy LU-11.2: Revise Kent Design and Construction Standards to ensure the public streetscape associated with commercial and mixed-use development is attractive, safe, and supports transit, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy LU-11.3: Prepare comprehensive multi-modal streetscape plans for commercial nodes and corridors to create a safe and inviting pedestrian environment. Policy LU-11.4: Establish additional gateways into and within Kent. MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL The Kent North Valley Industrial Area is over 6 square miles in size and represents nearly 1920% of Kent's land base. This area provides a significant amount of manufacturing, industrial, or other related employment. During the Great Recession of 2008, dozens of companies provided over 28,000 jobs in Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 19 182 the North Valley Industrial Area. The City anticipates that by 2035, approximately 49,500 jobs will locate in the North Valley Industrial Area. Analysis indicates there is substantial capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth, which includes office parks, bulk retail, and commercial activities along with manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Kent has designated 3.1 square miles as Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The MIC meets the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) key components for a manufacturing center designation. At the lowest point during the Great Recession, the MIC provided over 12,000 jobs and today that number is growing. The MIC is located in the North Valley Industrial Area, which is an extremely important part of both the City's and the Region's economic and employment base. Goal LU-12: Kent will su ortensth-e the Industrial area and Manufacturing/Industrial Center for manufacturing, warehousing and related land uses industtial and �varieheusin,-:, uses. Policy LU-12.1: Ensure the Manufacturing/Industrial Center boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail corridors. Policy LU-12.2: Discourage and limit land uses other than manufacturing, high technology and warehousing within the boundaries of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Policy LU-12.3: Provide for a mix of land uses which are compatible with manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses, such as office, retail, and service in the area designated Industrial. Goal LU-13: Kent will plan and finance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those transportation and infrastructure systems which can accommodate high- intensity manufacturing, industry and warehouse uses. Policy LU-13.1: Work with the Regional Transit Authority and King County to facilitate mobility to and within the Manufacturing/Industrial Center for goods, services, and employees. Policy LU-13.2: Upgrade water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management facilities as necessary to support development in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 20 183 Goal LU-14: Kent will utilize development standards in the areas designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center and Industrial to mitigate the impact of development, anY--create an attractive employment center and supports multi- modal transportation alternatives. Policy LU-14.1: Support commute trip reduction _goals and multi- modal forms of transportation €nstfevia development standards that ae cenduc4ve te transit with an emphasis onpertaining to building setbacks, location of parking, andevisse-parking standards as well as amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists Policy LU-14.2: Utilize development standards that create an attractive street-scape, including street trees and pedestrian- mevemen ,scaled amenities. Policy LU 14.3., Revise parking standards to suppeft eemmute &V occupancy vehicles. 04 ,- Formatted:Indent:First line: 0" wareheusif�, business and effiee parks and ether uses te c-Feate an transportation options. commute trip reduction geais. Policy LU-14.63: Mitigate the overall size and scale of large projects through such means as sensitive massing, articulation, and organization of building; the use of color and materials; and the use of landscaped screening. Policy 1-1.1-14.74: Utilize development standards and code enforcement that supports a distinctive and orderly character along the Sound Transit Corridor. Policy LU-14.85: Where appropriate, encourage context-sensitive design for the development or redevelopment of live-work units on smaller parcels within or adjacent to industrial districts. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�= Page 21 184 Policy LU-14.96: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and built retail complexes occurs adjacent to environmentally-sensitive areas, require landscaping improvements that will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities and environmental functions. Policy LU 14.97: Design industrial and bulk retail developments in consideration of human scale. PARKING While parking may be linked to mobility, it is considered a land use issue because it is integral to land development patterns. Whether it is commercial, industrial, or housing development, all must accommodate the vehicle by providing parking. The goals and policies found in this section apply to all forms of development and are intended to promote land development patterns that are less auto-dependent and that better support travel options. They recognize that compact large- and small-scale site design close to services and transit will reduce vehicular trips, supporting transit, ridesharing, bicycling, or walking. Goal LU-15: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policy LU-15.1: Develop parking ratios which take into account existing parking supply, minimums and maximums, land use intensity, af�d-transit and ride-sharing goals. Policy LU-15.2: Incorporate ground-level retail or service facilities into any parking structures that are constructed within the Downtown Urban Center. Policy LU-15.3: Provide an option for developers to construct the minimum number of parking spaces on-site or pay an in-lieu fee to cover the cost of the City's construction and operation of parking at an off-site location. Policy LU-15.4: Evaluate and re-evaluate the parking requirements for all uses with the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers in accordance with the following factors: Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 22 185 • the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to the site; • the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and type of employees and the anticipated shifts; • the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual site parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within concentrated areas; • the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation report and other publications which provide parking generation indices; and • any studies of similar specific uses conducted either by the City of Kent or the applicant. The Giq, ef Kent parking eeerdinater-, Policy LU-15.5: Develop bicycle parking standards for remodeled and new commercial, office, or industrial development. NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES Kent's natural environment resides in the Green River Valley and adjacent hillsides and plateaus, which together provide a unique and distinctive character to the City of Kent. Urban development has altered this environment, and the City is addressing the impacts. In consort with the GMA, Kent has established Critical Areas regulations and the Shoreline Master Plan to guide future development in and near sensitive areas. Kent also participates with federal, state, and tribal governments, and other major stakeholders in the Puget Sound region, to identify early actions and develop long-range strategies to conserve and restore critical natural resources. Preservation of open space, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas occurs through the development process using "Sensitive Area Easements". City stormwater is monitored for water quality conditions, and problems that are identified are addressed through capital improvement projects. Preservation and restoration of native plant materials, particularly near streams and wetlands, are considered for new development to enhance environmental quality for fish and wildlife habitat. Kent is committed to a multi-faceted approach toward the protection and enhancement of local and regional natural resources. As such, the City will continue to protect natural resources through the promulgation of development standards, enhancement of natural resources through a variety of capital Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 23 186 improvement programs, and leeking feF opportunities to support regional efforts to preserve our resources for future generations. Goal LU-16: Kent will coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions, and regional and federal entities to retain the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's natural features. The coordination may includero--e�t approaches and standards for the conservation and enhancement of terrestrial and aquatic habitat and recreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources and water quality; and provision of open space sense ef place previded by the C44,�s natural features Policy LU-16.1: Ensure the City's regu/ rsdesiqnatinq and ,orotectin_ critical areas are consistent with the Growth Management Act.1n accerdanee with the GAIA, fer wqdhfe and area Policy LU-16.2: Coordinate with King County to produce critical area maps of the Potential Annexation Area which are consistent with the City of Kent Critical Areas Maps. 4 Policy 1=U 16.3, Protect ',-he :;gd quantity of groundwater use for water supply in acc-ordan-P-1,'.4'.'fith—the City of Kent Water Quality Formatted:Indent:Left: T First line: 0" Policy LU 16.4, Update the Gity ef Kent Critic-ai Areas Maps as ne� sted supper—_ the __..__. _a_._.. _. list".. __ Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",First line: 0" Policy LU 16.7f Werk eeeperative4, with tribat, federat, state and leea te conserve and we i as well as majer stakehelders-, Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'A'�= Page 24 187 Policy LU-16.8: When jurisdictional boundaries are involved, coordinate wetland protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent jurisdictions and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Goal LU-17: Kent will recognize the significant role the natural environment plays in shaping a sustainable community by contributing to human health, environmental justice, and economic vitality. Policy 17.1: Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas through City regulations, programmatic plans, and capital improvement programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as higher urban density, clustering and planned unit development. r IN Policy LU-17.2: Conserve energy resources, improve air and water quality, and support healthy lifestyles by E-establishing well designed, compact mixed-use land use patterns that suppert healthy lifestyle chefees by provideiag convenient opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle, Policy LU-17.3: Develop strategies and utilize funding opportunities to protect environmentally sensitive areas that contribute to wildlife habitat, open space and the livability of Kent. Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",First line: 0" abitat through publie capital improvement projects-, or when possible-, Policy LU-17.5: Identify and mitigate unavoidable negative impacts of public actions that disproportionately affect people of color and low- income populations. Policy 17.6: Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous materials, noise, and protection of wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat-pfetectkm. Policy LU-17.7: Protect and enhance environmental quality via maintenance of accurate and up-to-date environmental data, and by City Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�= Page 25 188 support of environmental management programs, park master programs, and environmental education and incentive programs. owners general information concernt.ng natural resources, critical areas7 and asseciated regulations, .——.. Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",First line: 0" Policy LU 17.9, Indemnify the Giq, frem damages resulting frem Policy LU-17.12: Minimize the loss of vegetation as new development occurs. Continue to recognize the value of trees and other vegetation in increasing the livability of Kent. Policy LU-17.13: Protect established greenbelts to preserve existing natural vegetation in geologically hazardous areas, along stream banks and wetlands. /"•QVif'CQT8- Kent will ensure envi.renmentaHy er4tieal areas are managed te prevent harm, to protect public health and safeq,, and to preserve and enhance remai.nt.ng critical areas and agricultural resource lands in the City. feaWres sLieh as rovers, strezarns, creels, and wetland, Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T128'^'�= Page 26 189 habitat, epen space and ---..e EOFFidors adjacent to areas such as the Green Rover-, Soos Creek, and reduce the rmsl( of fleoding to the Kent Valley and ensLAre accreditation o and / publie landseaping, greenbelts. S��tem Plan. Policy I=U 18.7., On a regular basis-, evaluate the adequeey ef the ex4sting development regulations in relationship to goals for water r-eseurce and fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessar�,, Goal LU-19: Kent will ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Green River support the goals and policies of the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan. Policy LU-19.1: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for water supply in accordance with the City of Kent Water Quality Program recommendations. Policy LU-19.2: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate degraded channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with proposed new development. Goal LU-20: Establish Urban Separators to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that provide visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�= Page 27 190 Policy LU-20.1: Ensure Urban Separators are low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. Policy LU-20.2: Link Urban Separators within the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Policy LU-20.3: Provide open space linkages within or to designated Urban Separators when new development occurs. Policy LU-20.4: Coordinate with appropriate agencies and adjacent cities to create a regional approach to Urban Separators. Policy LU 20.5: Inventory local and Gcounty designated Urban Separators in an effort to manage development regulations. Policy LU-20.6: Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering of housing units, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and enhance urban separators. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES The City of Kent has established siting criteria for essential public facilities, which are defined by the State in RCW 36.70A.200(1) to "include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." The following oals and policies reaffirm Kent's commitment to a fair p s for I ca-ting such facilities. Goal CF-30: The City shall participate in a cooperative inter-iurisdictional process to determine siting of essential public facilities of a county-wide, gional, or state-wide nature. Policy CF-30.1: Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the City of Kent or within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan during the initial stages of the proposal process. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T120 ^'�= Page 28 191 Policy CF-30.2: When warranted by the special character of the essential facility, the City shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.150, Special use combining district, to goolications for siting such facilities to insure adequate review, including public participation. Conditions of approval, including design conditions, conditions, shall be imposed upon such uses in the interest of the welfare of the City and the protection of the environment. Policy CF-30.3: In the principally permitted or conditional use sections of the zoning code, the City shall establish, as appropriate, locations and development standards for essential public facilities which do not warrant consideration through the special use combining district regulations. Such facilities shall include but not be limited to small inoatient facilities and_rc�oup homes. Goal CF-31: The City shall participate in a cooperative inter jurisdictional process to resolve issues of mitigation for any disproportionate financial burden which may fall on the jurisdiction which becomes the site of a facility of a state-wide, regional or county-wide nature. LAND USE PLAN MAP The Land Use Plan Map is a vital part of the Land Use Element and the Comprehensive Plan as a whole, because it establishes the framework for amendments to the City's official zoning map. It also establishes the land use and zoning framework to be used as land currently in the Potential Annexation Area is annexed into the City. Definition of Map Designations There are several different land use plan map designations. They relate to various types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and the like. These designations are found on the Land Use Plan Map (Figure 1*LU-6) Formatted:Not Highlight and are explained below. One needs to bear in mind, however, that there are certain types of land uses that need relative freedom of location and, thus, should not be restricted to certain districts. These types of uses may be allowed via general conditional use permit in many of the listed districts, whether residential, commercial or industrial. The uses include utility, transportation, and communication facilities; schools; public facilities; open space uses such as cemeteries, golf course, and so forth; and retirement homes, convalescent facilities and certain other welfare facilities. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 29 192 FIGURE LU-6 LAND USE PLAN MAP Formatted:Centered e - 3 } — LAND USE PLAN /l.••rswann.°.r =I�Imo.. -ri..,..9 rw u•..n+,e,°..+�+a�....,�... Single-Family Residential (SF) The Single-family Residential designation allows single-family residential development at varying densities and housing forms (e.g. cottage and cluster). In the city limits, there are four single-family designations: SF-3, SF-4.5, SF-6, and SF-8. These designations allow development of up to 3, 4.5, 6, and 8 dwelling units per acre, respectively, and could accommodate lower densities as w It sheuld be stressed that these designatiens represent a range of it alse eeuld aeeemmedlate less than that. FIGURE LAND USE norm Formatted:Left In the unincorporated area, there are two single-family designations: Urban Residential, Low (UR-1) allows one (1) dwelling unit per acre; and Urban Residential, Medium (UR-4-12) allows development at a range of four (4) to twelve (12) units per acre. On a countywide basis, these designatiOns have Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-('120 ^'�= Page 30 193 been updated—sinee the NevengbeF 2001 amended King Geunty designated land uses. Multifamily Residential (MF) Multifamily Residential areas allow multifamily and single-family residential development at varying densities and housing types. In the city limits, there are two designations: Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) and Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF). The Low Density Multifamily designation allows densities of up to 16 dwelling units per acre, while the Medium Density Multifamily designation allows densities of 17-2-340 dwelling units per acre. In Kent's PAA of Unincorporated King County, a multifamily designation of Urban Residential, High (UR12+) allows 18-48 dwelling units per acre. Urban Center (UC) This designation identifies a portion of the Downtown area as an Urban Center. This designation allows high-density, mixed-use development. Retail, office, multifamily residential, and public facility land uses are permitted outright. Mobile Home Park (MHP) The Mobile Home Park designation allows mobile and manufactured homes and recreational vehicles within existing commercial mobile home parks. Mixed-Use (MU) The Mixed-Use LMULdesignation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in the same area. The Mixed-Use designation is distinguished from the Urban Center designation in that the Mixed-Use areas do not allow as much density as the Urban Center area. All residential development within a Mixed-Use area must e a component of a retail or office development. The MU designation also a s legacy M2 Limited Industrial zoning west of Central Avenue Notth. AW Neighborhood Services (NS) Neighborhood Services allows for small nodal areas of retail and personal service activities to provide everyday convenient goods to residential areas. Commercial (C) Commercial areas allow a variety of retail, office, and service uses located along major thoroughfares that serve local residential neighborhoods or serve regional clients and customers and consists of a contiguous strip of commercial Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 31 194 activities. Many areas on the Land Use Map, which were previously designated for commercial uses, now are designated as Mixed-Use areas. Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) The Manufacturing/Industrial Center is an area reserved for manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology uses, or those uses closely related to industrial development such as warehousing. Office uses related to the primary land use is permitted, but they are otherwise limited. Retail uses are also permitted, but limited in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Industrial (I) The Industrial designation is an area for manufacturing and warehouse uses. However, office and business park development is allowed in this area, as are certain types of retail uses which serve the surrounding manufacturing and office park uses, and bulk retail. Transit Oriented Community (TOC) The Transit Oriented Community allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in the same area or as a stand-alone use. This area allows high- density uses in support of high-capacityfapid transit investments. Agricultural Resource (AG-R) The Agricultural Resource designation is for land reserved for long-term agricultural use. Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at very low densities. Agricultural Support (AG-S) The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally—=related industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. Urban Separator (US) The Urban Separator designation is reserved for low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Parks and Open Space (POS) The Parks and Open Space designation represents publicly owned land that is either large active park area or undeveloped or developed fo-r-passive recreational open space land that may have environmental sensitivities. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 32 195 Related Information Midway Subarea Plan Need Links Downtown Subarea Action Plan Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T129'^'�= Page 33 196 Land Use Element Background Report Urban Center Kent's Downtown has been a focus of the City's planning and policy development for some time. Over the past several decades, residents and business owners have made recommendations to the Mayor and City Council to improve the function of Kent's downtown as a city and regional Urban Center. The Downtown Plan adopted by the City Council in 1989 established a policy framework for creating a vibrant downtown community with an abundance of employment, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The City took important steps toward implementation of this plan when it adopted zoning changes in 1992, and in 1995, completed studies of downtown parking management and infrastructure capacity. The Downtown Kent Strategic Action Plan, adopted in 1998 and updated in 2005, helped guide development within the Downtown area. The Downtown Subarea Action Plan adopted in November, 2013 replaced the 1998/2005 Plan, and supports continued urbanization of Downtown as a memorable, compact, livable community that is economically vital, environmentally sustainable and supported by a variety of transportation options. The Council's policy direction for the Downtown area was reaffirmed in September 1992, when they elected to propose much of Downtown Kent as an Urban Center, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The CPPs envision urban centers as areas of concentrated employment and housing which are served by high capacity transit. Past Buildable Lands Analyses showed the market trend in Downtown Kent had been slow to capitalize on the zoning district's openness to increased residential development. However, recent office, retail, and entertainment developments are energizing the market interest. Other criteria for urban centers also are applicable to the Downtown area. These include: convenient access to the Sound Transit commuter rail and other regional transit opportunities; a bicycle and pedestrian-oriented streetscape; zoning which encourages a mixture of uses at high densities with an emphasis on superior urban design; historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; proximity to facilities to meet human services needs; and a local commitment to fund infrastructure and public improvements in the area. Collectively, goals for the Urban Center are placed in the context of the overall Land Use Element. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T120'^'�T Page 34 197 Activity Centers One of the fundamental themes behind many of the state, regional, and local planning goals is the idea of using urban land more efficiently in order to reduce sprawl of residential and commercial development into rural areas. In the past decade, several commercial areas in Kent have seen a large amount of new development. These areas, which are located on East Hill, West Hill, and in the Valley adjacent to Downtown, have an existing base of retail and office uses, and typically are surrounded by medium-density residential areas. The idea behind the Activity Center concept is to encourage more development in these areas, because infrastructure to support growth is already in place, and to allow a mixture of uses (residential and commercial) which brings housing closer to jobs and shopping, and which supports public transit. Allowing a mixture of uses in the community also will increase housing options. Housing Accommodating the demand for housing may be the greatest land use challenge confronting the City of Kent. There are many factors which influence the development of housing in the community. These are explained in detail in the Housing Element. From a land use standpoint, the central issue is accommodating the City's housing target by supporting the diversity of households found in the community (i.e. household size, age, marital status, income, special needs) with housing types that are acceptable to the community, and that efficiently utilize the remaining land within the Kent Planning Area. Since 1995, there have been some measurable successes in providing a housing balance. There is a balance in the number of single-family and multifamily dwelling units. New housing development has typically maximized allowable densities. However, there is a need to balance estate housing with housing that is affordable to young professionals and their families. Housing on large lots, while desirable, is not affordable for most families in Kent. The Housing Element provides additional detail on income and housing costs in Kent. Commercial Kent's major centers of commercial activity are located Downtown which is identified in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and includes the Urban Center; on East Hill along the 104th Avenue SE corridor; and along Pacific Highway on West Hill. At this time, opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and redevelopable properties within the Urban Center and within the larger Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T120'^'�T Page 35 198 Downtown area as defined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan. Commercial developments located adjacent to major arterials west and north of the City Center and on East Hill and West Hill are composed of predominantly one-story buildings with large surface parking lots which are accessed by separate driveways from the arterials. At key points along these corridors, opportunities exist to develop pedestrian and transit-oriented Activity Centers. The Activity Centers would incorporate commercial, office, and residential development. Environment The major hydrologic feature in Kent is the Green River which encompasses a system of associated creeks and wetlands. Some of the creeks in the Green River system flow through steep ravines into the valley floor. Other creeks flow at lower grades, but also contribute habitat. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within this system support local and regional fish and wildlife resources. Those water-bodies or portions of water-bodies not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program are protected through local Critical Areas regulations. In 2002, the City of Kent began revising Critical Areas regulations as required by the GMA, using best available science standards tailored specifically for Kent. These regulations are being updated as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and will guide future development in protecting ecological functions and values of critical areas from cumulative adverse environmental impacts. Designated critical areas include critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologic hazard areas, wetlands, streams, and-wildlife and fisheries habitat conseFvatmon areas. In addition to protecting and preserving critical areas through regulations, a number of other programs work cooperatively to form a systematic approach toward Kent's natural resource policies. These other programs include: stormwater regulations, environmental capital improvement projects, regional and inter-jurisdictional collaborative efforts, and the suppert of the adJaeent King G—Ity Green Rover Agricultural Production District and the "Agricultural Resource" land wi fit. As a complement to Critical Areas regulations, Kent's Shoreline Master Program provides for the management and protection of local shoreline resources by planning for reasonable and appropriate uses. The goals, policies, and regulations in the Shoreline Master Program apply to activities in all lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). The goals and policies of Kent's Shoreline Master Program are incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan (see Chapter XX "Shoreline Element"). Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T120'^'�= Page 36 199 The Utilities Element contains additional information on water and stormwater goals and policies. Resource Lands Historically, the commercial agricultural lands in the Green River Valley have added to the City's economic support. Today, the majority of protected agricultural resource lands in the Valley are located south of Kent's municipal limits within King County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District. There are a few designated "Agricultural Resource" lands within Kent whose development rights have been purchased and protected from conversion to a more intensive land use. Activities within the land use designation "Agricultural Support" (i.e. AG-S) will help sustain the agricultural community by providing land dedicated to the processing and retailing of local agricultural production. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-T12B'^'�= Page 37 200 201 Chapter Three - HOUSING ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; • A statement of goals, policies and objectives for the preservation, improvement and development of housing; • Identification of sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes and foster care facilities. • Adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community Purpose Statement: Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income levels and household needs. PURPOSE Healthy and strong neighborhoods with an adequate supply of quality and affordable housing are fundamental to the well-being of Kent and its residents. Beyond simply fulfilling a basic need for shelter, adequate and affordable housing provides many more benefits. Studies show that children in stable housing do better in school and are less likely to experience disruption in their education due to moves. Living in decent, affordable housing also provides individuals and families with a sense of economic security and the ability to focus on their needs. There needs to be a wide range of housing types to make housing affordable for every household in Kent regardless of income. An adequate supply of a variety of housing types and prices is also important to Kent's employment base and its economic vitality. A mix of homes affordable to a range of income levels can attract and help retain a diverse employment base in the community, support the local workforce so they can live close to their jobs, and support economic development objectives. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend more time with their families while benefitting from reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, and expenditures on roads. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element('%-4) Page 1 202 The Housing Element considers the inventory and condition of existing housing stock and future housing needs. inventory is cl ded in the appendix_-) It addresses the provision of housing types to accommodate the lifestyles and economic needs of the community. The term affordable housing as used in this document refers to housing that place a cost burden on the resident regardless of household income. The City's housing policies and development regulations (zoning, building codes, etc.) establish how the development and construction of housing will take place in the community. However, unlike the other services discussed in this comprehensive plan, the City does not directly provide housing. The Housing Element sets the conditions under which the private housing industry will operate, and establishes goals and policies to meet the community's housing needs and to achieve the community's goals. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code provide for a variety of residential land uses to accommodate the City's targets as adopted in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Zoning Code includes provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned Unit Development incentives, accessory dwelling units city-wide, as well as transit-oriented development standards for the Midway and Downtown Subareas. Housing-related issues are also addressed in the City's 2013-2018 Human Services Master Plan and the Consolidated Plan, providing a framework for implementing housing human services, and community development activities. Additionally, the City maintains a Subsidized Housing Inventory that is periodically updated. It is a moment in time count of the various types of subsidized units within the City. The number and type of dwelling are established by the owners and the data is subject to change at any given time. At any given time, roughly 25% of Kent's rental housing units are subsidized. As of 2014 there were a total of 3,094 subsidized units in the City. Issues Demographics, Economics and Special Needs A mix of homes affordable to a range of income levels, ages, lifestyles and special needs can attract and help retain a diverse employment base in the community, support the local workforce so they can live close to their jobs, and support economic development Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 2 Kent GefnpFehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 203 objectives. Housing Stock + Aging housing stock can be an important source of affordable housing for low- income families. L. .-r. COMMUNITY CONTEXT Age distribution is an important indicator for determining the future demand for housing types in the City. Traditional assumptions are that the young adult population (20 to 34 years old) has a propensity for choosing apartments, low to moderate priced condominiums, and smaller single-family units. The adult population (35 to 65 years old) is the primary market for moderate to high-end apartments, condominiums, and larger single-family homes. This age group traditionally has higher incomes and larger household sizes. The senior population (65 years and older) generates demand for low to moderate cost apartments and condominiums, group quarters, and mobile homes. 71- Table H_1-XE - Sex and Age Kent, WA Estimate SEX AND AGE Total population 124,410 Male 62,995 Female 61,415 Under 5 years 7,530 5 to 9 years 9,374 10 to 14 years 7,412 15 to 19 years 8,642 20 to 24 years 8,557 25 to 34 years 22,300 35 to 44 years 15,601 45 to 54 years 18,512 55 to 59 years 7,543 60 to 64 years 6,820 65 to 74 years 7,526 75 to 84 years 2,721 Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 3 Kent GefnpFehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 204 85 years and over 1,872 Median age (years) 34.3 2010.2012 American Camunity Survey 34ear Esfinetes DEMOGRAPHICS The city's population growth over the past 25 years has been primarily a result of annexations but the number of new housing units has also contributed to population growth. The forecast for 2035 is for a twenty-nine percent increase in the number of households in Kent resulting in an additional 38,000 residents. Significant changes include an increase in the number of family households in the city and the racial composition of the city shifting from a non-Hispanic white majority to a majority minority community. Over 27% of the population is foreign born. A large proportion of residents living in Kent are young, middle class families that seek a variety of housing options that are affordable and located strategically to access the region. As noted in the Land Use-Element as well as the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the growth targets for 2035. 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. Kent will focus on preserving and enhancing existing housing to maintain the affordability while encouraging development of housing for residents at 120%+ of median income. Currently approximately 50% of households are paying less than 30% of their income for housing resulting in the more Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 4 Kent GefnpFehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 205 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. Table H.2XHF HousingCosts Income Monthly Housing Units Units Cost Needed Available >30% = or > $750.00 5133 4658 AMI >500/0 = or > $1250.00 4665 14270 AMI >800/0 = or > $1810.00 6230 7620 AMI 100% = or > $2500.00 3339 8709 AMI <120% = or > $3000.00 19900 5550 AMI Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS Table H.3X-X Housing Needs Summary Tables 1. Housing Problems Households with one of the listed needs Renter I Owner 0- >30- >SO- >80- Total 0- >30- >SO- >SO- Total 30% 500/o 80% 100% 30% 500/o 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI 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 41 0 19 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the aboveproblems) 365 340 275 49 1029 0 45 75 35 155 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of 2,55 income and none of 5 260 40 0 1 2,855 1 579 1 595 1 535 1 170 1 1,8791 Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 5 Kent GeMpFelhensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 206 Renter Owner 0- >30- >SO- >80- Total 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 30% 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the aboveproblems) 560 1,899 944 40 3AW 110 265 815 699 1,889 Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 140 0 0 AV 140 20 0 01 01 20 M011- Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS 2. Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 30% 500/b 80% 1000/0 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI / AMI AMI AMI AMI Having 1 or more of four housing problems 3 130 670 0 104 4,294 579 655 645 205 2 084 Having none of, four housing problems 1,075 2,700 3,3� 1,349 8,454 195 635 1,865 1,679 4,374 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 140 01 0 0 140 20 01 0 1 0 1 20 Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS 3. Cost Burden > 30% Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- Total 0- >30- >50- Total 30% 50% 80% 30% 50% 80% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Small Related 1,150 1 254 553 2,957 160 345 560 1 065 Large Related 510 155 80 745 75 200 265 540 Elderly 620 325 40 985 253 250 270 773 Other 1280 695 335 2,310 190 125 330 645 Total need by 1 3,560 1 2,429 1 1,008 1 6,997 678 1 920 1 1,425 1 3,023 Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 6 Kent Ceffiffehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 207 Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- Total 0- >30- >50- Total 30% 50% 800/0 30% 50% 80% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI income Data Source: 2005-2009 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 then 1.5 persons per room). Overpayment refers to a household that pays more than 30% of 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. 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 X-XH.4 Total Households Table 0- >30- >50- >80- >100% HAMFI 30% 500/0 800/0 1000/0 HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI 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 1,299 1 1,229 1 1,575 1 2,459 * the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI Data 2005-2009 CHAS Source: HOMELESSNESS Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 7 14 208 The City has recognized for many years the impact of homelessness on the community and its residents. Homelessness impacts individuals, families, children and youth. The reasons for and causes of homeless are numerous. Nationally there has been an emphasis on addressing chronic homelessness particularly for single adults. 2012 saw a call from national leaders to focus on the plight of homeless veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent recession has created an increasing number of homeless in Kent as well as in the balance of the county. Unemployment coupled with the high cost of rent, utilities and food in the region made it difficult for some families to maintain their housing. The difficulty in determining accurate numbers rests in the fact that many families share housing, double up with grandparents, or couch surf with family and friends. An increased focus on homeless prevention, including activities such as partnerships with landlords, eviction prevention education, and funding for emergency rental assistance can help prevent homelessness. While short- term emergency and transitional housing will continue to be a necessary service for people in need in our community, prevention of homelessness is less traumatic for people in crisis and less costly for funders. The recession also caused a decrease in funding levels. The decreased funding coupled with the increased need resulted in a more visual presence of the homeless particularly in urban centers. Kent, like its neighbors, saw more street homeless in the downtown area. Addressing the needs of the chronically homeless who struggle with mental health or addiction issues is difficult. Best practices, such as Housing First, are expensive programs. These types of programs offer the best results with positive long term outcomes. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Assessing income groups is a major component of evaluating housing affordability. According to the American Communities Survey 2010-2012, the median household income in Kent was $55,244 per year. The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: • Very Low-Income: 50 percent or less of the area MFI; • Low-Income: between 51 and 80 percent of the area MFI; Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 8 Kent Gernprehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 209 • Moderate-Income: between 81 and 120 percent of the area MFI; • Upper-Income: greater than 120 percent of the area MFI. The income distribution of the City of Kent based on 2010-2012 ACS Survey 3-Year Estimates is presented in Table XX. In 2010, it is estimated that: • 13 % of the households earned less than 30% of AMI annually; • 12 % earned less than 50% of AMI annually; • 19 % earned less than 80% of AMI annually; • 8 % earned less than 100% of AMI • 12 % earned less than 120% of AMI • 35% percent of households eared over 120% of AMI Table XXH.AF Household In e INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS Total households 41,854 41,854 Less than $10,000 2,470 5.9% $10,000 to $14,999 1,757 4.2% $15,000 to $24,999 4,706 11.2% $25,000 to $34,999 4,112 9.8% $35,000 to $49,999 5,815 13.9% $50,000 to $74,999 8,134 19.4% $75,000 to $99,999 5,681 13.6% $100,000 to $149,999 6,138 14.7% $150,000 to $199,999 2,095 5.0% $200,000 or more 946 2.3% Median household income (dollars) 55,244 N Mean household income (dollars) 67,853 N With earnings 34,809 83.2% Mean earnings (dollars) 68,397 N With Social Security 8,814 21.1% Mean Social Security income 17,378 N dollars With retirement income 5,891 14.1% Mean retirement income (dollars) 19,937 N With Supplemental Security 2,409 5.8% Income Mean Supplemental Security 9,250 N Income dollars With cash public assistance income 2,442 5.8% Mean cash public assistance 4,262 N income dollars With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in 8,571 20.5% the past 12 months Families 27,902 27,902 Less than $10,000 1,678 6.0% Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 9 Kent Ceffiffehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 210 $10,000 to $14,999 882 3.2% $15,000 to $24,999 2,712 9.7% $25,000 to $34,999 2,047 7.3% $35,000 to $49,999 3,640 13.0% $50,000 to $74,999 5,295 19.0% $75,000 to $99,999 4,323 15.5% $100,000 to $149,999 4,903 17.6% $150,000 to $199,999 1,684 6.0% $200,000 or more 738 2.6% Median family income (dollars) 63,523 N Mean family income (dollars) 73,640 N Per capita income (dollars) 24,206 N Nonfamily households 13,952 13,952 Median nonfamily income (dollars) 39,174 N Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 51,256 W Median earnings for workers 30,858 N dollars Median earnings for male full-time, 50,006 N ear-round workers dollars Median earnings for female full- 39,117 N time, ear-round workers dollars ACS 2010-2012 GOALS AND POLICIES Goal H-1: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Policy H-1.1: Monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards in residential neighborhoods. Policy H-1.2: Promote the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of residential structures which have fallen into disrepair. Policy H-1.3: Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing values and neighborhood quality. Policy H-1.4: Provide a high quality of services to maintain the appearance of neighborhoods and quality of life of residents. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 10 Kent Ceffiffelhensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 211 Policy H-1.5: Pursue comprehensive neighborhood preservation strategies for portions of the community that need reinvestment. Policy H 1.6: Promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level to expand these programs. Program 1 - Code Enforcement The enforcement of existing property maintenance codes is a primary means to preserve housing and the quality of neighborhoods. The Code Enforcement Program is responsible for enforcing City ordinances affecting property maintenance, building conditions, and other housing and neighborhood issues. The Code Enforcement Program handles approximately 65 complaints a month for these types of violations. Program Objective: Continue to conduct inspections on a complaint basis through the City's Code Enforcement Program and increase outreach to homeowners and renters to work towards greater understanding of the importance of code compliance. Program 2 — The Home Repair Program The Home Repair Program will offer homeowners the opportunity to apply for small grants to complete improvement projects on their properties. The Program provides assistance for very low income households, offering grants up to $10,000 to allow residents to address code enforcement violations, health and safety concerns and energy efficiency. The Grant Program also provides funding to residents to complete exterior and interior home repairs as well as perform architectural modifications to achieve ADA compliance or reasonable accommodation for residents with disabilities. Program Objective: Address property, structural, and energy/water conservation improvements for low income homeowners in the City. The City anticipates that 80 projects will be assisted annually based on funding availability. Program 3 — Monitor and Preserve Affordable Housing The City will continue to keep an inventory of affordable housing units and promote, through the Housing and Human Services Division, the use of additional affordable housing assistance programs, as appropriate, to preserve existing affordable units that are at risk of converting to market- Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 11 Kent Gernprehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 212 rate. The City will facilitate discussions between developers and local banks to meet their obligations pursuant to the Community Reinvestment Act (CCRA) providing favorable financing to developers involved in projects designed to provide lower and moderate-income housing opportunities. Additionally the City will advocate for developers interested in rehabilitating affordable housing units with the Housing Finance Commission and King County Housing Finance program. Program Objective: Housing and Human Services staff will maintain a list of affordable units throughout the City. The Housing and Human Services Division will continue to pursue partnership opportunities with non-profits to preserve and expand affordable housing in the City. Program 4 — Energy Efficient Design The City will review ordinances and recommend changes where necessary to encourage energy efficient housing design and practices that are consistent with State regulations. The City provides information on their website and will continue to periodically update their literature regarding energy conservation, including solar power, energy efficient insulation, and subsidies available from utility companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects. When possible the City will encourage energy conservation devices including, but not limited to lighting, water heater treatments, and solar energy systems for all new and existing residential projects. The City will encourage maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local government programs, including the King County Home Weatherization Program and the City of Kent Energy Efficiency Program that are intended to help homeowners implement energy conservation measures. As part of the Home Repair Program, outlined above, residents can apply for loans to increase the energy efficiency of their home. Program Objective: Maintain and distribute literature on energy conservation, including solar power, additional insulation, and subsidies available from utility companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects. Encourage energy conservation devices, including but not limited to lighting, water heater treatments, and solar energy systems for all residential projects. Encourage maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local government programs, such as the King County Weatherization Program, that assist homeowners in providing energy conservation measures. Continue to provide information on grant programs available through the City and Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 12 Kent Gernprehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 213 encourage residents to use the programs to implement energy efficient design. Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types Policy H-2.1: Provide adequate sites and zoning to encourage and facilitate a range of housing to address the regional fair share allocation. Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Policy H-2,3: Facilitate and encourage the development of affordable housing for seniors, large families, and other identified special housing needs. Policy H-2.4: Assist private and nonprofit developers in providing affordable housing to low-income residents and special needs groups. Program 5 — Housing Opportunity Sites The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code provide for a variety of residential land uses to accommodate the City's targets as adopted in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Zoning Code includes provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned Unit Development incentives, accessory dwelling units city-wide, as well as transit-oriented development standards for the Midway and Downtown Subareas. To encourage and facilitate the development of a variety of housing types, the City will provide information on housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element and any additional areas of the City to interested developers. Program Objective: Staff will continue to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites through various outreach methods to the development community. Provide information to interested developers and on the City's website about potential residential opportunity sites. Goal H-3: Provide Housing Assistance Where Needed Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 13 14 214 Policy H-3.1: Use public financial resources, as feasible, to support the provision of housing for lower income households, seniors, and special needs groups. Policy H-3.2: Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities. Policy H-3.3: Support the ^,..,,..._vats .., preservation of multi-family units, government subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable housing. Policy H-3.4: Further public-private partnerships to develop, rehabilitate and maintain affordable housing. Policy H 3.5: Consider investments in capital infrastructure projects that reduce private costs for the construction of affordable housing by nonprofit housing providers targeted to those making less than 30% AMI. Program 6 - Section 8 Rental Assistance The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very low income households who overpay for housing. Prospective renters secure housing from HUD registered apartments that accept the certificates. HUD then pays the landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford (30 percent of their income) and the payment standard negotiated for the community. The City's Housing and Human Services Division keeps records on the number of households in Kent that participate in the Section 8 program either through project based housing or the housing vouchers. On average, there are approximately 1300 vouchers used in Kent and 757 project based units. The Housing and Human Services Division regularly refers and provides general qualification and program information to interested individuals. While the City is not directly responsible for the administration of this program, staff can direct residents to the King County Housing Authority website and provide information on the program on the City website. Program Objective: Continue to provide assistance to households through continued participation in the Section 8 program and encourage rental property owners to register their units with the Housing Authority. The Housing and Human Services Division will continue to monitor the number of residents accessing the program and units available for rent. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 14 14 215 Goal H-4: Remove Governmental Constraints Policy H-4.1: Review development fees annually to ensure that fees and exactions do not unduly constrain the production and maintenance of housing. Policy H-4.2: Provide for streamlined, timely, and coordinated processing of residential projects to minimize holding costs and encourage housing production. Policy H-4.3: Utilize density bonuses, fee reductions, or other regulatory incentives to minimize W effect of governmental constraints on housing affordability, particularly in neighborhoods with proximity to transit, employment, or educational opportunities... Policy H-4.4: Utilize thesll�ing Authority as a tool to provide sites and assist in the development of affordable housing. Policy H-4.5: Ex lore --ollabor with other South King County Formatted:Font: Bold 'urisdictions to asses ousin as, coordinate funding, increase capacity, find cos fficienci Program 7 — Remove Development Constraints City Staff will periodically review the development standards for residential zones to identify standards that may constrain the development of housing opportunities for all income levels and housing for special groups, such as disabled individuals. The City of Kent is committed to working with developers to build diverse housing, which may require modifications to constraining standards. Staff will continue to, on a case by case basis, identify ways that standards can be relaxed if it is determined that such requirements are in any way impeding the development of affordable housing or housing for disabled residents. The City will also continue to provide development standard modifications, streamlined processing for applications related to the creation of housing opportunities for all income levels, and will offer fee modifications for projects proposing affordable units that are required to apply for variations to the existing development standards Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 15 14 216 Program Objective: On an annual basis, the City will review development standards, to ensure that the development of lower income housing can occur. Program 8 - Planned Unit Developments The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process provides developers with the opportunity to plan creative projects that are not constrained by the literal application of zoning codes. The PUD application process allows for flexibility in site development standards and encourages innovative and imaginative land use concepts. The standards of the base zone apply in Planned Unit Developments; however, density, setbacks, and open space requirements are calculated on a project wide basis. Program Objective: Continue to encourage Planned Unit Developments as a means to provide affordable housing through creative land use techniques. Inform developers of the density incentives under the program Program 9 - Streamline Processing The City continues to monitor permit processing times to ensure the fastest possible turnaround for applications. The City modified the application packet to simplify and streamline the application process. The City has also been computerizing property data to provide more reliable information to the public in a more cost-effective manner using KIVA permit software. This includes zoning, general plan, land use, property owner information, prior planning cases, county assessor maps, and digital aerial photographs for each parcel. The City's comprehensive plan land use map and zoning districts map have also been digitized using enhanced geographic information system technology. Program Objective: Continue to monitor permit processing times and investigate ways to streamline the process. Continue to digitize information including building permits and the Zoning Code. Program 10 — Prioritize Housing Program Activities The City prioritizes housing program activities to address identified housing needs. Specifically, priority has been given to use of rehabilitation grant monies to maintain Kent's stable yet aging housing stock. The City uses CDBG to assist in improvements to the City's existing housing stock. The City recognizes that housing priorities shift over time as housing needs change. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 16 Kent Gernprehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 217 The characteristics of the City's current housing need have been identified through the housing needs assessment, specifically the analysis of the special needs groups. Based on the needs analysis in the Housing Element, there is a need to provide affordable rental units for large families and housing for those at or above 120% of the median income. The City will also prioritize its program activities to meet the needs of other special needs groups, including extremely-low income households, and people with disabilities including developmental disabilities. Program Objective: Identify housing needs and prioritize housing program activities to meet those needs through annual updates to the City's Consolidated Plan. Program 11 - Planning and Development Fees The City conducts annual internal reviews of planning and development fees to ensure that the fees are not excessive and are appropriate to cover the cost of services provided. Kent also streamlines the permitting process for residential projects, to minimize the holding and labor costs assumed by the project applicant. Program Objective: Continue to conduct annual reviews of planning and development fees. Goal H-5: Promote Equal Housing Opportunities Policy H-5.1: Encourage the use of barrier-free architecture in new housing developments. Program 12 - Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities Pursuant to the Washington Law Against Descrirn0Ratie- Discrimination, RCW 49.60.030, the City of Kent is obligated to remove potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, requires that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Reasonable accommodation provides a basis for residents with disabilities to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 17 Kent Gernprehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 218 instances, even a waiver from the local government of certain restrictions or requirements to ensure equal access to housing opportunities. Cities and counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be "reasonable" based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. The City of Kent encourages and promotes accessible housing for persons with disabilities. This includes the retrofitting of existing dwelling units and enforcement of the State accessibility standards for new residential construction. The City is committed to assisting residents in need of reasonable accommodation and offers financial assistance though the Home Repair Program, and will continue to direct eligible residents to apply for ADA services. Applicants can apply for grants to complete improvement projects that remove constraints to their living facilities. In general, City Staff takes into account the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the review and approval of housing projects and grants modifications and deviations from the Municipal Code to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Program Objective: Administer the Home Repair Program to assist disabled households with architectural modifications to their homes and continue to implement the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Related Information - - Formatted Table http://kentwa.gov/WorkArea/DownloadA 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for sset.aspx?id=40802A,89377 Community Development u.....gan c,,...,oees PllasteF Ini .. Comment[ci]:Move to Human Services Subsidized and Assisted Uvft Element Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 18 Kent GefnpFehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 219 Chapter Four - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Formatted:Font: 18pt What you will find in this chapter: • A description of the existing transportation network in Kent; • A discussion of how transportation planning, economic development and land use are entwined; • A discussion of how demands made of the transportation network is managed; and • Goals and policies for providing adequate transportation levels of service. Purpose Statement: Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system for all users which will support current and projected growth using context-sensitive design. Purpose The Transportation Element (TE) establishes Kent's transportation goals and policies for the 20-year planning horizon to 2035. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding plan updates, including: • The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP); • The Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP); • The biennial budget; and • The Design and Construction Standards. The TE is key to achieving Kent's overall goal of providing a balanced, multimodal transportation system that supports current and projected land use and provides an adequate level of transportation service. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation and maintenance programs. The TE establishes a basis for decision-making that is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), King County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPP), and the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Transportation 2040. The requirements of each of these plans are fulfilled by the City of Kent Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the TE Technical Report. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 1 Kent Gernprehensive Plan - 220 The TMP is the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning in Kent. It functions as the overarching guide for the continued development of the City's transportation system. The plan identifies key assets and improvement needs. The TE Technical Report includes a detailed update to the TMP of current land use assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and project list to inform the Comprehensive Plan. The TMP', Midway Subarea Plan, Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) Update, Commute Trip Reduction Plan, the annually-updated six-year TIP, six-year CIP, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The TE is multi-modal; it addresses all forms of transportation in Kent. This includes. the street network, truck and rail traffic, non-motorized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly has enabled the City to address future network needs in a comprehensive and balanced manner. The TE also supports community livability and economic vitality by addressing connections for people and places, and streetscape design that complements surrounding land uses. Furthermore, transportation facilities are an essential part of the City's public realm and as such need to balance a variety of goals and objectives. The goals and policies in this element generally pertain to moving people and goods. Issues Physical and Geographic Features Steep hills, a river valley, two national rail m,� � - lines, and multiple regional highways are to crucial, if not determinative, features of our landscape that profoundly influence our transportation system. Coordination of Transportation Systems r + The City is heavily reliant upon regional transportation providers including the State, Ports, Sound Transit and King County Metro. This integration with regional systems means levels of service for the City's transportation system are affected by levels ' Contents of the City of Kent Non-motorized Transportation Study and Transit Master Plan are summarized in the TMP. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 2 221 of service in adjacent jurisdictions. c. Encouraging Multi-Modality Land use policies encourage development patterns of mixed use activity centers and high residential densities downtown. This supports a shift in travel modes from single Y occupant vehicles to transit and non- motorized travel. Quality-of-Life E Quality-of-life for residents in Kent is significantly impacted by how well the transportation system functions for cyclists, pedestrians, transit users, motorists, truck and rail traffic. Businesses, like residents, also make locational choices in response to the nature of public environments, such as roads and streetscapes. + ` System Rehabilitation, Replacement and ` Retrofit To provide adequate safety and efficiency of a the transportation system, ongoing maintenance is required in addition to expanding infrastructure. a� Balance of Scarce Resources There is limited funding at the local, state and federal level to satisfy competing priorities. Public streets serve many functions in our communities, and levels of service and maintenance of roads must be balanced in full consideration of the City's many interests. Transportation and Land Use The Transportation Element (TE) supports the City's Land Use Element. It demonstrates how the City will improve upon the existing transportation network, as well as address deficiencies, maintenance and accommodate Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 3 222 projected growth over the next 20 years. The City's land use forecasts for the year 2035 are based on regional forecasts from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). By 2035, the City of Kent is projected to have 81,900 jobs and 53,500 households. To plan for the transportation needs associated with this growth, the new households and jobs are assigned to more than 300 traffic analysis zones based on the availability of vacant and re-developable land. The City's travel demand model uses that growth distribution to forecast traffic volumes throughout the city. Details of this analysis can be found in the TE Technical Report. Transportation and Land Use Goals and Policies Goal: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet forecasted demand and policies of the City consistent with the Growth Management Act. Policy 1: Locate commercial, industrial, Concurrency multifamily, and other uses that Transportation and other generate high capital facilities must be in levels of traffic in designated activity centers place by the time they are around intersections of principal or minor needed to accommodate arterials, or around freeway interchanges. growth. Policy 2: Coordinate new commercial and The Economic residential development in Kent with Development Plan for the transportation projects to assure that City of Kent was adopted transportation facility capacity is sufficient to in August 2014 by the accommodate the new development, or a financial City Council. There is commitment is in place to meet the adopted department-wide responsibility for standard within six years. implementation of the Plan. Policy 3: Balance travel efficiency, safety and quality of life in residential areas though context- The Plan's strategy for sensitive design. "placemaking & gateways" is a strong collaborative Policy 4: Pfemete land use patterns which area for Parks, Economic and Community Development, and Public Works. Adopt and maintain policies, codes, and land use patterns that promote For more, refer to the walking, biking, public transportation and social Economic Development Element. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 4 223 interaction to increase public health and sense of 1p ace. Policy S. Incorporate street trees in transportation facility planning to enhance neighborhood aesthetics, improve air quality and provide traffic calming. Policy 6: Beautify Kent streetscapes to reflect quality and integrated design supportive of businesses and a livable, vibrant community. Policy 7. Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP Railroad, Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure maximum transportation utility on both roads and rails. Policy 8. Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and improvements with the State, the County, neighboring jurisdictions, and all transportation planning agencies to ensure the City's interests are well represented in regional planning strategies, policies and projects. Policy 9. Coordinate with the County and neighboring jurisdictions to implement concurrency strategies and provide for mitigation of shared traffic impacts through street improvements, signal improvements, intelligent transportation systems improvements, transit system improvements, or transportation demand management strategies. Policy 10. Establish minimum and maximum parking ratio requirements consistent with the transportation and land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Allow for a reduction in Parking of up to twenty (20) percent of the minimum standard of off street parking stalls for businesses which have an approved CTR program filed with the City. Street System The City of Kent is served by an extensive street network that provides the primary means of transportation for all modes of travel within the City - personal vehicle, freight, public transit, walking, and biking. Streets are also part of the public realm used for parking, festivals, marches and other events. To develop a citywide plan and policies that will guide the maintenance and improvement of this vital infrastructure system, Kent analyzed existing street conditions. The findings from this analysis may be Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 5 224 found in the 2008 TMP and the TE Technical Report. Key components of the analysis include: • Examining the infrastructure of the street network and determining the role of each street in that network; the inter-relationship with adjacent State highways and regional arterials; and local land use context, • Evaluating how well the existing street network operates, • Evaluating the forecasted traffic conditions for the future street network, and • Identifying the preferred future street network and the improvement projects for that network. The street network operates as a system and handles a wide variety of modal users. It is important to define the role(s) that any particular road should play in serving the flow of traffic through the network and accommodating other modes as needed. Street functional classifications are established in the 2008 TMP to balance and recognize differing needs of vehicles, businesses, residents, and non-motorized travelers. Functional classification also defines the character of service that a road is intended to provide. Specific standards for streets and roadways are detailed in Kent's Construction Standards - Section 6. Standards for Streets and Roadways. The Transportation Element echnical`Report illustrates the Cit 's recommended project list through r20 hich includes four types of improvements: intersection improvements new streets&treet widening, and railroad grade separations. The listAwltides J&Mji"tsVtalingnear) 509 million. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 6 225 Figure TE.1 Formatted:Line spacing: single Preferred Street Network f PREFERRED STREET NETWORK Pit— LEGEND s 741 ,•11 'Y�Yr !-1b - - w•li F3l -- 1 :4�f Right-Size Parking Policy Pilot Project In August, 2013 the city of Kent was approved for a pilot project under the King County Metro Right Size Parking (RSP) Project. The RSP is a three-year grant project funded by the Federal Highway Administration's Value Pricing Pilot Program. The overarching goal of the RSP project is to foster livable communities by optimizing the allocation of parking resources. More specifically, the purpose is to impart data and strategies to help developers, jurisdictions and neighborhoods accurately project the optimum amount of parking for new multifamily developments. The amount of parking is optimized ('fright-sized") when it strikes a balance between supply and demand. Kent's pilot project had several deliverables consistent with implementation of Downtown Subarea Action Plan objectives: Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 7 226 • Inventory of on- and off-street parking supply and utilization in downtown • Recommendations for Parking Management • Recommendations for Parking Code Alternatives Kent began implementing some of the recommendations in 2014, including shared parking, consistent parking signage and striping, and new parking hours. These strategies and other future implementation measures should help improve traffic management within the downtown area. Context-Sensitive Street Goals and Policies Design Context-Sensitive Design Goal: is a model for Provide a balanced transportation system that transportation project recognizes the need for major road development. Proposed improvements to accommodate multiple travel transportation projects modes. Create a comprehensive street system must be planned not only for their physical aspects that provides reasonable and safe circulation for as a facility serving all users throughout the City. specific transportation objectives, but also for Policy 1: Assign a functional classification their effects on the to each street in the City based on factors aesthetic, social, including travel demand of motorized and economic and environmental values, non-motorized traffic, access to adjacent needs, constraints and land use and connectivity of the opportunities in a larger transportation network. community setting. Policy 2: Coordinate implementation of street construction standards for each functional classification with policies in the Transportation Element to provide attractive, safe facilities that complement the adjacent land use and support emergency response and operation. Level of Service (LOS) There are a variety of ways to determine transportation level of service and the City may decide to adopt a different measurement with the next update of the Transportation Master Plan. Currently, the City's, roadway level of service (LOS) is a measure of the traffic operational performance of a transportation facility. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 8 227 demand exceeds capacity. The City of Kent analyzes intersections along 16 corridors and within a separate zone covering downtown—this analysis includes a total of 71 intersections. The City of Kent calculates the LOS operation for key corridor intersections (in seconds of delay) during the PM peak period and then calculates an average based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method provides a corridor-wide result, allowing some intersections to operate at a congested LOS as long as the overall corridor operation is maintained. The City's adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway S corridor and the Downtown zone, which are allowed to operate at LOS F. The existing LOS analysis was recently updated using 2014 traffic volumes. The evaluation found that all corridors meet Kent's LOS standard. An evaluation of projected 2035 traffic volumes was also conducted. Traffic operations are expected to be very similar to the forecasts developed for the year 2031 during the 2008 TMP process. Details may be found in the TE Technical Report. Using the LOS analysis, the 2008 TMP street project list was reviewed and revised for this TE update. Since the TMP was adopted in 2008, ten projects have been completed in full and two have been partially completed. Other projects are identified for potential revisions during the next full TMP update. The revised project list includes 17 intersection improvements, 4 new street connections, 14 street widenings, and 5 railroad grade separations. In total, these 40 projects are estimated to cost $509 million (in 2007 dollars). Of that total, roughly $413 million are expected to be the City's responsibility. A complete discussion is included in the TE Technical Report. How are projects selected? LOS Goals and Policies Level of service (LOS) is just one measure that is evaluated for projects included in the Goal: TE, Technical Report, and TMP. The TMP is Develop strategies to improve smooth traffic flows the foundation for the TE and included extensive stakeholder outreach and input. in areas experiencing extreme congestion by Safety, preservation, freight movement, employing strategies that better accommodate transit mobility, pedestrian and bicycle various modes of travel including automobiles, mobility, accessibility, environmental freight, transit, trains, pedestrian and bicycle preservation, neighborhood protection, cost modes. effectiveness, funding availability, and project readiness were considered at the Street LOS time the TMP project list was developed. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 9 228 Policy 1. Develop a system of level-of-service standards which promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Policy 2. Establish a network of heavy commercial freight routes to ensure the mobility of goods and services, as well as of people, and to improve the reliability of freight mobility. Policy 3. Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Pedestrian LOS Policy 4. Establish 'pedestrian priority areas' based on the 'highest' and 'high'Pedestrian Priority Index (PPI) scores as defined in the Kent Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (Figure 6-6). Policy 5. Within the designated pedestrian priority areas: provide sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on both sides of streets as designated in the plan. Policy 6. Along designated 'medium' priority pedestrian streets (Figure 6-7): provide sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on at least one side of streets as designated in the plan. Bicycle LOS Policy 7. Provide bicycle facilities consistent with the bicycle routes called for in the TMP (Figure 6-11). Bicycle facilities include roadway restriping to create bicycle lanes and designation of shared bicycle routes. Policy S. Provide adequate bicycle crossing of arterial or collector streets. Transit LOS Policy 9. Along designated Regional and Local Primary Transit Network (PTN) routes identified in the TMP (Figures 7-5 and 7-6) work with King County Metro and Sound Transit to: a. Increase or maintain high peak and all-day service frequencies (specified by route in Table 7-5) Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 10 229 b. Provide high level of transit stop amenities, including pads, bus shelters, pedestrian access, and transit speed and reliability_ Non-Motorized Transportation The City of Kent is committed to providing the benefits of walking and cycling to all residents by supporting pedestrian and bicycle travel as a safe, efficient, desirable, and accessible mode throughout the City's neighborhoods. In 2007, the City prepared the Non-Motorized Transportation Study (NMTS) to identify critical gaps in the City's pedestrian and bicycle transportation system. The contents of the NMTS were then integrated into the Non-Motorized System Chapter of the TMP. The Non-Motorized System Chapter of the TMP evaluates how well the existing pedestrian and bicycle systems operate, identifies pedestrian and bicycle needs and a future non-motorized network, and provides a prioritized list of projects to achieve the future network. The projects consist of: (1) missing sidewalk segments, curb ramps, and infrastructure repairs, prioritized by need and funding feasibility; (2) bike network improvements assumed to occur with roadway improvements described in the Street System Chapter; (3) new bike lanes, shared-lane routes, and shared-use paths that would expand the existing system of non-motorized neighborhood connections; (4) future studies to determine how to connect various corridors that are important for bike network completion but physically constrained; and (5) traffic control recommendations to facilitate biking in Downtown Kent. Additional non-motorized projects and strategies were identified in the Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) update and will be incorporated into the next TMP update. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 11 230 Figure TE.2 Formatted:Centered Bicycle System Map BICYCLE SYSTEM MAP /7- _-- LEGEN❑ s ar 2 w � d � E.i.eiry Syn.m �£ 1 i` � ..�14NE 4U•�fs 9rOULLlR LANE �9 Ea OSE PATH HMTP 9pl:c- �� ': � w �A• N. "' ��sHPAEO USE OATH ExTEiWION '�/ _ '0�1r •� 1 �_ �..r SL�AEATRAVEL LAtiE ."f • __..ROUTES'OR PLIRMER STUOr • �. 16Tr Blk.Lama 1 - •�PO95i6LE NEv'TRInMB V� f �- •..�E'ART OF FUI�RE STREET iMOROVENEFLr �e • -�•�AYTERNwiE ROWE 5' 5 rv^.L.e. ; SCFIOp_ KENT TRANSIT CENTER 77 IS3 I $A:f 8E]oi� � � �� SCALE sl'-9,000' v� ....-n...�-..r...... _•—•••» Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 12 231 Figure TE.3 — Formatted:Centered Existing & Missing Sidewalks & Curb Ramps I_ z EXISTING&MISSING i r SIDEWALKS do w.- — CURS RAMPS { FqM X%.x LEGEND e ses� � I CI,Yi6 RPMP • M18&w6 CVPB RMIP � —&OEYi4LN •I �+ r—. 810Ew"On 0',610E 0P STREET �=j —h11B81k0�OEVW1x T TIT x t for _ 3a+mr x sup[:ti- .,Don A� .......—.._.�.�„ Non-Motorized Goals and Policies Goal: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel, and promote the use of non- motorized transportation. Policy 1. Provide non-motorized facilities within all areas of the City. Policy 2. Establish a network of bicycle routes within the City to connect those land uses likely to produce significant concentrations of bicycle usage. Work with interested parties in the planning of such a network. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 13 232 Po/icy 3. Create a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the City of Kent to define specific goals and priorities for the non-motorized transportation system. Transit The City of Kent collaborates with the region's transit providers to ensure convenient transit service for its residents and workers. New capital investments in transit-focused projects and improved transit service are integral in meeting the City's land use goals and reducing the cost of maintaining roadway level of service. The Transit System Chapter of the TMP describes existing transit service and facilitieS2, identifies community needs and observed gaps in service, and recommends service improvements to local circulation within Kent and which connect Kent residents to other communities. Also included in the chapter is a discussion of transit-supportive goals and policies related to land use designations, parking policies, and the then-existing Downtown Strategic Action Plan. King County Metro (KC Metro) provides regional, South County-specific routes, and local Dial-a-Ride (DART) bus service within the City of Kent. Eight different KC Metro routes provide regional services to destinations within King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties. There are ten local and South County routes providing connections within the City of Kent and to other South King County communities such as Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, Covington, and Federal Way. Additionally, Sound Transit operates three regional express bus routes through Kent which connect to SeaTac and Redmond. The Sounder commuter rail serves the Kent Transit Center with connections to communities between Seattle and Tacoma. The Kent Transit Center provides 994 park-and-ride spaces for transit riders. During the TMP process, community input and a technical gaps analysis identified recommendations for transit service and infrastructure improvements. Service recommendations are categorized by one of three route types: • Primary Transit Network (PTN) - provides frequent service (typically 15 minutes or better) over a long service span in markets where there z The Kent TMP was originally published in June 2008. Transit service summarized in this document (Transportation Element) reflects the September 2014 KC Metro service revisions and the most recent round of Sound Transit service changes(2013). Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 14 233 is high demand for travel throughout the day. It is narrowly focused on the densest corridors in the region where potential ridership is highest. It can also be used as a policy tool to help focus transit-oriented development around corridors where transit can be provided cost- effectively. • Local Urban Service - provides all-day service at lower frequencies (20 to 60 minutes) in lower density areas. These services should provide connections from moderately dense areas to PTN services as well as local destinations. • Specialized Commute Service - runs at very specific high-demand times and only operates at times of day and in the direction of peak demand. Most Sound Transit service within Kent is included in this category. The TMP transit recommendations focus on near- and long-term improvements for PTN and Local Urban Services. In some cases, recommendations would enhance existing Specialized Commuter Services, creating all-day PTN service to address the need for reverse-commute travel and off-peak connections. Short-term recommendations include infrastructure improvements to bus shelters and sidewalk connections. Transit Goals and Policies Goal: Work with regional transit providers to provide frequent, coordinated, and comprehensive public transit services and facilities in all residential and employment areas in the Kent Planning Area. (Public transit services and facilities include train service, bus service, vanpool services, vanshare services, Dial-A-Ride, Access, park and ride lots, car-sharing services, as well as marketing/promotional activities for all the above). Policy 1. Emphasize transit investments that provide mobility and access within the community and make it possible for citizens to access local services and support local businesses while reducing auto-dependent travel. Policy 2, Work with Washington State Department of Transportation and regional transit providers to identify appropriate sites for a network of park and ride lots which feed into the regional transit system. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 15 234 Policy 3. Implement Kent's Transit System Plan as identified in the Transportation Master Plan. Policy 4. Foster transit-oriented development opportunities and leverage public and private funds to achieve other City objectives related to economic development and housing. Policy 5. Work with regional transit providers to provide a high level of transit stop amenities, including pads, bus shelters, pedestrian access, safety and visibility features such as lighting, and transit speed and reliability. i Transportation Demand Management Using the existing network of streets more efficiently is a fiscally sound way to improve traffic conditions and safety. Transportation demand management (TDM) policies and strategies are designed to reduce automobile travel and shift some vehicle trips to non-peak periods (before or after the commute hours). Transportation system management (TSM) is the practice of improving the flow of traffic without relying on major capacity expansions or new roadways. The City of Kent's efforts in implementing TDM and TSM are detailed in the Managing Demand chapter of the TMP. Kent's TDM activities are directed at employers, workers, business owners, residents and visitors. In compliance with the Washington State Clean Air Act, Kent has enacted a local Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance, requiring that all employers in the City with more than 100 full time employees traveling to work morning peak commute hours develop a CTR program. Kent's CTR program provides information and connections for employees to a variety of alternative commute options including flex schedules, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, transit, and ridesharing. The City also actively coordinates with transit organizations that administer marketing campaigns such as Wheel Options, Rideshare, and the Commuter Challenge. Currently, 31 CTR worksites participate in the program, making Kent's program the fourth largest in King County following Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. The TMP recommends the City: • continue to promote alternative commute methods (particularly through ride-matching programs that link carpool, vanpool, and van- share participants), Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 16 235 • encourage businesses in the community to voluntarily participate in the CTR program, and • review and update the CTR Ordinance as appropriate to meet the needs of employers and the community. TSM techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques identified in the TMP include the following: • Rechannelization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding/increasing number of intersection through lanes; • Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes; • Signal interconnect and optimization; • Turn movement restrictions; • Access Management; and • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The City is incorporating appropriate TSM techniques as part of its ongoing transportation program. Transportation Demand Management Goals and Policies Goal. Use Transportation Demand Management Techniques to achieve efficient use of transportation infrastructure and to help meet the City's land use objectives. Policy 1. Work with major institutions, Activity Centers, and employers through the City s Commute Trip Reduction Program and the promotion of alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use to reduce congestion and enhance safety. Policy 2. Promote measures to increase the use of high-occupancy vehicles, public transit, and non-motorized travel modes among employers located within the City who are not required to comply with commute trip reduction. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 17 236 Related Information TE Technical Report City of Kent 2008 Transportation Master Plan Right-Size Parking Pilot Project Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 18 237 Repert Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 19 238 239 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Element Technical Report Prepared for: City of Kent January 2015 SE14-0368 FEHR � PEERS i 240 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................4 2.1 Existing Level Of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................6 3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST...............................................................................................................10 3.1 2035 Level of Service Analysis.....................................................................................................................11 4.0 PROJECT LIST......................................................................................................................................14 4.1 Intersection Improvements..........................................................................................................................18 4.2 New Streets........................................................................................................................................................20 4.3 Street Widening.............................................................. ...........................................................................22 4.4 Railroad Grade Separation..................... .............. ...................................................................24 4.5 Project List Summary................................................... 25 5.0 DOCKET REVIEW......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 2 - 241 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Corridors and Intersections................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor...........................................................................................................................6 Figure 3. Existing Level of Service....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service..........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 5. Recommended Projects....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables Table 1. Intersection Level of Service Criteria...........................................................................................................................7 Table 2. Existing PM Peak Hour Auto Level of Service..........................................................................................................8 Table 3. City of Kent Land Use Forecasts.................................................................................................................................10 Table 4. 2035 PM Peak Hour Auto Level of vice..... ...................................................................................................12 Table 5. 2008 TMP Project List......:................. ................... ..............................................................................................14 Table6. Completed Projects........ ........................................................................................................................15 Table 7. Revised Project List—Intersection Improvements..............................................................................................18 Table 8. Revised Project List— New Streets.............................................................................................................................20 Table 9. Revised Project List—Street Widening....................................................................................................................22 Table 10. Revised Project List— Railroad Grade Separation.............................................................................................24 Table11. 2015 Project List.............................................................................................................................................................25 3 J1FA!13PNF 242 1.0 INTRODUCTION This technical report supports the City of Kent's 2015 Transportation Element (TE) update. The report begins by summarizing the existing conditions of the roadway network. Next, the 2035 land use forecast is compared to other recent citywide forecasts. That land use forecast provides the foundation for the travel demand analysis of the 2035 roadway network. Based on the 2035 auto volume projections, this report documents recommended revisions to the City's project list as well as discusses potential additional changes that could come about based on the next Transportation Master Plan update. Lastly, this report includes a review of transportation implications of the proposed dockets. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS In 2014, existing traffic conditions throughout the city were analyzed to determine how congestion patterns may have changed since the previous analysis was completed in 2006. The City of Kent collected PM peak hour traffic data in May 2014 at the intersections that were evaluated as part of the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. As with the 2006 analysis, the intersection counts were grouped into 16 corridors and a separate zone covering downtown, as shown in Figure 1. Intersections serving both a key north/south route and east/west route are included in more than one corridor. Figure 1. Study Corridors and L Jora 4 i International Airport A IBM LK OAF Your Nor -101 61,oil �� � �1 + ■1111 �� 1 ■� r `�,. � Al �. ' �,�� ' �' � � �■ ii �� '� �1 _ ����► 1i RJ ILA � � � �� � . ,�* \ � , �i� �► ► � � � �� �� fir" 2 `�'�' ,�j�w ' \— Y'i�i� soul �� ::ST - 244 The 2014 traffic counts were found to be lower than the 2006 counts on nearly every corridor, as shown in Figure 2. Citywide traffic volumes declined by about four percent between 2006 and 2014. This trend of lower traffic volumes is not unique to Kent; similar patterns have been observed around the region since traffic volumes peaked in 2006-2007. Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor 2006 2014 50,000 -- 40,000 — a E 0 30,000 — — 0 :a 20,000 - 0 vIL 10,000 — — - 0 A5 as eC' �J e a �o �J Q� �Q P,e a\�eJ �yo P, Le ���\ day 2.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Roadway level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A letter grade, ranging from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned based on the delay experienced by drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future traffic conditions.In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where demand exceeds capacity. For signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by the average delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-controlled intersections, 6 IL 245 LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table 1 displays the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) (Seconds) A < 10 < 10 B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15 C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 F > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual,2010,Transportation Research Board. The City of Kent calculates the LOS for key intersections along each corridor (in seconds of delay) and then calculates an average based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method provides a corridor-wide result, allowing some intersections to operate at a more congested LOS as long as the overall corridor operation is maintained. The City's adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway S corridor and the downtown zone which are allowed to operate at LOS F. For this TE update, auto LOS analysis was completed using the 2014 vehicle counts. Auto LOS was calculated using the Synchro software package. In the downtown area, the SimTraffic module of Synchro was used to calculate intersection LOS. While Synchro is appropriate for determining LOS at relatively isolated intersections, the program does not always capture queuing and congestion between intersections, which is common in downtown Kent. For these conditions, traffic simulation tools such as SimTraffic produce more accurate results. The results of the corridor LOS analysis are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The analysis of 2014 conditions indicates that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the city. The 2014 analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard. 7 11FA31P 246 TABLE 2. EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE Corridor Location LOS 2006 LOS 2014 LOS ID Standard 1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D C 2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E C C 3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E D C 4 James Street/SE 240th Street E D D 5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street E D D 6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E E C 7 S 256th Street E E D 8 S 272nd Street E F E 9 Pacific Highway S Fl E D 10 Military Road E E D 11 64th Avenue S E C C 12 Washington Avenue/68th Avenue S/West Vail Highway E D D 13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D C 14 SR 515/Benson Avenue E E D 15 116th Avenue SE E D E 16 132nd Avenue SE E D D 17 Downtown Zone F E C Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Plan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014. Notes:1.WSDOT's level of service standard for this facility is LOS D. Figure 3. Existing Level of Service 8 III � ,; ';� =� _w► �`J = �+� ■ �► - li _ L / International Airport Seatti �► : .� � � L IN awl) WOR - I,■� LE 1 . 'I' ■tom '-` '� � T t � LOS gd EW �,r. �■ A r�. : - ► jti J e. % , IRS, UPI ,�,��, �,� MUM v �•y , �Ili�� t � — HII u JIFA 248 3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST In preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update, the City developed 20-year land use forecasts. The forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts. Table 3 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to previous land use forecasts. TABLE 3. CITY OF KENT LAND USE FORECASTS Policy Document Forecast Year Employment) Households 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS Proposal 2031 93,600 68,900 2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS Proposal 2031 73,300 57,100 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500 Notes:1.Employment totals do not include construction jobs. Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast includes the same number of jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100 more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the employment and household figures assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS. In addition to considering land use totals at the citywide level, the distribution of growth was compared to determine how traffic patterns may differ. Land uses are divided into more than 300 traffic analysis zones called K-zones, which are basic geographic units for estimating travel demand. K-zones range in size from a few city blocks to an entire residential neighborhood. Each of the aforementioned forecasts was distributed at the K-zone level. The comparisons indicated that a new run of the Kent Travel Demand Model was warranted to explore how traffic distribution along the City's study corridors would differ between the land use scenarios.The City's travel demand model was used to forecast PM peak hour traffic volumes for the 2035 LUT forecast. The model focuses on the Kent Planning Area (city limits and Potential Annexation Area), and includes external zones that represent land uses for the greater Puget Sound region.'The updated model run was used to evaluate 2035 LOS, as described below. ' The 2011 Midway EIS included two network scenarios: the Baseline, which included a short list of known roadway projects, and the Preferred Network, which included a more extensive list of improvements based on the 2008 TMP needs assessment.The current modeling exercise assumes the Preferred Network. 10 - 249 3.1 2035 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS As stated in the previous section, the 2031 TMP and the 2031 Midway Proposal land use forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Therefore, the auto LOS for the 2035 LUT forecast should fall within the LOS bookends developed for the 2031 TMP and 2031 Midway Proposal forecasts. That citywide analysis was conducted for the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. Given the similarities between these forecasts, Fehr & Peers took a simplified approach to the LOS evaluation. To compare these three scenarios, projected auto volumes were compared at the intersection level. For each study intersection, the travel demand model's forecast of entering vehicles was compared among the three scenarios. Based on that relationship, the average delay at the intersection under the 2035 LUT forecast was estimated. The calculation assumes a linear relationship between the number of vehicles entering the intersection and the average delay of the intersection. As an example, consider an intersection with the following assumptions: • 3,000 entering vehicles and 35 seconds of delay under the 2031 TMP forecast • 5,000 entering vehicles and 45 seconds of delay under the 2031 Midway Proposal forecast If the 2035 LUT forecast had 4,000 entering vehicles, the delay is estimated to be 40 seconds. This process was completed for each study intersection. A corridor average was calculated based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. 11 - 250 TABLE 4. 2035 PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE Corridor LOS 2031 2035 Land ID Location Standard 2031 TMP Midway Use Target Proposal 1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D D D 2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E D E D 3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E E E E 4 James Street/SE 240th Street E E E E 5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street E D F D 6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E E E E 7 S 256th Street E D D D 8 S 272nd Street E E F E 9 Pacific Highway S Fl F F F 10 Military Road E D E D 11 64th Avenue S E D D D 12 Washington Avenue/68th Avenue S/West E E E E Valley Highway 13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D D D 14 SR 515/Benson Avenue E E E E 15 116th Avenue SE E D D D 16 132nd Avenue SE E D D D 17 Downtown Zone F F F F Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Plan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014. Notes:1.WSDOT's level of service standard for this facility is LOS D. Though the average seconds of delay varies, the 2035 LUT scenario results in the same corridor LOS grades as were calculated for the 2031 TMP forecast. All corridors are expected to meet the City's LOS standards, assuming the Preferred Network is in place. Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service 12 III � ,; ';J, _w► �J = � �+� a �► Seattle-Tacoma HIM International Airport Seatti WORM � - � 11� � � ;ems r/ ■� �, �� �� , �' ■�� � � Ir ��� 11 II / fr % l'�dI7i/.i 'll�'IA Ili iNO `ter \ � C• � �� �� ' � � �� �■ � �� � �I Of 02 -,��, .n �•y t� Illi�� t � - u 1FA!13P0F 252 4.0 PROJECT LIST Given that the base year conditions have changed little since the 2008 TMP was completed, and the 2035 LUT forecast is projected to be very similar to the 2031 TMP forecast, the 2008 TMP project list remains relevant to this Comprehensive Plan update. The 2008 project list included four types of improvements: intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade separations. The project list included 53 projects totaling nearly $600 million. Of that total, the City's share was estimated to be approximately $502 million. Table 5 summarizes the type and cost of each project type in the 2008 TMP (all costs are in 2007 dollars). Street widening projects accounted for nearly half the total cost and railroad grade separations accounted for the next largest cost. Due to the high cost of railroad grade separation projects, they accounted for more than a quarter of the total project list cost, despite there being only six projects. TABLE 5. 2008 TMP PROJECT LIST Type of Project Number of Projects Cost($) City Share ($) Intersection Improvements 23 63,309,500 62,079,500 New Streets 5 84,715,000 42,827,000 Street Widening 288,895,000 235,151,000 Railroad Grade Separation 6 162,300,000 162,300,000 Total 53 $599,219,500 $502,357,500 Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Plan,2008. Of the 53 projects recommended in the 2008 TMP, eleven have been completed. These projects are listed below in Table 6. The completed projects cost a total of$47 million. 14 253 TABLE 6. COMPLETED PROJECTS Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share ($) I 8 S 212th St/SR 167 Northbound Ramp - Modify signal 220,000 220,000 timing by making northbound right turn free. I-10 4th Ave N/Cloudy St- Provide northbound and 2,160,000 2,160,000 southbound exclusive left turn lanes.Install traffic signal. I-12 Smith St/Lincoln Ave (Smart Growth Initiative) -Add 1,990,500 1,990,500 eastbound left turn pocket. I-13 W Meeker St and W Smith St-Interconnect Interurban 342,000 342,000 Trail crossing signals. N-4 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I(Military Rd S to 64th Ave S) - Completed by 2008 Completed by 2008 Construct new roadway with 5 lanes. W-4 84th Ave S (SR 167 to S 212th St) -Widen to 7 lanes. 5,106,000 5,106,000 W 7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I(Military Rd S from SR 516 to Completed by 2008 Completed by 2008 Bolger Road) -Widen to 5 lanes. W 8 James St(Union Pacific Railroad to 4th Ave - Provi e 1,800,000 1,800,000 eastbound and westbound exclusive left turn lanes. W-14 SE 256th St-Phase II(SR 516(Kent-Kangley Rd)to 116th 5,100,000 5,100,000 Ave SE) - Construct a 5 lane roadway with bike lanes. W-16 S 277th St Corridor(116th Ave SE from Kent-Kangley Rd 7,500,000 7,500,000 (SR 516)to SE 256th St) -Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. R-4 S 228th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad - 23,000,000 23,000,000 Grade separation. Total $47,218,500 $47,218,500 Source:City of Kent,2015. In addition to the completed projects, two other projects were removed from the list: • I-4: SE 208th Street/SR 515-Benson — Add dual southbound left storage lane and modify signal phasing. This project, with a cost of $690,000, has committed funding and a bid for construction is expected in the near future. • I-21: I-5/272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction-Phase I— Provide transit and HOV direct access between S 272nd Street and I-5. This project, with a cost of $42,330,000, was envisioned as a partnership with Sound Transit and WSDOT. At this time, partner agency support for the project appears unlikely so it has been removed from the project list. 15 - P, 254 Two projects have been partially completed. • Project I-16: S 260th St/SR 99 — the westbound right turn pocket has been completed. That component has been removed from the revised project list. • Project I-22: S 272"d St/Military Rd—the northbound dual left turn lanes have been completed. All other projects from the 2008 TMP remain on the revised project list. Figure 5 shows each project's location. The following four tables list the recommended projects by project type: • Table 7: Revised Project List—Intersection Improvements • Table 8: Revised Project List— New Streets • Table 9: Revised Project List—Street Widening • Table 10: Revised Project List— Railroad Grade Separation Figure 5. Recommended Projects 16 International Airport - Ir•'� % � �i ►;� -+ �! it a �,�: �� - ..ST ISO / 71 I �I'll � : ,� �.� �� ■:.. � _, . z,�, �. � '101 ., . . . , .. `fll� � !� .�■�� ,` �� - - - - - � � ICJ � ' I Id I IN lit HE 1 _ - - - - . -- SE 2 hII 1 I + �-- �• ►�a — . fie , .- ■ + ; - - - - - - IF YdW u - 256 4.1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Table 7 lists 17 intersection improvements, totaling roughly $15.6 million. Of that total, the City's share would be approximate $15.0 million. TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share ($) I-1 SE 192nd St/SR515-Benson -Add southbound right turn 540,000 0 pocket. I 2 S 196th St/80th Ave S - Change intersection phasing and 250,000 250,000 lane approaches. I-3 S 196th St/84th Ave S -Add eastbound right turn pocket 1,190,000 1,190,000 and southbound dual left turn lanes. I-5 S 212th St/72nd Ave S -Add southbound dual left turn 330,000 330,000 lanes. I-6 S 212th St/84th Ave S - Extend eastbound left turn lane 1,710,000 1,710,000 and add northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes. I 7 S 212th St/SR 167 Southbound Ramp -Add southbound 400,000 400,000 left turn lane. I-9 S 240th St/SR 99 -Change signal phasing. 420,000 420,000 SE 240th St/SR 515 -Add dual northbound and I-11 southbound left turn lanes.Add northbound and 1,650,000 1,650,000 southbound right turn pockets. I-14 Smith St/Central Ave- Revise southbound and 20,000 20,000 northbound turn lane assignment. I-15 Meeker St/Washington Ave - Modify signal phasing.Add 780,000 780,000 eastbound and westbound right turn pockets. I-16 S 260th St/SR 99 -Add westbound dual left turn lane.Add 1,180,000' 1,180,0001 eastbound right turn pocket. I-17 Military Rd S/Reith Rd -Widen intersection to provide turn 1,945,000 1,945,000 lanes on all approaches. 18 LP0 F r 257 TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share ($) I-18 SE 256th St/SR515-13enson -Add northbound right turn 550,000 550,000 lane and change signal phasing. Kent-Kangley Rd/108th Ave SE-Add eastbound and I-19 westbound dual left turn lanes.Add eastbound right turn 1,410,000 1,410,000 pocket.Change northbound right turn phasing. SE 256th Street and 132nd Ave SE - Extend northbound I-20 left, southbound left, and westbound left turn pockets. 302,000 302,000 Construct new eastbound and southbound right turn lanes. I 22 S 272nd St/Military Rd -Add a southbound through lane 1,540,0001 1,540,000' at intersection. I-23 Kent-Kangley Rd/132nd Ave SE -Add northbound and 1,360,000 1,360,000 southbound dual left turn lanes. Total $15,577,000 $15,037,000 Notes:1.Portion of project already completed;remaining cost will be less than shown here. 19 1FA!13P1 4.2 NEW STREETS Table 8 lists four new street connections, estimated to cost $84.7 million, of which $42.8 million would be the City's responsibility. TABLE 8. REVISED PROJECT LIST— NEW STREETS Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share($) N-1 SE 192nd St(84th Ave SE to 108th Ave SE) - Create new roadway 45,200,000 14,329,000 connection with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes. N 2 72nd Ave S (S 200th St to S 196th St) - Extend roadway to connect 1,015,000 1,015,000 to S 196th St. S 224th St(84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE (Benson Rd-SR 515)) - N-3 Extend roadway to connect to E Valley Hwy and widen existing 36,000,000 24,983,000 road to 3-5 lanes. 108th Ave SE (SE Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 256th St) - N-5 Extend roadway connection to SE 256th St. 2,500,000 2,500,000 Total $84,715,000 $42,827,000 These street connection concepts were developed to ease congestion on existing roadways. Therefore, not completing the new connections would have LOS effects on alternate routes. To evaluate the repercussions, the travel demand model was used to predict which routes would see the highest increases in traffic absent the new connections. More detailed analysis could be completed in the next TMP update. Two of the projects (N-1 and N-3) would construct new east-west connections across SR 167. If Project N- 1 is not constructed, traffic would primarily divert to S 180th Street and SE 208th Street. The intersections most affected are expected to be the S 212th Way/SR 167 interchange and S 212th Way/96th Avenue S. The LOS on those intersections is likely to fall by at least one letter grade compared to the condition if Project N-1 were constructed. If Project N-3 is not constructed, intersections along S 212th Street are likely to be most affected, with LOS at 84th Avenue S and the SR 167 interchange falling by up to one letter grade. Project N-2 would complete the 72nd Avenue S corridor north to S 196th Street, providing an alternate route to SR 181/West Valley Highway/68th Avenue S and 84th Avenue S. If this project were not completed, the LOS on the intersections of S 196th Street/W Valley Highway, S 196th Street/80th Avenue S, and S 196th Street/84th Avenue S is expected to fall by up to one letter grade. 20 - 259 Project N-5 would create a north-south connection along 108th Avenue SE between Kent-Kangley Road and SE 256th Street, and convert the section of SE 256th Street between Kent-Kangley Road and 108th Avenue SE to one-way westbound. This project would result in simpler operations at the SE 256th Street/Kent-Kangley Road intersection and the SE 256th Street/SR 515 intersection immediately to the west. Therefore, not completing the project would adversely affect LOS at those two intersections. 21 11FA1P 260 4.3 STREET WIDENING There are 14 street widening projects on the revised project list, as shown in Table 9. These projects constitute the largest share of costs at $269.4 million. The City's share is estimated to be $215.6 million. TABLE 9. REVISED PROJECT LIST—STREET WIDENING Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share($) W-1 80th Ave S Widening (S 196th St to S 188th St) -Widen to 5 lanes. 1,323,000 1,323,000 W-2 S 212th St(SR 167 to 108th Ave SE) -Widen to 5-6 lanes. 10,100,000 6,046,000 W 3 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening (Meeker St 16,150,000 16,150,000 north to 218th block) -Widen to 7 lanes. W 5 116th Ave SE (SE 208th St to SE 256th St) -Widen to 5 lanes with 46,430,000 17,730,000 bike lanes. W 6 132nd Ave SE (SE 200th St to SE 236th St)-Wide`to 5 lanes with 20,990,000 0 bike lanes. W 9 132nd Ave SE-Phase III(SE 248th St to SE 236th SJ-Widen to 5 11,950,000 11,950,000 lanes with bike lanes. W-10 Military Rd S (S 272nd St To S 240t1Fj -Widen to provide a center 13,630,000 13,630,000 turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks. W-11 W Meeker St-Phase II(Lake Fenwick Road to east side of the Green 70,000,000 70,000,000 River) -Widen to 5 lanes including a new bridge. W 12 W Meeker St Phase I(64th Ave S to Green River Bridge) -Widen to 5,960,000 5,960,000 5 lanes. W-13 SE 248th St(116th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE) - Construct a 3 lane 5,640,000 5,640,000 roadway. W-15 SE 256th St-Phase III(132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE) -Widen to 5 16,980,000 16,980,000 lanes with bike lanes. W 17 132nd Ave SE-Phase II(Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 248th St) - 23,200,000 23,200,000 Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. W 18 S 272nd St-Phase II(Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S) -Add 2 HOV 13,916,000 13,916,000 lanes and a center left-turn lane. W 19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I(SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)) - 13,120,000 13,120,000 Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. Total $269,389,000 $215,645,000 22 IL 261 The 2008 TMP included two projects along the 116th Avenue SE corridor: Project W-5 from SE 208th Street to SE 256th Street and Project W-16 from SE 256th Street to SR 516. Project W-16 has already been completed, bringing the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes between SE 256th Street and SR 516. This project benefited intersections that were forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the future absent the street widening. The intersections to the north (SE 208th Street, SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street) were forecast to operate at LOS D or better without the roadway widening. Therefore, extending the five-lane cross-section to the north may not be necessary from a capacity perspective. However, regardless of capacity needs, improvements along the northern portion of the corridor are still recommended as a complete streets project to ensure all modes are accommodated. At this time, Project W-5 remains on the project list as envisioned in the 2008 TMP, but may be revised in a future TMP update pending further study. For example, additional study may indicate that acceptable operations can be maintained by widening the roadway to a three-lane cross section with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. This would provide more continuity of the non-motorized network, a modest increase in capacity with safety benefits, but at a lower cost. The 2008 TMP also included street widening projects along the 132nd Avenue SE corridor: Projects W-6, W-9, W-17, and W-19. These projects would widen the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes from SE 208th Street to SE 288th Street. Based on the modeling completed for the 2031 TMP Baseline, this corridor is likely to operate acceptably without the five-lane cross-section. As with 116th Avenue SE, the 132nd Avenue SE projects remain on the current project list, but may be revised in a future TMP update. Potential changes would be based on more detailed study, but may include a three-lane cross-section rather than a five-lane cross-section, or a five-lane cross-section on only the most congested portion of the corridor south of SE 256th Street. The S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street corridor (Projects W-11 and W-12) was re-evaluated for this planning-level review of the project list. The findings indicated that the recommended intersection improvements alone would not bring the corridor to an acceptable level of service in the future, indicating some widening is necessary. Therefore, Projects W-11 and W-12 remain on the project list, although they will be studied at a more detailed level during the next TMP update. 23 - 262 4.4 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad run parallel to one another in the north-south direction through the City of Kent. The arterials most affected by those grade crossings are S 212th Street, S 228th Street, and Willis Street (SR 516). An overpass of the BNSF Railroad at S 228th Street was completed in 2009 at a cost of roughly $20 million. This leaves five railroad grade separation projects remaining on the project list, as shown in Table 10. TABLE 10. REVISED PROJECT LIST— RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION Project Number Capital Project(Location and Description) Cost($) City Share ($) R-1 S 212th St/Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation. 33,000,000 33,000,000 R 2 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad -Grade 33,000,000 33,000,000 Separation. R-3 S 228th St/Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation. 24,200,000 24,200,000 R-5 Willis St(SR 516)/Union Pacific Railroad - *te Se ion. 26,500,000 26,500,000 R-6 Willis St(SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad - Grade 22,600,000 22,600,000 Separation. Total $139,300,000 $139,300,000 Source:City of Kent,2015. These grade separation projects provide substantial benefits to city streets, but they are expensive and generally require funding partners to meet the total project cost. Currently, approximately 46 trains travel through Kent on the BNSF Railroad on a daily basis. This results in a daily closure time of one hour and 14 minutes. The UPRR has approximately 19 closures per day, totaling 25 minutes in daily closure time.2 These estimates reflect the lower bound of traffic delay. Actual delay is longer than the closure since it takes time for queues to dissipate once the road reopens. During the development of the 2008 TMP, the City solicited feedback from the public on the most needed street projects. Railroad grade separation projects were the most often listed high priority need. In addition to widespread public support, the need for these projects has been documented by City studies of average delay, as cited above. In the next TMP update, the effects of each grade separation project could be studied further to determine which projects would provide the most benefit to the street system. This prioritization will ensure that limited financial resources are directed to the most needed projects. z City of Kent, 2014. 24 11FA1P 263 4.5 PROJECT LIST SUMMARY Table 11 summarizes the revised 2015 project list. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million. The City's share of that total is estimated to be approximately $413 million. As mentioned previously, this list may be revised further pending the next update of Kent's TMP. TABLE 11. 2015 PROJECT LIST Type of Project Number of Projects Cost($) City Share ($) Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000 15,037,000 New Streets 4 84,715,000 42,827,000 Street Widening 14 269,389,000 215,645,000 Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000 139,300,000 Total 40 $508,981,000 $41Z809,000 Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. 25 zsa P O 265 FEHRtPEERS MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2015 To: Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson, City of Kent From: Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers Subject: Review of Transportation Implications of Dockets and Potential Land Use Map Amendments We have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan amendments documented in the January 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the Land Use and Planning Board. Our review focused on potential implications of these proposals to the transportation system in the context of the Transportation Element. Since most of these proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some perspectives on the likely transportation impacts. In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes can be incorporated into the travel model for more detailed analysis during the next Transportation Master Plan update. The following table summarizes our review. 1001 4t"Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Seattle, WA 98154 1 (206) 576-4220 1 Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 266 Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson January 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Land Use Proposal Comments DKT-2014-4 Relatively small parcel located along S 272nd St. Although S 272nd St and Pacific Highway corridors are both very congested, the change in traffic is unlikely to substantially affect the level of service conditions in the area. DKT-2014-6 Located at corner of Kent Kangley Rd and 1161"Ave SE. Proposed to rezone to commercial and likely construction of a pharmacy. The two affected corridors would be LOS D in 2035 and the proposed land use is unlikely to change those conditions. Property access would need to be examined given the heavy traffic at that corner. DKT-2014-7 Proposal to change to multifamily housing along 881"Ave SE. Likely development of up to 154 townhouses. This location is not adjacent to one of the transportation corridors, but the traffic from this development would access via 841"Ave S, which operates at LOS D. Local street access would need to be analyzed. DKT-2014-8 Proposed to change to transit-oriented commercial-residential within the Midway area. The Transportation Element included assumption of growth in Midway, so this change would likely be compatible with that analysis. More detailed analysis was prepared as part of the Midway EIS. Expand Commercial Would allow some commercial land uses in addition to current Opportunities in Industrial industrial uses. The intent appears to allow for commercial uses and Area (Al-A4) service providers to support the large employment base in the industrial areas. While retail generates higher traffic volumes than industrial uses, the type of retail envisioned would be less likely to generate new trips from outside of the existing industrial area. The overall transportation impacts would therefore be fairly limited. Eliminate Office Zone (131) This change would make certain parcels on the East Hill more developable with mixed commercial uses. These would serve the nearby residential areas and offer more services to the neighborhoods. The transportation effects would likely be positive by creating commercial opportunities closer to residences. Eliminate the MA Zoning Affects a dispersed number of properties in the valley. This appears District (132) to be more of a housekeeping change in zoning that would likely have few changes in transportation conditions. Eliminate Gateway Located along 841"Ave South to the north of SR 167. It seems that Commercial Zone (133) the land uses with the proposed change would continue to be auto- oriented commercial, which is consistent with the land uses analyzed in the Transportation Element. Without further analysis, it is difficult to assess the potential change in traffic generation. 267 FEHRtPEERS MEMORANDUM Date: February 16 2015 To: Monica Whitman, City of Kent From: Don Samdahl and Ariel Davis, Fehr & Peers Subject: Non-Motorized LOS Discussion This memo addresses a question asked regarding the non-motorized LOS and its implications on impact fees and other funding needs. Initially, the non-motorized LOS was established as part of the DSAP process. It recognized the importance of non-motorized modes in downtown Kent and wanted to make sure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities were properly prioritized by the city and new development. The multimodal LOS guidelines were expanded to the rest of the city in the comprehensive plan update. The LOS guidelines give emphasis to the non-motorized components already included in the TMP and do not identify any new facilities other than those that were previously identified. They are not fixed standards that must be met by new development before being approved, nor do they require the city to start making non-motorized projects the first priority. However, by creating these LOS policies, it is likely that the importance of implementing non-motorized projects will increase, but they do not prescribe any specific priorities. The impact fee program can stay the way it is, since many of the non-motorized projects are already included as part of street projects in the impact fee project list. The city is making a good-faith effort to implement those projects as funds become available. When the impact fee program is updated in concert with the next TMP revision, it would be possible to modify the project list to include other non-motorized projects if the city desires. Regarding concurrency, the city's current concurrency program is focused on implementing the TMP project list, which includes non-motorized projects. In the next update, we would recommend creating a more explicit multimodal concurrency program to bring the city into better compliance with the regional planning guidelines. 1001 4t"Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Seattle, WA 98154 1 (206) 576-4220 1 Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 268 269 Chapter Five - PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • A description of how and why parks and recreation facilities are planned; • A discussion of existing conditions and trends impacting parks and recreation services; • A discussion of current and proposed approaches to measuring Levels of Service; and • Goals and Policies related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities Purpose Statement: Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces, recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons in the community. Purpose Although the Parks and Recreation Element is required under the Growth Management Act, Kent has long maintained a park and open space element, because park and recreational opportunities are viewed as an integral part of the city and essential to the quality of life for its residents. The Parks and Recreation Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan is intended as an overview of the city's planning efforts related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities. It, combined with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, describes the city's goals and priorities in a general way. The Comprehensive Plan is a useful and mandated city planning document; it is supplemented by a number of other city planning efforts, including the Park and Open Space Plan (P&OS Plan). The P&OS Plan fleshes out the basic policies covered in this Parks and Recreation Element, as it can go into far greater detail. It is also updated on a different schedule than the Comprehensive Plan. The last P&OS Plan update was adopted in 2010 and preparations are underway to begin the next P&OS Plan update which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. As that update will be adopted after this Comprehensive Plan update, this Element will look back to the prior update to inform it. At the same time, this Element will look forward at some of the Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 1 Kent GernpFehensive Plan 1— 270 policy shifts that began in the prior P&OS Plan and are expected to see further development in the next Plan update. Issues Decreasing Resources For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in this Plan, the city continues to face revenue shortfalls. These shortfalls have hit parks capital funds hard, exacerbating a capital maintenance backlog that had begun long before the 2008 recession. Aging Infrastructure Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital maintenance. Changing Demographics ■ Kent has an increasing population of foreign- born residents, including a sizeable population who does not speak English. In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. Change In Focus With the city's lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is going toward debt retirement, and the aging park infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks capital program has been on redevelopment, or, what we're calling "making better use of what we have." Parks Planning In Kent The Parks and Recreation Element works in concert with the Park and Open Space (P&OS) Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition, development, and renovation of parks, open space and recreational facilities. The P&OS Plan was last updated in 2010, and is due to be updated again in 2016. Since the last update of the P&OS Plan, fiscal realities for many local governments have changed significantly. Kent has been no exception. While Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 2 April 17, 2015 271 we still aspire to a system that provides a high level of service to the community, our current budget realities require an entirely new approach to planning and maintaining our park system. Over the past several years, Kent has managed to make a number of improvements to its park system. These projects include an expanded playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new playground and park improvements at Tudor Square Park (2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green Tree Park (2014); planting improvements at Service Club Ballfields (2013); and the replacement of synthetic turf at Wilson Sports Fields (2014). The city has also managed to make some significant strategic acquisitions: the Huse, Matinjussi and Van Dyke properties in the Panther Lake area (2012); and continued assemblage at Clark Lake Park (2013) and Morrill Meadows Park (2014). All the property acquisitions and several of the park improvements were funded either entirely or primarily through grants. The playground improvements also benefitted from the use of in-house labor and contributions made by volunteers. The use of in-house labor, grants and volunteers can certainly help leverage limited financial resources; but it's simply not feasible to rely heavily on these sources for the basic renovations and improvements needed to keep a park system vibrant and relevant to its community. Relationship to Other Plans Recreation and Conservation Funding Board's Manual 2 The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, or RCO, is a state agency tasked with distributing a number of state and federal grant funds. These grant funds are dedicated to the acquisition, development and redevelopment of recreational facilities across Washington State. Eligibility for these funds is based, in part, on having a state-approved Parks Comprehensive Plan, which must be updated every six years. Kent's Parks and Open Space Plan, last updated in 2010, met the state's requirement and, as a result, qualified Kent to receive the $1,809,959 it has received in RCO funding since 2010. As has been mentioned, the city is preparing to embark on the next update, scheduled to be adopted in 2016. Because the P&OS Plan is related to the Parks and Recreation Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, the RCO's grant requirements impact not only the contents of the P&OS Plan but also those of the Parks and Recreation Element. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 3 April 17, 2015 272 Washington's 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Washington's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, commonly referred to as SCORP, provides a statewide look at recreation, with a focus on recreation on public lands. It examines trends in recreation, identifies current issues, and sets recommendations for ways to improve outdoor recreation in the state. It also sets the priorities for RCO funding. To receive RCO funding, a project must be consistent with the goals laid out in SCORP. Public Outreach When the Park and Open Space Plan was last updated, its policies were shaped, in part, from the responses the city received from its 2009 Park Plan survey. The survey was widely advertised, was available online, and hard copies were available at the city's facilities and neighborhood councils. The outreach effort resulted in 631 responses. Some of the questions and answers were included in the Plan. The entire survey results can be found online at the city's website. Likewise, during the next update, the city plans to have several conversations with Kent residents to discuss priorities and resources. The analysis and discussion provided briefly in this Element will be expanded upon in the P&OS Plan. The capital goals laid out here will be updated annually as part of the budget process. Administration of the Parks Element and its Policies Policy that guides the funding and operation of Kent's park system is administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Policy direction is set by the three-member Parks Committee of the Kent City Council. The city's 12-member Arts Commission, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council, advises staff and approves public art and cultural programming. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Every large planning effort needs to consider its context. Part of doing so involves analyzing and accounting for current and anticipated trends. This effort is no exception. Significant trends in Kent, and their impact on parks and recreational facility planning, include decreasing resources, aging infrastructure, and changing demographics. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 4 April 17, 2015 273 Decreasing Resources For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in this Plan, the city What's the difference between routine maintenance continues to face revenue and capital maintenance? shortfalls. These shortfalls have Most people are aware that many cities, including hit parks capital funds hard, Kent, have park maintenance employees on their staff. exacerbating a capital These employees are generally responsible for: maintenance backlog that had begun long before the 2008 • Routine maintenance tasks, including such things recession. During the parks as mowing grass, cleaning restrooms and emptying facilities assessment work that trash. was last updated in 2012, the • Minor construction projects, such as making repairs city's parks capital maintenance to plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes in backlog was determined to be parking lots, as well as repairing sidewalks and over $60 million. If current trails in the parks. funding trends continue, the This work is considered routine maintenance and is backlog will continue to grow. funded through the city's operations budget. One of the larger questions to be addressed in the upcoming Larger projects, such as building a new restroom Park and Open Space Plan building, repaving a park's parking lot, or replacing update will have to do with how worn-out athletic fields' synthetic turf, are typically to respond to this trend. considered capital maintenance projects, are Options include identifying new contracted out to private construction firms and are sources of revenue, adjusting paid for through the Parks capital budget. the size of the park system, or a combination of both. Aging Infrastructure Kent's park system has a long and proud history. Kent's first park, Rosebed Park, was opened in 1906. Over one hundred years later, our system continues to receive good reviews, locally and nationally. One `5 indication of our reputation is that we consistently attract regional and national athletic tournaments because players enjoy playing on our well- maintained grass fields. - - That reputation is something of which we are proud. Unfortunately, not all of our assets have aged as well as some of our grass fields. Even at our most popular sports field sites, there are assets that are in desperate need of re- investment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in near-constant need of repair, be it a leaky roof or the crumbling plumbing Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 5 April 17, 2015 274 system. At Russell Road, the parking lots have been patched so many times that it is getting increasingly difficult to patch the patches. Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital maintenance. The expected lifetime of a restroom building, and the amount of maintenance required to keep it functioning, are entirely different from that of, say, a playground, whose expected lifetime and maintenance are different from that of a grass athletic field. What they all have in common is the fact that they all have finite life expectancies, and they all require continuing investments throughout the course of their lifetimes. Not surprisingly, maintenance costs increase as assets age, with older assets requiring more frequent maintenance than their newer counterparts. In 2012, Parks undertook an asset analysis update to inventory and assess the condition of every park asset valued over $25,000. The analysis looked at 240 assets. The scores ranged from 1 (nearing the end of its useful life) to 5 (functionally new). Seventy nine assets (32% of the total) were ranked 1 or 2. Sixty-three percent of Kent's parks contained at least one asset ranked 1 or 2. The analysis included a list of recommended -projects to address the failing assets in the park system. The estimate for the recommended work totaled over $60 million. From 2010 through 2013, the city spent approximately $3.5 million on parks capital projects. At the current average rate of investment, it would take 69 years to complete the projects on our list of assets waiting to be repaired or replaced. Changing Demographics Kent's population has changed significantly over Formatted:Jstffied,Right: 2.1" the past two decades, and continues to change. At the time of the last Parks and Open Space Plan (P&OS Plan) update, the city's population stood at r.;r 88,380. Shortly after the plan was adopted, the city annexed the area known as Panther Lake. The latest (2014) three-year American Community Survey shows Kent's population at 121,400. Kent's current (2015) population is estimated to be 122,300. + It's not just the number of residents that has changed. The city has become increasingly racially and culturally diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent's residents were white. The most recent American Community Service count Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 6 April 17, 2015 275 put the percentage of white residents in Kent at 59.5 percent. In 2000, eight percent of Kent's population was Hispanic. In 2010, that percentage jumped to 16.7 percent. Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born residents, including a sizeable population who does not speak English. The Kent School District's website reports that their student population comes from families speaking 137 languages. In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. In 2000, 7.4 percent of Kent's population was over 65. The most recent data shows that population at 9.1 percent. These changes are expected to impact not only what our parks offer, but the quality and type of access to our parks and the various amenities they offer. The changing needs and priorities of Kent residents will require greater flexibility than ever in planning new and renovated facilities that better suit our changing citizenry. Kent's changing demographics are also changing how we engage the community in conversations regarding their recreational needs and priorities. The old-style "town hall" type of public meeting isn't as effective as it used to be. The city continues to look at new and innovative ways to engage residents, in order to get as broad a representation of thoughts and ideas as possible. The next Park and Open Space Plan update will include an extensive public outreach component, to determine where and how our parks are meeting the needs and priorities of Kent residents, and how they can improve to continue to provide relevant and vibrant recreational opportunities to the community. Change in Focus The city's last period of park facility expansion included the construction of Service Club Ball Fields, Wilson Playfields, Arbor Heights 360 Park, and Town Square Plaza. Funds for these projects were provided by councilmantic bonds. The city is still paying on these bonds, with the last of the bonds expected to be paid off by 2024. With the city's lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is going toward debt retirement, and the aging park infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks capital program has been on redevelopment, or, what we're calling "making better use of what we have." Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 7 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 276 The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program "Stool" Historically, parks departments all over the country have compared their parks capital program to a three-legged stool, with the "legs" consisting of acquisition, development and redevelopment. "Acquisition" is about obtaining new park land, and is most commonly achieved through purchase of private property. "Development" refers to the design and construction of new parks. "Redevelopment" can include either the refurbishment or replacement of worn-out facilities through capital maintenance or the reimagining of park amenities-- or even entire parks-- based on changes in recreation trends and local demographics. The city of Kent has been acquiring and developing park properties for several decades. As previously mentioned, the city has seen many changes over that time. Even without the city's current financial pressures, the time is right for a prudent and community-based look at the system to assess which properties are working well, which properties could use having some of their current amenities replaced in-kind, and which properties need more creative re-imagining. When initiating this discussion, the city will make it clear that the discussion isn't about raising funds. The discussion will be focused very clearly on the park system, the community, and what the community's desires and priorities for the future of the system are. Park Inventory and Classification The 2010 P&OS Plan update counted 1,434 acres of park and open space land and 59 parks. The current inventory includes 1995.31094.68 acres (including 366.49160.16 acres of undeveloped properties) of land under our direct stewardship, and a system of 53 developed parks. (Please see Figure Formatted:Centered,Space After: 0 pt Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 8 April 17, 2015 277 Figure P-1 Parks and Recreation Facilities s�4, 17 T f e 8 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITES J�k;.PFC XY.X s € TPI � �r c ° I �,]ao�rmA�►anExcncaanEn G'•f �' "� A Parks Maincene Fa6m. NDrvICam KtwPeE Perk 4Mk —hurls r....�'.—'✓tg.. i rk�n rr'3ile+nsel i .- RIP rr.rs SOME:I' A,01a' _ .-.. The numbers appear to indicate that the system has shrunk, when the city has actually added acres to the park property inventory. How to explain this seeming contradiction? There are four factors that explain the differing numbers between 2010's count and today's. a. The city has acquired 72.57 acres of new park land since 2010. These were all strategic acquisitions that contributed to long-term assemblages and system goals. b. We have built no new parks since 2010. That park plan update signaled a change in direction from system expansion to a focus on "taking care of what we have." c. During the facilities assessment process the parks department undertook in 2012, the department took another look at how it defined 'Park".. One result of this effort was that they broadened their park Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 9 April 17, 2015 278 categories list. -In addition to neighborhood and community parks and open space properties, they acknowledged that there are a number of special-use parks that don't really provide the traditional functions fulfilled by neighborhood and community parks. Some parks that provide specialized uses, such as skate parks, were reclassified as special use parks. Properties utilized primarily by sports groups, like Wilson Playfields, were classified as Recreational Facility - Outdoor. In addition to revising park categories, the Department de-listed a handful of properties that, according to any objective measure, didn't function as parks and had little potential for ever serving that role well. d. An administrative decision was made to discontinue counting the 310 acre Green River Natural Resources Area as a park. Because its primary function is to capture and detain stormwater, which makes large portions of the property inaccessible to the public, and because it is stewarded by the city's Public Works Department, it was felt that it distorted any discussion on parks acreage in Kent by including a property whose recreational functions are secondary to its public works functions. Reclassifying the GRNRA doesn't take away the enjoyment people have when they use the property for recreation, but it does better reflect the collection of properties stewarded by the city for the primary purpose of recreation. The ultimate result is that while the park system has seen minor growth in acreage since 2010, the numbers don't reflect the growth. Table P.1.— Formatted:Font: Bold,Not Highlight Parks and Facilities by the Numbers: 1993- 20142015 1993 2003 20142015 Formatted Table Population 41,000 84,275 "�0122,300 Park property 849.5 1346.63 1095. 1094.68 (total acres all categories) Golf Course 0.6-56 0.2-732 0.22 (holes per 1000) Indoor Recreation 2.33 1.13 1.2-916 Facilities (sq. ft./person) Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 10 April 17, 2015 279 Our System by Category Following is a list of the various categories of parks and properties stewarded by the Kent park system, and an explanation of the role they serve in that system. The list includes the number of properties in each category. Neighborhood Parks Kent has twenty five neighborhood parks. These tend to be small, intimate parks, tucked into residential neighborhoods. They're typically accessed on foot or by bike. They include amenities that tend to cause them to be natural gathering places for the neighborhoods they serve, but they're not intended to be destinations that attract use from outside of their neighborhood. Community Parks Kent has ten community parks. These parks are typically larger than neighborhood parks, and contain amenities that attract a larger use area. For that reason, parking lots are typically found in these parks. As larger gathering spaces, they are often used for community-wide special events like concerts or movies. Special Use Parks Not all parks fit into neat categories. Some parks are the size of neighborhood parks, but they cater to a specialized audience. Arbor Heights 360 is such a park. With its primary features being a skate park and a climbing wall, it draws a very active, usually young adult, audience seeking a very specialized recreational experience. Other examples of special use parks include several downtown "pocket parks." These parks are not in a residential neighborhood; therefore, they don't have a residential constituency. They are typically activated during weekdays by business people seeking a short break from work. Kent has nine special use parks. Natural Resources While Kent is known for its industrial and warehouse resources, the city also benefits from a large amount of protected open space, both in the form of publicly owned lands and critical areas protected by regulation. The Green River, which runs south to north through the valley, is protected through its designation as waters of the state. Other shoreline areas include Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area, Springbrook Creek, portions of Soos Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn Floodway. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 11 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 280 Recreational Facilities Kent has a number of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. These are spaces that are heavily programmed. As a result, they tend to have a low incidence of use outside of their programmed use. Kent's outdoor recreational facilities include Wilson Playfields, Hogan Park at Russell Road, Service Club Ball Fields, and Kent Memorial Park. Indoor facilities include the Kent Valley Ice Centre, the Nealy-Soames Historic Home, the Kent Historical Society Museum, the Kent Commons, the Kent- Meridian Pool, and the Senior Activity Center. Since the 2010 Park Plan update, our Resource Center was closed and the property was removed from the city's inventory. Undeveloped Park Land As noted above, over the years Kent has obtained a number of properties it has not yet developed as parks. Since this acreage is intended for eventual use, it is included as park property; still, the properties have few to no facilities, and so recreational use at these sites is not supported by our limited maintenance resources. Kent owns 148.27 acres of undeveloped parkland. Other Facilities In addition to parks and open space, the city's parks system includes a golf complex, and a community pea patch (on property owned by others). The 167-acre golf complex includes an 18-hole course, a par 3 course, a driving range and a mini-putt course. There are also over 28 miles of off-right-of-way trails in the city. The next update to the P&OS Plan will include a broader discussion of the city's indoor recreation facilities than in the last update. It will be based on a planned dialogue with the community to determine the community's satisfaction with the current level of service as well as their desires and priorities for changes to the level of service. The upcoming P&OS Plan update will include a detailed list of Kent's parks, open space and recreational properties. Other Local Recreation Facilities The city is not the only public provider of recreational facilities in and around Kent. The Kent School District owns a number of playgrounds and play fields on its various school properties. Some of these are available for general public use when school is not in session. Other facilities, like their synthetic Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 12 April 17, 2015 281 turf sports fields, are not open to the general public, but do host programmed activities, such as Kent recreation league games. In addition, King County owns several recreational properties in the local area. They have the primary maintenance responsibility for the Interurban Trail (owned by Puget Sound Energy, but leased to the County), as well as the Soos Creek Trail. They also own the northern portion of North Meridian Park, which they maintain as open space. In addition, the city's Public Works department owns a number of properties that provide some recreational value (typically via the trails they maintain for access but allow the public to utilize for recreation), although that is not their primary use. These properties provide some recreational opportunities to Kent residents, but they are not included in Kent's Level of Service equations because the Parks Department has no control over how they are programmed, managed and maintained. LEVELS OF SERVICE Determining a level of service for parks, recreation facilities and open space for a community is challenged by the fact that there really isn't a one-size- fits-all approach to providing these community facilities. Population Kent's most recent update to our Parks and Open Space Plan was adopted in 2010. At the time of the update, Kent's population stood at 88,380 residents. Since that plan, the Panther Lake annexation added five square miles and approximately 24,000 residents to the city. Kent's current 2015 population stands at about "'�00122,300. The population is fairly evenly split between genders, with 50.4 percent male and 49.6 percent female. Nearly 30 percent of Kent's residents are under the age of 20, and 51.4 percent are between the ages of 20 and 54. The city's median age is approximately 34 years old. More detailed information on Kent's population may be found in the Profile and Vision chapter of this Plan. Needs Analysis The P&OS Plan's Needs Analysis detailed the challenges of establishing Levels of Service for parks and recreation facilities. Other public services enjoy straightforward metrics, such as response time for emergency services, quantity of materials disposed of or processed for waste management services, and intersection wait times for transportation. We know that parks and recreation facilities provide immense value to a community. We know that communities with good parks tend to be healthier Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 13 April 17, 2015 282 than communities with few or no parks. We know that neighborhoods with well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and lower crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. Because these benefits accrue over time, it's really difficult to track them back to specific budget years. As a result, it's very difficult to provide metrics for the value that parks and recreation facilities bring to their communities. Communities all over the country have struggled and continue to struggle to provide a quantifiable Level of Service for parks and recreation facilities. The 2010 P&OS Plan looked at the traditional means of measuring Levels of Service (based on acres per thousand for different facilities) and traced the decades-long trend of declining Levels of Service in Kent, based on that approach. It also looked at Levels of Service on a neighborhood-by- neighborhood basis. This approach identified 32 neighborhoods currently served by parks, four neighborhoods with partially met needs and four with no park space. Three additional neighborhoods in the at-that-time un- annexed Panther Lake area were also park-deficient. Below is a table illustrating how Kent's parks and open space Levels of Service have changed over time. Table P.2- Formatted:Font: Bold,Not Highlight Level of Service 1993- 2035 1993 2003 20142015 2035 Formatted Table Population 41,000 84,275 "�0122,300 138,156 Neighborhood Parks 2.53 1.13 .59^ .52* acres/1000 Community Parks 18.19 14.85 -.-7-31.24^ -.641.1* (acres/1000) Golf Course 0.6-56 0.32 0.22 .19* holes/1000 Indoor Rec Facilities 2.33 1.13 1.2916 1.1-303* (sq. ft./person) Parks property (total 849.5 1346.63 1116.821094.68 1116.821094.68* acres) Natural Resource # # 4-.23.71 3-.93.28* Overall LOS 20.72 15.98 9.198.95 8.097.92* acres/1000 Overall LOS Dev. # # 3.723.82 3-.2-73.38 Parks - incl. golf cou (Ac./1000) ^Some of this change is due to reclassification of parks. Please refer to Park Inventory and Classification section for further information. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 14 April 17, 2015 283 *This assumes no additional acquisition or new development. #Figure not available. Using the above approach to Levels of Service, Kent would need to develop its 133.9460.55 of its 160.16 acres of currently-undeveloped land and aequiFe by 2035 in order to stem any further erosion to its developed parks Levels of Service for its projected population of XXXXXXXXXXXX. .138,156. While the 2010 P&OS Plan update did not propose a new approach to Level of Service, it recognized the need for one. How Much Is Enough? "Level of Service" is an attempt to provide a gauge for a particular public good or service being provided to a community. It is also used to establish goals for that good or service, according to the overall priorities and resources of the community. For example, when a community sets a goal of having emergency services respond to a call for help within a certain number of minutes, that number is then used to inform city leaders how many resources need to be allocated to emergency services in order to achieve the response time goal. Parks, recreation facilities and open space Levels of Service measures are used in the same way. How many parks are enough for a community? How many parks is the community willing to support? Those are difficult questions, but given the ongoing revenue shortfall, they are very relevant questions that will require extensive community discussion during the next park plan update. The chart below, from 2013, shows the developed park acreage for Kent and some of its regional peer cities. Looking at what Kent is providing in relation to its peer cities provides some points of reference when discussing what's right for Kent. Looked at in isolation, Kent's numbers, and the Levels of Service they represent, have little meaning. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 15 April 17, 2015 284 Figure P-2 Acres of Developed Park Land per 1000 Residents 7 s 5 - - 4 3 — 2 It1 0 KENT Kirkland Renton Auburn Federal Everett Bellevue Way Meaningful Measures According to the chart above, Kent is behind its peer cities in providing developed park land to its residents. However, acres per thousand, while a useful measure, isn't the only metric used in discussing Levels of Service. Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines, published by Washington's Recreation and Conservation Office, is a statewide reference for cities developing and updating their Parks and Open Space Plans. Its Level of Service Summary for Local Agencies discusses a variety of approaches to assessing parks and recreation facilities Levels of Service. Options include measuring quantity, quality, and distribution and access of local parks and recreation facilities. Kent's next P&OS update will consider using these and other potential approaches as part of a shift to a performance-based Level of Service assessment. The update will include determining which parks and recreation facilities in the Kent system are performing at a high level, and which parks are underperforming. By focusing on preserving recreational value of high- performing parks and increasing recreational value of low-performing parks, the update will examine the potential for increasing Kent's parks and recreational facility Level of Service without relying exclusively on adding acreage. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 16 April 17, 2015 285 Goals and Policies The following goals and policies are from the last Parks and Open Space Plan update. That plan noted a shift in expressing how the City's park and open space system would best develop over the coming years and details measurable steps toward achieving these goals. Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to participate in life- enrichment activities via the development of park land and recreational facilities, preservation and enhancement of environmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of community resources. I. Park& Recreation Facilities Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and interest groups. Goal P&OS-1: Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and facilities. Policy P&OS-1.1: Cooperate with King County, Kent, Federal Way and Highline School Districts, and other public and private agencies to acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimming, and other related recreational activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake. Policy P&OS-1.2: Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft access, including canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other non-power-boating activities, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake, where practicable. Goal P&OS-2: Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not limited to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality system of athletic facilities for competitive play. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 17 April 17, 2015 286 Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality standards and requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and recreational interests. Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that provide for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple use, where appropriate. Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of facilities that provide the highest standard for competitive playing, possibly in conjunction with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public agencies and private organizations. Goal P&OS-3: Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that provide activities and programs for the interests of all physical and mental capabilities, age, and interest groups in the community. Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor community centers, such as the Senior Activity Center and Kent Memorial Park Building, that provide arts and crafts, music, video, classroom instruction, meeting facilities, eating and health care, day care, and other spaces for all age groups, including preschool, youth, teens, and seniors on a year-round basis. Policy P&OS-3.2: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational centers, such as Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that provide aquatic, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational courts, and other athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and community interests on a year-round basis. Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and diversification by the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of special meeting, assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the community at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the Potential Annexation Area. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 18 April 17, 2015 287 Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor cultural and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music, dance, drama, and other audience and participatory opportunities for the community at large. Goal P&OS-4: Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are able and willing to finance them. Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e., self-supporting), develop and operate specialized and special interest recreational facilities like golf, ice skating, frisbee golf, mountain biking and archery ranges. Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public agencies and private organizations joint planning and operating programs to determine and provide for special activities like golf, archery, gun ranges, off-leash areas, model airplane flying areas, frisbee golf, mountain biking and camping on a regional basis. Goal P&OS-5: Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community parks, with active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of- service needs as Kent's population grows and areas are annexed. Policy P&OS-5.2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and geographic features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park land within each neighborhood to meet the levels-of- service. Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group use, active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the neighborhood or community as a whole. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 19 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 288 Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation elements. II. Open Space and Greenway Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban separators is a strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent's open space system. Goal P&OS-6: Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation between developed areas, and provide open space and greenway linkages among park and recreational resources. Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve a system of open space and greenway corridors as urban separators to provide definition between natural areas and urban land uses within the Kent area. Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or other existing or planned connections with greenways and open space, particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Youngs; and around significant wetland and floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as necessary, environmentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and urban separators, particularly along the steep hillsides that define both sides of the Green River Valley and the SE 2771h/272"d Street corridor. Goal P&OS-7: Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to development. Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to protect land and resources near residential neighborhoods for high-quality, low-impact park and Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 20 April 17, 2015 289 recreational facilities before the most suitable sites are lost to development. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way. Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments, preserve unique environmental features or areas, and increase public use of and access to these areas. Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to protect unique features or areas as low- impact publicly accessible resources, particularly along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 277'h/272"d Street corridors. III. Trail and Corridor System Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that provide access to significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed neighborhoods and business districts. Goal P&OS-8: Formatted:Justified,Right: 1.9" e Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off- "a road and on-road trail systems that link park and recreational resources with residential areas, public facilities, commercial, and employment centers both within Kent and within the region. Policy P&OS-8.1: Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system of multi-purpose off-road trails using alignments of the Puget Power rights-of-way, Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail, Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 21 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 290 Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods to community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center, the Kent-Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts. Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, Des Moines, Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to link and extend Kent trails to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green River, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails. Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or proposed trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods. Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the downtown core, and other commercial and retail activity centers on East and West Hills. Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek, and around natural features like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality, diverse sampling of Kent's environmental resources. Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise development regulations so that key trail links that are identified within the corridor map are provided to the city during the development approval process. Goal P&OS-9: Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with convenient amenities and improvements. Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting improvements that include interpretive and directory signage, rest stops, drinking fountains, restrooms, parking and loading areas, water, and other services. Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in conjunction with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 22 April 17, 2015 291 increase local area access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of supporting improvements and amenities. Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which emphasize safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access by maintenance, security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles. IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of significant historic and cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the city's multicultural heritage. Goal P&OS-10: Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multi- cultural interests into the park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserve, and enhance Kent's multi- cultural heritage, traditions, and cultural resources, including historic sites, buildings, artwork, views, monuments and archaeological resources. Policy P&OS-10.2: Identify and incorporate significant historic and cultural resource lands, sites, artifacts, and facilities into the park system to preserve these interests and to provide a balanced social experience. These areas include the original alignment for the interurban electric rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, the James Street historical waterfront site, and the Downtown train depot, among others. Policy P&OS-10.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural resource groups to incorporate community activities at historic homes and sites into the park and recreational program. Goal P&OS-11: Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and recreational system. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 23 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 292 Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments, structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these features and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience. Examples include the Earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in public places. Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase public access to and utilization of these special features. V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals&Policies Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that increase community awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for participation. Goal P&OS-12: Work with the arts community to utilize local resources s and talents to increase public access to artwork and programs. Policy P&OS-12.1: Support successful collaborations among the Arts Commission, business community, service groups, cultural organizations, schools, arts patrons, and artists to utilize artistic resources and talents to the �- 4 optimum degree possible. Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local artists and art organizations. Where appropriate, develop and support policies and programs that encourage or provide incentives to attract and retain artists and artwork within the Kent community. Goal P&OS-13: Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas and thereby increase public access and appreciation. Policy P&OS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures, exhibits, and other media for indoor and outdoor display in Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 24 April 17, 2015 293 order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an appropriate manner. Policy P&OS-13.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities. VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals&Policies Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the park system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migration corridors for local fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation associated with human activities. Goal P&OS-14: Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat resources and areas. Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical fish and wildlife habitat including nesting sites, foraging areas, and wildlife migration corridors, within or adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and developed urban areas. Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire, enhance and preserve habitat sites that support threatened species and urban wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural areas with habitat value such as the Green River Corridor, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park. Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy urban forest with native vegetation that provides food, cover, and shelter, by utilizing best management practices. Goal P&OS-15: Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the features. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 25 April 17, 2015 294 Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental features, including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, open spaces, woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that support wildlife and reflect Kent's natural heritage. Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake. Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management Program. Policy P&OS-16.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of life in Kent by restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces. Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest restoration and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program. Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban forest long-term sustainability, by removing invasive plants and maintaining functional native forest communities. VII. Design and Access Goals&Policies Design and develop facilities that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life-cycle features that account for long-term costs and benefits. Goal P&OS-17: Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Policy P&OS-17.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts, playgrounds, trails, parking lots, restrooms, and other active and supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 26 Kent GempFehensive Plc-Hi April 17, 2015 295 Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms, hallways, parking lots, and other active and supporting spaces and improvements to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Goal P&OS-18: Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance materials. Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low- maintenance and high-capacity design to reduce overall facility maintenance and operation requirements and costs. Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate, use low-maintenance materials, settings, or other value-engineering considerations that reduce care and security requirements, while retaining the natural conditions and environment. Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage the use of low maintenance plants. Goal P&OS-19: Identify and implement the security and safety provisions of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other standards. Policy P&OS-19.1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other design and development standards that will improve park safety and security features for users, department personnel, and the public at large. Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards, procedures, and programs that will provide proper training and awareness for department personnel. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 27 April 17, 2015 296 Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups, department personnel, and the public at large. Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs, neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will increase safety and security awareness and visibility. VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals&Policies Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public and private interests. Goal P&OS-20: Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational requirements, including joint ventures with other public agencies and private organizations, and private donations. Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth impact fees, land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and inter-local agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase facility services. Policy P&OS-20.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with King County, Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state, federal, and other public agencies and private organizations, including for-profit concessionaires to acquire and develop regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.). Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to investigate grants and private funds, develop a planned giving program and solicit private donations to finance facility development, acquisition, maintenance, programs, services, and operating needs. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 28 April 17, 2015 297 Goal P&OS-21: Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced local park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the interests of area residents. Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent interests of area residents. Goal P&OS-22: Create and institute a method of cost/benefit and performance measure assessment to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service, and provision of facilities. Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to effectively plan and program park and recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential annexation area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels-of- service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the impacts of population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities, neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements in the city as opposed to requirements in the Potential Annexation Area. Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and private user interests. This includes the application of growth impact fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards. Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 29 April 17, 2015 298 program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees, user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer efforts, and the use of general funds. Related Information http://kentwa.gov/content.aspx?id=1282 City of Kent 2010 Park &Open Space Plan Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 30 April 17, 2015 299 Chapter Six - UTILITIES ELEMENT Formatted:F.,t: 18pt What you will find in this chapter: • A description of the utility systems and providers in the City of Kent; • Goals and Policies for providing utility services to Kent's residents; and • Strategies for implementing the City's policies and working with private utility providers. Purpose Statement: Provide utility services and facilities to support the envisioned urban growth pattern. Purpose Utility facilities and services that are addressed in this element include electricity, natural gas, domestic water, storm, sewer, solid waste, and telecommunications. Availability of these facilities and services affects the health, safety and general welfare of the Kent community, as well as whether, how and when growth occurs. Both City and non-City-owned utilities operating within Kent are described in this element, and relevant comprehensive utility plans are adopted by reference. These comprehensive utility plans provide additional details on the availability of services to meet the growth strategy, forecasts and targets adopted under the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Kent Utility Providers. Issues Water City of Kent Coordination of Service Providers City of Auburn The City-managed utilities must coordinate with providers of utility services outside of City of Renton the City service areas. Neighboring water and Highline Water District sewer districts may include service areas within the city limits of Kent. These districts King County Water District have completed concurrency analyses on No. 111 their systems and provide for planned growth Lakehaven Utility District through infrastructure upgrades that are Soos Creek Water & Sewer funded through service rates. District Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'4 Page 1 300 Sewer Concurrency and Implications for City of Kent Growth City of Auburn Utility projects and other capital facilities must be in place to accommodate growth. City of Tukwila Keeping the Telecommunications System Lakehaven Utility District Current Midway Sewer District Telecommunication systems and services Soos Creek Water & Sewer change rapidly. The City needs to keep pace District with the technical and electronic expectations of public service users. Surface Water System Sustainability, Rehabilitation, City of Kent Replacement and Retrofit Electricity To maintain sustainable utilities, it is Puget Sound Energy necessary to plan and implement maintenance and replacement of utility Natural Gas infrastructure. Utility system improvements Puget Sound Energy are designed to meet federal, state and local Telecommunications requirements. AT&T Broadband Regional Coordination for Landfill The city participates in a regional effort to CenturyLinkR divert waste from the landfill, with an intent Comcast to keep the Cedar Hills operational to 2030. Environmental Sustainability Utility planning and operations require environmental protection efforts to preserve the quality of the natural environment including preservation and enhancement of fish habitat. Climate Change As additional scientific information is identified regarding climate change, the City will evaluate the potential impacts to its existing utilities. Kent's primary sources of municipal water supply are not snow pack dependent. Utilities will follow Greenhouse Gas Reduction policies adopted by the City. Funding Public utilities are funded by the rate payers. When applicable, the City will apply for grants to help offset the cost of large capital projects. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 2 301 System Descriptions Water The service area of the City of Kent Water Utility encompasses twenty-four (24) square miles and serves most of the incorporated City, as well as small areas of unincorporated King County and the City of Auburn. Adjacent franchise areas of neighboring water purveyors serve the remainder of Kent and the PAA. Current and near future peak day demands for water are met through Kent Springs, Clark Springs, and supplemental well facilities. To meet long-term demands, the City executed a partnership agreement for an additional water source. Although existing water supply can meet the needs of projected growth to 2030 as outlined in the Comprehensive Water System Plan adopted by the City Council in 2011, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to deliver this water to customers. A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) every six (6) years. The Plan is adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed water system projects include development of a new 640 pressure zone on the East Hill to improve water pressures at high elevations, a new reservoir on the West Hill to meet increasing storage demands, and water main replacements, including upsizing older portions of the distribution system to improve capacity. The costs of improvements to the water system range from $150-million to $160 million in 2008 dollars, and funding of these projects will be accomplished through a combination of water rate increases and bonding. Water supply service areas and facilities serving Kent's Planning Area are illustrated n Fi r C Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element- ;"_0/7/2-014 Page 3 302 Figure U-X Water Supply Service Areas and Facilities s.,esr a: o WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREAS&FACILITIES -�� LEGEND 5 afe 8r u heLr - "`� �—epTiM�L Ar•ME1J.elOF1 MER rxw[u j 5 Cln LIMIi5 —ma FlxafS e KEIR FACIL111E8 .L� i.l ® mu .. J L 2 AE�x.FI -ieeisw ; F[marvu'v 3 l � f] K1nef TsrA. W L e to e, Ism FM I s e Pump Eealipn QTl kQEN YFACUME8 YAell ntit,s, ..°�� 4 R,, a r � ,q,��rx="'s caxif'n.Li m s �`a° � e rmv e�ouen L� �-s., [—1 Aub 5 Vr r ,p.M1re 'S 1 [�AuWm VAter�ifYld a•� .a We11 0�]y ? un w.� wM.ol.l .YA°� •ve w - b r r no In,i n-C ei �` N9nllae Waver Dm6a J 0 W,ha ftwr ENMOd PwavcF y 4y�niveu r]ft.W.YYW r oiWW tx 08ava Cr Mwi1 Wo.r r_ s v?ar I L O Tuk.aa mler oiwm „ S = 015e e Ix oqr a nel sr:L'u$-i i 5�1 ar7 L �i s ALE:i•.4.00' A i -_-mixer Sewer The service area of the City of Kent Sewer Utility encompasses approximately twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area, expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local improvement districts. The City's sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance with the growing needs of the City. Because Kent's sewer service area is not coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future saved-population forecast for the actual area served by Kent sewer. Population forecasts are based on the Land Use Plan for ultimate build out in accordance with Department of Ecology requirements. The City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, which is adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan, has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitation. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'4 Page 4 303 King County Wastewater Treatment is responsible for interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and communities throughout south and north King County. King County is providing additional wastewater capacity to serve a growing population in the Puget Sound area through its Brightwater Treatment Plant and is also expanding the South Treatment Plant to handle additional flow from south and east King County. The city of Kent does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. Service connections and interlocal agreements ensuring continuous service exists between the City of Kent and adjacent sewer utilities providing service to Kent homes and businesses. Figure U-X illustratesmkbe locations of the sanitary sewer service areas and facilities. Figure U-X Sewer Service Areas afiWgilities a ? SEWER SERVICE AREAS&FACILITIES L$ kY.X a a A rx '.g tLs.r2.pi LEGEND '212TH v ■ %ERTPUMPSTATION s aasr FRAGER TRMT IICA 0< y RQAQ . PST w 'L89 OnERAGENG*PW.tP 9itiipR C7 MEi COILECTM 1 P L527 ©POTENTIALPHIEYAAOW AREA SKYLI E : _ 9i $ L mil'LIMITa b'1 . PARK" Ii KFNTAEVV Y r AUBURN SEVWk LS 17 gypp' -CEDAR RIVER MD lPoi ti _w EHW'EN tMLrry OISTWQT MId Y.•,EWER CISTRICT RENTON SEVER S VNTER SEVER NSTRICT429 'ZOOS CREEK SEWER 6 MTER +nYca sT :e rgo aT II mA 6EVIER GIaYMOT _w FIGHT .. ,gyp * aavF at 3 x.es NOR!ACRES v1�s*'S 5p; /11 SEWER ITH 5T MILL _ r CREEK LINOE.IL`. VIGTdRIA . 3EWEW RIDGE �l �" � w ez., L52�tE�rj SE yw srre sT A rV.'-.tl.d'F..t.Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'^` Page 5 304 Surface Water Management The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed, with stormwater flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River via a tributary creek. The two main tributaries that convey stormwater from Kent to the Green River are Big Soos Creek on the East Hill and Springbrook Creek in the valley. Mill Creek and Garrison Creek flow into Springbrook Creek in the northern area of the valley in Kent. A smaller portion of the City, generally located west of I-5, flows either to Bingamon, Massey, or McSorley Creeks, which drain directly to Puget Sound. These watersheds are shown on Figure.U-X. The City's Clark Springs water supply_properties are located in the i Formatted:Highlight Rock Creek watershed, which flows into the Cedar River and then on to Lake Washington. Figure U-X Storm Drainage Service Areas Formatted:Font: Bold '. s,wsr M x a s. STORM DRAINAGE Croak SERVICE AREA mar,T � r mou�ierles rasa Fi�urC vx.x s � @ x ,� LEGEND $i MrEWnAL ANNE/TrON MIA trio Cer 8 Tnbwnmno, 521i Ar CITY IJMITS ONLrrisned Beundvy SE ICEAREA � e 5>IBs S i W irib.buivnez t'ErE� � Y grg Snm CawkA Swill Gieee Rrvei iBil S Thbl�rwe rnI>vlwrin< � � - s aa.sr.,wer � ,• ' uillGccl6 � � nrn l,x. ^R.nuAind A' wrr_TSrmianrinv niouwres` Gn�ee Rirn ''aa sr Atn Bi Mlden A411 Ciaeh srouon a rµrecrr a W nbawrAa •uula' y ``L 6 S R anxr naolr � s RZ m� h � roan iGrer TriN,laNes �' Y ¢ x SE a04 i F sins se 9r sr N.r `� SCALE:i'-4,000' A ....•...,.n...x..,�. """" Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'4 Page 6 305 The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches, pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect individual parcels with the City's surface water systems. The City also owns, operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities. The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted within the 2009 Drainage Master Plan (DMP . The DMPJ included an evaluationed of watersheds and drainage basins, analysiszed of open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, and a determinationed and prioritizationed of projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats, and efficiently serve planned growth,, de in a cost- effective wayselutiens to the identified ...weds. Further details on each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars. Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater management and stream protection are contained in the City's 2002 Surface Water Design Manual, which is a modified version of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater system are improved to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed. These standards have been adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)-mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. The DMP included recommendations to meet the required elements of the Lake Fenwick TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for tracking, monitoring, maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary resources to meet these needs. As a result of the 19998 listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout and the 2007 listing of Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the City has been participating in various regional salmon restoration efforts, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Salmon Habitat Forums for Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 (Cedar/Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish) and 9 (Green Duwamish). Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 7 306 The city is also an active participant in the Technical and Advisory Committees for the King County Flood Control District, which constructs, operates and maintains the levees along the Green River and other areas of King County. Solid Waste Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi- year contract with the City, Republic Services provides comprehensive garbage, recyclables and yard and food waste collection services to residential, multifamily and commercial customers. Kent has implemented mandatory garbage collection to curb illegal dumping, litter and accumulation of trash/garbage on private property. The City's solid waste is ultimately taken to King County's Cedar Hills Landfill for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King County, Kent and other parties will develop plans and alternatives to waste disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advance of its closure in 2025; the information will be incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Kent has entered into an interlocal agreement with King County Solid Waste and most other municipalities in the county to collectively manage solid waste. At the current rate, Cedar Hills, which is the last remaining landfill in the county, will last until 2030. Alternatives are identified in the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Municipalities operating under this plan strive to divert as much waste from the landfill as possible. The residential sector in Kent is currently diverting just over 50% of the solid waste from the landfill through recycling and yard and food waste collection. Since 2010, participation in the yard and food waste collection program has increased from 36% to over 95%. Kent residents are able to participate in the countywide Hazardous Waste Management program adopted by the King County Board of Health in 2010. Its mission is "to protect and enhance public health and environmental quality in King county by reducing the threat posed by the production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials." Electricity Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a private electric utility whose operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Electricity is produced elsewhere and transported to switching stations in Kent and Renton through high-voltage transmission lines, then reduced and redistributed Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'4 Page 8 307 through lower-voltage transmission lines, distribution substations, and smaller transformers. PSE provides electrical service to approximately 57,300 electric customers in Kent. There are 230 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage transmission lines running north and south within the city of Kent that move bulk power from transmission stations in Renton and Kent. Also within the city are several 115 kV transmission lines and a number of neighborhood distribution substations. PSE also has its own hydro, thermal, wind and solar power-generating facilities. Additionally, there are about 1,500 small, customer-owned generation facilities that are interconnected with PSE's system and can export surplus energy into the grid. The vast majority of these are solar panel installations. PSE's 2013 Integrated Resource Plan forecasted that PSE would have to acquire approximately 4,900 megawatts of new power-supply capacity by 2033. Roughly half of the need can be met by energy efficiency and the renewal of transmission contracts. The rest is likely to be met most economically with added natural gas-fired resources. Some new transmission lines and substations will need to be constructed, as well as existing ones rebuilt or maintained. Specific construction that is anticipated includes the following: • Autumn Glen neighborhood substation and the reconfiguration of the 115kV lines near the intersection of 104th Ave SE and SE 272"d St. • New 115kV line from the existing O'Brien substation north along the PSE right-of-way to S. 2041h St and then west to 681h Ave SE. • Briscoe Park neighborhood substation located just outside the city limits of Kent in Tukwila. Although located in Tukwila this substation will eventually serve customers in Kent. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 9 308 Figure U-X Existing and Proposed PSE Electric Facilities EXISTING&PltO"ED ,_ 3 -W= PSE LLl~C3'EZ1C PACII,[7'lES LEGEND _ E -- - .—. p a,rr uwa �. EYJBT a _ i OaolhuLen SuY °f ® 7nn$uh Tre E.n"owwh O MV f —5fikY —End �Vj•i 1 PROPOSED i ® ❑iePeunon SoD ■ suwu,ron TNn amxn sumn R—Trenemieaen Mfg r W � i au, Mp• C'.1. SCA G Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to more than 750,000 customers in six Western Washington counties. It is estimated that PSE currently serves over 26,800 gas customers within the City of Kent. Natural gas is transported through interstate pipelines to Puget Sound Energy's gate stations. From the gate stations, the natural gas is transported through supply mains and district regulators to distribution mains which feed individual residential service lines. PSE Gas System Integrity-Maintenance Planning has several DuPont manufactured main and service piping and STW main replacements planned for 2015. There will be several pipe investigations throughout the city to determine the exact location of the DuPont manufactured pipe. Identified DuPont manufactured piping in PSE's entire system will be ranked and replaced accordingly. Formatted:Font:verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "(10/7/20144 Page 10 309 New projects can be developed in the future at any time due to: 1. New or replacement of existing facilities to increase capacity requirements due to new building construction and conversion from alternate fuels. 2. Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities. 3. Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state projects. Figure U-X PSE Gas Facilities EXISTING PSE GAS FACILITIES LEGEND F;x,nrxx.. --, ` HIGH PRESSUFE q,� •••• _•.. 5 �Cf1Y LYAIT8 Telecommunications As telecommunications technologies have evolved, convergence of these technologies has occurred, resulting in multiple communication services migrating into consolidated networks. Telecommunications in Kent include both wired and wireless telephone services, cable and satellite television, and high-speed broadband Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "^""^'4 Page 11 310 technology. Through partnerships with franchised telecommunications companies, internal public works projects and completion of capital projects, the City has a robust conduit infrastructure that would enable and facilitate future fiber optic connectivity projects benefitting the City, its residents and businesses, and project partners. The City has jointed a connectivity consortium of cities and other public partners that would construct and maintain a regional fiber-optic telecommunications system. This fiber-optic system would provide redundancies, enhance communications networks, and emergency operations. Cable and Satellite Television The city of Kent has a non-exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast Corporation to construct, operate and maintain a cable system in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Comcast's network provides high-definition television capacity and high-speed internet access through cable modems, and includes coaxial and fiber optic cabling systems deployed both underground and overhead using utility poles leased from power and telephone companies. Comcast has provided the City of Kent with the capability to broadcast live from City Hall on the Government Access Channel (i.e., Kent TV21). Satellite television competes directly with cable television by delivering hundreds of channels directly to mini-dishes installed in homes and businesses throughout Kent. Wireline and Wireless Communications Many companies offer telecommunications services including integrated voice and data, and voice over internet telephony (VoiP) technology. CenturyLink, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC), is now joined by several Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) in providing more communications service options to Kent residents and businesses. With expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, new technologies and competition, telecommunications utilities are expected to meet voice, video and broadband demands during the planning period. Goals and Policies Water and Sewer Goal U-1: Ensure that public utilities services throughout the City, and other areas receiving such services are adequate to accommodate anticipated growth without significantly degrading the levels-of-service for existing customers. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 12 311 Policy U-1.1: Coordinate the planning and provision of public utilities services and facilities with other agencies providing such services to Kent homes and businesses. Policy U-1.2: Consider existing demand units in assessing levels-of- service for future provision of services and facilities. Goal U-2: Provide water to the City's existing customers and for future development consistent with the short and long range goals of the City. Policy U-2.1: Identify capital improvement projects needed to meet the potable water supply and fire protection needs of current customers and the forecast for future demand within the areas served by the City of Kent Water System. Policy U-2.2: Ensure system capacity (i.e. sources, pump stations transmission mains, etc.) is sufficient to meet current and projected peak day demand and fire flow conditions. Goal U-3: Protect public health and safety by providing an adequate supply of water to the City's customers. Policy U-3.1: Maintain a stringent water quality monitoring and cross- connection control program consistent with current federal and state drinking water regulations. Policy U-3.2: Ensure staff is continuously available to respond to water system issues and emergencies. Goal U-4: The City of Kent recognizes a clean water supply as a critical and finite resource and will secure the health and safety of the customers through protection of existing and future groundwater resources from contamination. Policy U-4.1: Track and provide comments on land use applications within wellhead protection areas. Follow up on all of those identified as creating potential risk to the water supply until protections are in place or are determined to not affect the water system. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 13 312 Policy U-4.2: Identify land uses within the Wellhead Protection Area that identified as potential contaminant sources in the Wellhead Protection Program. Provide comments to applicable regulatory agencies related to the protection and sustainability of the City's groundwater resources. Policy U-4.3: Educate residents, businesses and the owners of identified potential contaminant sources in wellhead protection areas about aquifer protection. Policy U-4.4: Encourage the use of Best Management Practices in land management activities to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Policy U-4.5: Promote the use of native landscaping to reduce the need for pesticide and fertilizer application. Goal U-5: Maintain the economic vitality of the City by ensuring ample water supply is available to meet existing and future customer needs, and future development as projected to meet the short and long range goals of the City. Goal U-6: Meet Water Use Efficiency Goals and implement additional water conservation measures to ensure the efficient use of water resources. Policy U-6.1: Implement, evaluate and monitor measures to meet the City's adopted Water Use Efficiency Goals. Policy U-6.2: Develop and implement on-going educational activities regarding water conservation as identified in the Water System Plan. This includes but is not limited to the annual Water Festival, speaking at public forums and classrooms, booths at fairs and theme shows, utility billing inserts, natural yard care programs and utilizing the City's website. Policy U-6.3: Provide rebates for low water use toilets and washing machines as they apply to the Water Use Efficiency Goals. Policy U-6.4: Promote the use of native and drought resistant plants in landscaping in public and private projects to reduce the need for irrigation. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 14 313 Policy U-6.5: Include consumptive water use data on customer bills to encourage water conservation. Policy U-6.6: Develop and implement a water rate structure that promotes the efficient use of water. Surface Water Management Goal U-7: Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in the appropriate siting, design and provision of public utility services. Policy U-7.1: Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the interaction between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and geologically hazardous areas, and the provision of public utility services. Goal U-8: Coordinate with individuals and organizations to create a long-term, sustainable strategy for local and regional natural resource protection. Policy U-8.1: Continue to participate in regional and Water Resource Inventory Area planning efforts to support the conservation of listed species. Policy U 8.2: Continue to participate in local and county wide flood control efforts to support the improvement, repair and maintenance of flood control facilities. Goal U-9: Support environmental quality in capital improvement programs, implementation programs, and public facility designs to ensure that local land use management and public service provision is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals. Policy U-9.1: Continue a periodic storm drainage/environmental inspection program to ensure constant maintenance and upkeep of storm systems and on-going protection of general environmental processes and compliance with local, state, and federal regulation. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 15 314 Policy U-9.2: Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local jurisdictions, as well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work towards recovery of ESA listed threatened and endangered species. Policy U-9.3: Promote LEED certified construction and use of recycled or recyclable materials in public utility provision, public facilities, and capital improvements. Goal U-10: Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including recreation, fish and wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water supply, and open space. Policy U-10.1: Maintain the quantity and quality of wetlands and other natural resources. Policy U-10.2: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate degraded channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with proposed new development. Policy U-10.3: On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the existing public facilities operating plans, regulations and maintenance practices in relation to goals for water resource and fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessary, modify these plans, regulations and practices to achieve resource protection goals. Policy U-10.4: Protect the habitat of native and migratory wildlife by encouraging open space conservation of beneficial habitat through public capital improvement projects. Goal U-11: Implement and maintain a stormwater management program that assures compliance with the requirements of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit which is part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Policy U-11.1: Use all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment to prevent and control pollution of waters of the state of Washington. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 16 315 Policy U-11.2: Implement an education program aimed at residents, businesses, industries, elected officials, policy makers, planning staff and other employees of the City. The goal of the education program is to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts. Policy U-11.3: Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory councils, watershed committees, participation in developing rate-structures, stewardship programs, environmental activities or other similar activities. Policy U-11.4: Develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. Policy U-11.5: Develop a comprehensive long-term stormwater monitoring program. The monitoring program will include two components: stormwater monitoring and targeted Stormwater Management Program effectiveness monitoring. Goal U-12: Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in the design and construction of all projects where feasible. Policy U-11.1: Encourage participation in low-impact development and environmentally sensitive builder programs. Policy U-11.2: Adopt development standards that minimize environmental impacts of development through an appropriate balance of regulations and incentives. Incentives could be tied to compliance with criteria applied throughout the development process. Policy U-11.3: Set public facility projects of the City as an example by incorporating techniques of low-impact development design, construction, operation and maintenance. Goal U-12: Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural hydrological systems, so that water quantity and quality are protected throughout the development process and occupation of the site. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 17 316 Policy U-12.1: Establish site design criteria so natural hydrological systems will function with minimum or no modification. Policy U-12.2: Promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or swales, and pervious driveways and parking areas in site design to maximize infiltration of stormwater and minimize runoff into environmentally critical areas. Policy U-12.3: Promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection systems in site and architectural design for non-potable water (gray- water) storage and use, thereby saving potable (drinking) water for ingestion. Goal U-13: I element and maintain a stormwater management system that reduces flood risk. e Policy U-13.1: Work with the King County Flood Control District to gain and maintain levee accreditation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) where appropriate., Policy U-13.2: En-sure new development and redevelopment meets the flow control r is of the Kent Surface Water Design Manual. Formatted:Indent:Left: 0" Solid Waste Goal U-143: Reduce the solid waste stream, encouraging and increasing reuse, recycling, yard and food waste diversion. Policy U-143.1: Continue comprehensive public education and outreach programs that promote recycling, composting, purchase and use of environmentally preferable products and other waste diversion and prevention measures. Policy U-143.2: Support and promote product stewardship to divert waste from the Cedar Hills Landfill. Goal U-154: Maintain a comprehensive solid waste management program that includes environmental responsibility and sustainability, competitive rates and Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "0" 2014 Page 18 317 customer service excellence for Kent's residential, multifamily and commercial customers. Policy U-154.1: Continue to competitively bid solid waste and recycling collection services and technical assistance contracts when current contracts expire. Policy U-154.2: Consider innovative solid waste and recycling programs to reduce carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions and limit accumulation of garbage in Kent's residential neighborhoods. Policy U-154.3: Monitor solid waste providers for adequacy of service and compliance with the service contracts. Goal U-166_ Encourage and actively participate in a uniform regional approach to solid waste management. Policy U-166.1: Continue to participate in the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC). Policy U-166.2: Continue to support waste reduction and recycling programs in City facilities, and in the City at large, to meet State and County waste reduction and recycling goals. Electricity Goal U-176: Promote electrical service on demand within the Kent Planning Area consistent with a utility's public service obligations. Policy U-176.1: Underground new electrical transmission and distribution lines, and where feasible existing transmission and distribution lines. Policy U-176.2: Cooperate with private enterprise, the City and utility providers to provide electric utility facilities sufficient to support economic development and regional service needs. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 19 318 Natural Gas Goal U-18-7: Promote expansion and delivery of natural gas service within the Kent Planning Area by allowing access to alternative sources of fuel. Policy U-18-7.1: Coordinate land use and facility planning to allow eventual siting and construction of natural gas distribution lines within new or reconstructed rights-of-way. Policy U-178.2: Utilize system design practices that minimize the number and duration of interruptions to customer service. Telecommunications Goal U-198: Provide telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and development in a manner consistent with Kent's vision, as outlined in the Vision and Framework Guidance and the City Council's Strategic Plan. Goal U-20#9: Complement private sector incumbent fiber build-out initiatives to support continued connectivity build-out in underserved locations throughout Kent. Goal U-219: Continue to participate in and provide support to public sector collaborations like the Connected Community Consortium in an effort to support the continued proliferation of last-mile fiber distribution. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 20 319 Related Information City of Kent 2009 Drainage Master Plan City of Kent 2011 Water System Plan City of Kent 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan City of Auburn 1983 Comprehensive Water Plan City of Auburn 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan City of Renton 2005 Water System Plan City of Renton 2004 Wastewater Manaciement Plan City of ila 2005 Co ensive Sew stem P n Sewer Plan Highline Water District 2008 Comprehensive Water System Plan King County Water District No. 111 2007 Water Comprehensive Plan Lakehaven Utility District 2009 Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan Lakehaven Utility District 2008 Comprehensive Water System Plan Lakehaven Utility District 2009 Comprehensive Wastewater Syste-nSewer Plan Midway Sewer District 2008 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 2012 Water Comprehensive Plan Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 2012 Sewer Compehensive Plan Making our Watershed Fit for a King, WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan 2005 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (SRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 2005 King County 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - "0" 2014 Page 21 320 Utilities Element Background Report Water The service area of the City of Kent Water Utility encompasses twenty-four (24) square miles and serves most of the incorporated City. Some small areas of unincorporated King County and the City of Auburn are also served by the City of Kent Water Utility. Adjacent franchise areas of neighboring water purveyors serve the remainder of Kent and the PAA. To the east, the service area boundary coincides with the boundary of Water District No. 111 and the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District. To the north, the service area boundary coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and Kent/Tukwila city limits. To the west, it coincides with Highline Water District's boundary, and to the south, the City's service area boundary coincides with the City of Auburn, and Lakehaven Utility District. The principal sources of water supply for the City's municipal water system are Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, supplemental well facilities are activated. These sources meet current and near future peak day demands. To meet long-term demands, the City executed an agreement in 2002 to partner with Tacoma Water Utility, Covington Water District and Lakehaven Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water Project. This additional water source will meet the City's long-term peak day demand projections identified in the Water System Plan. In 2013, the Kent water system annual consumption was roughly 2.6 billion gallons, with average day demands of 6.2 million gallons per day and peak day usage of approximately 12.2 million gallons per day. Utilizing current land use and population projections for 2030, annual use would rise to approximately 3.6 billion gallons, or 9.9 million gallons per day. Existing water supply can produce roughly three times this amount, or 30 million gallons per day; however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to deliver this water to customers. Water system interties are presently available with the Highline Water District, the City of Tukwila, the City of Renton, the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District, Water District No. 111, and the City of Auburn. However, based on water use projections developed for the Water System Plan, these interties would only be required to serve as emergency back-up if problems with existing sources were to arise. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 22 321 The water distribution system exists throughout the City's service area. Expansion will take place almost entirely through infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions. Most of the remaining projects identified in the City's Comprehensive Water System Plan would be constructed to provide water service at existing levels of service. However, several key improvements to the system have been identified. Proposed projects include development of a new 640 pressure zone on the East Hill to improve water pressures at high elevations, a new reservoir on the West Hill to meet increasing storage demands, and water main replacements, including upsizing older portions of the distribution system to improve capacity. The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list developed for the Comprehensive Water System Plan was based on identifying: 1) system deficiencies via a hydraulic modeling analysis, 2) long-term maintenance and operations needs, and 3) projects that are required to meet local, state and federal requirements. The existing water system has and continues to provide clean, safe, and reliable water; however, improvements to the system are needed to improve it for future development and meet existing requirements. The costs of improvements to the water system range from $150-million to $160 million in 2008 dollars, and funding of these projects will be accomplished through a combination of water rate increases and bonding. A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) every six (6) years. The City's most recent Water System Plan was submitted to DOH in 2008, and adopted by the City Council in 2011. Adjacent water utilities providing service to Kent homes and businesses include Soos Creek Water & Sewer, the City of Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District, King County Water District #111 and the City of Renton. Service connections exist between the City of Kent and these service purveyors, and interlocal agreements ensure continuous service. Water supply service area and facilities servirig Kent's Planning Area are illustrated on Figu=re )0(. A detailed inventory of current water system facilities, City water rights records, and operating plans of adjacent service agencies are on file with the City of Kent Public Works Department. Sewer The service area of the City of Kent Sewer Utility encompasses approximately twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area, Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 23 322 expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local improvement districts. In general, the existing sewer system is sized based on standards which will carry peak flows generated by the service area for ultimate development. However, the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitation. King County Wastewater Treatment is responsible for interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and communities throughout south and north King County. Wastewater from Kent is conveyed to the South Treatment Plant located in Renton. The city of Kent does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. King County pump stations in Pacific, Black Diamond, and three (3) in the vicinity of the South Treatment Plant (Interurban and New Interurban) serve South King County. King County is providing additional wastewater capacity to serve a growing population in the Puget Sound area through its Brightwater Treatment Plant. This plant is located near SR 9 and SR 522 just north of Woodinville. King County is also expanding the South Treatment Plant to handle additional flow from south and east King County. The Brightwater Treatment Plant is providing a capacity of thirty-six (36) million gallons per day (mgd), and by 2040 treatment capacity will be expanded to 54 mgd. Expansion of the South Treatment Plant in the year 2029 will increase system capacity from one hundred fifteen (115) mgd to one hundred thirty-five (135) mgd. Two conveyance improvements serving the South Treatment Plant are scheduled for completion both in the near-term and long-term. The improvements of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Parallel Auburn Interceptor were completed, and the planned three (3) to five (5) mgd expansion of effluent storage capacity is projected to be completed by 2029. Adjacent sewer utilities providing service to Kent homes and businesses include Soos Creek Water&Sewer, the City of Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District, Midway Sewer District, the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton. Service connections exist between the City of Kent and these service purveyors, and interlocal agreements ensure continuous service. The City's sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance with the growing needs of the City. Because Kent's sewer service area is not coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future saturated population for the actual area served by Kent sewer. Population forecasts are based on the Land Use Plan for ultimate build out in accordance with Department of Ecology requirements. The City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan is on file with the Public Works Department. €igHFe XX milustrates the leeatmens ef the sanitary sewer seFViee areas and facilities. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 24 323 Surface Water Management The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed, with stormwater flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River via a tributary creek. A smaller portion of the City, generally located west of I- 5, flows either to Bingamon, Massey, or McSorley Creeks, which drain directly to Puget Sound. Significant creek systems draining to the Green River are: Johnson Creek; Midway Creek; Mullen Slough; Mill Creek (Auburn); Mill Creek (Kent); Springbrook Creek; Garrison Creek; Panther Creek; Soos Creek; Soosette Creek; Meridian Valley Creek; and The"Lake Meridian Outlet"Creek. The last three creeks listed are tributary to Big Soos Creek, which in turn drains to the Green River east of Auburn. The stormwater system is comprised of an extensive network of ditches, pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect individual parcels with the City's surface water systems. The City also owns, operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities. These are the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), the Upper and Lower Mill Creek Detention Facilities, the 98th Avenue Garrison Creek Detention Facility, the Meridian Meadows Detention Facility, the South 259th Street Detention Facility, White Horse Crossing Detention Facility, Massey Creek Detention Facility, the Horseshoe Acres Pump Station and the constructed wetland at Lake Fenwick. The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) evaluated watersheds and drainage basins, analyzed open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, determined and prioritized projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats, efficiently serve planned growth, determine alternative solutions to alleviate potential flooding, and determine cost-effective solutions to the identified needs. Each project Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 25 324 within the DMP was reviewed for multiple benefits then given a "High, Medium, or Low" ranking. Further details on each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars. Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater management and stream protection are contained in the City's 2002 Surface Water Design Manual, which is a modified version of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater system are improved to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed. These standards have been adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The DMP encompasses Capital Improvement Program (CIP)-related projects for stormwater systems within the city limits. The 2008 DMP replaces the 1985 DMP and the Capital Improvement Programs completed individually for the Mill, Garrison, Springbrook Creek and Soos Creek Basin CIP in the 1990s. The 2008 DMP has incorporated elements of the CIP, such as flood conveyance needs for open channels, determination of replacement needs of the City's stormwater pipe system, drainage facility requirements of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and levee repair and replacement needs for flood protection along the Green River. The DMP further recommends specific projects for enhancing critical areas and fish passage and addresses engineering staff needs to oversee such projects. Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)-mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. These federally mandated programs were included in the DMP to determine if there were deficiencies in the City's current operation and maintenance and monitoring programs and identify subsequent additional workload and staff requirements needed to fully meet the permit requirements. The DMP included recommendations to meet the required elements of the Lake Fenwick TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for tracking, monitoring, maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary resources to meet these needs. Critical area habitat protection is an important aspect of water quality, habitat protection and flood protection. To be successful in improving the water quality of the streams and open channel systems within the City, there is a continuing priority of protecting buffers along the main stream corridors. Section 8 of the Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 26 325 DMP further discusses the needs of this program and provides areas of potential expansion of habitat protection. As properties become available, the City will continue to pursue grant funding and work toward the protection of habitat and water quality. The nearly 325 miles of existing storm drainage pipelines form a connection of pipes, catch basins, and manholes under the public right of ways with the ability to alleviate the surface flooding that would occur on the city streets. As these pipes age and reach the end of their service life, a replacement program has been established by the Public Works Operations and Maintenance staff to repair or replace segments of the pipes each year. During the life of the pipe system, segments may be targeted also for improvements before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after increases in development. An analysis was completed of the existing storm drainage pipes within the City. A total length of 135,000 feet of 18"or larger diameter pipe was analyzed for capacity and 55,350 feet or 41% have failed to meet the minimum requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted within the DMP. As a result of the 1998 listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout and the 2007 listing of Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the City has been participating in various regional salmon restoration efforts, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Salmon Habitat Forums for Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 (Cedar/Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish) and 9 (Green Duwamish). Solid Waste Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi- year contract with the City, Republic Services provides comprehensive garbage, recyclables and yard and food waste collection services to residential, multifamily and commercial customers. Kent has implemented mandatory garbage collection to curb illegal dumping, litter and accumulation of trash/garbage on private property. The City's solid waste is ultimately taken to King County's Cedar Hills Landfill for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King County, Kent and other parties will develop plans and alternatives to waste disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advance of its closure in 2025; the Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'_0/7/2_014 Page 27 326 information will be incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Kent has entered into an interlocal agreement with King County Solid Waste and most other municipalities in the county to collectively manage solid waste. At the current rate, Cedar Hills, which is the last remaining landfill in the county, will last until 2030. Alternatives are identified in the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Municipalities operating under this plan strive to divert as much waste from the landfill as possible. The residential sector in Kent is currently diverting just over 50% of the solid waste from the landfill through recycling and yard and food waste collection. Since 2010, participation in the yard and food waste collection program has increased from 36% to over 95%. Kent residents are able to participate in the countywide Hazardous Waste Management program adopted by the King County Board of Health in 2010. Its mission is "to protect and enhance public health and environmental quality in King county by reducing the threat posed by the production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials." Electric Utilities Puget Sound Energy Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a private electric utility whose operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Existing System PSE is part of a Western-states regional coordination system and provides electric service to over 1.1 million customers in nine Washington State counties. Electricity is produced elsewhere and transported to switching stations in Kent and Renton through high-voltage transmission lines. As electricity nears its destination, the voltage is reduced and redistributed through lower-voltage transmission lines, distribution substations, and smaller transformers. PSE provides electrical service to approximately 57,300 electric customers in Kent. There are 230 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage transmission lines running north and south within the city of Kent that move bulk power from transmission stations in Renton and Kent. Both of those stations generally supply electrical energy to the southern half of King County, an area much larger than the City of Kent. Also within the city are several 115 kV transmission lines and a number of neighborhood distribution substations. The 115 kV lines also deliver electrical energy to other neighborhood substations in communities adjacent to Kent. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 28 327 PSE imports electrical energy from generation sources in Canada, the Columbia River basin and other regions outside of PSE's service territory. Additionally, PSE has its own hydro, thermal, wind and solar power- generating facilities. There are also about 1,500 small, customer-owned generation facilities that are interconnected with PSE's system and can export surplus energy into the grid. The vast majority of these are solar panel installations. Although this provides a very small portion of PSE's electrical supply portfolio, the number of customer-owned installations increases every year. PSE's Integrated Resource Plan is updated and filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission every two years. The current plan, which was submitted in May of 2013, details the energy resources needed to reliably meet customers' wintertime, peak-hour electric demand over the next 20 years. The plan, which will be updated in the fall of 2015, forecasted that PSE would have to acquire approximately 4,900 megawatts of new power-supply capacity by 2033. This resource need is driven mainly by expiring purchased-power contracts and expected population and economic growth in the Puget Sound region. The IRP suggests that roughly half of the utility's long-term electric resource need can be met by energy efficiency and the renewal of transmission contracts. The rest of PSE's gap in long-term power resources, the IPR stated, is likely to be met most economically with added natural gas-fired resources. Future Projects The capacity of individual electric lines depends on voltage, diameter of the wire, and the clearance to objects below the line. To meet this demand, some new transmission lines and substations will need to be constructed, as well as existing ones rebuilt or maintained. Utility work is sometimes needed to comply with federal system reliability regulations. Specific construction that is anticipated includes the following: • Autumn Glen neighborhood substation and the reconfiguration of the 115kV lines near the intersection of 104th Ave SE and SE 272nd St. • New 115kV line from the existing O'Brien substation north along the PSE right-of-way to S. 204th St and then west to 68th Ave SE. • Briscoe Park neighborhood substation located just outside the city limits of Kent in Tukwila. Although located in Tukwila, this substation will eventually serve customers in Kent. Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to more than 750,000 customers in six Western Washington counties: Snohomish, King, Kittitas, Pierce, Thurston, and Lewis. It is estimated that PSE currently serves over 26,800 gas customers within the City of Kent. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;'0 7/20 4 Page 29 328 Existing Distribution System Natural gas comes from gas wells in the Rocky Mountains and in Canada and is transported through interstate pipelines by Williams Northwest Pipeline to Puget Sound Energy's gate stations. Supply mains then transport the gas from the gate stations to district regulators where the pressure is reduced to less than 60 psig. The supply mains are made of welded steel pipe that has been coated and is cathodically protected to prevent corrosion. They range in size from 4"to 20". Distribution mains are fed from the district regulators. They range in size from 1-1/4"to 8" and the pipe material typically is polyethylene (PE) or wrapped steel (STW). Individual residential service lines are fed by the distribution mains and are typically 5/8" or 1-1/8" in diameter. Individual commercial and industrial service lines are typically 1-1/4", 2" or 4" in diameter. Future Facility Construction PSE Gas System Integrity-Maintenance Planning has several DuPont manufactured main and service piping and STW main replacements planned for 2015. There will be several pipe investigations throughout the city to determine the exact location of the DuPont manufactured pipe. Identified DuPont manufactured piping in PSE's entire system will be ranked and replaced accordingly. New projects can be developed in the future at any time due to: • New or replacement of existing facilities to increased capacity requirements due to new building construction and conversion from alternate fuels. • Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facilities. • Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state projects. Telecommunications Telecommunications services include both switched and dedicated voice, data, video, and other communication services delivered over the telephone and cable network on various mediums, including, but not limited to, wire, fiber optic, or radio wave. Either regulated or non-regulated companies may provide these services. Cable service includes communication, information and entertainment services delivered over the cable system whether those services are provided in video, voice or data form. Telecommunication services follow growth and have capacity to match whatever growth occurs in Kent. With new technologies, telecommunications utilities project virtually limitless capacity within the planning horizon. Formatted:Font:verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ;10/7/2014 Page 30 329 Through partnerships with franchised telecommunications companies, and completion of capital projects, the City has a robust conduit infrastructure that would enable and facilitate future fiber optic connectivity projects benefitting the City, its residents and businesses, and project partners. The City participates in a connectivity consortium consisting of cities and other public partners that would construct and maintain a regional fiber-optic telecommunications system. This fiber-optic system would provide system redundancies, and enhance communications networks, and emergency operations. At some point during the planning period, the telecommunications network will be updated to fiber optic, but the exact schedule and locations are not available. Cable and Satellite Television The City of Kent has a non-exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast Corporation to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system in compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Comcast's network provides high-definition television capacity and high-speed internet access through cable modems, and includes coaxial and fiber optic cabling systems deployed underground and overhead using utility poles leased from power and telephone companies. Future growth is most likely to occur relative to data/internet service, as more content becomes accessible online. These broadband services can be provided over fiber optic networks, cable networks or DSL telephone networks. Satellite television competes directly with cable television by delivering hundreds of channels directly to mini-dishes installed in homes and businesses throughout Kent. Wireline and Wireless Communications Multiple companies offer telecommunications services in Kent including integrated voice and data, and voice over internet telephony (VoiP) technology. Century Link, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) is now joined by several Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) in providing more communications service options to Kent residents and businesses. Because Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC) regulations require CenturyLink to provide adequate PTSN telecommunications service on demand, there are no limits to future capacity, although demand for land lines is declining. Additionally, VoIP telephone service should only be restricted by bandwidth constraints on fiber optic networks that provide this digital service. Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element - ( ^;7/20 4 Page 31 330 331 Chapter Seven - HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: 1. Demographic, economic and social trends 2. Statement of goals and policies to provide a framework defining the city's role in contributing to the social development of the community. 3. Goals that support the provision of services to assist those in need and opportunities to encourage a healthy community. Purpose Statement: Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the community's growth, vitality and health. PURPOSE Kent will be a place where children, individuals and families can thrive, where neighbors care for each other, and where our residents share the responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy community for all. A healthy city depends on the health and well-being of its residents. Human services programs are essential to the health, growth and vitality of the Kent community. Programs assist individuals and families meet their basic needs and create a pathway to self-sufficiency. By investing in the delivery of these services to Kent residents, the City of Kent is working to promote building a healthy community. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest possible impact. They address the issues that matter most to our community and are targeted in order to deliver meaningful results. To achieve community impact, investments are made in a variety of ways: • Meeting Community Basics Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. • Increasing Self-Reliance Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick and removing barriers to employment. small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted-Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.1; 332 • Strengthening Children and Families Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention & prevention services. • Building a Safer Community Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. • Improving Health and Well-Being Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. • Improving and Integrating Systems Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet eurFent demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts, and sharing resources. The City of Kent is one of the most diverse communities in the state of Washington. As the City continues to strive to meet the needs and expectations of an increasingly culturally and ethnically varied population, a better understanding of cultural differences and their relationship to quality service - respect, inclusiveness, and sensitivity - becomes essential. Serving diverse populations is not a 'one size fits all" process. Diversity includes all differences, not just those that indicate racial or ethnic distinctions. Diversity transcends racial and ethnic distinctions to include groups, their members, and affiliations. The concept of diversity also refers to differences in lifestyles, beliefs, economic status, etc. COMMUNITY CONTEXT The demographic changes that have taken place in Kent and the surrounding cities have had a broad impact on the provision of human services. It is evident that segments of Kent's population are growing more rapidly than others. Census 2010 data and the subsequent American Community Survey data indicate that while the percentage of minorities in Seattle remained relatively flat, it skyrocketed in the suburbs south of the city limits, including Kent. The shift happened as people of color moved out of Seattle's historically lower-income and diverse neighborhoods, joining waves of immigrants who continue to relocate and settle in South King County. While Seattle is scarcely more diverse than it was ten years ago, Kent and several other South King County cities are now communities where minorities either comprise a majority of the population or very close to it. This trend is sometimes referred to as the suburbanization of poverty and its Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick prevalence in South King County drew the attention of the Brookings Institution, a small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) think tank based in Washington D.C. that conducts research and education in the Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana social sciences. Kent and the surrounding cities are now home to a wide variety of Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.2; 333 people living in poverty. According to research conducted by Brookings, 68% of the poor in the three counties surrounding Seattle now live in the suburbs, particularly in South King County. The suburbanization of poverty is now a defining characteristic of the Kent community and it appears to be increasing across the nation. Issues Demographics, Economics and Special Needs The needs of Kent residents are varied and range from the need for one-time assistance to the need for more complex, ongoing case management. It is critical to a provide a continuum of human services programs that meet residents where they are, prevent them from requiring more intensive services later, and guide them toward a path of self-sufficiency. As the suburbanization of poverty trend continues, Kent's population will become increasingly diverse, challenging our already overburdened service delivery systems to deliver culturally and linguistically competent services. Individuals and families will continue to need accessible transportation, health care, child, and dependent care. Housing cost in part fuels this growth and, although housing in Kent is less expensive than other parts of King County, it is still not affordable for many (defined as a threshold of 30% of income). Kent has a large inventory of old housing, both apartments and single-family homes. This housing stock is in need of upkeep and improvements in order to maintain an appropriate level of livability. Low-income households are too often crowded in older apartments not intended for their family size, and home ownership opportunities are limited for working families. Additional challenges related to the suburbanization of poverty include the development of health disparities. People living in poverty are more likely to have underlying contributors to conditions that adversely affect health - factors such as poor diet, tobacco use, physical inactivity, drug and alcohol use, and adverse childhood experiences. The leading causes of death and disability are shaped in large part by the places where people live, learn, work and play. Therefore, to improve the health of Kent's residents, more attention must be focused on community features that affect health - such as decent housing, access to healthy food, transportation, parks, living wage jobs, and social cohesion. The economy and quality of life depends on the ability of everyone to contribute. By investing in Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick human services that are accessible to all, the City is working to remove barriers small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) that limit the ability of some to fulfill their potential. Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.3, 334 Regional efforts in South King County are critical for high priority issues such as housing, transportation and human services. While the migration of low-income individuals and families to South King County is well documented, the proportion of public funds has not followed. Additionally, simply moving the resources will not solve the fundamental problems associated with poverty in the region. Kent and other South King County cities do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs because public policy has not kept pace with the rise of poverty in the suburbs. While there is no simple solution to this issue, it is critical that any approach to system change must be addressed at a regional level, including local partners in every part of the process. KENT'S HISTORY IN HUMAN SERVICES Kent is recognized as a leader in South King County in the human services arena. The City has been funding nonprofit human service agencies to provide services to its residents since 1974. In 1989, The City took a major step in its funding efforts by allocating 1% of its general fund revenue to fund human services. This nearly doubled the amount of funding in the first year. In addition, the City has consistently allocated the maximum allowable of its Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to human services. The City of Kent Human Services Commission was established by the City Council in 1986. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council, and Chief Administrative Officer on setting priorities, evaluating and making recommendations on funding requests, evaluating and reviewing human service agencies, and responding to City actions affecting the availability and quality of human services in Kent. Commissioners take an active part in promoting community awareness and education on human services issues. In 1989 the City created the Office of Housing and Human Services (now Housing and Human Services). In 2011 (for the 2012 budget) Human Services requested a budget adjustment of $95,000 due to a significant decrease in the human services 1% funding allocation. The decrease occurred when a number of factors converged that had the potential to drastically reduce the City's investment in human services. As a result the Human Services Commission was charged with developing a new, more stable funding strategy. Beginning in 2013, the City shifted to a per capita rate with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalator. The CPI will not exceed 3% or drop below 0%. In 2013 the rate was established at $6.96. C ITY'S ROLE IN HUMAN SERVICES Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Housing and Human Services, a division of Kent's Parks, Recreation & Community Formatted:Font:Verdana Services Department, is responsible for human services planning at both the local Formattd-Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.4, 335 and regional levels, facilitating human services activities and funding through the Human Services Commission. Housing and Human Services also operates the City's Home Repair program, funded entirely by Federal Community Development Block Grant money. City of Kent staff provides leadership in human services as a planner, facilitator, educator, and funder. The City plans for human service needs by assessing the current state of the community, as well as anticipating future needs. The City facilitates and convenes community partnerships to address emerging issues. The City educates others on the resources available and the value of these services. Kent funds programs through both General Fund dollars and Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to support and enhance existing services, as well as to address emergent needs. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest impacts. Te aehieve eengmunity in9paet-, -- Formatted:Normal,Space After: 6 pt, No bullets or numbering r ard • , , Child Formatted:Normal, No bullets or numbering eare rrniere enteFPFise, Volunteers from the community who comprise the City's Human Services Commission determine the City's community investments using the following criteria: • address the City's funding priorities; • are of high quality and fiscally sound with a track-record of achieving measurable results; • reflect the continuum of human service needs; • are collaborative in nature; • provide an opportunity to leverage other resources for the greatest impact; and • are accessible to all residents who need to access services Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana / Formatted:Font:Verdana X [Formatted-Font. Formatte (Default)Verdana i ,Kent Comprehensive Plan — Human Services Element Page.5�/ 336 The City's investments in the community are not only monetary in nature, but are also evidenced through the dedication of staff time and resources to community initiatives that will benefit the greater Kent community. Several divisions of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department are involved in providing human service programs and assistance. The department provides a variety of education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. Other divisions within the City of Kent also play important roles in the provision of human services. The City's Neighborhood Program was created to promote and sustain an environment that is responsive to resident involvement while building partnerships between the city and its residents. The Police Department coordinates a very successful Youth Board, that exists to educate and raise awareness of youth issues through youth-driven activities, including having a positive influence on peers toward making healthy choices, and community based projects focused on drug and alcohol prevention. DATA In 2010-2012 there were approximately 42,000 households in Kent. The average household size was 2.9 people. 73% of the people living in Kent were native residents of the United States. 27% of Kent's residents were foreign born. Of the foreign born Kent residents, 47% were naturalized U.S. citizens and 93% entered the country prior to the year 2010. Foreign born residents of Kent come from many different parts of the world. Oceania Regions of the World 2.2% Africa 8.2% Latin America 25.1% Northern America IL Asia 1.9% 46.5% Europe 16.1% Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey Data / / Formatted:Font:Verdana / Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan — Human Services Element Page.6'"" 337 Racial Diversity More Other Asian/Pacific Native Black White than one Islander American race 1990 0* 1.2% 4.4% 1.4% 3.8% 89.2% 2000 5.4% 9.8% 10.2% 1% 8.2% 70.8% 2010 6.6% 8.5% 17.1% 1% 11.3% 55.5% *More than one race was not an option in the 1990 Census. Formatted:Space After: 0 pt Source: 1990.2000,2010 US Census Data Among people at least five years old living in Kent in 2010-2012, 41% spoke a language other than English at home. Of those speaking a language other than English at home, 32% spoke Spanish and 68% some other language. 47% reported that they did not speak English "very well." Percent of Population 5 years and who Speak a Language other than English Spanish 32.2 Other Indo-European languages 243 ■Percent of Population 5 years and who Speak a Language Asian and Pacific Islander 34 9 other than English languages Other languages 8.3 0 10 20 30 40 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Education In 2010-2012, 27% of people 25 years and over had a high school diploma or Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick equivalency and 24% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 17% were dropouts; they small gap,Accent2, 3 pt Line width) were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school. Formatted:Font.Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.7, 338 Formatted:Space After: 0 pt Educational Attainment of People in Kent i Graduate or professional degree Less than high school 6.4 diploma 16.5 Bachelor's Degree 17.5 ■Less than high school diploma ■High school diploma or equivalency ■Some college,no degree ■Associate's degree ssociate's degree High school diploma 9.3 ■Bachelor's Degree or equivalency,26.5 ■Graduate or professional degree Some college,no degree 23.7 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Educational Attainment Subject Kent city,Washington Total Male Female Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Error Error Error Population 18 to 24 years 12,712 +/-1,073 6,059 +/-766 6,653 +/-779 Less than high school graduate 17.4% +/-3.9 18.2% +/-5.4 16.8% +/-4.9 High school graduate(includes 27.9% +/-4.5 33.3% +/-7.3 23.0% +/-5.5 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 47.9% +/-5.5 42.5% +/-7.2 52.7% +/-6.6 Bachelor's degree or higher 6.8% +/-2.4 6.0% +/-3.4 7.5% +/-2.9 Population 25 years and over 75,934 +/-1,582 36,730 +/-1,184 39,204 +/-1,191 Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Less than 9th grade 8.4% +/-1.1 8.6% +/-1.4 8.1% !+/-2.2 1.3 % small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) 9th to 12th grade,no diploma 8.2% +/-0.9 8.5% +/-1.4 7.8% 1.2 , Formatted:Font:Verdana High school graduate(includes 26.5% +/-1.5 26.1% +/-2.0 26.9% equivalency) Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.8,, 339 Some college,no degree 23.7% +/-1.5 23.8% +/-2.0 23.6% +/-2.0 Associate's degree 9.3% +/-0.9 9.2% +/-1.3 9.4% +/-1.2 Bachelor's degree 17.5% +/-1.4 17.6% +/-1.9 17.5% +/-2.0 Graduate or professional degree 6.4% +/-0.8 6.2% +/-1.0 6.7% +/-1.1 Percent high school graduate or higher 83.5% +/-1.2 82.9% +/-1.7 84.0% +/-1.6 Percent bachelor's degree or higher 24.0% +/-1.4 23.8% +/-1.8 24.1% +/-2.1 Population 25 to 34 years 18,062 +/-1,311 8,888 +/-851 9,174 +/-876 High school graduate or higher 81.0% +/-3.7 79.5% +/-5.4 82.5% +/-3.8 Bachelor's degree or higher 20.8% +/-2.8 20.1% +/-4.3 21.6% +/-3.6 Population 35 to 44 years 17,173 +/-1,235 8,230 +/-705 8,943 +/-802 High school graduate or higher 79.5% +/-2.9 78.7% +/-4.5 80.3% +/-4.1 Bachelor's degree or higher 25.2% +/-3.2 20.2% +/-3.6 29.7% +/-4.6 Population 45 to 64 years 29,170 +/-1,233 14,873 +/-782 14,297 +/-775 High school graduate or higher 87.6% +/-2.4 86.4% +/-3.0 88.8% +/-2.8 Bachelor's degree or higher 26.0% +/-2.6 26.4% +/-3.0 25.5% +/-3.4 Population 65 years and over 11,529 +/-590 4,739 +/-425 6,790 +/-515 High school graduate or higher 82.9% +/-3.0 85.6% +/-3.8 81.1% +/-4.3 Bachelor's degree or higher 22.1% +/-2.7 28.8% +/-4.8 17.4% +/-3.1 POVERTY RATE FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT LEVEL Less than high school graduate 32.2% +/-5.3 26.0% +/-6.4 38.4% +/-6.4 High school graduate(includes 13.9% +/-3.4 11.4% +/-4.0 16.1% +/-4.2 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 10.4% +/-1.9 9.8% +/-2.5 10.9% +/-2.6 Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8% +/-1.8 4.7% +/-2.7 4.9% +/-2.4 (continued) MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS(IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Population 25 years and over with 36,231 +/-1,353 41,689 +/-1,885 30,642 +/-1,438 earnings Less than high school graduate 23,785 +/-3,519 27,171 +/-3,597 14,035 +/-2,876 High school graduate(includes 30,570 +/-2,453 37,137 +/-3,457 25,731 +/-3,073 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 35,906 +/-1,429 41,128 +/-3,396 31,451 +/-1,829 Bachelor's degree 53,131 +/-2,181 65,766 +/-3,989 39,857 +/-5,945 Graduate or professional degree 65,873 +/-7,549 92,149 +/-23,593 58,197 +/-7,696 PERCENT IMPUTED Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Educational attainment 6.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Formatted:Font:Verdana / Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page 9'�� 340 Kent School District The increasing diversity in Kent is even more pronounced when examining school statistics. —Kent School District is the fourth largest school district in the state of Washington. Currently, the district consists of 4 large comprehensive high Sschools, 6 middle schools, 28 elementary schools and 2 academies. Kent School District benefits from a wealth of diversity as at least 138 languages are spoken within its boundaries, with the top five languages other than English including: Spanish, Russian, Somali, Punjabi, and Vietnamese. Ten Years of Change Over the past ten years, the Kent School District has seen increased enrollment as well as a shift in student population demographics. 2001-2002 2012-2013 Student Enrollment: 26,670 Student Enrollment 27,539 Male: 51.6% Male: 52.3% Female: 48.3% Female: 47.7% Caucasian: 68.7% Caucasian: 39.5% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.6% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.1% African American: 9.5% African American: 11.9% Hispanic 6.8% Hispanic: 19.8% American Indian: 1.2% American Indian: 0.7% DemographicsStudent Enrollment October 2013 Student Count 27,688 May 2014 Student Count 27,484 (OctoberGender Male 14,513 52.4% Female 13,175 47.6% (October American Indian/Alaskan Native 156 0.6% Asian 4,799 17.3% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 647 2.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 5,446 19.7% Black/African American 3,377 12.2% Hispanic/Latino of any race(s) 5,779 20.9% White 10,459 37.8% Two or More Races 2,471 8.9% Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Special '' small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Free or Reduced-Price Meals(May 2014) 14,399 52.4% Formatted:Font:Verdana Special Education(May 2014) 2,996 10.9% Transitional Bilingual(May 2014 4,918 17.9% Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.10'F 341 Migrant(May 2014) 39 0.1% Section 504(May 2014) 1,095 4.0% Foster Care(May 2014) 146 0.5% • • - Unexcused Absence Rate(2013-14) 348 0.4% Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 2013) 78.7% Adjusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 2012) 82.8% College/University enrollment rates of graduates Office of Superintendent of Public Education While the Kent School District serves the majority of Kent residents, several neighborhoods have children and youth who attend schools in nearby Federal Way. The demographics of the two school districts are similar in many ways. 67% of Federal Way Public Schools students are an ethnicity other than white. 60% live in or near the federal poverty level (based on free and reduced lunch figures). 16% are transitional/bilingual English Language Learners. Over 112 languages are spoken in the district. October 2013 Student Count 1,056,809 May 2014 Student Count 1,055,517 Male 544,860 51.6% Female 511,949 48.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native 16,417 1.6% Asian 75,587 7.2% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 10,099 1.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 85,686 8.1% Black/African American 47,840 4.5% Hispanic/Latino of any race(s) 222,493 21.1% White 612,836 58.0% Two or More Races 71,463 6.8% Free or Reduced-Price Meals(May 2014) 484,363 45.9% Special Education(May 2014) 139,601 13.2% Transitional Bilingual(May 2014) 102,339 9.7% Migrant(May 2014) 20,295 1.9% Section 504(May 2014) 25,591 2.4% Foster Care(May 2014) 7914 0.7% Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Unexcused Absence Rate(2013-14) 525,714 0.5% small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Adiusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 76 0% Formatted:Font:Verdana 2013) Formatted:Font:Verdana Adiusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 78.8% Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page,11; 342 2012) College/University enrollment rates of araduates J Source:Office of Superintendent of Public Education The race/ethnicity makeup of students as of October 2013 was: 45% 40% 37.8% 35% 30% 25 19.7% ' 20% 15% 8.9% 10% 5% 0.6 a 0% `poi P 0 0 P� Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2013-2014 Report Card Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana // Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.1 ' ' 343 Center for Education and Data Research (CEDR) Percentage of English Lan uage Learners Kent 14% Renton Federal 1Nay 12% Seattle Auburn 10% s% Tacoma s% 4% 2% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200T 2008 Zoos 2010 Source: Kent School District's State of the District 2011-2012 HEALTH INDICATORS The following selected indicators from Public Health's Communities Count data released in 2012 and early 2013 illustrate important factors for healthy communities. The data refer to South King County as a region, and will be generally applicable to challenges faced by the City of Kent: • 13% of adults experience "food insecurity", reporting that household food money did not last the whole month. Of those reporting food insecurity, 38% were Latino, 21% African American, 13% were Multiple Race, 6% Asian and 7% white. • 15% of adults in South King County reported that their household could not afford to eat balanced meals or went hungry during the past 12 months. This compares to 9% of King County residents on average. • Households with children in South King County are far more likely to experience food hardship than those without children. (18% compared to 8%.) • At 27.7 per 1,000, West Kent had one of the highest teen birth rates in King County. All neighborhoods and cities with teen birth rates greater than the King County average were found in South King County and South Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Seattle. These areas had teen birth rates 1.5 to almost 3 times higher than small gap,Accent2, 3 pt Line width) the county average. Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.13, 344 HOMELESSNESS Spotlight on Homeless Families: The City of Kent is experiencing increasing numbers of homeless individuals. The One-Night Count, conducted annually by the Seattle-King County Homeless Coalition and Operation Nightwatch, conducted their annual count of people sleeping outside in January 2014. Sixty-three people were found on the streets, a smaller number than anticipated. Fifty four persons were counted in 2013 and 104 were counted in 2012. In addition to the homeless individuals sleeping outside, many homeless people are not visible - many families are in "doubled up" housing conditions, in shelter, or in hotels. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007 the number of homeless children in the Kent School District has been between 400 and 500. The Kent School District had 420 homeless students in the 2012-13 school year. In April 2012 King County launched the Coordinated Entry"Family Housing Connections" system for all families county wide experiencing homelessness. Families searching for housing use a single entry point facilitated by 2-1-1. All families are served through Catholic Community Services who uses the full range of housing providers to place the family. During the first year of the project a number of issues have emerged and planners are working on the best strategies to resolve the issues. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal HS-1: Build safe and healthy communities through mutually supportive connections, building on the strengths and assets of all residents. Policy 1.1: Ensure that people facing hardship have access te Fesources to help meet immediate er basie needs-. Policy HS-1.12: Provide children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention and prevention services. Policy HS-1.23: Provide resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. Policy HS-1.34: Support efforts to strengthen neighborhoods and ensure individuals and families feel connected to their community and build support systems within neighborhoods. Policy HS-1.4: Increase community_participation from traditionally under-represented populations, including youth, persons of color, immigrants and non-native English speakers. Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Goal HS-2; / Formatted:Font:Verdana Support residents in attaining their maximum level of self-reliance. Formatted:Font:Verdana & Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana i ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.14' 345 Policy HS-2.1: Ensure that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. Policy HS-2.2-1: Improve access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. Policy HS-2.3-2: Promote access to jobs and services, especially for lower- income individuals, when planning local and regional transportation systems and economic development activities. Goal HS-3: Build community collaborations and seek strategic approaches to meet the needs of Kent residents. Policy HS-3.1: Lead efforts to improve the ability of human services systems to meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts and shaFiFiElleveraaing resources. Policy HS-3.2: Collaborate with churches, employers, businesses, schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community. Policy HS-3.3: Encourage collaborative partnerships between the City and the school districts to align resources to accomplish mutual goals that+dentify-and meet the needs of children and families. Goa/HS-4: Support equal access to services, through a service network that meets needs across age, ability, culture, and language. Policy HS-4.1: Promote services that respect the diversity and dignity of individuals and families and are accessible to all members of the community. Policy HS-4.2: Encourage service enhancements that build capacity to better meet the needs of the community, reduce barriers through service design, and are responsive to changing needs. Goals: Policy HS-45.3-1: Ensure that services are equally accessible and responsive to a wide range of individual, cultures and family structures, and are free of discrimination and prejudice. nen native English speal(ers. Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Goal HS-56: small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font.Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.1S_ "� 346 Oversee city resources with consistent ethical stewardship, fairness in allocating funds, and strong accountability for ensuring services are effective. Policy HS-56.1: Provide funds to nonprofit human services providers to improve the quality of life for low- and moderate- income residents. Policy HS-56.2: Continue the City's active participation in subregional and regional planning efforts related to human services. Policy HS-56.3: Support new and existing human services programs, and coordinate policies, legislation, and funding at the local, regional, State, and Federal levels. Related Information Formatted Table http://kentwa.ciov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkId 2013-2018 Human Services Master Plan entifier=id&ItemID=24642&libID=24192 Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana / Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana ,Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.16;_ '� 347 Chapter Eight - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Formatted:Font: 11 pt What you will find in this chapter: • A short summary and analysis of the local economy's strengths, weaknesses, and issue areas; • A description of the City's approved strategies and breakdown of planned activities to foster economic growth and development; • Brief reference information descriptive of the local economy's composition and a list of resources for additional and supporting data. Purpose Statement: Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods, growth centers, and the overall community. Purpose The Economic Development Element describes Kent's existing business community, industrialy clusters, growth prospects, its competitive advantages and disadvantages, and provides an overview of strategies for economic growth. The purpose of economic development is to foster conditions for economic growth throughout Kent's eernmunitimes. This Element outlines the Plan's municipal-centered strategies for community enrichment through building vibrant and diverse urban places. It also reflects the City Council's vision of"a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers" articulated in the City of Kent's Economic Development Plan adopted in August 2014. Formatted:Font:8 pt L hsawahIssues IKOM 44500 Telling Kent's Story Development of a brand and marketing a'35a strategy can help a city better understand Note:Ova rlayarrows do not Indicate itself and communicate its strengths to directionality of worker flow between potential residents and businesses. home and employment locations. Employed and Live Creating Conditions for Growth In Selection Area Employed In Sel•ctlon Area, Building a vital, growing city means creating Live Outside multifaceted and engaging streets, parks, Live in Selection Area, Employed Outside and plazas. Kent's commercial centers and corridors will need updating to accommodate ,Sours :US Census Bureau OnTheMap Aivlication,toll development and population growth. Formatted:Font:verdana,6 pt Inflow Outflow Analysis Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 1 Kent GernpFehensive Plan - 348 40 & 50K(approximate): Number of residents leaving Kent Welcoming and Supporting Businesses and number of workers arriving in Kent every workday, respectively. Advancing and maintaining the City's favorable perception amongst businesses 16.401o: Percentage of Kent impacts investment decisions, local residents who also worked in Kent employment, and quality-of-life. in 2011. Collaborating to Foster Innovation 13.701o: Percentage of jobs Collaboration between public institutions and located in Kent recorded as held private employers is often needed to advance by Kent residents. common economic or public interests. 21.7010-and 9.096: The Increasing local competitiveness in areas -Pp rcentage of commuters who such as environmental sustainability or live in Kent but weFl( eat of the broadband technologies will require City eity who and report to work in government engagement and leadership. Se ttle_ Promoting Opportunities for Kent's Residents T4 cities for in-commuting: The City needs to consider both demand and Se ttle (7.7%), Auburn (5.4%), supply issues e€in workforce development Ta oma (4.4%), Renton (4.2% Working and Federal Way (4.1%). with educators and businesses to ensure Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap better than adequate experiential learning Application and LEHD Origin-Destination and training opportunities supports firm Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment,2nd Quarter of2002-2011). retention and growth. Equally Important, strengthening business within KentA serves Ec nomy-at-a-Glance Kent residents' needs to gain employment. Source: Economic Development Plan Median Family Income: $58,477 Covered Employment: 63,900 Retail Sales Per Capita: $17,865 Total Firms (2007): 8,094 Housing Units (2010): 36,424 Median Age (2030): 33 years old Total Population: 123,000 Top Employers 2014: Kent School District; Boeing; REI; Exotic Metals Forming Co; City of Kent; Carlisle Interconnect Technologies; Hexcel; King County; Columbia Distributing; Sysco; Oberto; Starbucks; Alaska Airlines; Flow; Omax Corporation; Blue Origin Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 2 349 Local Economy Overview The City of Kent's local economic performance is intricately tied to the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area. The Kent Valley's flat lands formed by volcanic lahars—whose fertile soils once grew lettuce and other cash crops— in the late 20th century gave ground for the development of extensive and nationally significant manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution operations. Served by two railroads (the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe), the I-5 interstate, and equally close to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, the Kent Industrial Valley is the second largest manufacturing and warehouse center on the West Coast. Kent's jurisdiction encompasses over 45 million sq. ft. of industrial and commercial space within the Kent Industrial Valley with more than 7,500 firms and over 60,000 jobs. Remarkably, every workday morning nearly 40,000 residents depart Kent for work while nearly as many arrive in Kent for their jobs. The tens of thousands of primary jobs in manufacturing, wholesale and trade Ators which are located in Kent also comprise a base to the Puget Sound's fie€ an imper-tant base ef regional economic strength. In fact, the regional land use and transportation planning agency, Puget Sound Regional Council designated the area as a "Manufacturing Industrial Center." Manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing account for approximately 44% of Kent's overall employment (by comparison, these three major sectors account for about 19% of the region's overall employment). Many manufacturing firms in Kent are counted among the most advanced in the United States with local legacies in aerospace, outer space, and defense research and development. Kent's central location within the larger labor market, relative lower housing and transportation costs, and its high quality services—especially the well- regarded Kent School District—are defining, desirable qualities for attracting new residents. Workers in higher wage sectors like information, business management, finance, and professional, scientific and technical services comprise 12.5% of Kent's outbound commuters. An important factor for the City of Kent's fiscal stability given current state and regional tax policies is the continued choice by these thousands of workers to invest their housing dollars in Kent and shop locally. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 3 350 Figure E-1 Building Permit History Annual Building Pemits,City of Kent wTotalUnits —Averageyeallypemds1990to1999 —Averageyeallyp—*2000to2013 1,075 Annual Avg(1990-2000)=508 units 842 cn saa sa ses ass 4as 446 Annual Avg(2000-2013)=312 units 31s � 27i 901 yg 325 zs4 185 z10 � 211 ss � 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 M 2004 2005 2" 2007 2008 2009 2010 2M1 2012 2013 2M4 tliu Aail Figure E-& Formatted:Centered,Space After: 0 Pt Kent Employment Densit wren Bryn Mawrskyway H9 5-445 Jobs;Sq.Mile Formatted:Font:Bold _ 199 rukwoa 446-1,756 JebslSq.Mile s a� 1,769-3,971 Jabs;Sq.Mlle 6 Renton 3.972-7,057 JobslSq.lullle Normandy Bark SeaTac 7,05E-11,024 JobslSq.11u111e East Renton Highlands Fairwood -Maple Heights-Lake Desire Des Moines I Shadow Lake a Hobart 167 Lakeland Norm 8 . 9, Cemngmn 1s Federal Way © Maple Valley L18 Lake Morton-Berrydele - Ravensdale Auburn Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 4 351 Goals and Key Strategies The five goals from the Economic Development Plan associate with six major strategic areas for action. The five goals are: Goal E-1 Develop & Implement a Sustainable Funding Model; Continue to prioritize public services, execute new fund reserve policies, and identify and implement efficiencies. Goal E-2 Create Neighborhood Urban Centers; Identify and develop niches unique to Kent. Goal E-3: Create Connections for People & Places; Create connections for people & places by improving and expanding trails and roadways and establishing welcoming entries into Kent. Goal E-4: Foster Inclusiveness; Broaden opportunities to celebrate and showcase the diversity of our community and ultimately promote inclusiveness. Goal E-5: Beautify Kent. Update design standards for residential, commercial and downtown Kent to include a plan for a "Green Kent"for better use of the city's assets. These five goals are furthered by City actions within six key strategic areas. The six strategies described below are complementary. Greater specificity as to implementable strategies and descriptive actions are available in the background report. Key Strategies Formatted Table Images City Image & Branding Making the case for Kent to businesses and attracting new residents means promoting the City's existing industry strengths and Kent public amenities: such as the ShoWare Center, downtown shopping, and the W A S H 1 N G F o N significant presence of industry business leaders like REI, Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks. Leveraging existing assets to improve outsider perceptions and telling the Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 5 352 story of Kent's development depends on execution and focused communication to media outlets. Equally important is substantiating the city's image and ensuring the brand matches authentic qualities of place. All municipal activities should consider and use the City's brand. Place-Making & Gateways Creating conditions for economic growth requires attentiveness by local government officials to how their actions, decisions and interpretations of rules are influencing the built environment. Investments in high quality urban design and consistent 1 programming in the public realm add to the overall attractiveness and competitiveness of Kent as a location for businesses. Beautifying commercial corridors and ���IVglq centers in the course of transportation projects, designating key gateways and connections for added investment, and accommodating population growth will contribute to resident quality of life and capacity for growth. Adequately factoring the need for these new amenities and public spaces into transportation and land use choices will be important for Kent's future development. Business Climate Advancing and maintaining the City's favorable perception amongst business and industry leaders depends upon clear rules CC and transparency in decision-making - processes. It also demands active listening MU and creativity from muniempal staff persons in all positions. Involving businesses in 5R-8 transportation and land use planning o � activities which will impact their operations is especially critical. Before feedback is 5R_ l collected from businesses there should p o always be discussion and communication as - � to how information will later be utilized in MU « decision-making. To foster a favorable - business climate, the City can also take proactive steps to collect and present data valuable to developers and firms. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 6 353 Industrial Cluster Growth & Retention The Kent Industrial Valley is an epicenter for much of Puget Sound's advanced manufacturing activity. Consequently, the clustering of firms and establishments in Kent largely reflects those of the Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, MSA with leading employers in retail and outerwear, logistics, aerospace, food processing, and establishments in related sectors. Investments in outdoor recreation amenities, sponsoring of thematically related industry cluster activities or networking events, provision of incentives to regional industrial clusters, and continued support for the Center for Advanced Manufacturing in Puget Sound (CAMPS) are all example actions in support of retaining and growing businesses within these major clusters. Kent Industrial Valley: Regional Innovator Positioning the Kent Industrial Valley (KIV) for increased visitation and a wider range of user activities—like retail—are essential for ;.� the City's fiscal stability and raising the profile of the industrial and commercial zones to companies at the cutting edge of i innovation. Raising the amenity level in the KIV benefits the quality-of-life of Kent's residents, but increasingly supports local employers' missions. Expanding allowable _ zoned uses, improving the pedestrian experience along major roads, and supporting development of state-of-the-art (� infrastructure are important undertakings --7- for keeping the valley current and competitive for development of office and industrial campuses. Work Force Facilitating workforce training and the creation of higher education opportunities are vital economic development functions. City staff may serve as conduits between educators and employers to ensure Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 7 354 curriculums are current to industry demands and new trends. Strong workforce relationships and the ability to articulate local educational strengths are important for building confidence amongst employers r 1" �� '' about their Kent business investments. The lOmm City may either directly support residents in receiving education, or may provide indirect support through aid and assistance to 'Vr Agulaw- organizations and institutions that work with educators. Related Information Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County • Data Center: http://edc- seaking.org/data-center/ Workforce Development Council of Seattle and King County Washington Department of Commerce City of Kent Economic Development Plan Puget Sound Regional Council's Economic Strategy Kent Chamber of Commerce King County: Data and Reports Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 8 355 Economic Development Element Background Report The five economic development goals are furthered by City actions within six key strategic areas. Greater specificity as to implementable strategies and descriptive actions are described below. Implementation Strategies and Actions 1. City Image& Branding 1.1 Signal Kent Aspirations with Implementation of Compelling Branding Identity 1.1 Brainstorm a brand 1.2 Develop Kent's city-wide brand 1.3 Include District identities 1.2 Strengthen the Image of Kent in the Region with a Strategic Marketing Campaign 1.2.1 Plan a marketing campaign 1.2.2 Execute a marketing campaign 1.2.3 Brand City communications 1.2.4 Build social media presence 1.2.5 Communicate successes 1.2.6 Build "Made in Kent"Campaign 2. Place-Making& Gateways 2.1 Beautify Kent Streetscapes& Public Realm with Strategic Design & Policy Interventions 2.1.1 Rebuild the Commercial Corridors of Meeker St from River to Downtown; 248th; South Central; Kent-Kangley; 104th; East Valley, and Pacific Highway 2.1.2 Seek grants to redevelop key corridors 2.1.3 Brand shopping areas 2.1.4 Treatment of streetscapes as parks 2.1.5 Consistent lighting throughout Kent 2.1.6 Make downtown more walkable 2.1.7 Back the non-profit organization Downtown Partnership 2.2 Extend the good design of 4th Ave. and SR 516 north to 4th Ave arterial 2.2.1 Support for transit-oriented development principles 2.2.2 Activate underutilized street scape with more outdoor seating and other public uses 2.2.3 Improve pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to Kent's downtown 2.2.4 Use medians creatively to enrich the streetscape 2.2.5 Create a master-plan for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 9 356 2.3 Strengthen Sense of Place by Designating&Improving Key Gateways& Connections Into & Through Kent 2.3.1 Designate external gateways 2.3.2 Designate internal gateways 2.3.3 Design the gateways 2.3.4 Pursue funding for holistic urban design 2.4 Encourage Quality development, Renovation, & Upkeep of New& Existing Building Stock 2.4.1 Emphasize urban design 2.4.2 Practice effective code enforcement 2.4.3 Engage with key property owners 2.4.4 Solicit pro bono design services 2.4.5 Formulate &implement design guidelines 2.5 Accommodate Growing Workforce with Diversified Housing Stock, Including Downtown Multifamily&Executive Housing 2.5.1 Implement the Downtown Subarea Action Plan 2.5.2 Expand housing choice in Kent 2.5.3 Map and market key sites 2.5.4 Leverage assets & local improvement districts 2.5.5 Update the Planned Action Ordinance 2.5.6 Utilize tax abatement downtown 2.5.7 Understand what's missing 2.5.8 Show developers the demand 2.5.9 Surplus city property for housing &commercial 2.6 Strengthen &Enhance Competitiveness of Kent Commercial Centers 2.6.1 Highlight downtown's assets 2.6.2 Connect Kent Station to Meeker St 2.6.3 Promote"Clean and Safe" downtown 2.6.4 Prioritize anchor retail 2.6.5 Embrace shopping area character 2.6.6 Highlight cultural diversity 2.7 Grow Green Space & Connect Local&Regional Greenways through Kent 2.7.1 Implement the Parks Plan 2.7.2 Add biking &running trails 2.7.3 Swap parking for green space & pocket parks 2.7.4 Finish the Kent Valley Loop Trail 2.7.5 Enhance Green River open space 2.7.6 Assess & remediate brownfields 3.0 Business Climate 3.1 Welcome Businesses to Kent with Clear Communication of Business Support Structures& Tools 3.2 Make city resources available whenever possible to businesses 3.3 Involve businesses in land use and transportation planning 3.4 Highlight local business support Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 10 357 3.5 Listen carefully to local businesses 3.6 Place updated data into the hands of businesses 3.7 Enhance international trade and direct foreign investment opportunities in Kent 3.1 Strengthen & Communicate the Competitive Advantage in Cost of Doing Business Related to Kent Tax& Regulatory Structure 3.1.1 Streamline the permitting process 3.1.2 Make licensing easy 3.1.3 Designate a"handler"to guide businesses through the permitting processes and to city and government resources 3.1.4 Quantify and explain the value of a healthy Green River 3.1.5 Explicate where B&O Tax revenue goes 3.1.6 Show the end uses of utilities taxes 3.1.7 Describe Kent's unique value proposition for its local businesses 4 Cluster Growth &Retention 4.1 Strengthen & Diversify the Advanced Manufacturing Cluster in Kent 4.1.1 4.1.1 Utilize Economic Development Council (EDC) industry cluster services 4.1.2 Market Kent Industrial Valley campuses to advanced manufacturers 4.1.3 Leverage CAMPS consulting 4.2 Position Kent as a Hub for Outdoor Recreation Equipment "RecTech"Firms 4.2.1 Market the region's RecTech agglomeration and Kent as its hub 4.2.2 Continue to support REI Headquarters 4.2.3 Target outdoor amenities in Kent Industrial Valley 4.3 Increase Kent's Share of Retail Cluster Firms, Employment& Revenue in the Kent Valley&Surrounding Area 4.3.1 Conduct a competitive analysis 4.3.2 Incentivize redevelopment of Meeker Street 4.3.3 Infill the strip malls with new development 4.3.4 Encourage companies to make in back, sell in the front 4.3.5 Locate a "Big Box" retailer within Kent 4.3.6 Respond proactively to retail trends Leverage Area Health Care, Manufacturing& Retail Anchors to Expand Kent Professional& Business Services Presence 4.4 Market Kent as a hub of health care services 4.5 Grow hospitality amenities in the Kent Industrial Valley 4.6 Market CenterPoint's assets to possible tenants 4.7 Improve the look and feel of CenterPoint's office campus 4.8 Build a bike spur to the CenterPoint office campus 5 Kent Industrial Valley 5.1 Enhance&Expand Industrial Zoning Classifications to Accommodate a Changing State&Local Tax Structure Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 11 358 5.1.1 Expand the allowable uses in the Kent Industrial Valley 5.1.2 Modernize zoning codes for contemporary industry needs 5.1.3 Integrate best practices in industry land use from other cities 5.2 Position the Industrial Valley as a Regional Leader in Industrial Greening &Sustainability 5.2.1 Embrace alternative energy in Kent Industrial Valley 5.2.2 Utilize the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound (CAMPS) & Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS) as resource centers 5.2.3 Create environmentally responsible infrastructure along Green River using best"green" practices 5.2.4 Secure additional funding for environmental sustainability efforts in the valley 5.2.5 Join a by-product synergy network 5.3 Position the Industrial Valley as an Amenity for both Industrial Users&Surrounding Communities 5.3.1 Encourage more retail and hospitality uses in the Kent Industrial Valley 5.3.2 Place a window on manufacturing by encouraging more people to visit and take tours of going concerns 5.3.3 Conduct a"Made in Kent" retail tour 5.3.4 Activate the slack space in the valley by identifying underutilized warehouses and working with property owners to make them more revenue generating 5.4 Support Increased Development of Attractive Industrial Campus Environments in the KIV 5.1.4 Master-Plan an Industrial campus 5.1.5 Analyze then incorporate Campus Best Practices 5.1.6 Re-imagine the Boeing Campus properties 5.1.7 Signal intent to developers with design guidelines 5.2 Advance State-of-the-Art Infrastructure Connectivity in KIV 5.2.1 Back completion of missing link 5.2.2 Build out broadband in Kent industrial valley 5.2.3 Grow transit options in Kent industrial valley 5.2.4 Certify the levees 6 Work Force 6.1 Connect Kent Residents& Communities to New Economic Opportunities 6.1.1 Promote Kent job opportunities 6.1.2 Educate the educators 6.1.3 Support small business entrepreneurs 6.1.4 Develop a maker space in the Kent industrial valley 6.2 Facilitate Workforce Training, Development& Higher Education Opportunities in Kent 6.2.1 Support CAMPS career pathways program Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 12 359 6.2.2 Continue leveraging regional workforce efforts 6.2.3 Sponsor internships 6.2.4 Support Washington FIRST robotics program Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 13 360 361 Chapter Nine - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • An inventory of existing public capital facilities, including their location and capacity; • A forecast of future needs for public capital facilities, their proposed locations and capacities; • A financing plan for the public capital facilities, including funding capacities and sources of public money; and • Goals and policies for providing public capital facilities to meet adopted levels of service, including adjusting the land use element if funding falls short of meeting the needs. Purpose Statement: To provide sustainable funding for desired public goods and services. PURPOSE Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to include a capital facilities element in its Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element describes how public facilities and services will be provided and financed. Capital facilities planning helps local jurisdictions manage their limited funds to provide the greatest value to residents and take full advantage of available funding opportunities. A key concept of capital facilities planning is concurrency. That is, specific public facilities will be available when the impacts of development occur, or a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities within six years of the development, called "concurrency." Concurrency of the transportation system is required by the Growth Management Act. In addition to maintaining adequate levels of service on City-provided facilities, the city of Kent must coordinate with special purpose districts and regional providers on providing adequate levels of service for forecasted growth. "Public facilities" include streets, Issues roads, highways, sidewalks, street Place-making and road lighting systems, traffic Capital facilities can contribute to the signals, domestic water systems, look and feel of places, including their storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and vibrancy or their decline. schools. Safety RCW 36.70A.030.12 The public expects capital facilities "Public services" include fire and services to maintain or enhance Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 1 362 protection and suppression, law their safety, including the perception enforcement, public health, of safety. education, recreation, environmental Levels of Service protection, and other governmental services. The City's level of service for capital RCW 36.70A.030.13 facilities needs to reflect an increasingly urban environment. Capital budgeting; Cities must make capital budget decisions in Impacts on Low-Income conformance with its comprehensive Communities and People of Color plan. Public facilities, services, safety and RCW 36.70A.120 opportunities for success should be accessible to all members of the Capital facility or improvement: community. Capital facilities have an expected useful life of at least 5 years and a Sustainability, Rehabilitation, cost of at least $25,000. Replacement and Retrofit To maintain sustainable public facilities and services, it is necessary ---__ to plan and implement maintenance and replacement of infrastructure. Climate Change As additional scientific information is identified regarding climate change, the City will evaluate the potential impacts to its existing public facilities and services. Funding Public facilities and services may be funded by the rate payers or via capital facilities budgets. When applicable, grants may also help offset the cost of large capital projects. CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING Capital facilities planning in Kent is separated into two categories: General Government Funds, which include funds for general capital needs such as streets and transportation, buildings, parks and trails, and other improvements. Enterprise Funds, which include funds for which fees are received in exchange for specific goods and services. These include water, sewer, storm drainage, and the Riverbend Golf Complex. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 2 363 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FUNDS General government facilities are designed, built and operated for the general public, unlike enterprise funds, which serve specific fee paying customers. Any person may drive on City streets, walk on a trail, play in a City park, etc. Kent organizes it general government facilities needs into similar programmatic categories, which are referred to as funds. There are four categories of funds, which illustrate the focus of the City's capital planning and spending. All phases of a capital project are included in capital planning, from plan and project development, preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, permitting, construction engineering, to construction. The Street Operating Fund is specifically identified for transportation and street improvements, and includes arterial asphalt overlays, residential streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, illumination, and safety guard rails. Funding for the program's projects is primarily through grants, local improvement districts (LIDs), motor vehicle excise tax, business and occupation tax, and utility tax. The Capital Improvement Fund is for the acquisition and development of land for parks and recreational facilities, including the planning and engineering costs associated with the projects. This fund is also designated for maintenance and repair projects and other capital projects not provided for elsewhere. Funding comes from grants, real estate excise tax, and a portion of sales tax revenues. The Information Technology Fund provides for the hardware and software to support the technology needs of the City. Primary funding is from internal computer and network fees and cable utility tax, after operating expenses have been paid. The Facilities Fund is for government buildings, such as the City Hall campus, Kent Commons, Senior Activity Center, and the maintenance shop. Primary funding is from internal square footage fees, after operating expenses have been paid. General government sources of revenue for capital expenditures and allocation percentages by funding category are shown in Figure CF.1. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 3 364 Figure CF.1 General Government Capital Sources and Uses 2015 General Government Funds 2015 General Government Funds Revenue Sources Capital Expenditures Intergov't Parks/Trails 10.7% 10.5% Facilitfes 10.2% , Charges for Services 23.2% info Tech 13.0% Taxes Misc Streets 66.0% 01% 66.3% ENTERPRISE FACILITIES FUNDS Enterprise Funds are supported by revenues generated by user fees and charges. Developer contributions supplement the Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Funds. Enterprise funds are used by public agencies to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. They are established as fully self-supporting operations with revenues provided primarily from fees, charges or contracts for services, and require periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and net income for capital maintenance, public policy, management control and accountability. In order to provide for the short-term and long-term operating and capital needs of the water, sewer and storm drainage utilities, the City evaluates and utilizes a combination of revenue sources such as utility rates, bonds, loans, grants, developer contributions, Public Works Trust Fund loans, and local improvement districts (LIDS). An example of enterprise capital sources of funds and expenditures is illustrated in Figure CF.2. Figure CF.2 Enterprise Capital Sources and Uses 2015 Enterprise Funds 2015 Enterprise Funds Revenue Sources Expenditures Water 23.6% chargesfor Services 100.01 1. 1 Stcrml Sewer MOOO� Drainage 9.1% 67.4% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 4 365 Water Fund - Approximately 59% of the area of the City is served by Kent's Water Utility. The remainder of the City is served by other districted. Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement districts, Trust Fund loans, rate increases, and developer contributions. Sewer Fund - Approximately 69% of the area of the City is served by Kent's Sewer Utility. The remainder of the City is either not served or served by other districts. Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement districts, rate increases, and developer contributions. Storm Drainage Fund - This fund accounts for operations and capital improvements for the management of the City's storm drainage and surface water. Storm Drainage capital projects are required to correct deficiencies and to meet Federal, State and local mandates. Required infrastructure is paid for by developers, interlocal agreements, and grants, but the largest fund contribution comes from the utility's ratepayers. Riverbend Golf Complex Fund - This is a publicly-owned facility funded by user fees. An enterprise fund may be used to report any activity for which a fee is charged to users for goods or services. The City has chosen to use the enterprise fund structure to provide transparent accounting of user fee revenues and operation, maintenance, and improvement costs of the municipal golf facilities. The difference between the Riverbend Golf Complex Fund and other utility enterprise funds is that the golf fund serves voluntary customers as opposed to the users of water, sewer, and storm drainage funds, who have no choice in service provider. While the Golf Complex is not expected to meet its capital and operating needs in the short term, elected officials and city staff are actively pursuing a multi-faceted solution in right- sizing golf facilities. Once these activities are completed, the Golf Complex is expected to be in a stable position to meet ongoing capital and operating needs. CAPITAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES POLICE and CORRECTIONS The Kent Police Department (KPD) provides police services, corrections services and has law enforcement authority within the city limits of Kent. Vision Statement To be the most respected and effective police department in the region. Mission Statement The Kent Police Department partners with our community to: • Aggressively fight crime • Impartially protect rights and • Identify and solve problems Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 5 366 Table CF.1 Current Police Facilities Inventory - 2015 FACILITY NAME LOCATION CAPACITY Police Headquarters 232 Fourth Avenue S. 18,000 s.f. Police West Hill Substation 25440 Pacific Highway S. 1,174 s.f. Evidence area-City Hall 220 Fourth Avenue S. 1,250 s.f. Police North Substation 20676 72nd Avenue S. 132 s.f. Police East Hill Substation 24611 116th Avenue SE 840 s.f. Police Training Center 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,185 s.f. Police Firing Range 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,685 s.f. Police Panther Lake Substation 20700 108th Avenue SE 1,400 s.f. Detective Unit Offices 400 West Gowe S. 6,226 s.f. The Kent Police took occupancy of the current police headquarters in 1991. The building previously served as the Kent Library and was remodeled to be a temporary facility until a permanent police headquarters could be built. Twenty four years later, the department has vastly outgrown the headquarters. In an effort to mitigate the overcrowding and meet the need for increased service, the department established offsite work stations and outside storage facilities. Table CF.2 Current Correctional Facilities Inventory - 2015 Facility Name Location Capacity Correctional Facility 1230 Central Avenue S. 21,000 s.f.100 cellbeds/30 work release beds Corrections Annex 8309 South 259th Street 3,053 s.f. The city of Kent Correctional Facility (CKCF) has a capacity of one hundred cell beds and thirty work release beds (130 beds total). The Kent Police Department has focused efforts to address the increasing demands for jail capacity. The CKCF Programs Division added day reporting and work time credit programs to the existing electronic home detention, work release and work time credit programs for non-violent offenders. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 6 367 Analysis of Demand for Facilities and Services Police Calls for Service The level of police service provided by the Kent Police Department in terms of call response is contingent on the number of officers available at any given time to respond to 911 calls. The Department has a level of service goal of four minutes or less for response to emergency and priority 1 calls to 911. This standard is based on historical data related to shooting incidents and particularly active shooter incidents over the last decade. The data indicate that 69% of all active shooter incidents are completed within 5 minutes.' These emergency incidents require that police officers both stop the actions that are causing the risk to life and facilitate emergency medical services in a time frame that assures a high survival rate of those injured. Research indicates that brain death begins within the first 4-6 minutes of someone not breathing.Z Arriving within the first four minutes of these incidents assures that lifesaving intervention can be provided in time to assure the highest likelihood for survival. The following data show our response time to calls from emergency (E) calls through priority (4) or routine calls for service. • Priority E calls are emergency calls and are the highest priority. This category represents a confirmed emergency, which could result in loss of life and/or property. This category represents the greatest potential for officers to encounter immediate danger. Current average is a 2.66 minute response time. • Priority 1 represents a potential emergency which could result in loss of life and/or property; personnel safety may be at risk or seriously jeopardized. Current average is a 3.92 minute response time. • Priority 2 represents a minimal hazard with considerably less potential for life and/or property loss and minimal risk to officers. Current average is a 8.26 minute response time. • Priority 3 represents a low hazard, non-life threatening situation with minimal risk of property loss. Current average is an 11.22 minute response time. i US Department of Justice, FBI Study—A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000-2013, Washington DC 2014 z The American Heart Association Data on brain death and permanent death. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 7 368 Priority 4 represents police reports or cold calls which require a non-code response. Current average is a 15.54 minute response time. Currently the average response time to emergency and priority 1 calls for service is 3.29 minutes and the department is meeting its level of service standard. However, there is reasonable concern that as population and calls for service continue to grow, response times will increase. Currently the Kent Police Department is authorized 148 sworn police officers, which allows for 1.19 officers per thousand population. Amongst our comparable cities (Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Kirkland, Federal Way, Renton and Vancouver) the average officer per 1000 population percentage is 1.42 officers per 1000.3 The department seeks to increase the number of officers to a level commensurate with our comparable cities, thus allowing for enhanced level of service. This represents an increase of sworn police officers to 177 officers from the current 148, with a projected growth to 196 sworn police officers by 20354. Meeting the Needs Police Headquarters Police services are centered around the main police headquarters that serves the entire city and supports the required staff, many of whom operate on a patrol basis throughout the city. The police department took occupancy of the existing 18,000 square foot police headquarters in 1991. At the time the city's population was 61,281 and the department had 86 sworn police officers. Currently the headquarters houses 126 sworn police officers in addition to 22 full time and 3 part time civilian support staff. Police headquarters provides both designated and temporary work space, meeting rooms, common areas, locker rooms, storage space, utility space, temporary holding cells, electrical and utility space, evidence storage space and records storage space. Another 18 sworn police officers that make up the detectives unit have been housed offsite due to lack of space. Additionally, the department maintains temporary offsite evidence storage that represents approximately 2,500 square feet of space. Ideally, the 18 officers would be housed in police headquarters and permanent evidence storage facilities should be obtained. 3 2011 Police Comparable Data Analysis, Kent Police Officers Association, 2011 4 Puget Sound Regional Council Forecasts for 2035/2014 OFM Average of 2.58 population per household Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 8 369 Although both city population and the number police department employees have nearly doubled since 1991, there has been no increase in facility space at police headquarters. The police department seeks the construction of a new police headquarters. An initial space needs assessment and cost analysis was completed in March of 2014, which identified the need for a headquarters that provided 47,770 square feet of space at a cost of $34,044,544.5 This analysis accounted for both the immediate need (6-year plan) and the anticipated long term need (20-year plan). The anticipated cost of a police headquarters far exceeds current funding levels. Current police funding is primarily directed toward current operating and maintenance costs. There are no identified capital budget funds. It is proposed that the city pursue funding via a bond measure. (See Table C.3) Failure to pass the bond measure would significantly impact the police department's ability to maintain the current level of service. Police Department administration would seek solutions to mitigate this impact, but without increased facilities the end result would likely necessitate the consideration of reduction in the level of police service standards. Corrections Facility Capacity and Infrastructure Update The City of Kent Corrections Facility (CKCF) was constructed in 1986 and was initially designed to 48 inmates (beds). Currently the 2100 square foot facility has a 100-bed capacity with an additional 30 beds designated for work release inmates. The facility faces both a capacity deficit and significant infrastructure needs. Capacity Issues: Over the past several years, the jail inmate population has seen significant increases in both female inmates and inmates that require maximum security status/crisis cells due to violent tendencies or mental disorders. A review of CKCF jail population data indicates that from 2010 to March of 2015 the average percentage of inmate population requiring maximum security status or crisis cell status is 11.15 inmates. The CKCF currently has six cells suitable for maximum security status/crisis cell inmates, a 47% deficit. In order to meet the current need, maximum status/crisis cells would need to be increased by 5 cells. S Police Space and Cost Estimate, David A. Clark Architects, PLLC Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 9 370 The CKCF facility has 19 beds available to house female inmates. A review of jail population data indicates that from 2010 to March of 2015 the average female inmate daily population is 25, equating to a 24% deficit of bed space. In order to meet the current need, female bed space should be increased by five female cells. In addition to inmate capacity, CKCF is currently undersized to provide adequate work space for the 23 corrections officers and one civilian support staff. Although significant work has been done since 1986 to more than double jail bed capacity, virtually no space has been added to accommodate the increase in corrections personnel working in the facility. The police department seeks to complete construction of additional female jail beds and maximum security status/crisis cells to meet the current level of service requirements. In October of 2014, a CKCF space needs assessment was conducted which indicated that an increase of 4,100 square feet would be required to meet the increased demand for female bed space, maximum security status/crisis cells and modestly expanded work space. The estimated cost for construction is $1.4 Million.6 Infrastructure Issues: The 30-year-old CKCF is in immediate need of infrastructure updates. Both the plumbing system and electrical wiring of the facility routinely fail and are in need of replacement. The video recording system at the jail is outdated and poses significant safety and liability concerns. The master control panel software is outdated and in need of upgraded software and hardware. Although final costs estimates have not been obtained, initial consultation with the City of Kent Facilities Department indicates that the estimated costs for each infrastructure project would be as follows: • Plumbing $200,000 • Electrical Wiring $100,000 • Camera System Replacement $ 40,000 • Master Control Panel $ 45,000 Total $385,000 6 Proposed Addition—Kent Corrections, Dave Clark Architects, PLLC,2014 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 10 371 The police department would seek to fund both the capacity projects and infrastructure updates out of existing funding sources. (See diagram CF.3) Table CF.3 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List Project and 2021- Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) Project 1 —Police Headquarters Cost$34.04 $0 $0 $8.51 $8.51 $8.51 $8.51 $0 $34.04 Million Million Million Million Million Million Revenue Source- $0 $0 $8.51 $8.51 $8.51 $$8.51 $0 $34.04 Public Safety Bond Million Million Million Million Million Project 2—CKCF Bed Capacity Increase $0 $0 $350K $350K $350K $350K $0 $1.4 Cost$1.4 Million Million Revenue Source $0 $0 $350K $350K $350K $350K $0 $1.4 1- Million Jail Capacity Fund NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS Project 3—CKCF Plumbing Cost$200,000 $0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K Revenue Source— $0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K School Zone Speed Camera Fund Project 4—CKCF Electrical Wiring Cost$100,000 $0 $50K $50K $0 $0 $0 $0 $100K Revenue Source — School Zone Speed Camera Fund $0 $50K $50K $0 $0 $0 $0 $100K Project 5—CKCF Camera System $0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K Replacement Cost$40,000 Revenue Source $0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K School Zone Speed Camera Fund Project 6—CKCF Master Control Panel Cost$45,0000 $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K Revenue Source $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 11 372 Project and 2021- Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total School Zone Speed Camera Fund COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects $0 $0 $8.86 $8.86 $8.86 $8.86 $0 $35.44 Million Million Million Million Million Non-Capacity $0 $175K $90K $40K $40K $40K $0 $385K Projects Goals and Policies Police and Correction Services Goal CF-5: Ensure that residents, visitors and businesses in Kent continue to feel safe throughout our community. Policy CIF-5.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective services and programs with the goal of increasing the sense of safety throughout our community. Such services and programs should be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal CIF-6: Establish, maintain and strengthen community relationships through direct contact opportunities, community awareness, education and volunteer programs. Policy CF-6.1: Establish and maintain direct contact between representatives of the Police Department and concerned citizens, community groups, schools, business operators, local media, and human services providers. Policy CF-6.2: Establish and maintain community education programs that promote the awareness of public safety, community-based crime prevention, domestic violence prevention, alcohol and substance abuse, and available human services for impacted populations. Policy CIF-6.3: Establish and maintain volunteer programs that meet the Police Department objectives of increasing community awareness, involvement, public safety, and crime prevention. Goal CF-7: Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 12 373 Maintain responsive, quality patrol service throughout Kent's service area and other areas requiring response capability assistance. Policy CF-7.1: Consider average response times as a level-of-service measure in assessing needs for patrol service improvements. Policy CF-7.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average response times to emergency calls, where potential loss of life or confirmed hazards exist. Policy CF-7.3: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average response times to non-emergency calls, where no immediate danger or potential loss of life is indicated. Policy CF-7.4: Coordinate with the City Information Technology Department and the Valley Communications Center to improve response times. Policy CF-7.5: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing patrol practices, and research best practices as appropriate. Policy CF-7.6: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will improve responsiveness of patrol services. Policy CF-7.7: To improve long-term patrol service effectiveness, work with various members of the community to improve staff awareness of localized issues and community resources. Goal CF-8: Provide effective and professional investigation services. Policy CF-8.1: Consider annually-calculated crime clearance rates as a level-of-service measure in assessing needs for patrol service improvements. Policy CF-8.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated Part I crime clearance rates, which is a measure of the rate of arrests or clearances for reported crimes. Policy CF-8.3: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing investigations practices, and research best practices as appropriate. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 13 374 Policy CF-8.4: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will improve responsiveness of investigations services. Policy CF-8.5: To improve long-term investigations service effectiveness, work with various members of the community to improve staff awareness of localized issues and community resources. Goal CF-9: Provide effective corrections services that protect the community and reduce repeat offenses among corrections clients. Policy CF-9.1: Coordinate with the Kent Municipal Court to ensure appropriate correctional processes and facilities are available for criminal offenders. Policy CF-9.2: Maintain or improve facilities available for the incarceration of criminal offenders. If additional facilities capacity is necessary, coordinate with other agencies to locate and provide appropriate facilities for the purposes of incarceration. Policy CF-9.3: Establish and maintain effective alternative s to incarceration for lesser criminal offenses. Policy CF-9.4: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing corrections practices, and research best practices as appropriate. Policy CF-9.5: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will improve responsiveness of corrections services. Policy CF-9.6: Acquire and maintain accreditation through the American Corrections Association. KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY The Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA) is an all-hazards emergency response agency established as an independent municipal corporation under chapter 52.26 RCW in April of 2010. The KFDRFA's service area is irregular in shape, running east and west from 2 to 12 miles and Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 14 375 north and south from 4 to 13 miles. Total service area is approximately 60 square miles including the City of Kent's 34 square miles. The cities of SeaTac, Covington and King County Fire District 37 make up the balance of the service area. Demand for service in 2014 exceeded 22,000 emergency incidents. Service to these incidents was provided through a total staff of 260.8 personnel: 225 uniformed and 35.8 non-uniformed civilian employees. Emergency response personnel work 48-hour shifts at 11 fire stations distributed strategically across the service area. On a daily basis, the City of Kent receives emergency services from resources in 10 of 11 fire stations. At any given time, minimum on duty emergency staff is 40 firefighter/EMTs. KFDRFA Fire Based Services Response services: Include; fire, basic life support (BLS), and hazardous materials response. Rescue services: Include; confined space, high and low angle rope rescue and swift water rescue. Prevention services: Include; land use and building plan review, fire permit issuance, building inspections, fire code enforcement, and fire investigations. Public education services: Include; education in fire and life safety, injury and fall prevention and emergency management planning and education. Specialized services: The FD-CARES (Community, Assistance, Referrals & Education Services) Division is focused on connecting people who have health and welfare issues with appropriate public and private services to improve patient service and reduce the impact of frequent requests for medical aid. KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan As a separate municipal corporation, the KFDRFA developed and adopted its own Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan (CF&EP) adopted by reference in this document. The purpose of the CF&EP is to identify capital resources Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 15 376 necessary for the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA), to achieve and sustain adopted levels of service concurrently with the next 20 years of anticipated development and population growth. Table CF.X shows the KFDRFA's facilities, equipment, and size that serve the Kent Planning Area. Table CF.4 Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Current Facilities Inventory - Fire (2015) Facility Location Equipment/Services Size(Sq. Ft.) Fire Stations Station 70 407 Washington Ave N • No services 3,464 Station 71 504 West Crow Street • Aid 70—Staffing Dependent 10,858 • Aid 71 • Engine 71 • CARES 71 • Boat 71—Surface Water Rescue Station 72 25620 140th Avenue SE 0 Engine 72 7,772 e Tender72 • Reserve Engine Station 73 26520 Military Road South • Engine 73 13,000 • Fire Investigators 0 Reserve Aid Car 0 Reserve Engine Station 74 24611 116th Avenue SE e Aid 74 17,053 • Battalion 74—East Battalion • Ladder 74 • Engine 74—Staffing Dependent 0 Reserve Battalion • Rescue 74 Station 75 15635 SE 272nd Street • Engine 75 12,425 • Haz-Mat 75 • Decon 75 • Mobile Generator • 4 Wheel ATV 75 Station 76 20676 72nd Avenue South 0 Engine 76 13,104 • Haz Mat 76 • Battalion 76—Central Battalion Station 77 20717 132nd Avenue SE • Engine 77 15,900 0 Reserve Engine 0 Reserve Ladder Truck o Training Engine Station 78 17820 SE 259th Street • Engine 78 17,685 C/S Kent City Limits but • MCI Unit Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 16 377 Facility Location Equipment/Services Size(Sq. Ft.) Fire Stations provides services to areas of • Reserve Engine Kent Fire Prevention Fire Prevention 400 W.Gowe Street,Suite • Fire Marshal 5,000 414 • Code Enforcement • Development Services • Fire Investigations • Public Education Training Police/Fire Training 24543 116th Avenue SE 9,600 Center Training Annex 24611 116th Avenue SE • Information Technology Unit 1,152 Drill Tower 24543 1116th Avenue SE 4,652 Maintenance Fleet Maintenance Facility 20678 72nd Avenue South 10,865 Emergency Management and Logistics Office of Emergency 24425 116t"Avenue SE 4 Wheel ATV 2,860 Management Logistics Warehouse 8320 South 208 Street, 20,000 Suite H-110 Total 165,3907 Level of Service Standard Community Risk Types within city of Kent The KFDRFA maintains a "Standard of Cover" document as part of their accreditation process through the Center for Public Safety. The Standard of Cover is the "Standard" or Level of Service (LOS) to which the fire department will deliver services to the community. The continuum of time of fire service performance to adopted level of service standard includes three components measured at the 90t" percentile (9 out of 10 times) of performance: • Dispatch time: The time interval from when a 9-1-1 call is answered and appropriate resources dispatched through alerts to firefighters; • Turnout time: The time interval that begins when audible or visual notification is received by firefighters from the 9-1-1 center and ends when firefighters have donned appropriate protective equipment and safely seat-belted themselves in their response vehicle ready to drive. Includes 5000 square feet utilized by Fire Prevention and owned by city of Kent. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 17 378 • Travel time: The time interval that begins when a response unit begins to move in route to the emergency incident location and ends when the unit arrives at the addressed location. Benchmark for: Fire, Haz-Mat, Rescue Level of Service 90% performance expectations • Urban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:15) _ 7 minutes 20 seconds • Suburban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:35) _ 7 minutes 40 seconds • Rural Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (5:30) _ 8 minutes 35 seconds Benchmark for: Minimum First Alarm Arrival Objectives (first three units) 90% performance • Urban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:30) _ 9 minutes 35 seconds • Suburban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:45) _ 9 minutes 50 seconds • Rural Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (7:00) _ 10 minutes 05 seconds Full First Alarm Arrival Objectives 90% performance • Urban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) _ 12 minutes 00 seconds • Suburban Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) _ 12 minutes 00 seconds • Rural Service Area: o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (9:55) _ 13 minutes 00 seconds Level of Service Capacity Analysis Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 18 379 Fire service resources are impacted by service demand. To achieve level of service standards, fire service resources being called upon to deliver service must be available at least as often as they are expected to achieve a given performance measure. This level of service capacity measure is referred to as "unit reliability." If a unit is called upon so often that availability of that unit, from its assigned fire station, falls below 90% of the time, it is no longer reliable to the level of service standard. The KFDRFA measures unit reliability by hour of day against the following requirements: Minimum Hourly Unit Reliability$ • Urban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the time. • Suburban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the time. • Rural Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the time. As unit reliability falls below 90%, additional units are then needed to provide additional service capacity. Service capacity at each fire station is then limited by the space available to house fire service units and staff. The more hours each day that a unit's reliability falls below 90%, the more often that unit is unavailable to provide emergency services. When this happens, units from fire stations farther away respond in place of the unreliable resource, leaving this next-up resource's home area without service. This ripple effect, caused by a single unit's sub-standard reliability, then begins to affect response times and levels of service throughout the total service area of the KFDRFA. Therefore, in planning for future resource needs, the KFDRFA utilizes unit reliability measures to evaluate unit and station capacity to maintain concurrency with future development. To better relate community growth with future demands on service and the associated impacts to unit reliability, the KFDRFA has developed a 'Fire 8 Unit reliability measures a unit's ability to meet level of service objectives. Measure above 90% indicates reserve capacity, 90% or below, resource exhaustion is occurring. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 19 380 Concurrency Management Plan" that identifies factors that predict future impacts of new development by property type. See Table CF.5. Table CF.S Projected Increase in Emergency Incidents - Kent Growth (2035) Structure Type Incidents Per Projected New Kent Projected Increase to Unit Per Year Dwelling Units9 annual Incident Workload Single-family/Duplex/MH 0.19 3,299 627 Multi-Family 0.14 4,032 564 Incidents Per Sq. Projected New Ft Per Year Square Feet Non-residential 0.04 11,500,00010 460 Total 1,651 Future Resource Needs If unit reliability is adequate but response standards are not met, other factors must be considered. Impacts of traffic density also have a significant influence on response time; even though a unit or a station has adequate reliability, drive time of emergency response units can be increased by traffic congestion. These factors have been considered in the KFDRFA's planning documents. To assure fire service concurrency to the KFDRFA level of service standards, three additional fire stations and their associated equipment are needed within the City of Kent over the next 20 years. A complete listing of resource needs and locations are found in the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. 9 Ratio of Single Family to Multi-Family is estimated at 55% MF and 45% SF based upon total Household Targets of 53,664 projected by 2035 (LUT HH). This target assumes 7,331 new dwelling units compared to April 2014 inventory of 46,333 units (source Washington OFM). This estimate assumes a modest annual growth rate of 0.79%. io Based upon 80% of the low commercial growth projections contained in the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 20 381 Table CF.6 Future Funding Needsll 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total Capacity Projects-Summary of New Construction Costs 407 Washington $ - $ - $ - $ 651 $ 2,173 $ 3,578 $ 1,086 $ 7,488 Benson $ 565 $ 429 $ 765 $ 2,574 $ 699 $ - $ - $ 5,032 Riverview $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,711 $ 4,711 75 Move $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 9,961 $ 9,961 Total $ 565 $ 429 $ 765 $ 3,225 $ 2,872 $ 3,578 $ 15,758 $ 27,192 Non-Ca pacity Proj ect Costs-Necessa ry to Maintain Existing Assets 407 Washington $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - Station 71 $ 10 $ $ $ $ $ 26 $ 94 $ 130 Station 72 $ 27 $ $ $ $ 22 $ $ 27 $ 76 Station 73 $ 21 $ 15 $ $ $ $ $ 171 $ 207 Station 74 $ 67 $ 15 $ $ $ $ $ 174 $ 256 Station 75 $ 42 $ $ 25 $ 35 $ $ $ 102 $ 204 Station 76 $ 15 $ 24 $ 30 $ 5 $ $ $ 134 $ 208 Station 77 $ 36 $ $ $ $ $ $ 69 $ 105 Station 78 $ $ $ $ 10 $ $ $ 78 $ 88 Benson Station $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40 $ 40 Total $ 218 $ 54 $ 55 $ 50 $ 22 $ 26 $ 889 $ 1,314 KFDRFA Revenue Sources Annual Taxes to Capital $ 218 $ 54 $ 320 $ 2,275 $ 2,275 $ 2,275 $ 647 $ 8,064 Voter approved Bonds $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Councilmatic Bonds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sale ofSurplus Property $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Covi ngton LOS/I mpa ct fees $ 565 $ 404 $ $ $ $ $ 1,000 $ 1,969 KentLOS/I mpactfees $ - $ 25 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 619 $ 1,329 $ 15,000 $ 18,473 Summary of Revenue less Expenses Expenses $ 783 $ 483 $ 820 $ 3,275 $ 2,894 $ 3,604 $ 16,647 $ 28,506 Revenue $ 783 $ 483 $ 820 $ 3,275 $ 2,894 $ 3,604 $ 16,647 $ 28,506 Unfunded Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 11 Cost does not include fire apparatus for new fire stations. These costs are found within the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. Current 2015 cost of a fully outfitted fire engine is $850,000. New fire engines will be required for new 407 Washington, Benson and Riverview fire stations. Total apparatus cost for these new stations will be $2,550,000. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 21 382 Figure CF-3 Existing and Proposed Fire Stations Jf W f i s Kent Fire Department 1 9 Regional Fire Authority I 0& Hg—-A ` LEGEND ■s.uo Te SnlroMi F r,610— # i ■ ■ E•st9 ■ A,P d 4 � Qameniainne:anwae a­a Fire a—mx In r w9tetl n,ta f I � ■.nonTe '""■smoo a sation,s �s t ■ E •• f Sbtlo T5 1111` 3 tlF ■ F fy i � P - i SCALE'.1' Goals and Policies Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Goal CF-10: Maintain fire service concurrency through long range planning and mitigation efforts that predict and mitigate the direct impacts of future development upon the KFDRFA's ability to deliver fire and life safety services in accordance with its adopted level of service standards. Policy CF-10.1: Recognize that regional economic vitality depends upon orderly growth and support community growth through development; participate in Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 22 383 the orderly growth of the Kent community necessary in maintaining concurrency of fire and life safety services. Policy CF-10.2: Evaluate all new development proposed to occur, identify any adverse impacts that may affect the KFDRFA's ability to maintain level of service standards and apply the mitigations outlined in the KFDRFA Mitigation and Level of Service Policy as necessary to maintain fire service concurrency with new development. Policy CF-10.3: Work cooperatively with the city of Kent to coordinate long-range planning efforts that support fire service concurrency. PARKS The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department: • manages parks and open space resources, as well as the Senior Activity Center, Kent Commons, and Riverbend Golf Complex; • manages other facilities and buildings necessary to the administrative and maintenance functions of the City; • provides a wide range of recreational programs throughout the facilities; and • administers funding in support of a variety of community service activities. Details for community service activities can be found in the Human Services Element, the Housing Element, and the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The Park & Open Space Plan and the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan provide greater detail about facilities and LOS standards. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 23 384 Facilities Management Table CF.7 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Current Facilities Inventory - 2015 Size/Amount Facility Location (Square Feet) Type 1 -Administration Centennial Center 400 W.Gowe 71,600 City Hall 220 4"Ave S. 33,000 Total Type 1 104,600 Type 2-Information Technology City Hall Annex 302 W.Gowe 4,600 Total Type 2 4,600 Type 3-Maintenance Facility Russell Road Shops 5821 S.240t" 26,158 East Hill Maintenance Facility 12607 SE 2481h Street 840 East Hill Maintenance Trailers 12607 SE 2481h Street 2,040 Total Type 3 29,038 Type 4—Police Police Headquarters 220 4th Avenue South 18,000 Police and Fire Training 24611 SE 116th Avenue 8,369 Woodmont Substation 26226 Pacific Highway South 1,174 Panther Lake Substation 10842 SE 2081h 1,400 East Hill Police Substation 24611 SE 116th Avenue 840 Firing Range 24611 SE 116th Avenue 4,685 Corrections 1230 S Central 21,000 Corrections Annex 8323 S 2591h 3,053 Total Type 4 58,521 Tvae 5—Natural Resources Natural Resources Building 22306 Russell Road 1,960 Total Type 5 1,960 Tvae 6—Historical Buildina Historical Society 855 E Smith 3,720 Neely Soames House 5311 S 237th Place 2,256 Total Type 6 5,976 TVDe 7—Recreation Kent Commons 525 N 4t"Avenue 50,000 Kent Memorial Park 850 N Central 3,000 Kent Pool 25316—101"Ave SE 16,000 Senior Center 600 E Smith 21,000 Total Type 7 90,000 Tvae 8—Golf Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 24 385 Size/Amount Facility Location (Square Feet) Driving Range 2030 W Meeker 1,800 Par 2020 W Meeker 1,380 Riverbend 18 Hole 2019 W Meeker 11,296 Total Type 8 14,476 Tvoe 9—Court Municipal Court 1220 Central Ave S 15,000 Total Type 9 15,000 Tvoe 10—Fire Fire Burn Tower 24611 SE 116"Ave 3,957 Fire Headquarters 24611 SE 116`h Ave 6,324 Station 74 24611 SE 116`h Ave 14,000 Station 75 15635 SE 272o1 10,621 Total Type 10 34,902 Total All Tvoes 359,073 Table CF.8 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List Project and Cost/Revenue 2021- (thousands$) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS)-None NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Project 1 -HVAC Cost 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292 Facilities Revenues 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292 Project 2—Emergency Repairs Cost 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000 Facilities Revenues , 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000 Project 3—Kitchen Equipment Cost 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530 Facilities Revenues 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530 Project 4—Roof Repairs Cost 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020 Facilities Revenues 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020 Project 5—Kent Pool Lifecycles Cost 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500 Facilities Revenues 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500 Project 6—Centennial Reseal Cost 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 25 386 Project and Cost/Revenue 2021- (thousands$) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total Facilities Revenues 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370 Project 7—Fire Alarm Upgrades Cost 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 Facilities Revenues 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 Project 8—Parking Lot Lifecycle Cost 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 685 1,020 Facilities Revenues 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 .685 1,020 Project 9—Floor Covering Replacements Cost 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450 Facilities Revenues 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450 Project 10—Racquet Ball Wall Repairs Cost 40 0 0 0 0 40 Facilities Revenues 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 Project 11 —City Hall Elevator Doors Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project 12—City Hall Council Chambers Renovation Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project 13—Facilities Card Access Cost 0 36 75 0 0 0 111 Facilities Revenues 0 36 75 0 0 0 111 Project 14—Corrections Portable Backup Connection Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project 15—Tenant Requested Renovations Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Capacity Projects $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5 Total Costs $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 26 387 Project and Cost/Revenue 2021- (thousands$) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total Facilities Fund Balance $500 Facilities Revenues $634.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5 Total Revenues $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5 Table CF.9 Parks Current Facilities Inventory - 2015 Size/Amount Facility Location (Acres/Sq. Ft.) Neighborhood Parks various Total NP 72.66 acres Community Parks various Total CP 152.15 acres Golf Course(holes/1000) Riverbend Golf Course Total GC 167.00 acres Natural Resource various Total NR 453.76 acres Recreation Facilities—Indoor various 142,130 sq.ft. on Total RF-I 13.56 acres Recreation Facilities-Outdoor Various Total O 75.39 acres Undeveloped Various Total U 160.16 acres Total Types 1094.68 acres Source: Kent Parks Inventory,201S Level of Service Requirements Analysis- Natural Resource Parks Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=9.78 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 1196.1 453.76 (742.33)' 2021 127,057 1242.62 453.76 (788.86) 2035 138,156 1351.17 453.76 (897.41) Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 27 388 Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=3.71 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 453.76 453.76 0 2021 127,057 471.38 453.76 (17.62) 2035 138,156 512.56 453.76 (58.8) Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 * Change in LOS in this category is due primarily to reclassification of significant properties. Level of Service Requirements Analysis-Neighborhood Parks Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=1.02 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 124.75 72.66 (52.09)" 2021 127,057 129.6 72.66 (56.94) 2035 138,156 140.92 72.66 (68.26) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=.59 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 72.66 72.66 0 2021 127,057 74.96 72.66 (2.3) 2035 138,156 81.51 72.66 (8.85) Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 Level of Service Requirements Analysis-Community Parks Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=1.27 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 155.32 152.15 (3.17) 2021 127,057 161.42 152.15 (9.27) 2035 138,156 175.46 179* 3.54 ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=1.24 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 152.15 152.15 0 2021 127,057 157.55 152.15 (5.4) 2035 138,156 171.31 179 7.69 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 28 389 Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 *This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital Facilities Plan. Level of Service Requirements Analysis— Indoor Rec. Facilities Square Feet Current Needed to Meet Square Feet Net Reserve or Time Period Population LOS standard Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=1.71 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON 2015 122,300 209,133 142,130 (67,003) 2021 127,057 217,267 142,130 (75,254) 2035 138,156 236,247 142,130 (94,117) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=1.16 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON 2015 122,300 142,130 142,130 0 2021 127,057 147,386 142,130 (5,256) 2035 138,156 160,261 142,130 (18,131) Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 Level of Service Requirements Analysis—Outdoor Rec. Facilities Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=2.93 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 358.34 75.39 (282.95) 2021 127,057 372.28 75.39 (296.89) 2035 138,156 404.8 75.39 (329.41) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=.62 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 75.39 75.39 0 2021 127,057 78.78 75.39 3.39 2035 138,156 85.66 75.39 10.27 Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 Level of Service Requirements Analysis—Undeveloped Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=1.06 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION Kent Comprehensive Plan — Capital Facilities Element Page 29 390 Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) 2015 122,300 129.64 160.16 30.52 2021 127,057 134.68 160.16 25.48 2035 138,156 146.45 133.31 (13.14) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=NO ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED 2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX 2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX 2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 * This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital Facilities Plan. Level of Service Requirements Analysis-Overall LOS (acres/1000) Acres Needed to Current Net Reserve or Time Period Population Meet LOS standard Acres Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=16.23 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 1984.93 1094.68 (890.25) 2021 127,057 2062.14 1094.68 (967.46) 2035 138,156 2242.27 1094.68 (1147.59) ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD=8.95 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 2015 122,300 1094.68 1094.68 0 2021 127,057 1137.16 1094.68 (42.48) 2035 138,156 1236.5 1094.68 (141.82) Source:Kent Planning Department(Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.)Kent Parks Inventory, 2015 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 30 391 Summary-ALL Projects Financial Sources and Uses(Amounts in thousands) Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond Capital Uses Land,Land Rights r 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0 Buildings,Bldg Improvements r Site Improvements 134,597.3 6,060.8 6,455.2 10,684.2 8,822.6 9,303.9 7,456.6 85,814.0 r Vehicles,Equipment&Other 7,951.6 465.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 5,762.0 Artwork r - - - - - - - Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0e175.0 175.0 3,083.0 Total Uses 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0 Capital Sources Federal Grant r - - - - - - - - WA State Grant r 996.5 125.0 871.5 King County Grant r - - - - - King County Levy r 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 Other Grant r - - - - - - - - Gas Tax r 189.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 135.0 Donations/Contributions r - Revenue Bonds - LTGO Bonds Voted Bonds General Fund Revenues ,,120.0 20.0 Youth&Teen Revenues - CIP Revenues 6,300.0 T300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0 CIP REET2 Revenues r 27,350.0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0 Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - - Sources to be determined r 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0 Total Sources 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0 Operating Needs Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - - Total Operating - - By Project Type Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Existing Capacity 106,870.9 4,996.8 5,367.0 9,571.1 7,684.3 8,139.8 6,266.2 64,846.0 New Capacity 37,717.5 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 28,482.0 Programmatic 8,538.6 490.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 6,199.0 Total 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 31 392 Tab# Project Name Total 2015 2016 2017 201 2019 2020 Tab-1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program 8,729.0 409.2 411.0 412.2 413.4 415.2 270.0 6,398.0 Tab-1.1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program-Unfunded 16,457.5 1,138.9 1,167.8 1,198.1 1,229.1 1,260.2 1,438.9 9,024.5 Tab-2 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program 3,801.5 272.8 274.0 274.8 275.6 276.8 180.0 2,247.5 Tab-2.1 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program-Unfunded 2,047.4 137.1 144.9 153.3 161.9 170.8 169.7 1,109.7 Tab-3 ShoWare 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0 Tab-4 GreenKent 353.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 263.1 Tab-5 Adopt-A-Park 590.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 440.6 Tab-6 Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 234.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 174.3 Tab-7 Park and Open Space Plan 120.0 120.0 - - - - - Tab-7.1 Park and Open Space Plan-Unfunded 467.8 - - - - - 467.8 Tab-8 Path and Trails 3,897.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 3,843.3 Tab-8.1 Path andTrails-Unfunded 12,922.6 1,043.1A 64.8 1,086.2 1,108.1 1,130.5 1,153.3 6,336.6 Tab-9 MasterPlans-Unfunded 591.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 441.0 Tab-10 Architect/Engineering-Unfunded 472.8 JiMp.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 352.8 Tab-11 Lake Meridian Park Phase 1 1,750.0 - - 500.0 450.0 400.0 400.0 - Tab-12 Kent Valley Loop Trail Implementation-Unfunded 550.0 250.0 150.0 150.0 - - - Tab-13 Van Dorens Park Renovation-Unfunded 2,143.0 - 125.0 2,018.0 Tab-14 Russell Road Field Conversion-Unfunded 1,993.0 250.0 1,743.0 Tab-15 Kent Memorial Park Renovation-Unfunded 932.0 - 121.0 811.0 Tab-16 Lake Fenwick Park Phase 1-Unfunded 1,285.0 100.0 1,185.0 Tab-17 Springwood Park Improvements-Unfunded 2,800.0 - 200.0 2,600.0 - Tab-20 West Fenwick Phase 2 Park Renovation-Unfunded 731.0 731.0 - Tab-21 Mill Creek Earthworks Redevelopment-Unfunded 1,021.0 1,021.0 Tab-18 Strategic Developmen 1,318.0 3,318.0 Tab-18.1IStrategic Develop Unfundedin 27, 4.2 1,214.0 1,238.3 1,263.0 1,288.3 1,314.1 1,340.4 20,296.1 Tab-19 Strategic Acquisitions ded �6,4 5.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.4 Tab-22 Athletic Fields I6,050.3 - - - - - - 6,050.3 Tab-22.1(Athletic Fields-Unfunded 21,177.9 1,711.7 1,745.5 1,780.4 1,816.0 1,852.4 1,889.4 10,382.4 Tab-23 Strategic Redevelopment-Unfunded 17,991.4 - - - - - - 17,991.4 Total: 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,526.7 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 32 393 Summary-Funded Projects Only Financial Sources and Uses(Amounts in thousands) Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond Capital Uses r Land,Land Rights Bu i I di ngs,Bl dg l mprovements r r - Site Improvements 24,591.3 566.0 569.0 1,071.0 1,023.0 976.0 734.0 19,652.0 Vehicles,Equipment&Other r 6,420.0 420.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0 Artwork - - - - - �- r Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 3,083.0 Total Uses 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0 Capital Sources Federal Grant r - - - r WAStateGrant - - King County Grant r - - KingCountyLevy r 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 r Other Grant - - - Gas Tax r 189.0 9,&L.4&L 9.0 1&0 9.0 9.0 135.0 Donations/Contributions r - -,,'4bbb.. -1 - - - r Revenue Bonds - - - - - - LTGO Bonds - Voted Bonds - General Fund Revenues ,r 120.0 1W0.0 Youth&Teen Revenues ,` - L- CIP Revenues r'T300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0 CIP REET2 Reven��27,35N0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0 Facilities Revenues `, - - - - - - - - Sources to be determined - - - - - - - - Total Sources 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0 Operating Needs IF Ongoi ng Operating Needs Total Operating By Project Type Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond Existing Capacity r 24,228.1 691.0 694.0 1,196.0 1,148.0 1,101.0 859.0 18,539.0 r New Capacity 3,318.0 - - - - - - 3,318.0 Programmatic r 7,598.0 470.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 5,378.0 Total 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 33 394 Summary-Unfunded Projects Financial Sources and Uses(Amounts in thousands) Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond Capital Uses Land,Land Rights 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0 Buildings,Bldg Improvements Site Improvements 110,006.0 5,494.8 5,886.2 9,613.2 7,799.6 8,327.9 6,722.6 66,162.0 Vehicles,Equipment&Other 1,531.6 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 1,262.0 Artwork - - - - _ Project Management - - - - 40 - - Total Uses 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0 Capital Sources Federal Grant WA State Grant 996.5 125.0 871.5 King County Grant A.- King County Levy Other Grant Gas Tax Donations/Contributions - - - Revenue Bonds - - - - LTGO Bonds - - - - Voted Bonds General Fund Revenues Or - 7 - Youth&Teen Revenues CIP Revenues CIP REET2 Revenues Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - Sourcestobedetermined 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0 Total Sources 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0 Operating Needs Ongoing Operating Nets Total Operating WIF IV By Project Type Total Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Existing Capacity 82,642.8 4,305.8 4,673.0 8,375.1 6,536.3 7,038.8 5,407.2 46,306.0 New Capacity 34,399.6 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 25,165.0 Programmatic 940.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 821.0 Total 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 34 395 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES A complete assessment of transportation facilities is considered in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element as well as the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which was adopted in June 2008. Figure 5 of the Transportation Element Technical Report illustrates the City's recommended project list through 2035 which includes four types of improvements: intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade separations. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million. Table CF.10 Transportation Recommended Project List Type of Project Number of Projects Cost($) Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000 New Streets 4 84,715,000 Street Widening 14 269,389,000 Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000 Total 40 $508,981,000 Source:City of Kent 2015 Transportation Element Technical Report. Figures are in 2007 dollars. The goal and policies, including Level of Service (LOS) policies and inventories related to the provision of transportation services and facilities are contained in the Transportation Element and Transportation Technical Background Report of this Comprehensive Plan and in the Transportation Master Plan. Table CF.11 shows a breakdown of the City's streets by classification. There are more miles of local streets than any other category, as local streets are present in all neighborhoods. Local streets represent 66 percent of the streets. Principal arterials represent only 7 percent of the roadway miles, but carry most of the daily traffic volume. Table CF.11 Transportation Existing Street Functional Classification Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total Principal Arterials 30 6.5 Minor Arterials 39 8.5 Collector Arterials Industrial 13 2.8 Residential 31 6.8 Residential Collectors 41 9.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 35 396 Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total Local Access Streets/ 303 66.3 Unclassified Total(excluding state highways 457 100 and freeways) Source:City of Kent 2008 Transportation Master Plan Level of Service (LOS) The City of Kent uses roadway corridors to evaluate LOS. Roadway LOS is a measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A letter grade, ranging from A to F, is assigned based on the delay experienced by drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future traffic conditions. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where demand exceeds capacity. For signalized intersections and unsignalized, all- way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by the average delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop- controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table CF-12 displays the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections. TABLE CF-12 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersection Delay per (Seconds) Vehicle(Seconds) A < 10 < 10 B > 10to20 > 10to15 C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 F > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manuat,2010,Transportation Research Board. The City's adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway South corridor and the downtown zone which are allowed to operate at LOS F. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 36 397 The LOS was re-examined in 2015 using 2014 vehicle counts to compare with 2006 data used for the adoption of the 2008 TMP. The results indicate that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard. The work completed in 2015 included analyzing 20-year land use forecasts. The forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts. Table CF-13 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to previous land use forecasts. TABLE CF-13 CITY OF KENT LAND USE FORECASTS Policy Document Forecast Year Employment' Households 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS 2031 93,600 68,900 Proposal 2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS 2031 73,300 57,100 Proposal 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500 Notes:1.Employment totals do not include construction jobs. Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast includes the same number of jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100 more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the employment and household figures assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS. The results of the corridor LOS analysis presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 of the Transportation Element Technical Report indicate that the overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis indicates that all Corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 37 398 Table CF.14 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List-Transportation Project and 2021- Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total (thousands$) CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) B&O Projects Overlay Projects 3,549.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 53250 74549 Sidewalks 895.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 13500 18895 Striping 226.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 3300 4626 Signal Loops 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 450 630 B&O Revenue 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 70,500.0 98,700.0 CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) Street Fund&Utility Tax Traffic Controllers 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 2,700.0 3,420.0 Traffic Signal Damage - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,511V 1,900.0 Street Light Mtc. - - 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 1,425.0 1,805.0 UPS Cabinets-New 50.0 50.0 50.0 - - 150.0 UPS Cabinets-Repl. - - - - - 45.0 675.0 720.0 Traffic Counts - - 150.0 150.0 2,250.0 2,550.0 Traffic Cameras-New 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 - 128.0 Traffic Cameras-Repl. _ _ _ - 150.0 150.0 Neighborhood Traffic Control 193.0 243.0 250.0 250.0 3,750.0 4,686.0 Street Fund&Utility Tax Revenue 650.0 700.0 857.0 852.0 12,450.0 15,509.0 CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) Metro Transit Services Metro Transit Services 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 2,325.0 3,255.0 Metro Transit Revenue 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 2,325.0 3,255.0 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Solid Waste Tax Projects Residential Streets 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 Solid Waste Utility Tax 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects 4,855.0 4,855.0 5,505.0 5,555.0 5,712.0 5,707.0 85,275.0 117,464.0 Non-Capacity Projects 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 Total Costs 7,363.0 7,375.0 8,050.0 8,126.0 8,308.0 8,329.0 127,912.0 175,463.0 Baseline Funding-Estimated Available Funds B&O Funds 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 70,500.0 98,700.0 Street Fund&Utility Tax - - 650.0 700.0 857.0 852.0 12,450.0 15,509.0 Metro Transit Services 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 2,325.0 3,255.0 Solid Waste Utility Tax Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 38 399 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 Total Revenues 7,363.0 7,375.0 89050.0 8,126.0 89308.0 8,329.0 127,912.0 175,463.0 Partial and Unfunded Street Projects Project and 2021- Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total (thousands $) CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) Street Widening 80th Avenue South - - - - - - 1,323.0 1,323.0 South 212th Street 10,100.0 10,100.0 SR 181/WVH/Washington - 16,150.0 16,150.0 Avenue 116th Ave SE 46,430.0 46,430.0 132nd Ave SE(SE 200 SE 236) 20,990.0 20,990.0 132nd Ave SE(SE 248 SE 236) 11,950.0 11,950.0 Military Road South 13,630.0 13,630.0 West Meeker Street (Fenwick-GR) 70,000.0 70,000.0 West Meeker Street(64 -GR) 5,960.0 5,960.0 SE 248th Street - - - - - - 5,640.0 5,640.0 SE 256th Street - - - - - - 16,980.0 16,980.0 132nd Ave SE(KK-SE 248) - 23,200.0 23,200.0 South 272nd Street - - - - - - 13,916.0 13,916.0 132nd Ave SE(SE 288 -KK) 13,120.0 13,120.0 269,389.0 CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) Intersection Improvements SE 192nd/SR515- Benson 540.0 540.0 South 196th/80th Ave South 250.0 250.0 South 196th/84th Ave South 1,190.0 1,190.0 South 212th/72nd Ave South 330.0 330.0 South 212th 84th Ave South 1,710.0 1,710.0 South 212th/SR 167 - - - - - - 400.0 400.0 South 240th/SR 99 420.0 420.0 SE 240th/SR 515 - - - - - - 1,650.0 1,650.0 Smith/Central 20.0 20.0 Meeker/Washington 780.0 780.0 South 260th/SR 99 - - - - - - 1,180.0 1,180.0 Mil itary/Reith 1,945.0 1,945.0 SE 256th/SR 515 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 39 400 550.0 550.0 Kent-Kangley/108th 1,410.0 1,410.0 SE 256th/132nd Ave SE 302.0 302.0 South 272nd/Military - - - - - - 1,540.0 1,540.0 Kent-Kangley/132nd - - - - - - 1,360.0 1,360.0 15,577.0 CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) New Streets SE 196th Street - - - - - - 45,200.0 45,200.0 72nd Ave South - - - - - - 1,015.0 1,015.0 South 224th Street - - - - - - 36,000.0 36,000.0 108th Ave SE 2,500.0 2,500.0 84,715.0 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Railroad Grade Separations South 212th/UPRR 33,000.0 33,000.0 South 212th/BNRR - - - - - - 33,000.0 33,000.0 South 228th/UPRR - - - - - - 24,200.0 24,200.0 Willis Street/UPRR 26,500.0 26,500.0 Willis Street/BNRR _ 22,600.0 22,600.0 139,300.0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects 369,681.0 369,681.0 Non-Capacity Projects _ 139,300.0 139,300.0 Total Costs - - - - - - 508,981.0 508,981.0 Baseline Funding-Estimated Available Funds Street Fund&Utility Tax - - - - 93.0 148.0 32,700.0 32,941.0 Total Revenues _ _ 93.0 148.0 32,700.0 32,941.0 SOLID WASTE The City of Kent has entered into an inter-local agreement (ILA) with King County Solid Waste and most jurisdictions in King County. This inter-local agreement expires in 2040. As a partner to the ILA, all municipal solid waste generated in the City of Kent must be taken to King County's Cedar Hills Landfill located near Maple Valley. This landfill was originally permitted in 1960 and is King County's last active landfill; King County has worked to extend the life of the landfill through waste diversion. At the present time, Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 40 401 Cedar Hills is expected to close around 2028, however increased diversion may extend that time frame. The King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identifies several landfills that are potential locations for solid waste disposal following the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Potential Locations for Out-of-County Landfill Disposal Landfill Name Location Capacity (tons) Year of Estimated Closure Columbia Ridge Gilliam County, OR 201,000,000 2135+ Landfill Roosevelt Regional Klickitat County, 205,000,000 2075+ Landfill WA Finley Buttes Morrow County, OR 124,000,000 2100+ Regional Landfill Simco Road Elmore County, ID 200,000,000+ 2100+ Regional Landfill Eagle Mountain Riverside County, 708,000,000 2125 Landfill CA Mesquite Regional Imperial County, 600,000,000 2110 Landfill CA Following the closure of the Cedar Hills landfill, waste will be exported out of the county via train to one of the landfills identified above or via waste to energy conversion technology such as anerobic digestion. As the closure of the landfill nears, King County Solid Waste division will follow the technology to identify what process or processes would be best suited to King County. Technology for waste to energy conversion is likely to have significant improvements over the next decade. Kent contracts solid waste collection for municipal garbage, recycling and yard and food waste with a contractor. The contractor collects solid waste in Kent and disposes the garbage directly to the Cedar Hills landfill or a King County Solid Waste transfer station. Co-mingled recycling is processed at the contractor's materials recycling facility in Seattle. All yard and food waste collected by Kent's contractor is taken Cedar Grove to be converted into compost. PUBLIC UTILITIES Water The principal sources of water supply for the City's municipal water system are Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, supplemental Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 41 402 well facilities are activated. These sources meet the 6.2 million gallon average daily demand (ADD) and the approximately 12.1 million gallon peak daily demand (PDD). To meet long-term demands, the City executed an agreement in 2002 to partner with Tacoma Water, Covington Water District and Lakehaven Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water Project. This additional water source will meet the City's long-term peak day demand projections identified in the Water System Plan of approximately 18 million gallons based upon growth projections to 2030. In fact, existing water supply can produce 30 million gallons per day; however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to deliver this water to customers. Please see the Utilities Element and 2011 Water System Plan for additional information. The 2011 Kent Water System Plan estimated water demands through 2030. To estimate future water demands, historic consumption, land use and population forecasts were used. Kent has municipal water supplies of approximately 30 MGD which is sufficient to the meet the Average Daily Demand and the Peak Day Demand through the planning period in the 2011 Kent Water System Plan as outlined in the table below. NOTE: For security reasons, water sources and capacity are combined in the tables below. Table CF.15 Water Current Facilities Inventory - Water (2011) Size/Amount Facility Location (Gallons Per Day) Various springs, wells, and Citywide 30 million gallons/day in municipal partnerships water Source: 2011 Water System Plan Level of Service Requirements Analysis - Water Supply Average Daily Current Demand (ADD)and Average Daily Net Reserve or Time Period ERU Peak Day Demand Demand (ADD)] (Deficit) (PDD)] Needed to Available Meet LOS standard CURRENT LOS STANDARD=197 gallons PER ERU per day ADD and 358 gallons PER ERU per day PDD Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 42 403 7.43 MGD (ADD)- 22.57 MGD 2015 43,460 13.83 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD (ADD)-16.17 MGD (PDD) 7.74 MGD (ADD)- 22.26 MGD 2016 43,881 14.27 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD (ADD)-15.73 MGD (PDD) 21.95 MGD 2017 44,302 8.05 MGD (ADD)- 30 MGD (ADD)-15.30 14.7 MGD (PDD) MGD (PDD) 21.65 MGD 2018 44,723 8.35 MGD (ADD)- 30 MGD (ADD)-14.87 15.13 MGD (PDD) MGD (PDD) 8.66 MGD (ADD)- 21.34 MGD 2019* 45,144 30 MGD (ADD)-14.43 15.57 MGD (PDD) MGD (PDD) 8.97 MGD (ADD)- 21.03 MGD 2020 45,567 30 MGD (ADD)-14.00 16.0 MGD (PDD) MGD (PDD) 10.4 MGD (ADD)- 19.60 MGD 2035 52,801 30 MGD (ADD)-11.00 19.0 MGD (PDD) MGD (PDD) ERU-Equivalent Residential Unit Note* - 2035 data estimated from the 2008 Water System Plan Source:2011 Water System Plan—Table 6 Appendix D and Figure 3-6-with straight-line extrapolation to 2035 FIRE FLOW Fire flow is the measure of sustained flow of available water for fighting fire at a specific building or within a specific area at 20 psi residual pressure. When fire flow is provided, WAC 246-290-230(6) requires the water distribution system to provide a maximum day demand (MDD) plus the required fire flow at a pressure of at least 20 psi (140 kPa) at all points Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 43 404 throughout the distribution system, and under the condition where the designated volume of fire suppression and equalizing storage has been completed. Table CF.XFF below shows the minimum fire flow rates and duration for the residential, commercial and industrial uses within the city. The 2008 Water System Plan included modeling based on the land use types in the service area, and consistent with the development of the demand projections as presented and used in the development of the plan. Fire flow analyses resulted in deficiencies within the 590 pressure zone. It was determined that pipe upsizing and looping would not drastically improve flow, and thus justified a new pressure zone. This new pressure zone will be the 640 pressure zone which will take a number of years to fund and complete. The 640 Zone Creation Report, 2008, is located in Appendix F of the 2008 Water System Plan. Table CF.16 Water City of Kent Minimum Fire Flow Rates and Duration Classification Rate and Duration Residential (1) 1,000 gpm or 1,500 gpm for 60 minutes Commercial 3,500 gmp for 180 minutes Industrial 3,250 gpm for 240 minutes (1) Where fire flow availability is greater than 1,000 gpm but less than 1,500 gpm,the Fire Marshal requires the residence to be sprinkled. Source: 2011 Water System Plan Table CF.17 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Water Project and 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Cost/Revenue 2035 (thousands$) CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) 640 Pressure Zone 1,500.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 9,000.0 17,000.0 Water Revenue 1,500.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 9,000.0 17,000.0 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) HCP Implementation (Clark Springs) 95.0 240.0 895.0 215.0 240.0 1,800.0 3,485.0 Tacoma Pipeline 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 450.0 600.0 Water Conservation 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 750.0 1,000.0 Landsburg Mine 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 44 405 Water System Improvements 620.0 625.0 170.0 200.0 175.0 12,415.0 14,205.0 Large Meter&Vault Repl. 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 1,125.0 1,500.0 Hydrant Replacements 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 450.0 600.0 Water Generators - 200.0 - - - 800.0 1,000.0 Wellhead Protection 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4,550.0 5,050.0 Reservoir Maintenance 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 1,250.0 1,500.0 Security Impv.Water Sites 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 750.0 1,000.0 Transmission Mains 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3,260.0 3,760.0 SCADA - - - - - 900.0 900.0 Guiberson Reservoir 2,800.0 2,800.0 Water Revenue 2,800.0 1,300.0 1,650.0 1,650.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 30,000.0 39,400.0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects 1,500.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 9,000.0 17,000.0 Non-Capacity Projects 2,800.0 1,300.0 1,650.0 1,650.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 30,000.0 39,400.0 Total Costs 4,300.0 2,300.0 2,650.0 3,150.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 39,000.0 56,400.0 Water Revenues 4,300.0 2,300.0 2,650.0 3,150.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 39,000.0 56,400.0 Total Revenues 4,300.0 2,300.0 2,650.0 3,150.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 39,000.0 56,400.0 Sewer The City of Kent sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area, expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local improvement districts. The City's sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance with the growing needs of the City. Because Kent's sewer service area is not coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future population forecast for the actual area served by Kent sewer. The sanitary sewer system in Kent has been designed assuming the tributary areas have been fully developed in accordance with the land use plan and no further growth could be accommodated. Please see the Utilities Element and the 2000 Sanitary Sewer Plan for additional information. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 45 406 The City of Kent has inter-local agreements with King County METRO to treat sanitary sewer from Kent and other municipalities in south King County via the large sewer interceptors that run through the City. As such, Kent does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. The City has eight sanitary sewer pump stations located throughout the city to pump waste into the King County METRO interceptors that take the waste to the treatment plant. The sanitary sewer system is designed to provide a level of service of; 60 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for residential; 2,000 gallons per acre per day (gpad) for light industrial; 4,000 gpad for heavy industrial; 3,000 gpad for light commercial; and 7,000 gpad for heavy commercial. During the design of any sewer system, calculations are made assuming the tributary area is fully developed in accordance with the land use plan and no further growth can be accommodated. As such, the City is meeting the level of service for the sanitary sewer utility. Table CF.18 Sewer Current Facilities Inventory - Sewer (2015) Size/Amount Pump Station Location (Pump Capacity*) Horseshoe Acres 7942 S. 2615t St. Two 650 gpm pumps which run alternately Linda Heights 3406 S. 248th St. Two 330 gpm pumps which run alternately Lindental 26432 118th Pl. SE Three 2,000 gpm pumps which run alternately Skyline 3301 S. 222"d Pl. Two 150 gpm pumps which run alternately Victoria Ridge 4815 S. 272"d Pl. Two 100 gpm pumps which run alternately 212th St. Pump Station 9001 S. 212th St. Two 100 gpm pumps which run alternately Frager Road 21233 Frager Road S. Two 650 gpm pumps which run alternately Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 46 407 Size/Amount Pump Station Location (Pump Capacity*) Mill Creek 26710 104th Ave. SE Two 150 gpm pumps which run alternately *If needed, pumps at the pump station can operate concurrently to meet capacity. Level of Service Requirements Analysis - Sewer Capital Facility Total Acreage Served Gallons per Day Current Net Reserve or Time Period by system (GPD) Needed to [Gallons Per Day (Deficit) Meet LOS standard (GPD)Available CURRENT LOS STANDARD=4,546 Gallons per acre per day(GPAD) 2015 9,030 41.05 MGD 68.42 MGD 27.37 MGD 2016 9,218 41.91 MGD 68.42 MGD 26.51 MGD 2017 9,406 42.76 MGD 68.42 MGD 25.66 MGD 2018 9,594 43.62 MGD 68.42 MGD 24.80 MGD 2019 9,783 44.47 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.95 MGD 2020 9,971 45.33 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.09 MGD 2035 12,793 58.16 MGD 68.42 MGD 10.26 MGD Source:2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan-with straight-line extrapolation to 2035 Table CF.19 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Sewer Project and Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2035 (thousands$) CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 47 408 Misc Sewer Replacement 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 23,800.0 30,375.0 Linda Heights Replacement - - - - - 1,900.0 - 1,900.0 Skyline Replacement - 2,200.0 2,200.0 Horseshoe Replacement 2,000.0 2,000.0 Derbyshire Improvement 2,000.0 2,000.0 Sewer Revenue 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 1,900.0 30,000.0 38,475.0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects Non-Capacity Projects 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 1,900.0 30,000.0 38,475.0 . ...... Total Costs 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 1,900.0 30,000.0 38,475.0 Sewer Revenue 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 1,900.0 30,000.0 38,475.0 ..... . Total Revenues 1,075.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,500.0 1,700.0 1,900.0 30,000.0 38,475.0 Storm Drainage The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches, pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect individual parcels with the City's surface water systems. The City also owns, operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities. The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted within the 2009 Drainage Master Plan (DMP). The DMP included an evaluation of watersheds and drainage basins, analysis of open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, and a determination and prioritization of projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats, and efficiently serve planned growth in a cost-effective way. Further details on each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars. Land development activities requiring approval from the City of Kent must meet the requirements of Kent's Surface Water Design Manual. When discharging to streams or open channels, runoff rates from development Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 48 409 sites are required to meet certain water quality and flow control standards. Details of design criteria and core requirements can be found in the current Surface Water Design Manual. The city ensures development activities meet the requirements of the SWDM. The level of service for the maintenance of the stormwater system is measured by meeting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II permit for Western Washington, issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The city is currently meeting this level of service. The King County Flood Control District (KCFCD) has primary responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Green River levees. However, the city is leading the effort to obtain FEMA accreditation for the levees, which documents that they meet federal standards for design, construction, operation and maintenance. The city is partnering with the KCFCD to make improvements to the levees in the valley and maintain them as needed to meet accreditation requirements. Table CF.20 Regional Stormwater Detention and Water Quality Facilities Current Facilities Inventory - Stormwater (2015) Size/Amount Pump Station Location (Pump Capacity*) Green River Natural East of Russell Road, Detention and Water Resources Area north of S. 228th Street Quality Upper Mill Creek East of 104th Avenue SE Detention Detention Facility near SE 267th Street Lower Mill Creek Within Earthworks Park Detention Detention Facility 98th Avenue/Garrison 98th Avenue at SE 233rd Detention and Water Creek Detention Facility Street Quality Meridian Meadows East of 128th Avenue at Detention Detention Facility 266th Street South 259th Street North of S. 259th Street Detention and Water Detention Facility between 1st and 3rd Quality Avenues Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 49 410 Size/Amount Pump Station Location (Pump Capacity*) Table CF.21 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Stormwater Project and Cost/Revenu e 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2035 (thousands CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS) NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Green River Levees 500.0 6,795.0 6,190.0 6,185.0 6,180.0 6,125.0 8,425.0 40,400.0 Mill/Garrison/S pring&GR Tributaries 4,100.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 58,925.0 68,025.0 NPDES - 205.0 210.0 215.0 220.0 225.0 3,975.0 5,050.0 Soos Creek& Tributaries - - - - - - 12,875.0 12,875.0 Storm Maintenance& Replacement 3,400.0 32,200.0 35,600.0 West Hill Drainage - - 4,700.0 4,700.0 Drainage 121,100. 166,650. Revenue 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity Projects - - - - - - - - Non-Capacity 121,100. 166,650. Projects 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 Total Costs 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 121,100. 166,650. 0 0 Drainage 121,100. 166,650. Revenue 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 Total 121,100. 166,650. Revenues 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 50 411 Telecommunications in Kent include both wired and wireless telephone services, cable and satellite television, and high-speed broadband technology. With expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, new technologies and competition, telecommunications utilities are expected to meet voice, video and broadband demands during the planning period. (See also the Utilities Element in this Plan.) Table CF.22 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Current Facilities Inventory - (2015) Size/Amount Facility Location (Num,Sq Ft,Acres) Type 1 —Office Locations City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S,Kent,WA 98032 5,110 Sq. Ft. Annex Building 302 W Gowe St,Kent 98032 4,600 Sq. Ft. Total Type 1 9,710 Sq. Ft. Type 2—Data Center Fire Station 74 24611 116`h Ave SE,Kent,WA 98030 800 Sq. Ft, City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S,Kent,WA 98032 1,240 Sq. Ft. Total Type 2 2,040 Sq. Ft. Type 3—Print Shop City Hall 1st Floor 220 Fourth Ave S,Kent,WA 98032 1,332 Sq. Ft. Total Type 2 1,332 Sq. Ft. Total All Types 13,082 Sq.Ft. Source: XXX Table CF.23 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Level of Service Requirements Analysis -Capital Facility Type Square Feet Population requirements Current (IT Employees, Needed to Meet [Square Feet] Net Reserve or Time Period including temps) LOS standard Available (Deficit) CURRENT LOS STANDARD=SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE POPULATION 2015 34 9,977 13,082 3,105 2021 40 11.027 13,082 2,205 2035 46 12,077 13,082 1,005 ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD 2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 51 412 Square Feet Population requirements Current (IT Employees, Needed to Meet [Square Feet] Net Reserve or Time Period including temps) LOS standard Available (Deficit) 2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX 2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX Source:http:Hoperationstech.about.com/od/startinganoff ice/a/OffSpaceCa lc.htm Table CF.24 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List Project and Cost/Reve n u e (thousands 2021- $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required to Meet LOS-Level of Service) Hardware Lifecycle Cost $939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,65 0 Revenue $939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,65 Source 1 0 Software Lifecycle Cost $303,750 $744,900 $1,125,00 $1,175,00 $875,000 $975,000 $21,425,00 $26,623,65 0 0 0 0 Revenue $303,750 $744,900 $625,000 $625,000 $125,000 $175,000 $2,970,000 $5,568,650 Source 1 Revenue $500,000 550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,00 $21,055,00 Source 3 0 0 Tech Plan Cost $203,500 $193,200 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $3,000,000 $4,196,700 Revenue $6,500 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $45,000 $63,500 Source 1 Revenue $197,000 $193,200 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $2,955,000 $4,133,200 Source 2 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) Project 1 Cost $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Revenue $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Source 1 Revenue $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Source 2 Project 2 Cost $X $X $X $X Revenue $X $X $X $X Source 1 Revenue $X $X $X $X Source 2 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 52 413 Project and Cost/Reve n u e (thousands 2021- $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY Capacity $1,447,00 $1,447,00 $1,947,00 $1,997,00 $1,697,00 $1,797,00 $33,755,00 $44,087,00 Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non- $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Capacity Projects Total Costs $1,447900 $19447900 $19947900 $1,997900 $19697900 $19797,00 $339755900 $449087900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source 1 - $1,250,00 $1,250,00 $1,250,00 $1,250,00 $750,000 $800,000 $12,300,00 $18,850,00 Cable Utility 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Source 2- $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $3,940,000 Tech Fees Source 3- $550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,00 $21,100,00 Internal $500,000 0 0 Utility Tax Total $1,447,00 $1,447,00 $1,947,00 $1,997,00 $1,697,00 $1,797,00 $33,755,00 $44,087,00 Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District No. 415. However, Kent residents are also served by the Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Renton School Districts. Detailed inventories of school district capital facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of each school district. The CFPs of the Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and Highline School Districts and associated school impact fees are adopted annually. The CFP for the Renton School District is incorporated by reference, although no school impact fees are collected for the Renton School District for residential development within Kent. Estimated total student enrollment figures of Kent's Planning Area households for each school district are provided in Table CF.4 below. Locations of schools within the Kent School District and the boundaries of other school districts serving Kent's Planning Area are illustrated in Figure CF-4. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 53 414 Figure CF-4 Educational Service Areas and Facilities NN LAWE 9W.93T �� •eLEmex TNRY S IB45r "'•'•----�---- w iYff NKSN !' 'g / ELEIefN N4 s,eesr P •�noGL m � se.x.�sr a - MEEKER 1KEGLE EEN.N -LE _{ EDUCATIONAL SERVICE .—E eCHOOL _ •\ _ _- _, -_ p aALLELEMENTARY SCHOOL Angle 'y 9 ,-.GLEN"'EEE-----.E•�`EE' AREAS&FACILITIES I.-Le S,%sT x (ELEMENTARY 9zNE © r , ELEMENTARY Fi„EGu.,E MAORONA 1, FLeMFxruer asp s t 1 LEGEND • w iE Ia P LEMEH "r "+ _ � IIm Sr •xlRloc.•t C]POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA sE r � L3CITY LIMIT6 G31tsT xmfR LANE L� ♦ LIBRARY ELENFNTAPY E ExTAm f A Yy 911e Sr & • •LErn • SCHOOL r•1 p, SODS CPEE� ELENENIaPT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 5, A j ' n :Y • suu{usE O KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT-415 Nf NT MOUNTAIN $ +� EIENENIARY • fuTnar�.•wE!`I AGAOEMY ''� • w OHIGHLINE SCHGOLDISTRIGT-401 EIc�M IESI y s�z03T 3 I =FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT-210 ! B Hoot rErERANS OR xEELIawKEx ;, •rsu 1EP�olAu =RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT-403 HI-W`E~ euM O I DLE Q AUBURN SCHOOL D16TRICT-40E c001fMNNITY ex� <' 8 ELt NFxTARVR•sGHCOL Lake j��e -r.' . � s2<N ST E ENTARv SE Rao ST JiJ} wIN— CRE9T INITl15T KENTE¢`'1 :.-NTARY MERMPY 3 m ExaP S•ELE"MENTARYCS saRTux / ',R S,s fLFMENTAR.Y / WLL.IT dE1B ENTJAEWON • � i� � •xlCx BCxOOL" sG 9T iE EKIL KENT N 7 i F !.� lnnr RHOEHIK R ' ME ' ,•4 y •m IC A4AO.Y .W ELEMENTAN� •aTRPLAK I •..'Ed��F \ MILIENIUN01 K 9ET39Y ELEMENT � ELEMENTARY a^ TWAIN , ; �� e m • Kmo-KnnlhY R6 510 LiI L sa'�°vALNALu ttij szrTsL___--._____� 57T7 sE nK wnv clxf TREE NGRuou ` w :, E EMENTAR E WL RIEOE1LEMFNTARY• t> LfMfNT.RY ELEMENT.,:~ � I a •TKGMA9 u; � `---I;—•-------- >,�.4 � a �.a I N sKIHsT" ;,Zvi A ss%51 3E si MN aR SCALE:1':4,000' + — Yable CF.25 SCHOOL DISTRICT KENT STUDENT ENROLLMENT - 2015 Kent Auburn Federal Way Highline Renton School School School School School District District District District District Estimated Total Kent Planning Area Resident 20,642 42 2,083 291 119 Student Enrollment To accommodate projected growth, the school districts have noted the following projects in their 2014 Capital Facilities Plan: Kent: Temporary reopening of former Kent Elementary School (now Kent Valley Early Learning Center) to house kindergarten and early child education classes for Kent and Neely-O'Brien Elementary; Voter- approved funding for Elementary School #31 reallocated to capital projects for safety and security; Expansion of Neely-O'Brien Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 54 415 Elementary School; Replacement of Covington Elementary School. Anticipated funding is through local and state funds and impact fees. Federal Way:Replace Federal Way high school; increase capacity at Decatur High. Norman Center (Employment Transition Program) financed through state-approved LOCAL program through 2020. Phased in full-day kindergarten and decreased K-3 class size create need for additional classes. Funding for improvements would be through land sale funds, bond funds, state match, and impact fees. Auburn: 1 Elementary School and 1 Middle School construction; Acquisition of future school site: Technology Modernization; Facility Improvements - Funded through capital levy, bonds and impact fees Highline: New elementary school and two new middle schools - dependent upon voter-approved capital bonds PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES The City of Kent is served by the King County Library System in the 22,600 square feet Kent Library building at 212 2nd Avenue North. The library opened in 1991 and renovation was completed in March, 2010. The project included interior remodeling such as relocating the meeting rooms, restrooms, and front entrance. An Automated Materials Handling system was also installed in the back room to speed delivery. Detailed information regarding the King County Library System is available on the internet at www.kcls.org. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 55 416 Goals and Policies GENERAL Goal CF-1: As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of public services and capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public health, safety, and quality of life. Policy CF-1.1: Assess impacts of residential, commercial and employment growth on public services and facilities in a manner consistent with adopted levels-of-service. Policy CF-1.2: Ensure that public services and capital facilities needs are addressed in updates to Capital Facilities Plans and Capital Improvement Programs, and development regulations as appropriate. Policy CF-1.3: To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public services and facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the authority to require others to provide. Policy CF-1.4: Periodically review the Land Use Element to ensure that public services and capital facilities needs, financing and levels-of-service of the Capital Facilities Element are consistent and adequate to serve growth where it is desired. Policy CF-1.5: With the 2016 update of the Park and Open Space Plan and the 2017 update of the Transportation Master Plan, adopt one or more of the following options to ensure the City can accommodate the projected 20-year growth in households and jobs: Demand Management, Revised Level of Service, Land Use Revisions, Partnering, or Phasing. Policy CF-1.6: Coordinate the review of non-City managed capital facilities plans to ensure consistency with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Policy CF-1.7: Ensure that the planning, design, construction and operation of public facilities projects will not result in conflicts or substantial inconsistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 56 417 Goal CF-2: Base standards for levels-of-service upon the appropriate provision of public services and facilities as outlined in the operating comprehensive plans of the City and other providers of services and facilities to Kent and its Potential Annexation Area. Policy CF-2.1: Establish levels-of-service appropriate to the core mission of the City and City departments in their provision of services and access of facilities to the public. Policy CF-2.2: When appropriate and beneficial to the City, its citizens, businesses, and customers, pursue national organizational accreditation for all City of Kent agencies providing public services and facilities. Such accreditation should be linked with performance standards applied by City agencies. Policy CF-2.3: Coordinate with other jurisdictions and providers of services and facilities to ensure that the provision of services and facilities are generally consistent for all Kent residents, businesses, and others enjoying City services and facilities. Goal CF-3: Encourage effective non-capital alternatives to maintain or improve adopted levels-of-service. Such alternatives could include programs for community education and awareness, energy conservation, or integration of methods and technologies to improve service delivery. Goal CF-4: Ensure that appropriate funding sources are available to acquire or bond for the provision of needed public services and facilities. Related Information KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan Documents\Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan Proposed-2015LOS- Changes.pdf Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 57 418 KFDRFA Mitigation and Level of Service Policy: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan Documents\Mitigation and LOSC Policy September2014.pdf KFDRFA Mitigation Policy adopting documents: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan Documents\Adoption Resolution and Supporting Documents.pdf KFDRFA 2014 Standard of Cover: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan Documents\KFDRFA-2014-SOC-Draft.pdf Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 58 419 Capital Facilities Element Background Report POLICE Police Services K-9 The K-9 team consists of a sergeant and three officers. The generalist teams are used for a variety of applications. They are primarily used to locate suspects. This is done through tracking the suspects from crime scenes, performing building searches, or searching areas. The generalist teams are also able to locate evidence that would have otherwise one undetected. The use of the K9's also increase the safety of officers. The use of police dogs in these roles greatly enhances the ability of the Kent Police Department to aggressively fight crime. Traffic The Traffic Unit is tasked with providing safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist movement throughout the city. The unit works to prevent and reduce injury and death related to vehicle collisions through aggressive traffic enforcement and education. Comprised of one sergeant, eight officers and one parking enforcement officer, the unit utilizes motorcycle, marked, and unmarked traffic vehicles to conduct enforcement, respond to collisions and other traffic/parking related calls for service. The officers, who also serve as members of our Collision Analysis and Reconstructions Squad (CARS), respond to collisions that result in life threatening injuries or death. They utilize advanced investigative techniques and equipment to complete these complex investigations. The Traffic Unit is actively engaged in community presentations and meetings, conducting training at the Kent Police Traffic School and partnering with the City's traffic engineers to address road design issues. They also partner with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and neighboring agencies to conduct various traffic emphases, including DUI and speed patrols, illegal street racing, pedestrian crossing, seatbelt enforcement and others. Special Operations Unit (SOU) The Special Operations Unit is a team of four bicycle officers that are supervised by a patrol sergeant. The unit was formed to tackle issues and Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 59 420 situations that are not as accessible to regular patrol officers in vehicles. These areas include bike trails, city parks and business venues. This year bike officers concentrated most of their efforts in the downtown core of the city. Their focus was criminal behavior and quality of life issues. They worked closely with the downtown business association, parks department, public works department and Kent Corrections to clean up areas of illegal camps and dumped garbage helping make the community safe and enjoyable for all. Bicycle officers are the primary team that works on the police patrol boat and in the park at Lake Meridian during the summer months. They provide police services at community events including 4th of July Splash, Dragon Boat Races and Cornucopia Days. They provide marine enforcement and conduct safety inspections on Lake Meridian to educate the public and promote safe boating practices on the water. In 2014 the SOU unit will be expanding to eight officers and a full time sergeant. This will ensure better unit coverage and the ability to address many more of the criminal and quality of life issues in the City of Kent. Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) The Kent CDU is made up of 13 officers, two sergeants and one commander. The CDU is trained to effectively deal with large crowds and to minimize criminal behavior during civil unrest. The unit is a part time team made up of officers from all different divisions of the police department. Kent CDU is part of the regional Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (VCDU) which consists of officers from Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD and Port of Seattle PD. Together the unit is able to bring over 90 officers together if there is civil unrest or a threat of civil unrest. VCDU is comprised of a command element, line officers, bike officers, a CUT team (specially equipped and trained to safely cut or dismantle protestor devices and chains) and SART (special munitions deployment team). VCDU also partners with Bellevue PD, WA State Patrol, North Pierce Metro and local Homeland Security teams for training and large incidents that require more resources. An example was an operation in Tukwila where 160 CDU officers participated. SWAT The Kent Police Department participates in a regional SWAT team with five other agencies from the South King County area. Partners in the Valley SWAT Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 60 421 team (VSWAT) include Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD and Port of Seattle PD. This participation allows Kent PD to have access to one of the largest, best equipped and well trained team in the state. VSWAT is comprised of six officers from each agency for a total of 36 tactical officers. Each agency also provides a Commander for oversight and leadership. Detectives The Detective Unit consists of two detective sergeants, 15 detectives and one six month rotating detective position that is staffed by a patrol officer as a contractually bid position. One detective sergeant and eight detectives are responsible for investigating crimes against people; this unit includes a forensics expert who is responsible for the retrieval and analysis of technological evidence. The remaining personnel investigate crimes against property including burglaries, frauds and stolen vehicles. The rotating detective position is often utilized for both types of investigations and gives patrol officers experience in the handling cases on a more in-depth level than is possible while working in a patrol environment. The rotating detective then returns to their patrol crew and can help teach their co-workers the advanced investigative techniques that they have learned. The Detective Unit includes one detective who is assigned to ensure that all sexually violent offenders residing in Kent have a current residential address on file. Detectives physically verify the residency of every offender within the city limits to ensure compliance. Special Investigations Unit (SIU) SIU uses covert investigative techniques to combat high impact offenders, identify and apprehend violent offenders and solve problems in the city. SIU focuses on gang activity, prostitution operations and narcotics investigations. SIU has two members that are currently assigned part time to the FBI's Child Exploitation Task Force and one member who is assigned to the Homeland Security Investigations District 10 for Operation Community Shield. The unit also assists detectives with shooting investigations, homicides, and robberies. Neighborhood Response Team (NRT) This team addresses crime trends and neighborhood problems through intense interaction with community members, landlords, and businesses. One way NRT addresses neighborhood problems is through the use of crime notification letters. These letters go out to the owners of nuisance properties. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 61 422 Community Education Unit (CEU) Crime prevention is a vital component of the Intelligence Led Policing approach to law enforcement and is a powerful tool in accomplishing the department's mission. Community Education Coordinators work closely with the Neighborhood Response Team, focusing on crime prevention and quality of life issues. Providing police services outside of traditional methods, the unit focuses on crime prevention, traffic safety education, youth outreach, youth drug/alcohol prevention and other problem solving strategies working directly with Kent residents. The unit works with neighborhood block watches, businesses, and schools to solve problems and enhance the effectiveness of the police department. These community partnerships improve communication and increase awareness; resulting in a reduction of crime. Some of the outreach programs facilitated by CEU include graffiti cleanup events, block and business watch meetings, and prescription drug take back program. Annual events for CEU include National Night Out, the Game of Life Youth Leadership Conference, and Safety Street at Cornucopia Days. Through partnerships with the Kent Drug Free Coalition and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, CEU focuses on DUI enforcement, alcohol compliance checks, school prevention programs, and other environmental strategies that drive community change. Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET) VNET is a combination of seven local law enforcement jurisdictions including; Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Port of Seattle, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila - along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on the federal level. Their focus is primarily mid- to-upper level drug trafficking organizations. VNET also includes one DEA group supervisor, two DEA federal agents, seven task force officers (detectives from local jurisdictions), one National Guard officer, two support staff, and one King County prosecutor. Recruitment The department has taken several steps to pursue high quality police candidates to fill vacant positions due to retirements, attrition and city growth. The recruiting officer is chosen to lead the review of hiring practices in order to attract well-qualified candidates, while also maintaining a focus on enhancing agency diversity. Our partnership with various community groups has been an integral part of attracting more candidates. The agency continues to hire both lateral experienced officers and entry-level officers to help maintain an agency that is well balanced with experience levels. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 62 423 Chaplaincy Program The Kent Police/Fire Chaplaincy Program has grown considerably since it began several years ago. The program has been a huge success for both residents and city employees. Historically, a full-time chaplain has facilitated the program, but in 2012 a part-time, volunteer chaplain was added to meet additional needs. The chaplains are available to respond 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to emergency scenes involving serious injury or death of a community member or city employee and its purpose is to bring short-term care and compassion to everyone involved. The chaplain services have proven to be a valuable resource, far exceeding original expectations. In fact, chaplains instruct classes at the state basic academy so every new corrections officer in the state is trained on how to deal with critical incident stress management. Nationally recognized for their efforts, Kent's chaplains have been invited to speak at or facilitate state and national events. Records The Records Unit has two records supervisors and nine records specialists, who provide the public with non-emergency information services, distribute court orders, maintain case files, run criminal background checks for officers, and maintain the police-reporting database. Walk-in services include case copies, fingerprinting and concealed pistol licensing. Evidence The Evidence Unit consists of one supervisor and two custodians. Besides documentation, storage, and proper disposal, the supervisor is responsible for crime scene response, processing items for fingerprints and forwarding items to the Washington State Crime Lab for examination. Training The Training Unit includes one sergeant and a range master which provides training and maintains training records for more than 192 sworn and civilian employees. The Training Unit hosts several in-service training days per year. These consist of state required training classes such as first aid and dealing with the mentally ill. Also offered is specific training such as EVOC (Emergency Vehicle Operations Course), PIT (Precision Immobilization Technique), and rifle training. Kent also participates in regional training such as active shooter, SWAT, and civil disturbance. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 63 424 The Kent training facility also hosts regional training. Agencies from all around Washington and surrounding states come to attend classes taught by national training instructors. The courses range from interview and interrogation techniques to a variety of leadership courses. The facility also houses a five lane indoor shooting range where all sworn employees are required to pass a variety of courses in both handgun and rifle ranges at a level 10% higher than state standards. Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) VIPS volunteer their time under the guidance of staff members. Their primary activities involve disabled parking enforcement, graffiti removal, Hands of Friendship in-home visits, Citizen Patrol, and fingerprinting services. They also assist with crowd or traffic control at public events such as Kent Cornucopia Days and the Fourth of July Splash. They assist with clerical work in the station, allowing patrol officers to handle calls for service. VIPS are trained to assist with vehicle lockouts, stranded motorists, and a number of other non-emergency related calls for services. These dedicated volunteers give thousands of hours of work to the Kent community every year and save the city tens of thousands of dollars. Corrections Division The Corrections Division is responsible for the booking and housing of all misdemeanor arrests made by the Kent and Maple Valley Police Departments. Felony arrests are held at the Kent Jail for a short time until they are transferred to the King County Jail. The division consists of a commander, six sergeants, 17 officers and one civilian staff. There are also four contract employees from Occupational Health Services that staff the medical clinic and two contract employees from Consolidated Food Management that staff the full service kitchen. Corrections Volunteers Many community members volunteer their time to meet with inmates in an attempt to help them with alcohol, drug, or other issues that impede their lives and cause them to return to jail. Hundreds of hours of volunteer services are donated by local church members and volunteers from Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous organizations. Inmate Programs The Corrections Division has a sergeant and two officers to supervise inmate programs. Alternatives to incarceration include work release, supervised work crew, work crew and electronic home detention. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 64 425 Work release inmates work at their personal job in the community and return to the facility during non-work hours. In 2014, the work release program will be offered to offenders with misdemeanor sentences from outside agency courts. Supervised work crew inmates are supervised by a correctional officer and clean garbage from roadways, remove graffiti and clean up homeless camps within the community. Work crew inmates are assigned to work at local non-profit organizations. Participating non-profits include the Tahoma National Cemetery, Kent Police Department, Kent and Auburn Food Banks and the Kent Senior Center. Inmates on electronic home detention are restricted to their homes except to work and to attend treatment or school. All inmates submit to a thorough screening process before being accepted to participate in any of the alternatives to incarceration. KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY Community Risk Types Urban (High-Risk) Service Area; Is a geographically area or group of occupancy types where potential loss of life is high and fire has the potential to spread beyond the original unit or structure. These geographic areas have zoning and land uses that allow more than six dwelling units per acre with little or no separation between occupancies or contain commercial structures built prior to modern fire code. Six units per acre zoning with roadways and open space will net between 2.7 and 3 units per built acre of development and may produce population densities greater than 3,000 people per square-mile. Suburban (Low to Moderate Risk) Service Area: A geographic area or occupancy where potential loss of life is limited to a small number of occupants and property damage is unlikely to spread beyond the original structure. Buildings are small to large in size, and include detached single-family homes. These areas have a minimum zoning of R-4 (four homes per acre) and a maximum zoning of R-6, including communities of older rambler style homes with spacing between houses of 15 to 30 feet. Suburban (moderate) risk can also include commercial occupancies such as grocery stores, smaller strip malls, low hazard industrial/commercial, churches, schools and other associated, buildings, but most commercial structures of any size or consequence have fire suppression and notification systems installed. Population density in the suburban (low Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 65 426 to moderate risk) area, generally range from 1,000 to 3,000 people per square mile. Rural (Low-Risk) Service Area: Is a geographic area or occupancy with little potential for exposure risk and includes low-density residential areas located outside the designated Urban Growth Boundary. Zoning is less than 3 homes per acre. Population densities are typically less than 1,000 people per square mile. I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 66 427 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 KENT Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ADDENDUM TO CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND MIDWAY SUBAREA PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) (#ENV-2010-3) AND CITY OF KENT DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) (#ENV-2012-30) KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP I. SCOPE The City of Kent Economic & Community Development Department proposes a non-project action that includes an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments. 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 City'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 update to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are consistent with the levels of growth analyzed in these two 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, 2010 the City of Kent issued a Draft EIS. The Final EIS was issued and distributed on September 1, 2011. No appeals to the EIS were filed. In 2012, the City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzed three Addendum 428 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 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, 2013. No appeals to the SEIS were filed. No additional significant adverse environmental impacts are identified for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan & Zoning Districts map and text amendments; therefore an addendum to the EIS/SEIS is appropriate. III. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY This proposal is a nonproject action pursuant to WAC 197.11. Future project actions associated with the Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are subject to and shall be consistent with the following: Kent Comprehensive 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 as it 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 197-11-704). 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 197-11-060(5)). Future projects identified and associated with implementation of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments 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, 2010 and a Final EIS on September 1, 2011 (#ENV-2010-3). The Midway Subarea Plan, Page 2 of 5 Addendum 429 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Midway Design Guidelines, amendments to development regulations, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps were adopted by the City Council on December 13, 2011. 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 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments 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 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments does not identify new significant adverse impacts or significantly change the prior environmental analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in (WAC-197-11-600(4)(c)). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 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 identified in the EIS and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific conditions. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are within the range of growth analyzed in the EIS and SEIS as shown on the following table: Page 3 of 5 Addendum 430 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Data Sources for Comparison of Capacity/Policy Documents/Forecast Analysis Origin of Data 3OBS HH BUILDABLE LANDS 2012 Lands (21006-1_.: Repote-� 4:� P-, 22,624 14,732 COMPLETED a-IH (Estimated) BL Can)pletel HIS 2006-`01_1 2,034 2013-2014 OFl HH Cc-r,,s eted 452 Tcka Con,0akel HH _,4;36 CPP TARGET CPPTarget21006-2031 13,490 9,360 CPPTarget 20.31-2035 sTargek!25 yrs,:4 years) 2,158 1,498 CPP Target 2006-'+?35 15.648 10r853 ;P.L CcmDlnted &0FM -0---31-14 Con'plaT2I a 2,4S6 -PP Target 2C�)ir2+�35 acl�ust�d Ly I'H cc moleta4 200 =014 `BL�. +JF 1) IS,648 8,372 PSRC LUT TARGET PSRC LUT 2031 Kent(Total �3rcryth Target) (Minus Coil str.ict-an) 75, 14 51,0-9 PSRC LUT 2035 Kent(Total G-.Dvrtri Target.) (Minus Constr-iction) 31.S54 53,549 Est. LJT Anr-J31 ;goat=7 ,2031-2035;`4 years 785 430 Est. LLrf 4 Years Gro,r.'th 3,140 1,720 PSRC LUT Re-paite i 2f)10 42.793 PSRC LUT Re-paite i 2010(see methodology) 61.654 Hethodalagy to Determine 2010 JOBS: 2035 jabs-2025 jabs=8080/10yr=808 jobs; 808x1Syr=12,120 i^bs; 2025 job 73,774-12,120=61,654 jrsb= rep resent?rig air estimated iabs rcr PSRC LOT 2010. ExtsrING 2010 PSRC LJT 61,654 42,793 CAPACITY 2010 PSRC L'JT - BL Cap, 200G-201_ 83,279 53,52S POLICY DOCUMENTS THPI 2031 Ke1-,1 PAA 91.915 48,405 a[• way EIS Kent PAA 9:�-303 68,393 Downtown SEIS Ker,=PAA 73,303 57,1f.)S V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. SUMMARY Kent City Code section 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 plans and policies as well as the overall analysis completed for the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS. B. DECISION The Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments 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 Page 4 of 5 Addendum 431 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS. No new significant adverse environmental impacts associated with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments have been identified. Dated: April 20, 2015 Signature: pjta�AA- Charlene Anderson, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official CA\ah\S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011- 1_Com pPlanU pdate\Chapters_For_Pu blic_Hea ri ng\SEPA_Addendum_042015.doc Page 5 of 5 432 EXHIBITS 433 Exhibit Number Related Element: Description: From: Date: 1 Land Use Element Mowat Construction Mark Mowat 3/13/2015 Comments 2 Transportaion Element Transit Oriented Development Melvin Roberts 4/16/2015 3 Housing Element Presevation, Code Flexibility, Marty Kooistra, Exec 11/7/2014 partnerships, and affordability Director, Housing Development Consortium 4 Housing Element Affordable Housing Kayla Scott-Bresler, 11/7/2014 Policy Mgr, Housing Development Consortium 5 Housing Element Affordable Housing Robin Corak, CEO, 11/10/2014 Multiservice Center 6 Housing Element Affordable Housing Dawn Moser, Green 11/13/2014 River Community College 7 Housing Element Affordable Housing Shary B., Seattle, WA 11/13/2014 8 Land Use Element Rezone Update Request Richard McPherson 2/18/2015 9 Land Use Element Rezone Update Request Richard McPherson 3/20/2015 10 Housing Element Affordable Housing June Loveall, Regional 12/29/2014 Director, YWCA 434 435 March 13th' 2015 Exhibit# b✓t�P �—z'1—I� Date R 'd off___. Land Use & planning Board City of Kent Washington Git,of Kent Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments. Mowat Construction Comments Dear Charlene, Mowat Construction Company has been a long time resident of the Kent Valley, and we understand the two properties that make up our current maintenance facility are under consideration for re-zoning. Regarding Parcel#775980-0021, (22,212 sf) owned by ML Mowat Properties; We would like to register our strong support in seeing this parcel re-zoned from the current GVW. Ideally we would like this parcel re-zoned M-3, which would allow more flexibility with our adjacent M-3 property that encompasses 4.44 acres. Regarding Parcel# 7.75980-0090, (193,271 sf) owned by D.A.M. Properties Inc.; We would like to register our support for the broadening of allowed uses in the industrial zone to include retail and commercial activities. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark Mowat Chairman, Mowat Construction (425) 765-5888 P.O. Box 1330 RECE rNEP Woodinville, WA 98072 MAR 18 2015 CITY O`i= i�Ei�91 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN' Exhibit It — 7 6 From: Melvin Roberts [mai Ito:mel(a)cyclekent.com] Date R—c'd 41 1 Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:04 PM sta$ w To: Cooke, Suzette; Anderson, Charlene I grid Use &. Planning Board Cc: Howlett, Mark; Sam Hartt; Leona Warner; Whitman, Monica C'it�.f of Kent Subject: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) This should really go to the members of the Land Use and Planning Board. A brief glance at the agenda for Land Use and Planning Board, that meets tonight, reveals a shortfall on bicycling in the transit documents. Based on Kent's transit station - it seems like the TOD needs bicycle storage lockers - no rider I know likes to leave a $500-1000 bicycle locked to a "rack" in the open where parts are easily stolen from it. Ask the people who run the lockers at Kent Transit how many lockers they have and what the backlog is for getting a locker. I find pedestrian circulation paths listed as a priority item - but bike facilities don't seem to have much importance. Pedestrians have 1500' of facilities identified for "safe" use by walkers. In the same time a bike rider, who is 4 times faster that a walker, can ride 4t1500 = 6000'. This is over a mile. What's needed are bike lanes, bike ways, bike ramps that go at least a mile from the station - If I were recommended a distance I would go with the distance has been mentioned at PSRC and that distance is 5 miles. People who ride bicycles chose to ride bicycles chose to be either: 1) a vehicle and use the streets and need bike facilities in the streets. or 2) a pedestrian and use the sidewalks - this is highly restrictive near transit stations since the transit authority requires riders to walk their bike on transit property. All the more reason for a bike way to arrive close to the station so that the walk is short. Vancouver BC has utilized the ground area under their "Sky Train" for a bicycle and pedestrian trail. It is great ride. Cycle Tracks, where cyclists are separated from walkers and vehicles, is becoming an important way to provide facilities for people who want to ride bikes and feel like they are safer in their travels. Mel Roberts Kent Bicycle Advisory Board 425-417-8931 437 Rxhlh't�# ✓ �hiV - - r Bate Rec'd of HOUSING Land Use & Planning Board DEVELOPMENT City of Kent consortium HpC's Afiordablc Housing Members: November 7, 2014 Lo,y-income Housing Organizations Community Devolop,ent Corporations Kent Land Use and Planning Board Kent CityHall Special Needs Housing Organizations 220 Fourth Avenue South pub11c,H0usin9 Authorities Kent, WA 98032 Agencies _.Community Action A Workforce Housing Organizations RE: Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update melt Aulhoritles Public Develop Dear Planning Board Members, Government AgeIncle5 and ..,missions On behalf of the Housing Development Consortium of King County(HDC), Architects and Designers thank you for this opportunity to comment on your Comprehensive Plan update. Development Specialists Certified Public Accountants HDC is nonprofit membership organization which represents more than 100 Regionat F•unders 2nd I-ender@ private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and public partners who are working �Iationat Funders and tenders to develop affordable housing and provide housing related services across King comImunity investment specialists County. HDC's members are dedicated to the vision that all people should be Pr.p2rty Managers able to live in a safe, healthy, and affordable home in a conuna1rzity of opportunity. In other words, we believe all people,regardless of income, deserve the L Cotractors Frtms opportunity to thrive in a safe neighborhood with good job, quality schools, strong o access to transit, and plenty of parks and open space for a healthy lifestyle. We very much appreciate Kent's work toward achieving this vision, through your support of affordable housing developments like Multi-Service Center's Radcliffe Place for older adults and Mercy Housing's Appian Way. This comprehensive plan update provides you an ideal opportunity to explore what other strategies are necessary to create an inclusive and affordable community for all of Kent's residents. To that end,we would like to provide the following comments to help guide your work over the next many months on the issues of: preservation, code flexibility, regional partnerships, and deeper affordability. OI'1'D7Yt1 uru nbr'(lUri t{ ♦y uite 1230 .S -,tile. »i Washinl;icu�98701 206-W,32.9b41 Fax 206.623.44669 WwW.i10usingc0ns01'tium,org 438 Preservation: Healthy Housing& Long-Tenn Affordability We greatly appreciate Kent's commitment to preserving and improving existing housing stock, as discussed under Goal 1. Given limited public dollars for the construction of new affordable housing, it is critical Kent maintains the affordability of existing homes. Preserving the quality and affordability of existing homes is one of the best ways to ensure Kent families can afford a decent place to live. Housing rehabilitation supports vibrant neighborhoods and healthy living situations, making it easier for Kent's residents to thrive. According to the City's Draft Housing Needs Assessment, 40% of Kent's housing stock is more than 30 years old and may be in need of repair or rehabilitation. If rental property owners and homeowners lack the funding necessary to maintain their homes, residents' health may be severely impacted by housing health and safety hazards. These include mold, pests, injury hazards, and poor indoor air quality. We strongly support the City's attention to these issues and its commitment to addressing them, through Policies 1.1-1.5, and Programs 1-4 under Goal 1. In addition to ongoing code enforcement, home repair programs, and collaboration with developers and banks, the City should implement a policy to promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level that expands these programs. During a time when local resources are limited, it is critical Kent works to strengthen federal and state funding streams that could advance the health and preservation of its affordable housing stock. When Kent provides incentives or cost reductions for preserving and maintaining affordable housing, this housing should remain affordable for the longest possible tenn. We ask that the City institute a policy to ensure that affordable housing created or preserved using local public resources or by regulation retains its affordability over time. •3 Code Flexibility Creating Communities of Opportunity If low and moderate-income residents can afford to live in communities of opportunity—rich with jobs, transit, and important amenities for a healthy lifestyle—they won't be forced to stretch their budgets so far. These communities are often home to mixed-use and multi-family developments that could promote dense, affordable living. Development incentives make it easier for Kent's lower-income families to afford these neighborhoods. We therefore ask that the development incentives outlined in Policy 4.3 specifically promote housing affordability to people at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) and below. Kent should encourage affordable housing availability in all neighborhoods throughout the city, but it is particularly important in proximity to transit, employment, and/or educational opportunities.The city can use development incentives like reduced parking standards, fee waivers, tax exemptions, and density bonuses to help accomplish this goal. By implementing these types of policies in service of affordability, the city can leverage the power of the private market to create affordable housing with very limited public investment. • Partnerships: Working Regionally to Support Affordable Housing 439 We appreciate the attention Kent has paid in its Housing Element Draft to collaboration with the King County Housing Authority and nonprofit organizations developing housing and providing services in the city. As poverty becomes increasingly concentrated in the suburban areas of the Puget Sound, inter-jurisdictional collaboration, in particular, will become increasingly important for addressing regional housing needs. We therefore ask that Kent include policies in its Housing Element that outline the importance of this collaborative work. The policies listed under Goal H-1 in your existing Housing Element are strong and should be included in the new draft. We urge the City to collaborate with other jurisdictions to assess housing needs, coordinate funding, and preserve and create affordable housing opportunities that allow Kent's residents to thrive. Deeper Affordability: Preventing Homelessness Although we greatly appreciate Kent's concern over homelessness in the city, attention to the preservation of its existing affordable housing stock, and its promotion of partnerships with nonprofits, more needs to be done to specifically create homes for Kent's residents making less than 30% of AMI. The City has committed in Policies 2.1- 2.4 to promoting the addition of affordable housing stock in the City, and the Draft Housing Needs Analysis outlines that there is a shortage of housing for Kent's lowest income residents. The fact that 420 students enrolled in the Kent School District were counted as homeless during the 2012-2013 school year reflects this fact. One of the best ways to prevent and address homelessness is to ensure that quality, permanently affordable housing is available for these households. We ask that the City promote quality housing for those malting less than 30% AMI through the following strategies. 11, Support legislation and funding at the state and federal level that addresses housing needs, particularly increased resources for the State Housing Trust Fund. 2. Collaborate with other South County jurisdictions to assess housing needs, coordinate funding, increase capacity, and find cost-efficiencies. 3. Explore all options for locally financing affordable housing, including the feasibility of creating a rehabilitation or land acquisition loan fund to support the creation of healthy, affordable housing. 4. Grant nonprofit affordable housing providers first right of refusal on any sale of surplus public land. Consider discounting the sale of public land for the construction of affordable housing targeted to those earning less than 30% AMI. 5. Invest in capital infrastructure projects that reduce private costs for the construction of affordable housing targeted to those making less than 30% AMI. 6. Support nonprofit organizations during all stages of siting and project planning and when applying for county, state, and federal funding. 440 We believe it is possible for all working people in Kent to afford housing and still have enough money left over for the basics like groceries, gas, medicine, and child care. We can get there by working together. We greatly appreciate your attention to the needs of your most vulnerable citizens and encourage you to strengthen your Housing Element by including and implementing the above recommended strategies. Thank you for your consideration. We at HDC look forward to working with you as you continue to update your comprehensive plan and would be happy to discuss these comments with you further. We can be reached by phone at (206) 682-9541 or by email at hcde�housingconsortium.or . We hope you will contact us any questions. Best, 41 Marty Kooistra Kell, lder Kayla Schott-Bresler Executive Director Poli Director Policy Manager Date Rec'ej fry q I-and Use&Planning Board City of Kent F SSI on�s • 1•e ca s e. -P�1 G OS 2- LOM- dun O070 � , -HMO� co �� o � r � le hogs t " N 0z 13�s W r sees ut N 1 Vq N M y 0 0 o NZ-1 m fD F n _K o d C g m a O ® W Dq N O - � Oq u n o � o 0 ID 00 V. C d 3 � , t O Oq i DO f�q 442 v�N m o a; W in >� CL ® J) vo Q• %,d .O C M a o _ .� �tn 0 .0 U u in m E in O O r- �s Q. in C � E � � 2in u E 1 _ Ou .0 e— O 0 ! �I���fl►r�rt tlf InIIIIII(Ilirinllnll '� .I�hu���3-�_I�0atia i 09. jA frl�G T. AON 443 N S � \ -o 'd- N .a; in tn ` _ •_ J �. N �/� Q ZE IV _ _ � � . a �C N IV CL I'ttltit'1'•i't-'itt...�•rr•rr' rn r n � �. . . _.._. _ , � xooc� uwuloj&+ 444 Hart, Aleisha From: Robin Corak <robinc@mschelps.org> Exhibit# Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:43 AM ` -,7-7-1 To: Planning Services Kent 2035;Anderson, Charlene Date Rec'd.-� Cc: Gilbert, Matthew staff �N Subject: Housing Element Update feedback Lana Use & Manning BoardCitv or ifent Dear Planning Board Members, I want to thank you both for your work on the Comprehensive Plan and for the opportunity to comment on the plan update. For 43 years,the Multi-Service Center has been helping low-income South King County residents to achieve greater independence and discover the power of their choices through a wide variety of services including but not limited to housing. With the city of Kent's support, MSC was able to build Radcliffe Place, an affordable housing complex with 135 units and optional services for low-income seniors.The comprehensive plan update that the city of Kent has provided offers a unique opportunity to explore strategies necessary to create an inclusive and affordable community for all of Kent's residents. Our feedback is as follows: ® We greatly appreciate Kent's commitment to preserving and improving existing housing stock, as discussed under Goal 1. Given the significant percentage of Kent's housing stock which is more than 30 years old, we strongly support the City's stated attention to these issues in Policies 1.1-1.5 and Programs 1-4 under Goal 1.We would recommend that the City consider implementing a policy to promote additional funding for rehabilitation and energy efficiency as well as supporting legislation at the state and federal levels that expand these programs. ® We appreciate the use of development incentives outlined in Policy 4.3 as these types of incentives help to create communities of opportunity.We recommend that the city consider using development incentives targeted at 80%of AMI and below near transit and other opportunity indicators. a We continue to be impressed by Kent's efforts in working collaboratively with King County Housing Authority and non-profit organizations to address the issue of poverty that exists.We would encourage the city include the policies listed under Goal H-1 in the new plan draft. ® We would ask that the City promote quality, affordable housing for those making less than 30%of the AMI through consideration of strategies including but not limited to: *Supporting legislation and funding at the state and federal levels that addresses housing needs, *Collaborating with other South King County cities to assess housing needs and coordinate funding, *Grant non-profit affordable housing providers first right of refusal on sale of surplus public land, j *Support non-profit organizations through siting and project planning of affordable housing and when applying for local, state, and federal funding Thank you again for all of your efforts on this critical matter and for your consideration of this feedback. Please feel free to contact me at (253) 835-7678 ex. 101 should you have any questions. 1 445 Sincerely, Robin Corak I CEO Multi-Service Center(MSC) 253.835.7678 ext. 1011 P.O. Box 23699, Federal Way, WA 98093 robinc@mschelps.org) www.mschelps.org CMDHelp.Hope.Change. 4.UItt52titCS.f.FNTi Find us on Facebook 2 446 Hart, Aleisha From: Dawn Moser <dmoser@mail.greenriver.edu> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:48 PM � To: Anderson, Charlene E x hi b-it Subject: Prioritize Affordable Housing in I<ent's Comprehens' Qstaff Land USE, Planrairag B® uity�of Kent Dear Land Use and Planning Board Members, As you update Kent's Comprehensive Plan, I ask that you keep housing affordability concerns at the top of your priorities. It should be possible for working people in Kent to afford housing and still have enough money for basic expenses like groceries, gas, and child care. Yet, too many of your residents are paying more than they can afford for their housing costs. Over 41% of Kent's residents are paying more than 30% of their income for housing (the federal standard for affordability), and 18% are paying over half their income in housing costs. I applaud the work Kent has already done to achieve affordability. But, in order to make sure that diverse, affordable housing is available throughout the city by 2035, I urge you to support the following policies in Kent's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update: -Dunn time when local resources are limited it is critical Kent works to strengthen federal and state 9 a i funding streams that could advance the health and preservation of its affordable housing stock. Please support a policy to promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level that expands these programs. -As poverty becomes increasingly concentrated in the suburban areas of the Puget Sound, inter- jurisdictional collaboration, in particular, will become increasingly important for addressing regional housing needs. I ask that Kent include policies in its Housing Element that stress the importance of collaboration. -Despite our best efforts, homelessness persists in South King County. One of the best ways to prevent and end homelessness, is to ensure that quality, permanently affordable housing is available for Kent's most vulnerable residents. I ask that the City adopt policies and implement strategies to promote housing affordable to those making less than 30% AMI. I believe all people in Kent should have the opportunity to live in a safe, healthy, affordable home. With your help, we can achieve this vision. Thank you for all the work you do for your community. I look forward to hearing about the City's progress on updating the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Thank you, Dawn Moser 1706 35th St SE Auburn, WA 98002 i 447 From: Shary B <shary50@yahoo.com> ExhibitT _J Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:17 PM � ` '0 To: Anderson, Charlene Staff Date Reed Uffld Use Planning Board Subject:Prioritize Affordable Housing in Kent's Comprehensive Plan City of lr eent Dear Land Use and Planning Board Members, As you update Kent's Comprehensive Plan, I ask that you keep housing affordability concerns at the top of your priorities. It should be possible for working people in Kent to afford housing and still have enough money for basic expenses like groceries, gas, and child care. Yet, too many of your residents are paying more than they can afford for their housing costs. Over 41%of Kent's residents are paying more than 30%of their income for housing (the federal standard for affordability), and 18%are paying over half their income in housing costs. I applaud the work Kent has already done to achieve affordability. But, in order to make sure that diverse, affordable housing is available throughout the city by 2035, 1 urge you to support the following policies in Kent's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update: -During a time when local resources are limited, it is critical Kent works to strengthen federal and state funding streams that could advance the health and preservation of its affordable housing stock. Please support a policy to promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level that expands these programs. -As poverty becomes increasingly concentrated in the suburban areas of the Puget Sound, inter-jurisdictional collaboration, in particular,will become increasingly important for addressing regional housing needs. I ask that Kent include policies in its Housing Element that stress the importance of collaboration. -Despite our best efforts, homelessness persists in South King County. One of the best ways to prevent and end homelessness, is to ensure that quality, permanently affordable housing is available for Kent's most vulnerable residents. 1 ask that the City adopt policies and implement strategies to promote housing affordable to those making less than 30%AMI. I believe all people in Kent should have the opportunity to live in a safe, healthy, affordable home. With your help, we can achieve this vision.Thank you for all the work you do for your community. I look forward to hearing about the City's progress on updating the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Thank you, Shary B 1950 Alaskan Way Seattle, WA 98101 S:�PermitIPlan\COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlan Update\ExhibitslHsg Elem Comments-Prioritze Affordable Hsg-SharyB 11-13-14 Email.docx eliminating racism empowering women ywca1 D10 South 2nd St {t} 425.226.1266 Renton, WA 98057 I {f} 425.226.2995 Seattle I King I Snohomish Exhibit## S December 29, 2014 Date 12ec'd__jstaff Land Use & Planning board. Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager Citgo of Kent City of Kent RE: Kent Comprehensive Plan Update—Housing and Human Services Element Dear Ms.Anderson, On behalf of YWCA Seattle I KingISnohomish, we are submitting comments in this letter related to the Housing and Human Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan update. Our YWCA works to eliminate racism and empower women. We serve more than 50,000 people a year with services in King and Snohomish Counties, For over 49 years, our YWCA has operated programs in South King County. Over the years,we have served thousands of South King County residents. Unfortunately, we have also had to turn away thousands of people because of limited capacity in our community. The ability to access shelter and safe, affordable housing are by far the greatest needs presented to our staff on a daily basis. We applaud statements in the plan that address the importance of continuing to meet basic needs of Kent residents such as food, clothing, shelter and the opportunity to live a healthy, active, safe and sustainable lifestyle. The 2014 One Night Count identified 369 individuals without shelter in South King County cities of Auburn, Federal Way, Kent and Renton, In Kent, sixty-three people were found on the streets. The count does not include the many more homeless individuals and families staying in emergency shelters,with friends and family or in other non-permanent housing. Additionally, this number is assumed to be an undercount, because we do not count everywhere, and because many people tape great care not to be visible. In the 2012-13 school year, the Kent School District served 420 homeless students. One of the best ways to prevent and address homelessness is to ensure quality permanently affordable housing is available for Kent's very low and low-income households. Over 41%of I� Kent's residents are paying more than 30/ oftheir income for housing and 18/ are paying over half their income in housing costs. We urge the City to adopt policies and implement strategies to promote housing affordable to (tent residents that make less than 30%AMI. give help.get help. ywcaworks.®rg 449 In order to increase affordable housing options,we ask that the City support non-profit organizations during siting and when applying for county, state, and federal funding. We urge Kent's leaders to support legislation at the state or federal level that addresses housing needs, especially robust funding for the State Housing Trust Fund. We also urge adoption of policies that promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization. Our YWCA also encourages the City to continue to collaborate with other jurisdictions and human service agencies to increase capacity, find cost-efficiencies and develop a coordinated regional approach. We ask that the City expand and strengthen the range of development incentives so that Kent's neighborhoods continue to offer a diverse range of housing options. From our many years of serving South King County residents, we know firsthand that transportation can be a huge barrier to accessing housing,jobs and services. We support efforts that provide access for low-income households to transit opportunities and to provide affordable housing in mixed-use neighborhoods near transportation and job opportunities. In closing, we applaud the City of Kent for the work done to date to develop specific plans and look forward to the implementation. Kent's comprehensive plan update provides you a great opportunity to explore what policies are necessary to create a diverse, inclusive, and affordable community for all of Kent's residents. We very much value our partnership with the City and look forward to working together for the benefit of Kent residents, Thank you for your consideration. June Loveall, Regional Director South King County i