Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Boards & Commissions - Land Use & Planning Board - 06/24/2024
Land Use and Planning Board • Monday, June 24, 2024 KENT 6:00 PM Chambers Click here to loin the meeting 1-253-215-8782„87034959587# 1-253-205-0468„87034959587# Chair Sandra Pereira Reynolds Co-Chair Bryan Kesterson Shane Amodei Dione Dittmar Sally McDonough Justus Phelps Benjamin Reid ************************************************************** Item Description Action Speaker Time 1. Call to Order Chair 2. 2044 Comprehensive Plan: Draft NO 90 MIN. Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Workshop 3. Adjournment Chair Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 6 p.m. on the second and fourth Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032. For additional information please contact Tanya Kosen at 253-856-5461 or via email at TKosen@kentwa.gov. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 7-1-1. The public may submit written public comments that relate to a committee agenda item by emailing: cityclerk@kentwa.gov by 3:30 p.m. on the day of this committee meeting. After 3:30 p.m., written public comments may only be submitted in person by presenting them to the committee secretary at the public meeting. Written public comments that do not relate to a committee agenda item are not permitted. Written public comments are not read into the record. LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD 4^4� 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 KENT WASHINGTON DATE: June 24, 2024 TO: Land Use and Planning Board SUBJECT: 2044 Comprehensive Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Workshop SUMMARY: At the upcoming Council Workshop staff will provide a 30 minute presentation update on recent work for the 2044 Comprehensive Plan project, including: • Round 2 Community Engagement efforts; and • A summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This agenda item includes time for the public to provide written and verbal comments for the record. BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The City is in the midst of updating its Comprehensive Plan and planning for growth over the next 20 years. The periodic update process occurs every 10 years and includes environmental analysis. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process fosters informed decision- making by ensuring that environmental impacts and environmental values are evaluated and given appropriate consideration during the City's long-range planning efforts. On June 14, 2024, the City published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for review. This is an important project milestone! The DEIS analyzes three potential growth scenarios to accommodate 10,200 new housing units and 32,000 jobs through 2044. These three scenarios were informed by last summer's Round 1 Community Engagement as well as ongoing presentations and feedback with LUPB and Council throughout Fall 2023. At this time, the City has been evaluating all three growth alternatives and has not selected a preferred growth alternative. The preferred growth alternative can be one of the three alternatives studied, or a combination of them. By the middle of summer City Council will need to select/confirm the preferred alternative so that the project team can prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2044 Comprehensive Plan update. Packet Pg. 2 0 As we move through Round 2 Community Engagement, staff will be seeking community input to help inform selection of the preferred growth alternative and updated goals and policies. Round 2 Community Engagement and the DEIS comment period end at 5 PM on Monday, July 15. At this workshop, there will be an opportunity for the public to provide written or verbal feedback specifically on the DEIS and become parties of record. Comments pertaining to the DEIS should focus on: the accuracy and completeness of the environmental analysis; the methodology used in the analysis; and the need for additional information and/or mitigation measures, so that improvements to the EIS can be made before it is finalized. In preparation for the workshop, staff suggest the LUPB and public review the DEIS Chapter 2 (Summary), which is attached to this memo and also available on the project website. PROJECT REPORTS AND MATERIALS: The project website (Engage.KentWA.gov/FutureKent) includes lots of useful information, including the DEIS, a link to an online survey, a list of upcoming outreach events, and other project updates. SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: Innovative Government - Delivering outstanding customer service, developing leaders, and fostering innovation. Evolving Infrastructure - Connecting people and places through strategic investments in physical and technological infrastructure. Thriving City - Creating safe neighborhoods, healthy people, vibrant commercial districts, and inviting parks and recreation. Sustainable Services - Providing quality services through responsible financial management, economic growth, and partnerships. Inclusive Community - Embracing our diversity and advancing equity through genuine community engagement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1_NOA (PDF) 2. 2—Summary (PDF) Packet Pg. 3 2.a 401\ Comprehensive Plan 2044 City of Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan F)KENT Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Building Our Future Together' Impact Statement Date of Issuance: June 14, 2024 Lead Agency: City of Kent Agency Contact: Kristen Holdsworth Long Range Planning Manager and SEPA Official Mailing Address: 220 4th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253-856-5441 Email: KHoldsworth@KentWA.gov Proposal: Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Location of Proposal: Kent city limits and potential annexation areas within the Kent Urban Growth Area E Description of Proposal: 0 The City of Kent is updating its Comprehensive Plan and planning for growth to the year 2044. 2 The Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year plan for land use and growth based on the community's a vision of the future. It guides City decisions about where housing and jobs should be located, LO how natural resources are protected, and how public investments are made in things like c transportation, utilities, parks, and other services. a The Comprehensive Plan update includes new goals and policies that fulfill Kent's vision and zl requirements in the Growth Management Act, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2050. It also plans for growth of at least 10,200 new housing units and 32,000 newjobs. The update includes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consistent with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), codified in a the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21 C. The City of Kent has prepared a Draft EIS that studies three alternatives at a programmatic level: • Alternative 1: No Action. The "No Action" Alternative maintains the city's existing land use designations without modifications. Growth would occur within existing land use designations and under existing land use regulations and policies. This Alternative would meet 2044 targets for housing growth and would nearly meet targets for employment growth. The No Action Alternative would not meet State requirements for middle housing and other requirements enacted as part of recent legislation that the City must implement as part of their development code. This is a required alternative under SEPA and serves as a controlled comparison. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS Notice of Availability I June 2024 1 Packet Pg. 4 2.a • Alternative 2: Nodes and Corridors. Alternative 2 assumes continued development intensity in the city's Regional Growth Centers (Downtown and the Industrial Valley) and in previously planned areas like Midway and along Meeker Street. New activity centers would also be located along Benson (104th Avenue/18th Avenue/SR 515) and Kent-Kangley corridors, at key intersections in East Hill, and at Benson Corridor and SE 256th Street, which is a designated candidate Countywide Growth Center. This Alternative would exceed 2044 targets for employment and housing growth. • Alternative 3: Core with Transit Links. Alternative 3 concentrates growth in the city's Regional Growth Centers (Downtown and the Industrial Valley), along Meeker Street, and in the Midway area. Alternative 3 assumes more modest growth along the Benson Corridor and East Hill compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also includes development and redevelopment of existing vacant c and underdeveloped parcels for middle housing in the city's existing neighborhoods and along transit corridors. This Alternative would meet 2044 c targets for employment and would exceed targets for housing growth. v 2 The Draft EIS analyzes the impacts of the alternatives on elements of the environment such as a land use, housing, population & employment, water resources, air quality & greenhouse gas LO emissions, noise, public services, utilities, and transportation. The purpose of the analysis is to c estimate the nature, severity, and duration of potential impacts that might occur and to compare the impacts of the alternatives. The Draft EIS is made available to the public for review Z and comment. Comments will be received on the analysis of the affected environment, the impact analysis for each of the alternatives included in the Draft EIS, and potential avoidance, a� minimization, and mitigation measures for each of the alternatives. E U Public Comment Period a Affected agencies, tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this Draft EIS for the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan from June 14, 2024, to July 15, 2024, at 5:00 PM PST. To view the Draft EIS or learn about public participation opportunities, please see the project website www.Engage.KentWA.gov/FutureKent. Written Comments Written comments are due no later than 5:00 PM PST on July 15, 2024, and should be directed to: Mailed comments can be sent to: City of Kent Long Range Planning Department Attn: Kristen Holdsworth 220 4th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS Notice of Availability I June 2024 2 Packet Pg. 5 2.a Emailed comments can be sent to: Kristen Holdsworth, AICP I Long-Range Planning Manager and SEPA Official KHoldsworth@ KentWA.gov Submittal of comments by email is preferred. Please include in the subject line, "Kent 2044 Draft EIS Comments." Verbal Comments The public is invited to attend and provide comments at a Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) workshop on June 24, 2024, at 6:00 PM PST located at City Council Chambers (220 4t" Ave S, Kent, WA 98032). The meeting may be attended in person or virtually via computer or phone. Visit the project website to learn more about ways to attend virtually. See the City's web page www.Engage.KentWA.gov/FutureKent for more information. ***Submit comments no later than 5:00 PM PST on July 15, 2024*** as E SEPA Responsible Official c Contact: Kristen Holdsworth, AICP Position/Title: Long-Range Planning Manager and SEPA Official Phone: 253-856-5454 a Email: Kholdsworth@KentWA.gov c Address: 220 4th Ave, Kent, WA 98032 a Title VI z English c For alternate formats, interpreters, or reasonable 13 E accommodation, please visit KentWA.gov/languageaccess, or r °- email FutureKent@KentWA.gov. a Spanish Para obtener asistencia con el idioma o solicitar adaptaciones • razonables, visite KentWA.aov/languaaeaccess o Ilame al 253- . . 856-5716. Punjabi (Nirmala) TRTA7tE:3T, r�T�ii �fd7T�i�,�d�fTa�KentWA.gov/languageaccess '-4r�t�T253-856- 5716 t7 7_qt Ukrainian Wo6 OTpNMaTN MOBHY AonOMOry a6o o6rpyHT0BaH0 Heo6xiAHi nPHCTOCyBaHH, , BiABiAake CANT KentWA.gov/languageaccess a60 3arene(�oHyNTe 3a HoMepoM 253-856-5716. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS Notice of Availability I June 2024 3 Packet Pg. 6 2.a Vietnamese De' dLrac ho tra ve ng6n ngCr hoac dieu chinh hap ly, vui I6ng truy cap KentWA.gov/languageaccess hoac goi den so"253-856-5716. Simplified Chinese (Mandarin) in ��J ����'7 � ao�- i�ihl� KentWA.gov/languageaccess ��� 253-856-5716. Tagalog Para sa tulong sa wika, o makatwirang akomodasyon, mangyaring bisitahin ang KentWA.gov/languageaccess v/languageaccess o tumawag sa 253-856-5716. c as E E 0 U 0 a LO M O a 0 z i c a� E U r a Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS Notice of Availability I June 2024 4 Packet Pg. 7 2.b Chapter 2 Summary 2. SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter 2 Summary describes the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan update land use and growth alternatives and the environmental evaluation of them. More detailed information on the Alternatives are found in Chapter 3 and the full environmental analysis in Chapter 4. The City of Kent is preparing a Comprehensive Plan update due by the end of 2024 under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA).The GMA is a series of state statues that requires jurisdictions to develop a comprehensive plan to manage anticipated population growth. In accordance with the GMA, the 2044 Kent Comprehensive Plan addresses a 20-year planning horizon. r c as The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is codified in the Revised Code of Washington E E (RCW) Chapter 43.21C and is a Washington State law that helps agency decision-makers, o U applicants, and the public understand how a proposal would affect the environment.The U City of Kent is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Lead Agency.The City has determined that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the a- environment and issued a SEPA Determination of Significance on June 1, 2023. M Preparation of an EIS is required under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is a tool for identifying and analyzing E probable adverse environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and potential mitigation.This non-project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) analyzes NI three land use alternatives that include one No Action Alternative and two Action c Alternatives for the City's study area.The Draft EIS analyzes impacts and alternatives E broadly and at the level of detail appropriate for a non-project proposal in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-442 and WAC 197-11-443.A non- a project EIS provides an opportunity to evaluate planned actions more broadly.The details and impacts of future development and infrastructure projects, undertaken pursuant to the alternatives,that are site-specific may not be proposed or known at this time and therefore are not yet described in sufficient detail, are not considered for this non-project EIS. However, potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and potential mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts are included. Ultimately,the Draft EIS evaluation and mitigation measures will inform the development of the Comprehensive Plan update (Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan). This chapter provides an overview of the (1) comprehensive planning process, (2) project purpose, (3) description of the study area, (4) overview of the public engagement process, (5) overview of the SEPA environmental review process, (6) summary of description of alternatives, (7) summary of potential impacts and mitigation measures, Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-1 June 2024 Packet Pg. 8 2.b Chapter 2 Summary (8) significant areas of controversy, and (9) benefits and disadvantages of delaying the proposal. 2.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS The Comprehensive Plan guides City decisions about where housing and jobs should be located, how natural resources are protected, and how public investments are made in things like transportation, utilities, parks, and other services.The current 2035 plan is based on the guiding vision that Kent is a "safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers."The current plan also includes planning guidance related to urban growth,transportation, public facilities and services, housing, urban design, human services, economic development, natural resource industries, open space and recreation, historic preservation, environment, property rights, permits, and community involvement.This planning guidance is consistent with the GMA and helps inform and guide funding decisions, the creation and operation of programs and projects, and outlines how the City interacts with local, state, and federal governments, tribes, and the community.The 2044 Plan proposes to make substantive policy changes E throughout the 2035 Comprehensive Plan elements. o U The Comprehensive Plan,functional plans, and development regulations within the City v of Kent must be consistent with the provisions of the GMA, which provides a framework a- for land use planning and regulates development in Washington State.The purpose of ,n the GMA is to manage growth to support a high quality of life and equitable access to resources and services, sustainability, economic development, and environmental conservation (RCW 36.70A.010).The GMA requires coordination between regional and countywide planning.To this end, PSRC's Vision 2050 Planning Framework informs King E County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) as well as the comprehensive plans and development regulations of local jurisdictions. Cities and counties in most parts of the NI state, including Kent, must prepare comprehensive plans that include objectives, principles, standards, and a Future Land Use Map. As part of the 2044 Comprehensive Plan update process,the City proposes to update the following subarea plans and corresponding regulations after the adoption of the Kent a 2044 Comprehensive Plan, if needed, to address future growth and other related updates to the 2044 Future Land Use Map: • Downtown Subarea Action Plan • Transportation Master Plan • Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan • Kent Stormwater Management Program Plan • City of Kent 2019-2029 Water System Plan • Parks and Open Space Plan • Recreation Program Plan • Zoning and other development regulations in the Kent City Code. 2-2 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 9 2.b Chapter 2 Summary 2.3 STUDY AREA The City of Kent is over 34 square miles and located in south King County, part of the Seattle-Tacoma - Bellevue metropolitan area.The study area for the 2044 Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIS is the "Kent Planning Area" (Figure 2-1), including the city limits and potential annexation areas located within Kent's urban growth area. Figure 2-1. Kent Planning Area Seattle 5ellevue 0 . a LO .+w R ton O E eaTac, ' E !Cent Water reservoir are• f Source: Prepared by MIG, Inc. using data provided by the City of Kent 2.4 SEPA PROCESS The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is codified in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C and is a Washington State law that helps agency decision-makers, permit applicants, and the public understand how a proposal would affect the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-3 June 2024 Packet Pg. 10 2.b Chapter 2 Summary environment.The City of Kent has determined that this periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan would likely have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has prepared an EIS under RCW Section 43.21C.030. The EIS process involves the following steps: (1) scoping the contents of the EIS with the public, agencies, and tribes; (2) preparing a Draft EIS with a comment period; (3) responding to comments and developing a Preferred Alternative; and (4) developing a Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, and accompanying regulations that implement the Preferred Alternative. Scoping occurred during June and July of 2023 during the first phase of community outreach for the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan.This Draft EIS analyzes the particular environmental concerns that were identified during scoping.This includes a separate section that analyzes the impacts of each alternative.The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the nature, severity, and duration of impacts that might occur and compare those impacts of the proposed land use alternatives.The Draft EIS is available to the r public for review and comment on the analysis of the affected environment, the impact analysis for each of the alternatives included in the Draft EIS, and potential mitigation E E measures for each of the alternatives. 0 U v The Draft EIS evaluates the potential impacts of the land use alternatives across a range of natural and built environment topics including: a- LO • Plans, Policies, & Regulations 0 Population, Housing, & • Earth Employment • Aesthetics • Water Resources E E • Transportation • Plants&Animals (0 i • Noise N • Cultural,Tribal, & Historic Resources • Public Services & Parks & E Recreation • Air Quality c� • Utilities &Service Systems a • Greenhouse Gases and Energy • Land Use The three alternatives considered in the Draft EIS test the same general level of overall growth, meeting or exceeding the City's adopted 2044 growth targets:10,200 new housing units and 32,000 new jobs.All three alternatives would build upon existing growth patterns and assume the same existing capacity as identified in the 2019 King County Urban Growth Capacity report and development from 2019-2023 as a baseline for assumptions. It is estimated that between 2019 and 2023,the City of Kent grew by 3,897 housing units and 4,412 jobs. While Kent's baseline capacity is consistent among all three alternatives, each alternative tests a different distribution of growth within Kent to highlight a spectrum of policy choices.The alternatives include Alternative 1: No Action, Alternative 2: Nodes and Corridors, and Alternative 3: Core with Transit Links: 2-4 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 11 2.b Chapter 2 Summary • Alternative 1: No Action.The "No Action"Alternative maintains the city's existing land use designations without modifications. Growth would occur within existing land use designations and under existing land use regulations and policies.This Alternative would meet 2044 targets for housing growth and would nearly meet targets for employment growth.The No Action Alternative would not meet State requirements for middle housing and other requirements enacted as part of recent legislation that the City must implement as part of their development code.This is a required alternative under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and serves as a controlled comparison. • Alternative 2: Nodes and Corridors.Alternative 2 assumes continued development intensity in the city's Regional Growth Centers (Downtown and the Industrial Valley) and in previously planned areas like Midway and along Meeker Street.This alternative includes new activity centers located along the Benson (SR 515) and Kent-Kangley corridors, at key intersections in East Hill, and at the intersection of the Benson Corridor and SE 256t" Street,which is a designated r candidate for a Countywide Growth Center.This Alternative would exceed 2044 targets for employment and housing growth. E E • Alternative 3: Core with Transit Links.Alternative 3 concentrates growth in the i) city's Regional Growth Centers (Downtown and the Industrial Valley), along .2 Meeker Street, and in the Midway area.Alternative 3 assumes more modest a growth along the Benson and Kent-Kangley corridors and East Hill compared to LO Alternative 2' Alternative 3 also includes a higher level of development and o redevelopment of existing vacant and underdeveloped parcels for middle housing in the city's existing neighborhoods and along transit corridors.This alternative would meet 2044 targets for employment and would exceed targets for housing E g rowth. i The City has issued the Draft EIS in June 2024.The City will create a Preferred Alternative `.V based on public input and the Draft EIS evaluation of the alternatives.The Preferred Alternative may include features from any of the studied alternatives.The Preferred Alternative will be evaluated in the Final EIS which will also respond to comments received on the Draft EIS.The City is anticipated to complete the Final EIS in Fall 2024. a Following the EIS process,the City will consider adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the end of the 2024 year. 2.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan provided the public with a variety of opportunities to participate in the development of the Comprehensive Plan update and the SEPA Draft EIS process. During the EIS scoping process and continuing through the summer and fall of 2023, Kent actively implemented four engagement strategies as part of a citywide effort to The Benson Corridor is SR 515 and locally also is known as 104th Avenue SE and 108th Avenue SE Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-5 June 2024 Packet Pg. 12 2.b Chapter 2 Summary involve a wide range of stakeholders and communities at different events, programs, and locations.This included a visioning process to identify priorities for the city, a growth mapping exercise that asked participants to place housing and jobs in part of Kent where they would like to see growth, an asset mapping exercise asking participants to identify where the community resources and services are located, and on online survey that mirrored the growth and asset exercises. During the scoping period, the City also accepted comments from the public at a Land Use and Planning Board meeting in addition to written comments submitted through the project webpage or email.To this end, Kent initiated a robust engagement implemented through various outlets and platforms, recognizing the importance of including diverse perspectives and lived experiences in shaping the city's future. 2.6 PROPOSAL AND OBJECTIVES Kent is updating its Comprehensive Plan consistent with GMA, PSRC's VISION 2050, King County CPPs, and local community needs. In accordance with GMA,the 2044 Comprehensive Plan will address a 20-year planning horizon year and consider new E population, housing, and employment targets, changes to the future land use map, a fair o share of affordable housing consistent with RCW 36.70A.070, racially disparate impacts U of housing policies, and supporting investments in parks and multimodal transportation, utilities, and public services. New elements in the 2044 Plan include a Climate Change a- and Resiliency element addressing GHG reduction and climate adaptation. While the M City is not required to have this element drafted, updated, and adopted until 2029,the impacts of climate change on land use, housing, and transportation contribute to the overall well-being of the city and, therefore, is included as part of the update. Objectives are the principles or intended outcomes around which alternatives are evaluated and are required by SEPA (RCW 197-11-060(3)).The Draft EIS objectives are NI based on the 2035 Comprehensive Plan goals and draft Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan vision: E • Address state and regional goals and requirements. a o Comply with GMA periodic review requirements to meet state laws including recent changes to the GMA and to align with the regional growth strategy in PSRC's VISION 2050. o Demonstrate housing and job capacity to accommodate growth targets through 2044. o Prioritize distributing growth to urban centers and corridors with current or planned high capacity transit service. o Update Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Subarea Action Plan to meet PSRC centers requirements and CPPs. o Develop critical area regulation updates that respond to best available science. 2-6 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 13 2.b Chapter 2 Summary o Support planned growth with capital facilities that meet community defined levels of service. • Provide a variety of employment opportunities and commercial services for Kent residents and visitors. • Support transit and non-motorized transportation modes through multimodal transportation infrastructure. • Support a healthy environment and protect natural resources, parks, open spaces, and the urban tree canopy. • Ensure that public services and capital facilities can be efficiently and effectively provided to support forecast development at appropriate levels of service. 2.7 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives were developed through community outreach, staff review, Kent's Land Use Planning Board (LUPB), and City Council.The two Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and E 3),were developed to meet the City's adopted 2044 growth targets, align with new GMA E requirements, and respond to the PSRC regional planning strategy (VISION 2050) and U King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).The two Action Alternatives also respond to feedback from the community requesting additional land uses in the East a- Hill residential areas. LO M O ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Alternative 1 (No Action) assumes no changes to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan land use E designations or existing policies.The only significant change is updating the planning horizon from 2035 to 2044.This alternative is required under SEPA as a baseline for N� analyzing Alternatives 2 and 3. Under this Alternative, the City would not update the current Comprehensive Plan or Kent City Code to align with current GMA, MPPs, or CPPs a) E that have not already been included in the Comprehensive Plan or subsequent minor updates made since the last periodic update in 2015, including any new state law requirements to incorporate middle housing into single family neighborhoods land use a designations. Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) consists of areas within unincorporated King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA) that 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 (about 6% of total PAA) remaining to be annexed, a majority of which is encumbered by critical areas and does not have substantial development or redevelopment potential. Alternative 1 would maintain the current growth strategy, which concentrates housing in Downtown, along Meeker, in Midway,the Industrial Valley, and limited areas of East Hill. Less dense inf ill development (e.g., plats, short plats, accessory dwelling units, etc.) would continue to develop according to currently adopted regulations in 2024.Jobs are primarily concentrated in the Industrial Valley and Midway, with some additional Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-7 June 2024 Packet Pg. 14 2.b Chapter 2 Summary employment growth in Downtown and along the Benson and Kent-Kangley corridors. Under Alternative 1, the city would have capacity for 10,510 new housing units, meeting adopted growth targets for 2044.Alternative 1 would have capacity for 31,738 jobs, nearly meeting the 32,000-job growth target.The No Action Alternative would not meet other new planning requirements, including provision of housing affordable to specific income ranges, provision of a range of housing types, or transit-supportive land use densities adjacent to the new Metro I-line bus rapid transit stations along the Benson Corridor. Under Alternative 1 there would be no changes in land use or zoning (shown by percentage within the city.Alternative 1 assumes that maximum building heights are based on the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning regulations. Most existing single-family residential zones have a height limit of 2.5 stories. Heights for commercial districts can vary based on location from 2 stories in neighborhoods to 16 stories in commercial centers. Industrial districts are limited to 8 stories. Under Alternative 1, the types, character, and relative geographic distribution of future r development are expected to occur in ways similar to that experienced over the past 20 years. Over time, multifamily and mixed-use residential growth would occur in Midway, E E along the Meeker Street area, and in Downtown, with limited growth in other areas of 0 U the city. Employment growth would continue to increase in Midway and the Industrial U Valley. New housing development in lower density zones in Alternative 1 would primarily be single family residential ranging from 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre. New employment a growth under Alternative 1 would largely be industrial, including multistory office parks, M warehousing, and light to higher intensity industrial uses. E E i N C N E L V Q 2-8 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 15 Chapter 2 Summary 2.b Figure 2-2. Alternative 1 (No Action) Summary Alternative 1 �~ Legend Industrial Valley No Action Develops consistent with existing City Limits Maintaining the City's existing land use designations - policies,plans,and zoning. Urban Growth Area without modifications.Growth would occur under Developments are mostly Development types existing land use regulations and policies low-intensity industrial. Commercial Housing Jobs Downtown Mixed Use Industrial Valley Industrial Midway Transportation Benson&Kent-Kangley ,{ Metro Frequent Route somas East Hill '�"�' }oo Industrial Valley Metro RapidRideA &so* Metro RapidRide I (opening in 2025) Middle Housing Sound Transit Express Additional Capacity 10,510units 31,738jobs ttt Sound Transit Sounder Train d Sound Transit Link E "' !! (opening in 2025/2026) E © ° East Hill North Des Moines f2 -' „ Cu ____ "'" wmornpgnrc East Hill Mid ay �;, ��P.,. E Downtown -,' -� Develops consistent with existing 3 Meeker St• s� policies,plans,and zoning N _ • - " ,,.ems _ Dry_ ,•°o wa C West Hill �o�'��" �° E ' Crofton Hills 0 t) R East Hill South Q z Midway Downtown � a I Develops consistent with existing Develops consistent with existing policies,plans,and zoning. policies,plans,and zoning.Intensity is similar to recent built examples. OAuburn i Source:Prepared by MIG, Inc. using data provided by the City of Kent Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-9 June 2024 Packet Pg. 16 2.b Chapter 2 Summary ALTERNATIVE 2: NODES AND CORRIDORS Alternative 2 (Nodes and Corridors) would necessitate updates to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, land use and zoning maps,functional plans, and development regulations to meet growth targets and regional growth strategies. Under Alternative 2, more housing types would be offered citywide. Mixed-use neighborhood hubs would be the focus of middle housing types, along with duplexes, triplexes, cottage housing, and other middle housing/moderate density housing typologies as allowed across the city consistent with RCW 36.70A.635 (HB 1110 (2023)). However, substantial redevelopment of existing single-family neighborhoods to middle housing allowed by recent legislation is not assumed to occur in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 exceeds the growth targets and would have capacity for 12,752 additional housing units and an additional 35,037 jobs.This Alternative includes greater development intensity in the City's PSRC-designated Regional Growth Centers (Downtown and the Industrial Valley) as well as previously planned growth areas of Midway and along Meeker Street. New activity centers would be located along the Benson Corridor (SR 515), Canyon Drive/SE 2561" Street/ Kent-Kangley Corridor, and at E key intersections in East Hill. Significant new development at Benson Corridor and SE i) 256th Street, which is a designated as the Kent-Canyon Ridge Candidate Countywide .2 Growth Center is also assumed under this Alternative. a Under Alternative 2, growth would be dispersed in activity centers throughout the East M Hill area with greater intensity growth occurring in the regional growth areas (Downtown and Industrial Valley). Both Midway and areas along Benson and Kent-Kangley corridors would allow for moderate to significant new housing and employment growth. E Neighborhood serving commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development would E occur at several intersections in the East Hill area. New housing and mixed-use development is anticipated at Benson Corridor and SE 256th Street,which is designated N as the Kent-Canyon Ridge Candidate Countywide Growth Center. In areas outside of previously planned growth areas and new activity centers, the overall type, character and E distribution of future development are likely to remain comparable to today's patterns, with a prevalence of relatively low-rise, small-scale development. a New employment growth under Alternative 2 would largely be split between mixed-use (allowing a range of commercial, low rise multifamily, office, and live/work uses) and industrial (which includes multi-story office parks,warehousing, and higher intensity industrial uses that have a higher job to acres ratio). 2-10 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 17 Chapter 2 Summary 2.b Figure 2-3. Alternative 2 (Nodes and Corridors) Summary Alternative 2 Legend Industrial Valley Nodes&Corridors = City Limits Develops consistent with existing S; policies,plans,and zoning.Intensity 0 Urban Growth Area area and greater i centers throughout the East Hill is somewhat greater than recent area and greater intensity in the regional growth areas ------- Development Types built examples. Commercial Housing Jobs Downtown o Mixed Use L . Industrial Valley ran o p. ��•�` Industrial Transportation Midwayo : . -(P- Metro Frequent Route Benson&Kent-Kangley u1Jre n," etro East Hill #{ } .Industrial Valley Metro RapiclRideI�++� M I Middle Housing ��° °p�° ° (opening in 2025) © _ Sound Transit Express C a++ Sound Transit Sounder Train Additional Capacity 12,752units 35,037jobs j; E ` °" hyC ^ (�• Sound Transit Link (opening in 2025/2026)== 0 © ^� .. East Hill North 2 Des Moines - 515 , aem.\: . 167 to M East Hill L Significant new neighborhood-serving development, Mid ay u�PoM and mxedluedeveoipmentatseveral E Downtown z3 -•--- Meeker_St` intersection nodes in East Hill area. N N West HIII E t �II Crofton Hills 0 R �IIIIZZ,-- East Hill South Q �' f JJfJjj11111`l` Midway Downtown Benson Corridor&Kent Kangley ``��,��11T11T11IT1IT/I1fITl': % � Develops consistent with existing Develops consistent with existing Significant growth along Benson Corridor ✓✓� policies,plans,and zoning.Intensity is policies,plans,and zoning.Intensity is and Kent-Kangley highway.Higher intensity JEffi" somewhat greater than recent built somewhat greater than recent built at major intersections,moderate intensity examples. examples. elsewhere along corridor. , �3 w s Auburn Source:Prepared by MIG, Inc. using data provided by the City of Kent Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 18 2.b Chapter 2 Summary ALTERNATIVE 3: CORE WITH TRANSIT LINKS Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would update the current Kent Comprehensive Plan, land use and zoning maps,functional plans, and development regulations to meet growth targets and regional growth strategies. Under Alternative 3, more housing types would be offered and developed citywide. Duplexes,triplexes, cottage housing, and other middle housing, moderate-density housing typologies would be allowed across the city consistent with RCW 36.70A.63S (HB 1110 (2023). Future growth would be accommodated primarily in existing growth centers and around planned high-capacity transit routes. Additionally,Alternative 3 includes an assumption of middle housing redevelopment in the city's existing neighborhoods and along transit corridors. Figure 2-4 shows the location of areas where middle housing types could occur under State law.Alternative 3 includes the following middle housing redevelopment assumptions: (1) 10% of existing single-family designated parcels within 1/4 mile walking distance from high-capacity transit stops (commuter rail, fixed rail transit, or bus rapid transit service) would add an average of additional units; E (2) 3% of all other single-family designated parcels would add an average of 1.S new L) units over the planning period. 2 This would result in a total of 1ASO new middle housing units over twenty years through a the redevelopment of existing properties throughout the city.Alternative 3 would M accommodate 12,443 units and 32,047 jobs, which would exceed the city's housing targets and would meet job growth targets. Under Alternative 3, growth would be focused on Downtown and Industrial Valley. E Midway would continue to develop per adopted plans while new modest growth would be planned along the Benson and SE Kent-Kangley Road corridors. Under Alternative 3, N growth anticipated in designated growth centers like Downtown would likely be a mix of mid and high-rise development while growth in transit-oriented development nodes E would likely be mid-rise. In areas outside of regional growth centers and new activity centers, the overall type, character and distribution of future development would a continue to be similar to today's development patterns, with a prevalence of relatively low-rise, small scale development with some more diverse middle housing types occurring sporadically throughout the city. In addition to new housing on undeveloped land consistent with zoning designations, Alternative 3 includes assumptions for infill middle housing in existing developed low density neighborhoods. New employment growth under Alternative 3 would largely be industrial, which includes multi-story office parks,warehousing, and higher intensity industrial uses that have a higher job to acres ratio. 2-12 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 19 Chapter 2 Summary 2.b Figure 2-4.Alternative 3 (Core with Transit Links) Summary Alternative 3 Legend Industrial Valley Core with Transit Links Greater redevelopment is assumed with enton 0 City Limits more diversity in development types. 0 Urban Growth Area Concentrated residential and employment Intensity is slgnlficantlygreater than development in Kent's regional growth areas Development Types recent built examples. g Housing Jobs ••••' ' ••••'''•••••'•' ••••' ' ••• • Commercial Downtown - •;•�•;•;•;•;•;• Iilllr Mixed Use Industrial Valley '.'°��.•.•.yy.,. «.r•.•....:•:; '• l:.C.' Industrial Midway Transportation Benson&Kent-Kangley �' '�' �- Metro Frequent Route East Hill •.•.hndustrial.Valley.;:;: = Metro RapidRideA ---- Metro RapiclRide I {� : : : : : : : (opening in 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle Housing IBI�ItyIR I�I�I . . . . . . . . . . . .'� � .'.'�'.'.'.'.' •, . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • � - Sound ier•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•�. �, � S ndFxpress � Additional Capacity 12,443 units 32,047jobs i-Fh Sound Transit Sounder Train. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Sound Transit Link (opening in 2025/2026) East Hill North 2 .. gu�9 Des Moines . . _ _ _ sss, a Middle Housing Redevelopment M Modest infill in residential neighborhoods p and a greater amount adjacent to transit stops East Hill L r Modest growth at East Hill f " nodes,largely consistent with Mid ay u�PoM existing zoning. E a., Downtown Meeker St cm PF _ d E Crofton Hills V t4 East Hill South Q - Midway Downtown Benson Corridor&Kent Kangley Develops consistent with existing Develops consistent with existing policies, Modest growth along Benson Corridor and ^ policies,plans,and zoning.Intensity plans,and zoning.Greater redevelopment Kent-Kangley highway,although higher ^_JE is somewhat greater than recent is assumed.Intensity is significantly intensity at major intersections,moderate builtexamples. greater than recent built examples. intensity elsewhere along corridor. nil Auburn " - y\� P g� Source:Prepared b MIG, Inc, using data provided b the City of Kent P Y 9 P Y Y Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-13 June 2024 Packet Pg. 20 2.b Chapter 2 Summary COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2-1 below summarizes some of the key differences between the three alternatives. Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Alternative 2: Nodes & Alternative 3: Core Action Corridors Focuses increased growth in City's Focuses growth in the Regional Centers Continues 2035 Plan. regional growth areas along with modest Focuses growth in growth along the Kent's previously and previously planned growth areas, new Benson Corridor, SE planned growth areas Kent-Kangley Summary Benson and Kent- (Midway, Industrial corridor growth along Corridor, and East Valley, Downtown, and Hill; also includes an Meeker). Consistent Kangley, and dispersed assumption of neighborhood with 2021 middle housing commercial centers Transportation Master throughout the East Hill redevelopment in E Plan. the City's existing o area. neighborhoods and v along transit corridors. a Housing Capacity for 10,510 new Capacity for 12,752 new Capacity for 12,443 Growth housing units housing units new housing units M Employment Capacity for 31,738 new Capacity for 35,037 new Capacity for 32,047 Growth jobs jobs new jobs PSRC Centers: Downtown, E Industrial Valley, and New Kent-Canyon Ni Ridge Designated PSRC Centers: Candidate Downtown, Industrial Countywide Center E Valley, and New Kent- Canyon Ridge Growth in planned a PSRC Centers: Designated Candidate areas of Midway and Downtown and Countywide Center Meeker Street Growth Industrial Valley, Growth in planned areas Pattern growth in planned of Midway and Meeker Middle housing areas of Meeker Street Street throughout Kent and Midway single family Dispersed growth in neighborhoods and Midway and West Hill, along high capacity with transit corridors commercial nodes in East Hill 2-14 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 21 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 1: No Alternative Alternative - Action . . Multifamily and mixed use development in Multifamily and mixed- designated growth Multifamily and use development in areas, additional mixed-use Type of New growth areas, development of low- development in Housing additional density residential land designated growth Growth development of low- similar to past trends. areas.Additional density detached Neighborhood scale redevelopment of residential land similar mixed use with residential lots into to past trends. residential development middle housing. along Benson and Kent- Kangley corridors. Meets targets for low and moderate-income Meets housing Meets housing housing capacity and affordability targets for affordability targets Housing would nearly meet for low, moderate, low, moderate, and Affordability targets for and median/above median/above median E median income median/above median income categories. c (<120%) income categories. V capacity. 2 Employment growth Employment growth in in Industrial Valley, a Downtown, and LO Industrial Valley, M Employment growth in Midway. Less o Downtown, Midway, and Industrial Valley, employment growth Employment along the Benson and Focus Downtown, and some Kent-Kangley corridors (compared to portions of Midway in mixed-use centers Alternative 2) in E area. and in commercial Midway and along E neighborhood nodes. the Benson and W Kent-Kangley N corridors. Primarily light and Light and heavy Light and heavy E Type of New heavy industrial uses industrial uses with s industrial uses and Employment with some mixed use some commercial Growth and commercial mixed-use commercial and mixed use Q development. and office development. development. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 22 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Further differences between alternatives by location of growth within Kent is shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. Summary of Alternatives by Location Alternative Alternative Alternative 3: Planning Area No Action Nodes . . DwellingLinks - Dwelling Jobs Jobs Units Units Units Downtown 3,058 3,670 918 2,599 1,646 4,019 East Hill (except Benson and Kent- 1,405 1,258 2,516 1,368 3,123 912 Kangley Corridors) r Benson Corridor 495 751 842 3,740 1,055 746 E E Kent-Kangley 465 2,019 2,780 6,294 495 1,675 0 Industrial Valley - 16,271 - 15,070 - 18,304 3 a Meeker Street 1,546 1,408 1,146 63 1,220 147 0 v Midway 2,813 4,211 3,315 3,927 3,335 3,921 21, M South of Kent- E Kangley 504 1,647 818 1,609 1,111 1,929 i N West Hill 224 301 331 342 457 342 c as E Total 10,510 31,738 12,752 35,037 12,443 32,047 c� a Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives) The Action Alternatives would update the current Kent Comprehensive Plan,functional plans, and development regulations to accommodate the City's growth targets and regional growth strategies.Two Action Alternatives-Alternative 2 (Nodes and Corridors) and Alternative 3 (Core with Transit Links) -were created to evaluate differing distributions of future growth.The key components of the Action Alternatives are listed in the table below. 2-16 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 23 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Table 2-3. Key Components of Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) Topic -y Update • Provide capacity for at least 10,200 new housing units and 32,000 new jobs to meet City growth targets through the year Growth 2044. Differing distributions of residential and employment growth, while still focusing significant development in regional growth centers and previously planned areas. • Align with updated relevant Countywide Planning Policies and applicable multicounty planning policies. Land Use Update the future land use map. Increase housing,transit-oriented development, and economic development opportunities. • Align housing and employment locations. m E E • Align with the housing strategy with VISION 2050. v Accommodate planned population growth. U • Align with requirements for meeting different income 3 households (RCW 36.70A.070, amended 2021). a- Housing • Address racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion LO M through policy updates (RCW 36.70A.070, amended 2021). c • Provide additional housing options through infill and/or redevelopment. � • Update emergency housing policies to align with State E requirements (RCW 36.70A.070, amended 2021). E i N • Align with regional policy directions regarding transit- supportive land uses, increased active transportation, environmental protections, equitable transit, and climate Transportation change mitigation. Pursue a transportation system that meets forecasted demand. a Align with requirements to adopt levels of services for certain roadways and transit routes. Natural Mitigate impacts to critical areas. Environment • Align policies with best available science and other regional planning requirements. Utilities and Keep pace with planned growth and ensure alignment Capital Facilities between capital projects and other planned efforts. • Maintain appropriate levels of service. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-17 June 2024 Packet Pg. 24 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Topic -y Update • Create a new climate element that generally aligns with statewide direction for climate elements even though Kent is Climate not required to have a fully compliant climate element until 2029.The climate element will set a foundation to fully address state requirements. • Updates to critical areas regulations to address best available Zoning and science. Development 0 Updates to allow middle housing in a wider range of zones. Regulations 0 Revises zoning map and development regulations to accommodate additional housing and employment growth. 2.8 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, IMPACTS, AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION E E 0 U The Draft EIS identifies potential impacts associated with implementing any of the three U alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.The following pages describe how the Draft EIS analyzed each element of the environment, what impacts a- were identified, and what measures are proposed to minimize impacts to a less than M significant level. v The public is encouraged to review this summary section to find areas of interest, and to read the more detailed analysis in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS to have the full context of E the affected environment, impact analysis, detailed mitigation measures, and overall findings. N� c as E a 2-18 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 25 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Table 2-4.Summary of Key Findings, Impacts, and Potential Mitigation Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • Focuses increased Focuses growth in the growth in the City's regional growth areas Regional Centers along and previously with modest growth Continues 203S planned growth areas, along the Benson Comprehensive Plan new corridor growth Corridor, SE Kent- Description of and maintains the along Benson and SE Kangley Corridor, and Alternative City's existing land use Kent-Kangley, and East Hill;also includes E designations without dispersed an assumption of E 0 modifications neighborhood middle housing U commercial centers redevelopment in the 2 through the East Hill city's existing 0 area. neighborhoods and a along transit corridors. LO M The No Action Alternative 2 would Alternative 3 would o Growth Management Act.Al alternatives primarily focus Alternative would meet meet housing and meet both 21, growth in previously planned housing targets and employment targets employment targets 0 work towards set for Kent through and housing targets E growth areas and/or regional preventing sprawl in the King County CPPs. set for the jurisdiction growth areas.All alternatives the City. However, it Alternative 2 would through the King meet housing growth targets. would not meet update the City's County CPPs. N VISION 2050:VISION 2050 and employment targets, Comprehensive Plan, Alternative 3 would Relationship falling slightly short of including adding update the City's E to Plans, the MPPs focus on a regional the target of 32,000. citywide housing Comprehensive Plan, Policies, & growth strategy that calls for Equally, t would f° development to be q y� i policies for affordability including adding a Regulations concentrated in the City's urban continue the current and anti-displacement, citywide housing area.This is intended to limit Comprehensive Plan, policies that policies for affordability development in natural and not include implement the best and anti-displacement, resources and rural areas and additional policies or available science for policies that focus on preserving those areas. strategies that met Kent's critical areas, implement the best The three proposed alternatives new requirements set and align with regional available science for all implement proposed (to a varying by the GMA,VISION policy direction Kent's critical areas, degree) growth and density in 2050, or King County regarding transit- and align with regional CPPs. It would also not supportive land uses, policy direction Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-19 June 2024 Packet Pg. 26 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes Corridors) Topic • Kent,which is designated as an include additional increased active regarding transit- urban growth area. climate measures or transportation, and supportive land uses, the proposed element. equitable transit. It increased active This would have the would also include transportation, and potential to have a additional climate equitable transit. It significantly greater measures through a would also include adverse impact on new climate element. additional climate walkability and Under Alternative 2,the measures through an connectivity through development code and updated element. E access to transit, other City area and Under Alternative 3,the E 0 climate measures, and functional plans would development code and c) access to open space be updated for other City area and 2 for the community.The consistency in functional plans would 3 No Action Alternative conjunction with the be updated for a would result in update to the City's consistency in LO M inconsistencies Comprehensive Plan. conjunction with the between Kent's plans, Alternative 2 would update to the City's policies, and have no impacts in Comprehensive Plan. 0 regulations and the regard to consistency Similar to Alternative 2, E GMA,VISION 2050, with applicable plans, Alternative 3 would 0 and King County policies, and have no impacts in CPPs,which would be regulations like the regard to consistency N considered a GMA,VISION 2050, with applicable plans, significant impact. and King County policies, and E CPPs. regulations like the GMA,VISION 2050, Q and King County CPPs. Seismic, Liquefaction, and Under the No Action Landslide Hazards: Existing Alternative,existing Kent policies and implementing regulations and Same as the No Action Same as the No Action Earth programs, and development permitting processes Alternative. Alternative. compliance with the most would continue and recent Washington State impacts to people or Building Code, as adopted by structures from 2-20 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 27 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • the City, would ensure that seismic events, impacts related to the risk of liquefaction, or property loss or hazards to landslides;substantial occupants involving future soil erosion; unstable development facilitated by the geologic units; or alternatives would be less than expansive soils would significant. be reduced to less than significant. Soil Erosion:With E implementation of existing E 0 regulations,water quality 0 regulatory permitting 2 requirements, City grading 3 permit and city code a- requirements, potential impacts LO M related to erosion from future v development facilitated by any of the three alternatives would 0 be less than significant. E 0 Unstable Geologic Units: Development requiring a N grading permit would be as required to comply with the E Washington State Building Code. Existing policies and implementing programs, and a future developments with City grading and building requirements,would ensure that impacts related to ground instability involving future development facilitated by any of the alternatives would be less than significant. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-21 June 2024 Packet Pg. 28 2.b Chapter 2 Summary TopicEnvironmental All Alternatives . . Expansive Soils.Any new development facilitated by the alternatives would be required to comply with the Washington State Building Code. Design requirements mitigate the detrimental effects of expansive soils in new development, E reducing impacts from E 0 expansive soils to less than c) significant. 0 Wetlands: Future development a within the city consistent with LO M any of the alternatives would be subject to Comprehensive Plan conservation goals to preserve wetlands as well as existing Under the No Action E buffer and setback Alternative,existing E requirements for wetlands and regulations and i streams, consistent with state permitting processes N and federal requirements. would continue and c impacts to wetlands; 0 Water Because these policies and Same as the No Action Same as the No Action E Resources regulations require thorough groundwater supply Alternative. Alternative. environmental review; site- and recharge;water specific analysis of sensitive quality; drainage a communities and wetlands if patterns; and flood future development is proposed hazards would be near them; and impact analysis, reduced to less than mitigation, and agency significant. consultation and coordination if future development could potentially impact them, potential impacts of the 2-22 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 29 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • alternatives on wetlands would be less than significant. Groundwater Supply and Recharge: New development and redevelopment, depending on the area of impervious surfaces, could be required to incorporate on-site methods to E result in no net increase in o drainage off-site compared to 0 pre-development site 2 hydrology;these methods could 3 include low impact a- development techniques that LO M filter,store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall and control the rate and/or volume of stormwater, E allowing stormwater to naturally infiltrate soils. Continued implementation and N application of existing a� regulations would ensure that E impacts to groundwater supply and recharge would be a less than significant under any of the alternatives. Water Quality:Compliance with standards NPDES and City stormwater management requirements would ensure that any potential impacts on water quality standards,waste Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-23 June 2024 Packet Pg. 30 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • discharge requirements, and surface or groundwater quality from future development facilitated under any of the alternatives would be less than significant. Drainage Patterns: Future development's compliance with E existing stormwater E 0 management measures would U ensure that impacts on 2 drainage and related effects 3 on erosion or siltation, on- or a off-site flooding, redirecting of LO M flood flows, creating substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or exceeding stormwater E drainage system capacity from future development facilitated by any of the N alternatives would be less than significant. E Flood Hazards: Implementation of existing a regulations and policies with FEMA and city flood hazard protection and flood control measures would ensure that future impacts from flooding events from future development facilitated by the 2-24 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 31 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • alternatives would be less than significant. Special Status Species: Under the No Action Proponents of new Individual development Alternative, Kent would development would be projects that would be retain the current required to comply facilitated by the alternatives Comprehensive Plan's with these laws,which would be required to comply policies, regulations, will require them to with all State and federal laws and initiatives avoid, minimize, and protecting special status including the existing compensate for E species and comply with SEPA CAO and SMP as well impacts on most o as applicable.Additionally, new as WRIA 9 watershed habitats and species. c) development would be required and salmon recovery Additionally,Alternative 2 to comply with City standards plans. 2 would update the 3 related to shorelines and critical current Comprehensive a- areas,which aim to minimize Proponents of new Plan to further protect, LO M impacts to water quality as well development would be preserve, and enhance as fish and wildlife habitat required to comply Kent's biological Plants& conservation areas. None of the with a variety of state resources.A new alternatives propose additional and federal laws,which climate element would Same as Alternative 2. E Animals development capacity in Kent's will require them to include policies that critical areas or along regulated avoid, minimize, and identify natural shorelines and would comply compensate for resources vulnerable to N with buffer and setback impacts on most climate change as well requirements.Additionally, no habitats and species. as strategies that E alternatives propose the Implementation of would begin to conversion of existing parks, existing regulations, mitigate impacts or a open space, or urban separators plans, policies, and increase the adaptive into urban uses for additional permitting review capacity of wildlife development capacity.This processes would habitat, riparian areas, would preserve and protect ensure the No Action and other sensitive larger and more diverse Alternative has a less natural communities. forested areas where than significant Alternative 2 would biodiversity corridors currently impact on plants and also update the current exist.The City and developers animals. However, Land Use Element and will comply with all existing unlike the Action CAO to reflect best Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-25 June 2024 Packet Pg. 32 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • laws, regulations, policies, and Alternatives,the No available science (BAS) programs when implementing Action Alternative to improve protections any of the alternatives. would not include the for wetlands,wildlife Therefore, no additional preparation of a new habitat, other critical mitigation is required and climate element, nor areas, and the urban potential impacts on special- would it update the tree canopy. Policy and status species under the city's Land Use program updates alternatives will be less than Element to strengthen under Alternative 2 significant. existing policies or would incorporate best E include additional available science as E Sensitive Natural policies related to well as align with 0 Communities:The city's wildlife habitat, urban regional planning 2 existing SMP and CAO require tree canopy, or efforts including the 3 site assessments for alignment with other 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon a- development projects if there is planning efforts such Habitat Plan. While LO M any potential for jurisdictional as salmon recovery. implementation of wetlands, sensitive natural existing regulations, policies, and communities, riparian areas, plans, stream conservation areas, and permitting review E wetland conservation areas to processes would be impacted.The site ensure Alternative 2 assessments would include an has a less than N evaluation of potential impacts significant impact on on the sensitive resources and plants and animals, E measures to protect those Alternative 2 would resources. Because the City and include a prospective applicants will Comprehensive Plan comply with all of the previously policy and program adopted policies and programs, updates that would the future development further minimize and facilitated by the alternatives avoid impacts to would minimize or avoid special status species, impacts. Furthermore, because sensitive natural these policies and programs communities, and require thorough 2-26 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 33 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • environmental review; site- other biological specific analysis of sensitive resources in Kent. communities and wetlands; and impact analysis, mitigation, and agency consultation and coordination, potential impacts of any of the alternatives on sensitive communities and c wetlands will be less than E E significant. E 0 U Biological Resource 2 Protection Policies& 3 Ordinances: Implementation of a any of the alternatives would LO M make feasible new v development that could result in the removal of an unknown 0 number of trees. Kent does not E have an adopted tree preservation and protection ordinance. None of the 04 alternatives would conflict with any local policies or E ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Habitat Conservation:The City would continue to participate in programs for salmon recovery and ensure that development projects that are implemented under any of the alternatives Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-27 June 2024 Packet Pg. 34 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • would not conflict with this program.There is no impact related to conflicts with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other conservation plans are anticipated under any of the alternatives. E E Built Environment Historic The No Action 0 Resources: Existing policies and Alternative complies Development Any new development 2 that could cause code regulations would ensure with current facilitated by discovery or disruption a the impacts of the alternatives protections, policies, Alternative 2 could di di human remains, on known historical resources and procedures for potentially impact LO would be less-than-significant. protecting areas that cultural,tribal, or artifacts, or cultural M However, a substantial adverse knowingly host historic resources sites remain protected change to a historical resource archaeological, through new po regulations and policies that reduce the due to an individual indigenous, or cultural construction or ground E discretionary development heritage sites. It also disturbing activities. impact to below proposal facilitated by the would continue current However, as described significant. However, Cultural, alternatives could occur unless, trajectories for land use under Impacts similar to Alternative 2, N Tribal, & identified impacts to Historic prior to construction activities, and development Common to All cultural,tribal, and an evaluation in accordance through the 2015 Alternatives,these E Resources historic resources could with SEPA checklist determines Comprehensive Plan. impacts could be whether the project would have This alternative has the avoided or mitigated be avoided or c�a new or substantially more capacity for the least to a less than mitigated to a less a severe impacts to historical number of new significant level with than significant level resources. housing units, so it the implementation of with the could potentially have the policies and implementation of the For development that is exempt the least significant programs identified policies and programs identified under from SEPA,this could have a impact. Conversely, it for historic and potentially significant impact focuses on broader cultural resources. Impacts Common to All Alternatives. on unlisted historic resources. development and less Mitigation measures, as density, so new sites 2-28 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 35 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes Corridors) Topic • implemented through the may be discovered following policies and actions during construction could reduce impacts to through this historic resources to less than Alternative significant. Development facilitated by the No Archaeological Resources: Action Alternative Development that includes could potentially construction activities such as impact cultural,tribal, E grading or excavation may lead or historic resources E 0 to the unintentional destruction through new 0 or disturbance of these sites. construction or ground 2 Uncovering visible disturbing activities. 3 archaeological sites may also Alternative 1 No a result in potential interference Action would have a LO M and further degradation from significant impact as the public. Citywide,federal it includes no regulations, as well as statewide additional protections protections RCW 27.53, RCW or improvements in E 27.44, 68.50, and 68.60 prohibit planning for intentional and knowing consideration of disturbance of sites and impacts to historic N propose management resources or cultural processes should they be resources. E uncovered. Implementation of the polices a and actions identified above as well as compliance with federal and state laws would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. Cultural or Tribal Resources: Development facilitated by the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-29 June 2024 Packet Pg. 36 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Alternative I Alternative 2 Corridors) Topic • alternatives would include sites that are currently vacant and sites that currently contain structures, and there is a strong possibility that as-yet unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources or tribal cultural resources could exist beneath c the surface of vacant sites or E E underutilized sites.Additionally, E 0 buried prehistoric cultural U resources could exist at 2 locations that were developed 3 during time periods when a- prehistoric cultural resources LO M may not have been noted or protected during construction. Contact with such resources 0 during construction activities E could result in a significant 0 impact. Mitigation measures, i as implemented through the 04 following policies and actions could reduce impacts to E historic resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures f° a The following Mitigation Measures were identified for Alternative 2 and 3,the "Action Alternatives"to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level: • Develop and update a comprehensive Historic Resource inventory using the National Register,the Washington State Register, Washington State Historical Landmarks, and any other structures or properties the City Council determines to have historic value. 2-30 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 37 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes Corridors) Topic • Identify historic resources early in the permitting process with interested parties, including but not limited to Tribes and historical societies. Evaluate historical resources early in the development review process through coordination and consultation with interested parties. • Update the Kent City Code (KCC) to identify the steps required for a proposed development that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant resource.This could include requirements that the resource be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards; adhering to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines E for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings if the development is determined to have a potential significant o impact; coordinating and consulting with Tribal Historical Protection Officers; documenting the v historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity; moving the historic resource to a new location; or retaining and reusing the historical resource to the maximum feasible extent and a- continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. c • Foster the preservation, restoration, and compatible reuse of architecturally and/or historically significant structures and sites. L • Apply for Certified Local Government status to become eligible for participation in federal and State E historic preservation programs. E • Assist and encourage property owners and tenants to maintain the integrity and character of historic Ni resources, and to restore and reuse historic resources in a manner compatible with their historic w character. a� • Create Tax Incentives to Promote Historic Registration. Registering historic sites with the Washington Historic Register or the National Register of Historic Places may not be a feasible option for private property owners, but offering tax incentives may help the community build towards preserving these Q significant and valuable properties, objects, or sites. • Conduct additional systematic neighborhood surveys to identify historic-aged buildings and potential historic districts. • Establish new historic districts to preserve the historic fabric of a neighborhood; establishing new conservation districts in order to limit the size of new development and encourage preservation of older structures. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-31 June 2024 Packet Pg. 38 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes & Topic • Establish Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs within new conservation districts to provide • incentives for property owners to keep existing character structures. • Require that any structure over 45 years in age that is subject to demolition, including those undergoing SEPA-exempt development, is assessed for Landmark Eligibility, and adding regulatory authority to identify resource-specific mitigation before demolition occurs. • Increase engagement and coordination with all local Native American Tribes in the protection of tribal cultural resources. Evaluate cultural resources early in the development review process through a variety of ways including coordinating with local Tribes during the pre-application or pre-planning E Phase of a project, notifying local Tribes of a development application as part of the agency referral E process,consulting on potential effects on cultural resources under projects that will not undergo a 0 U Section 106 review, and consultation Both known and as-yet undiscovered sites,should be presumed c, to be tribal cultural resources, unless determined otherwise through consultation between the City and tribal representatives. a- • Prior to commencing site-specific subsurface investigations of soils, notifying the local Indigenous Ln Tribes so a Tribal Monitor from a culturally affiliated Tribe may observe the work. • Fund survey and inventory of archaeological sites. L • Employ standard archaeological techniques such as archaeological testing, excavation and data recovery/collection of artifacts, documentation, analysis,sharing evidence with the local Indigenous E Tribes, and archiving, possibly in a repository for future research. ' • Collaboratively create a Cultural Resource Protection and Management Plan (CRPMP) with culturally I N affiliated tribes and share with local tribes and landowners to protect cultural or natural resources,to preserve traditional lands and honor the natural state of these lands, and to be stewards of the land. It a) E could provide strategies to approaching projects, as well as tools, like an Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Potential Conflict with PSCAA 2030 Strategic Plan:The Alternative 1 would Alternative 2 would Alternative 3 would Q primary goals of the 2030 result in similar daily result in similar daily result in similar daily PSCAA Strategic Plan are to air pollutant air pollutant air pollutant protect and improve air emissions as emissions as emissions as Air Quality quality and public health in Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 and Alternative 1 and the Puget Sound region, alternative 3. It would alternative 3. It would alternative 2. It would reduce air pollution disparities decrease total mobile decrease total mobile decrease total mobile in the region, and protect the source emissions source emissions source emissions climate by reducing GHG (compared to existing (compared to existing (compared to existing 2-32 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 39 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • emissions. None of the conditions) and conditions) and conditions) and alternatives would substantially increase increase increase increase emissions in transportation transportation transportation overburdened community areas efficiency in the city efficiency in the city efficiency in the city of Kent or impede attainment by resulting in greater by resulting in greater by resulting in greater of the federal and state service population service population service population ambient air quality standards. growth than trip and growth than trip and growth than trip and r Therefore, none of the VMT growth. VMT growth. VMT growth. a alternatives would conflict Alternative 1 impacts Alternative 2 impacts Alternative 3 impacts E with the PSCAA's air quality related to conflict related to conflict related to conflict o goals and objectives. with the PSCAA 2030 with the PSCAA 2030 with the PSCAA 2030 0 Potential Violations of Strategic Plan, Strategic Plan, Strategic Plan, Ambient Air Quality potential violations potential violations potential violations a Standards: Each of the of ambient air quality of ambient air quality of ambient air quality LO alternatives would support the standards, and standards, and standards, and o city's growth through 2044, potential exposure to potential exposure to potential exposure to however, the amount and DPM and other DPM and other DPM and other patterns of growth would vary substantial pollutant substantial pollutant substantial pollutant E due to different land use concentrations concentrations concentrations E assumptions.Although would be less than would be less than would be less than growth would vary, None of significant. significant. significant N the alternatives would result c in an increase in regulated air E pollutant emissions (as compared to existing a conditions) or result in a level of trip/VMT growth that exceeds the planned increase in service population in the city. For these reasons,the potential for all three alternatives to result in a violation of an ambient air Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-33 June 2024 Packet Pg. 40 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • quality standard would be a less than significant impact. Potential Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations: Each alternative would add new dwelling units near major r roadways (1-5 and SR-167) that carry more than 100,000 E vehicles per day on average; io however, none of the U alternatives would improve and not exacerbate air quality a- conditions in the city. LO Therefore,the potential for all o three alternatives to expose receptors to DPM and other substantial pollutant E concentrations would be a E less than significant impact GHG Emissions: Each of the Alternative 1 would Alternative 2 would Alternative 2 would `1' three alternatives would have substantially have substantially have substantially substantially reduce GHG fewer GHG emissions fewer GHG emissions fewer GHG emissions E emissions when compared to in 2044 than 2018 in 2044 than 2018 in 2044 than 2018 the 2018 existing conditions conditions. It would conditions. It would conditions. It would a Greenhouse baseline- both in terms of also improve energy also improve energy also improve energy Gases & mass emissions (MTCO2e) and efficiency and result efficiency and result efficiency and result Energy efficiency (i.e., per capita and in a reduction in VMT in a reduction in VMT in a reduction in VMT per SP metrics); however, per capita and VMT per capita and VMT per capita and VMT additional state, regional, and per SP as compared per SP as compared per SP as compared local regulations, policies, to 2018 conditions. to 2018 conditions. to 2018 conditions. programs, and actions may be Alternative 1 would Alternative 2 would Alternative 3 would required to align the city's have a less than have a less than have a less than 2-34 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 41 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • GHG emissions with future significant GHG significant GHG significant GHG state-wide GHG reduction emissions and emissions and emissions and goals identified in RCW energy impacts energy impacts energy impacts 70A.45.020 and adopted by because it would because it would because it would the members of K4C. It is result in a result in a result in a anticipated that continued substantial substantial substantial actions, including efforts improvement in GHG improvement in GHG improvement in GHG r through K4C, will help the City and energy and energy and energy reduce its GHG emissions, efficiency over efficiency over efficiency over E regardless of which alternative existing conditions. existing conditions existing conditions v is pursued.The specific GHG and be more and be more U reductions that the City will efficient than efficient than need to achieve, as well as the Alternative 1. Alternative 1. a City's specific strategy to LO achieve those goals,will be o identified in City's future Climate Resiliency GHG reduction sub-element, E required by HB 1181, which will E be adopted by June 30, 2029. Since each of the three N alternatives would use GHG emissions in a more efficient E way than existing conditions, each of the three a alternatives would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. Energy. Each of the three alternatives would improve energy efficiency compared to 2018 conditions. Building Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-35 June 2024 Packet Pg. 42 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • energy use would improve as a result of updates to the WSEC and energy used in the transportation sector would be used more efficiently as a result of improvements to vehicle fuel economy and a r reduction in VMT per capita / c per SP.As such, three E alternatives would have a less- o than-significant impact with U regard to energy. Under all alternatives, growth is GMA and Land Use: GMA and Land Use: a anticipated to result in new The No Action Alternative 2 would CMA and Land Use. LO development as well as Alternative would comply with GMA Alternative 2 would o redevelopment of some comply with GMA goals goals.Alternative 2 comply with GMA previously developed areas.The to reduce the would align with the goals.Alternative 3 actual pace and distribution of inappropriate GMA and land use would meet GMA requirements to E future growth would be conversion of rural and planning accommodate E influenced in part by the resource land into requirements and v� population projections implementation of sprawling, low-density therefore would avoid NI Comprehensive Plan policies development and will impacts resulting and ensure that land and related regulations, and by instead direct growth from conflicts with use and zoning have Land Use enough capacity to E decisions made by individual within urban areas the GMA. property owners and where adequate public meet growth targets. developers. General impacts facilities and services VISION 2050 and Land Alternative 3 would align associated with additional exist or can be Use:Alternative 2 align with the GMA population and employment provided in an efficient would update the and land use planning growth would include the manner. Comprehensive Plan requirements and therefore would avoid conversion of undeveloped land for consistency with for new residential, commercial, The No Action VISION 2050 and impacts resulting industrial, and/or mixed-use Alternative would not multicounty planning from conflicts withthe GMA. areas, increased intensity of use update the City's policies related to land on developed parcels through current Future Land use and the reduction 2-36 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 43 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • redevelopment and infill Use Map, nor would it of development VISION 2050 and Land development on underutilized amend existing policies impacts on the Use:Alternative 3 parcels, and potential land use and development environment, avoiding would update compatibility issues resulting standards to meet new impacts resulting Comprehensive Plan from the encroachment of new GMA housing from conflicts with for consistency with more intense development requirements or VISION 2050. VISION 2050 and patterns on current growth targets. While multicounty planning development. the No Action King County policies related to land Alternative would meet Countywide Planning use and the reduction E Localized impacts could occur the housing growth Policies and Land Use: of development E 0 under all of the alternatives target, it would fall Alternative 2 would impacts on the 0 from conversation of vacant or slightly short of meet growth targets environment, avoiding 2 less dense/intense current land meeting the for housing and impacts resulting 3 uses to uses designated by the employment growth employment and align from conflicts with a- Future Land Use Map. Land that target. It also would not with the CPPs related VISION 2050. M is vacant, partially vacant, or comply with new GMA to ensuring that underutilized would experience housing laws, such as comprehensive plans King County pressure to develop to middle housing and and zoning regulations Countywide Planning 0 21, accommodate new population affordability allocations. provide capacity for Policies and Land Use: E and employment. Therefore,the No residential, Alternative 3 would 0 Action Alternative commercial, and also meet growth Cumulative impacts would would not provide industrial uses that is targets for housing and N include increased urban activity adequate land use sufficient to meet 20- employment and align such as traffic, noise, glare, and capacity to meet year growth targets. with the CPPs related E pedestrian activity. Growth growth targets Alternative 2 would to ensuring that close to critical areas could also required by the GMA update the comprehensive plans a create pressure for conversion and would have a Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and potentially adversely significant impact as for consistency with provide capacity for impact floodplains, steep it would conflict with the King County residential, slopes,wetlands, and streams. the requirement for Countywide Planning commercial, and Kent to accommodate Policies related to industrial uses that is Land use compatibility issues growth projections. land use and the sufficient to meet 20- could arise with infill reduction of year growth targets. development, as could abutting VISION 2050 and Land development impacts Alternative 3 would add land use designations of Use:The No Action on the environment, new or amend existing Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-37 June 2024 Packet Pg. 44 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • significantly different types or Alternative would avoiding impacts policies related to intensity, including bulk and retain the City's current resulting from minimizing growth scale of development. Comprehensive Plan, conflicts with King impacts on natural which was developed County Countywide resources, Under all alternatives, no in 2015 prior to VISION Planning Policies. environmentally changes to the shoreline 2050 and the 2018 sensitive areas, climate, environment designations Regional Growth and other elements of included in the City's Shoreline Strategy updates. the natural Master Program (SMP) would While the No Action environment. E be made that would reduce the Alternative aligns with Alternative 3 would o existing policies for protection the VISION 2050 land update the 0 and mitigation for impacts use strategy to direct Comprehensive Plan 2 resulting from any alteration or growth in urban areas, for consistency with 3 development within shorelines. particularly regional the King County a- Future development facilitated growth centers like Countywide Planning LO M under any of the alternatives Downtown Kent and Policies related to would continue to comply with the Industrial Valley, it land use and the SEPA, as applications for new would not update the reduction of 21, development or redevelopment Comprehensive Plan to development impacts E would be subject to the SEPA include new or on the environment, process, as applicable. amended policies avoiding impacts consistent with MPPs resulting from N focused on coordinated conflicts with King planning to County Countywide E understand, protect, Planning Policies. and restore environmental a resources, open space, and sensitive habitat. The No Action Alternative would not update the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with VISION 2050 and 2-38 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 45 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • multicounty planning policies related to land use and the reduction of development impacts on the environment, resulting in a significant impact. E King County o Countywide Planning U Policies and Land Use: 2 The No Action 3 Alternative does not a meet the employment LO M growth target, conflicting with the CPPs related to ensuring that E comprehensive plans and zoning regulations provide capacity for N residential, as commercial, and E industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20- f° year growth targets. a The No Action Alternative would not update the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the King County Countywide Planning Policies related to Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-39 June 2024 Packet Pg. 46 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • land use and the reduction of development impacts on the environment, resulting in a significant impact. Growth Targets and Growth Targets and Growth Targets and Growth Targets and Affordability Requirements: Affordability Affordability Affordability All alternatives would result in Requirements. Requirements. Requirements. E greater numbers of jobs and Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 would Alternative 3 would E 0 housing units, with the two would meet the 2044 update the city's meet the housing U Action Alternatives resulting in housing growth target current housing target with 12,443 new 2 the most. of 10,200 new units but element consistent housing units and 3 would fall short of the with recent changes to employment target of a Housing Supply and Diversity. employment growth GMA, including 32,047 new jobs. LO M None of the alternatives would target of 32,000 new requirements to Alternative 3 would result in a decrease to housing jobs.The No Action accommodate housing also include measures supply as new housing growth Alternative would not to meet the needs of all that address the is assumed under all of the provide sufficient economic segments of potential for physical, E Population, alternatives.Varied housing capacity to meet the community, economic, and cultural Housing, & types would have a greater employment targets, expand housing displacement to occur. Employment potential to serve households of nor would it capacity to allow for The variety of housing N different income levels—low- accommodate middle housing and capacity provided as density detached single-family affordable housing moderate-income under Alternative 3 E homes,for example,would be across all economic housing, allow a wider would meet more likely to meet the needs of income segments, variety of housing affordability higher income households.All resulting in a types in single-family requirements. a alternatives would provide significant impact to neighborhoods, and some housing variety given growth targets and include additional Housing Supply and existing zoning, but would be housing measures that address Diversity: Housing stronger under Alternatives 2 requirements. the potential for supply would increase and 3 to meet new GMA physical, economic, citywide under housing requirements since the Housing Supply and and cultural Alternative 3. last periodic update. Diversity.While displacement to occur. Alternative 3 would housing supply would The variety of housing provide a greater 2-40 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 47 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Alternative I Alternative 2 Corridors) Topic • Displacement: Under all increase under the No capacity provided supply of housing for alternatives, some residents Action Alternative,this under Alternative 2 all income levels as well could be displaced by Alternative would have would meet as more opportunity to redevelopment, priced out as the least capacity for affordability use affordable housing land prices and rents increase, new housing among requirements. incentives. Without or because of the changing the alternatives. While additional policy cultural fabric of their the No Action Housing Supply and intervention and neighborhood. Alternative would Diversity.Alternative 2 incentives,Alternative 3 increase overall would provide the could impact Kent's E Population Growth: None of housing supply, highest capacity for existing housing E the alternatives would directly without additional housing and jobs. supply, diversity, and 0 induce substantial unplanned strategies directed Alternative 2 would affordability including 2 population growth, nor would toward affordability meet the housing naturally occurring they indirectly induce and housing diversity, target with 12,752 new affordable housing. a substantial population growth the No Action units and the Mitigation measures LO M through the extension of new Alternative would employment target identified below, as roads or other infrastructure to have the potential to with 35,037 new jobs. implemented at the areas where development has have a significant 21, Alternative 2 could policy or program level, M not already occurred. Consistent adverse impact on impact Kent's existing would further minimize E with State middle housing housing affordability housing supply, or avoid potential requirements,the City must and housing diversity. diversity, and impacts to housing allow certain types of middle affordability including supply, diversity, or N housing development in areas Displacement:The No naturally occurring affordability. a� of the city where it had Action Alternative affordable housing. E previously not been anticipated. would have the Mitigation measures Displacement:Same potential to displace identified below, as as Alternative 2. Housing and Transit:All existing dwellings on implemented at the a alternatives would increase redevelopable sites; policy or program level, Population Growth: housing capacity in transit- however,there may be would further minimize Same as Alternative 2. proximate areas of the city. less pressure to convert or avoid potential homes with lower impacts to housing Housing and Transit: intensity typologies. supply, diversity, or Same as Alternative 2. Relatively lower affordability. potential for additional housing supply could Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-41 June 2024 Packet Pg. 48 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Alternative I Alternative 2 Corridors) Topic • increase housing costs Displacement: and the potential for Potential displacement economic is likely higher under displacement. Pressure Alternative 2 than to convert homes with under the No Action lower intensity Alternative because of typologies to duplexes, increased overall apartments, or other capacity for growth middle housing uses and expanded housing E would be lower as densities and E 0 fewer typologies would typologies in some U be allowed in low parts of the city,which 2 density residential could also result in the 3 areas. Given these greatest amount of a- limitations,the No displacement through LO M Action Alternative redevelopment in would have a residential areas.Anti- significant impact on displacement displacement risk and strategies would be E could necessitate the needed to ensure 0 construction of those impacted by new replacement housing growth are able to stay N elsewhere in Kent or in Kent. a� the larger region. E Population Growth: Population Growth: Alternative 2's Q No Action population growth Alternative's would not be population growth considered would not be "unplanned," and the considered impact on population "unplanned," and the growth would be less impact on population than significant. growth would be less than significant. 2-42 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 49 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • Housing and Transit: Housing and Transit: No significant impacts No significant impacts on access to transit on access to transit are expected. are expected. Mitigation Measures The following Mitigation Measures were identified for Alternative 2 and 3, the "Action Alternatives"to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level: E • Amend the KCC to allow more middle housing options outright in single-family zones and streamline o development regulations to align with less stringent single-family requirements for open space, U minimum lot size, density, design standards, and parking. 2 • Add a new housing policy supporting the use of development agreements or community benefit a agreements between developers and the City of Kent.These agreements specify public benefits a development would provide and can support affordable housing and equitable outcomes. M 0 • Adopt policies to preserve existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), including supporting existing multi-family buildings that serve low- or moderate-income residents (or partnering with affordable housing providers to acquire these buildings), offering home repair loans, E supporting community land trusts, and exploring zoning changes for areas where vacant or E developable lands overlap with a high risk of displacement. • Modify existing housing policies to include preservation of rental housing, multifamily housing, and NI natural occurring affordable housing. as • Mitigate the effects of displacement on residents in mobile home parks likely to be redeveloped by E prioritizing displacement mitigation efforts at those parks already designated non-mobile home park (such as Transit-Oriented Community) on the land use map. a • Consider adoption of additional criteria for redesignating land currently designated and zoned for Mobile Home Parks. • Alter existing housing policies that encourage neighborhood preservation to address displacement. • Add a new housing policy to address the development of affordable rentals and home ownership opportunities and consider emerging policy needs related to supportive housing. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-43 June 2024 Packet Pg. 50 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • Add a new housing policy supporting the first right to return for residential tenants or businesses.The policy could give highest preference for housing support or business location for those that can demonstrate they were displaced due to new development or infrastructure. • Integrate anti-displacement strategies and community planning with capital facility system planning, climate adaptation investments, and other efforts to reduce displacement risk. • Enact policies at a regional level to regulate rent increases, preventing landlords from significantly raising rents and displacing long-term residents due to unaffordable housing costs. • Explore opportunities for expansion of home repair programs to rentals and mobile homes. E • Enact an ordinance for tenant relocation assistance: Demolition of existinghousing to make way for g y o new development may displace existing tenants who then incur moving costs. Local governments v authorized by WAC 365-196-835 and detailed in RCW 59.18.440, can pass an ordinance that requires •2 developers, public funds, or a combination of the two to provide relocation funds for these displaced a tenants. Urban Form:All alternatives Urban Form: No Urban Form:With Urban Form:Same as M 0 would result in increases in the conflicts to design greater housing Alternative 2: number of jobs and housing goals are anticipated densities allowed,there 21, units citywide,which would under the No Action may be localized Scenic Vistas:While M impact the city's form.All Alternative and impacts in future development E alternatives would also see therefore impacts to neighborhoods under Alternative 3 ' vacant and redevelopable land urban form would be transitioning from low would present limited N� develop to various extents. less than significant. to medium densities disruptions to scenic Various design guidelines that include more views as growth would regulate building appearance, Scenic Vistas. Impacts closely spaced and a continue to Aesthetics streetscape design, and the to scenic vistas and greater variety of concentrate in centers provision of public amenities. other visual resources housing types, such as and previously planned a New development would also would be less than duplexes,triplexes, areas,which tend to be subject to standards in the significant under the townhouses, stacked contain few viewpoints. city code, including standards No Action Alternative. flats, and garden Middle housing would related to height, scale, bulk, apartments. New develop at heights landscaping, and screening. Shadows: Potential mixed-use areas along similar to existing low shadow impacts on corridors and at density residential Scenic Vistas:All the public open spaces intersection nodes in development and alternatives would have some under the No Action East Hill could result in would not block impact on viewsheds citywide Alternative would be an increase in the existing scenic views. 2-44 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 51 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • because all alternatives expect less than significant, variety of height, bulk, Therefore, impacts to some level of new housing, as expected growth is and overall design. scenic vistas and commercial square footage, generally concentrated New development other visual resources and job growth;this growth in centers and would also be subject would be less than would be reflected in more previously planned to standards in the city significant under building massing than in areas away from parks code, including Alternative 3. current conditions. Under all and open space. standards related to alternatives, hillside Shadows on parks and height, scale, bulk, Shadows: Expected development would continue to open space in the landscaping, and growth is generally E be subject to Chapter 15.08.060 Downtown area where screening.With concentrated in o and impacts to views of the building heights would continued application centers and previously c) Green River valley from the be the highest are not of existing design planned areas away 2 valley wall slopes would be anticipated to increase standards and from parks and open 3 minimized. under the No Action guidelines, impacts to space. Potential a Alternative compared urban form under shadow impacts on LO M Shadows:Similarly to to existing conditions. Alternative 2 would be public open spaces viewsheds, all the alternatives less than significant. under Alternative 3 are expected to have shadow Light and Glare: 21, would be less than M impacts greater than current Existing regulations Scenic Vistas:While significant. E conditions due to growth. related to light and future development Expected shadow impacts to glare would continue under Alternative 2 Light and Glare:Same public open spaces are to be applied and would present limited as No Action N dependent on building ensure that impacts disruptions to scenic Alternative. as orientation and proximity to related to light and views as growth would E parks. Existing residential areas glare from future continue to throughout the city could see development concentrate in centers a redevelopment under all facilitated by the No and previously planned alternatives, although this Action Alternative areas,which tend to would be on a scale similar to would be less than contain few viewpoints, existing development. New significant. it does include new buildings in existing residential growth at several areas are not anticipated to cast nodes in the East Hill additional shadows on public area. However, new open spaces due to height and development in East Hill facilitated by Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-45 June 2024 Packet Pg. 52 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • setback requirements in Alternative 2 would not residential zoning districts. impact scenic vistas as new growth would be Light and Glare: Under all neighborhood scale alternatives,these existing and existing vegetation regulations would continue to screens views of distant be applied and ensure that features in many impacts related to light and places.Therefore, glare from future development impacts to scenic E facilitated by the alternatives vistas and other visual o would be less than significant. resources would be c) less than significant 2 under Alternative 2. 3 a Shadows:While LO M Alternative 2 includes v additional capacity at several intersection nodes in the East Hill E area, these intersections are i located away from N public parks and open a� space, and therefore E potential shadow impacts on public a open spaces under Alternative 2 would be less than significant. Light and Glare:Same as No Action Alternative. 2-46 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 53 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • Under Alternative 2, Under Alternative 3, intersections located intersections located on Corridor C (104 on Corridor C (104 Alternative 1 would not Avenue SE/108 Avenue Avenue SE/108 Avenue Potential Modal Conflicts. result in any SE) would operate at SE) would operate at Volumes for all modes are intersection WSDOT LOS E,which exceeds LOS E,which exceeds projected to increase by 2044, LOS impacts; however, the City's transit the City's transit thereby increasing the 1-5 and SR 167 are corridor threshold of corridor threshold of potential for different modes anticipated to exceed LOS D. In addition,the LOS D. In addition,the E of transportation (vehicles, WSDOT LOS D intersection of104t" intersection of108t" o pedestrians, buses, etc.) to standards for freeway Avenue SE and SE 2561" Avenue SE and SE 192"d 0 interact inclose proximity; corridors. Mitigation Street, a state facility, Street, a state facility, 2 however, existing City plans measures were would operate at LOS would operate at LOS a Transportation such as the TMP identify identified to address F,which exceed the F,which exceed the delays related to traffic WSDOT's intersection WSDOT's intersection LO improvements that increase o congestion on this threshold of LOS E. threshold of LOS E. pedestrian and bicycle facility; however, as Mitigation measures Mitigation measures facilities in the city. In addition, further study is were identified to were identified to 21, M none of the alternatives would required,the No address delays related address delays related E decrease transit service levels. Action Alternative to traffic congestion on to traffic congestion on Therefore, for all alternatives, would have the this facility; however, as this facility; however, as potential model conflicts potential to have a further study is further study is N would be a less than significant adverse required,Alternative 2 required,Alternative 3 significant impact. impact on vehicle would have the would have the E traffic operations. potential to have a potential to have a significant adverse significant adverse a impact on vehicle impact on vehicle traffic operations. traffic operations. Mitigation Measures The following Mitigation Measures were identified for Alternative 1, 2, and 3,to address delays related to traffic congestion at impact facilities; however, as further study is required,there is the potential for significant adverse and unavoidable impacts to the transportation system even with mitigation. • Alternative 1 No Action Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-47 June 2024 Packet Pg. 54 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes Corridors) Topic • o Corridor A- 68 Avenue S Corridor - Industrial Valley: Intersection studies and capacity enhancements at 68th Avenue S &S 196th Street and 68th Avenue S& S 212th Street to meet the level of service standards for transit corridors. 0 108th Avenue SE & SE 192nd Street: Intersection study and capacity enhancements to meet the level of service thresholds for intersections on state routes. o Collaborate with WSDOT on future planning for 1-5. r c m o Collaborate with WSDOT on future planning for SR 167. E E 0 • Alternative 2: Nodes and Corridors v o Corridor C -104 Avenue SE &108 Avenue SE: Corridor study and capacity enhancements to meet the level of service standards for transit corridors. a- 0 104th Avenue SE & SE 256th Street: Intersection study to determine improvements to meet M the level of service standards for intersections on state routes. 7T • Alternative 3: Core with Transit Links 0 E o Corridor C -104 Avenue SE/108 Avenue SE: Corridor study and capacity enhancements to E meet the level of service standards for transit corridors. 0 108th Avenue SE & SE 192nd Street: Intersection study to determine improvements to meet N i the level of service standards for intersections on state routes. E Temporary Construction Alternative 1 noise Noise:All alternatives would impacts related to result in temporary temporary a construction activities construction noise, associated with new transportation and Noise development over time; non-transportation Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. however, the KCC includes noise increases, and requirements that would exposure to airport- protect existing and future related noise levels residents from potential would be a less than temporary increases in noise significant impact 2-48 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 55 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • levels associated with construction activities.The potential impacts related to temporary construction noise levels associated with future development facilitated by any of the r alternatives would be a less than significant impact. E Increases in non- o U transportation noise levels: U Each of the alternatives would result in the development or a redevelopment of land that LO could noise from a variety of o non-transportation noise sources; however, individual projects would be required to E comply with applicable City E regulations intended to control sound from sources N within the city, including EDNA in the form of E maximum permissions noise limits, and, if necessary, a incorporate noise control design features to comply with City standards.The potential impacts related to operational non- transportation noise levels associated with future development facilitated by Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-49 June 2024 Packet Pg. 56 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • any of the alternatives would be a less than significant impact. Increases in traffic noise levels: Each of the alternatives would support the city's growth through 2044, adding r vehicle trips to the local and regional roadway network that E result in a corresponding 0 increase in traffic-related U noise levels.The increase in vehicle trips occurring under a each alternative would be LO relatively small and would not change traffic noise levels on any modeled road segment by more than 1.5 dBA.A change E in noise levels of less than 2 E dBA is usually not perceptible Ui to the typical receptor and N would not constitute a as substantial change to existing E noise conditions along key roadways in the city. a Furthermore, each alternative's increase in traffic noise levels would be substantially less than the WSDOT's 10 dBA criterion for defining a significant increase in traffic noise levels Therefore, the potential increase in 2-50 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 57 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • traffic noise levels under all alternatives would be a less than significant impact. Airport-related noise levels:Al I alternatives would add dwelling units across the city that may be in the vicinity of r an airport; however, these new a dwelling units would not be E exposed to excessive airport- v related noise. Impacts related U to exposure to excessive airport-related noise levels a would be less than LO significant. Fire Protection and Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: Emergency Medical The anticipated increase in Services.Same as All Fire Protection and Fire Protection and E residential and non-residential Alternatives. Emergency Medical Emergency Medical E development would occur over Services.Same as All Services.Same as All cni the next twenty years and Police Protection: Alternatives. Alternatives. N would result in an increase in Under the No Action demand for firefighting and Alternative, calls for Police Protection: Police Protection: Public E Services & protection services from PSF, police services and Same as All Same as All Parks & including additional calls for fire crime rate per capita Alternatives. Alternatives. prevention, protection, and would continue to a Recreation suppression, and emergency change at a similar rate Parks:Same as All Parks:Same as All medical service assistance that to current conditions. Alternatives. Alternatives. may require additional staff to However,the No Action maintain acceptable service Alternative would Schools:Same as All Schools:Same as All ratios or response times. based continue the existing Alternatives. Alternatives. on the above uniformly applied 2035 Comprehensive fire protection/EMS standards Plan, and not include and regulations and the City updated measures for Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-51 June 2024 Packet Pg. 58 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • and PSF's continued the City to financially commitments to providing commit to initiate and adequate fire/EMS service, no maintain a police to new or physically altered resident staffing ratio facilities would be needed; that at a minimum is therefore, impacts on fire consistent with the protection/EMS demands national average.This under any of the alternatives could result in a are considered less than potentially significant E significant. impact. E 0 U Police Protection: Future Parks:The No Action 2 development associated with Alternative would 3 implementation of the continue the existing a- alternatives would result in an 2035 Comprehensive LO M incremental increase in need for Plan, and would not v law enforcement services as the include updated city's population grows and the mitigation measures number of residential units for the City to E increases.The fiscal impact of potentially increase providing additional police Park Impact Fees, services is not an environmental update the Parks and N impact and thus not analyzed Open Space Plan every a� under SEPA. Under SEPA, six years, and explore E impacts on police service opportunities to demands resulting from any develop new parks, a of the alternatives are open space, and trails considered less-than- to keep pace with significant with mitigation growth.This could incorporated. result in a potentially significant impact. Parks:The total development potentially facilitated by the Schools.Same as All alternatives ranges from 10,510 Alternatives. to 12,752 new housing units, 2-52 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 59 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • which could result in a population increase of approximately 30,500 to 37,100 new residents.These residents would be expected to increase demand for parks and recreational facilities.The City would rely on future updates to the Parks and Open Space Plan E and funding to accommodate E 0 the need for increased parks & U recreation space under any of 2 the alternatives. Regular 3 periodic review of plans, a individual project payment of LO M City-adopted park impact fees or dedication of parkland would reduce, and additional 0 mitigation implemented at the E program or policy level would 0 ensure impacts on parks& Ui recreational facilities and N parkland level of service are less than significant. E Schools. Public school services in Kent are provided primarily a by the Kent School District No. 415 although Federal Way, Highline, and Renton School Districts also serve portions of Kent. Growth in housing and student enrollment is expected to occur incrementally under all alternatives. However,the Kent Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-53 June 2024 Packet Pg. 60 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes & Topic • School District,which currently serves the majority of Kent, currently has a capacity of 13595 students across schools. The alternatives could potentially generate around 4,620-5,610 students using the higher student generation rate for single family homes E multiplied by the overall level of E 0 housing growth assumed under U each alternative. Under any of 2 the alternatives, redistricting at 3 each district and educational a- level may be required in order LO M to redistribute surplus capacity to schools within the districts serving Kent if they reach current permanent capacity. E However, school districts are 0 required to update their capital Ni facilities plans annually in `" compliance with the GMA and = a� other regional and local E requirements.This annual planning process, combined with the assessment of impact Q fees on residential development,would ensure that school districts serving Kent could maintain their adopted standards of service and alternatives would have a less than significant impact on the provision of public schools 2-54 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 61 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • in Kent.Additionally,the Kent Comprehensive Plan and city code contain policies and regulations that, in conjunction with existing state and federal regulations,would ensure that construction-related impacts from new school construction c due to implementation of any E of the alternatives is less than o significant. 0 Mitigation Measures .2 Mitigation Measures were identified for Alternative 2 and 3, the "Action Alternatives"to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level: a- LO M • If funds are not readily available for the acquisition of new parks or improvement of existing parks to meet the needs of new development,the City could revisit the impact fee schedule established in the Kent Municipal Code to require additional developer payments. • Update the Parks and Open Space Plan every six years to identify and document evolving parkland E and recreation needs and maintain grant eligibility. • Explore opportunities to develop new parks, open space, and recreation facilities to address gaps in NI access. • The City of Kent will continue to pursue opportunities for resources to initiate and maintain over the E long-term a police to resident staffing ratio that at a minimum is consistent with the state average (currently 1.36 sworn officers per thousand resident population). Water.All alternatives would Same as All Same as All a result in an increased demand Same as All Alternatives. Alternatives. for water services, regardless of Alternatives. where growth and No significant Alternative 2 would Like Alternative 2, Utilities development occur.As also update the city's Alternative 3 would population grows and unavoidable adverse Comprehensive Plan, also update the city's development expands,there is impacts on utilities amending and Comprehensive Plan, typically a corresponding rise in and service systems improving methods for amending and the need for water supply, are expected under water supply and improving methods for Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-55 June 2024 Packet Pg. 62 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 EnvAlternative I Alternative 2 • - - - with (No Action) (Nodes& Corridors) Topic • distribution,treatment, and the No Action wastewater water supply and wastewater management Alternative. management as well wastewater services. While there are as including additional management as well potential environmental policies related to as including additional impacts that would be compost and recycling policies related to associated with each individual and stormwater compost and recycling infrastructure and facility management. Impacts and stormwater improvement project, to utilities and service management. Impacts compliance with District, City, systems,while less to utilities and service E County, State and Federal than significant, systems,while less o regulations; adopted standards would be further than significant, 0 for development and avoided and would be further 2 construction of water system minimized under avoided and 3 infrastructure and facilities, Alternative 2 minimized under a would ensure that compared to the No Alternative 3 LO M implementation of the Action Alternative. compared to the No alternatives and cumulative Action Alternative. impacts are less than significant. E Wastewater.Similar to water systems,wastewater systems N would see an increase in usage as and demand as new growth E and development occurs. Additional flow in sanitary sewer a systems would be anticipated under all of the alternatives which would reduce pipe, pump station, and force main capacity. Measures to maintain or reduce sewage discharges from proposed development or redevelopment, and assist in maintaining existing 2-56 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 63 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes & Topic • infrastructure and treatment capacity to serve development under the alternatives are identified in District capital facilities plans.The framework of state and local regulations was developed to ensure that planning, design, and construction of necessary E treatment capacity is E 0 completed before new U development is allowed to 2 connect to wastewater systems 3 that are at or over treatment a- plant capacity.This level of LO M planning ensures that the wastewater treatment purveyors are in a position to � provide reliable service. E Additionally,the City's permit review process requires Ni coordination with utility providers and would ensure = a� that new development E facilitated by any of the alternatives would be served by wastewater systems with Q adequate capacity. While there are potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the infrastructure and facility improvement projects either for development facilitated by the alternatives or cumulatively (Districts' Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-57 June 2024 Packet Pg. 64 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Alternative 3 Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& CorrAlternative I Alternative 2 . . Topic • commitments outside of the alternatives), compliance with District, City, County, State, and federal regulations and adopted standards for development and construction of sanitary sewer system infrastructure and facilities would ensure that c potential impacts are less than E significant. E 0 U Stormwater:The potential for 2 alternatives to increase 3 impervious surfaces in a- watersheds is addressed in LO M Water Resources.All v alternatives would add impervious areas. Potential impacts related to Stormwater E facilities would be offset by compliance with existing N1 regulations and plans. Impacts on stormwater conveyance and treatment E infrastructure in Kent would be less than significant. a Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling:All alternatives would result in increases in population density and commercial development, which would increase demand for garbage, recycling, and 2-58 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 65 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Corridors)Environmental All Alternatives (No Action) (Nodes& Topic • organics collection. Expansion of the county landfill to accommodate all new growth by 2044 would be contingent upon the rate of growth and specific actions taken by King County to either increase capacity or reduce the amount of material entering the landfill. E Thus, identifying a specific E 0 location of, design, or timing for c) new facilities is speculative at 2 this time.Any proposed new or 3 expanded solid waste facility a would need to comply with LO M adopted, mandatory environmental regulations, including SEPA.This potential 0 impact would be less than E significant. 0 i Other Utilities (Electrical, N Natural Gas, Telecommunications): New E residential development and commercial development may a result in additional electrical utility use on a system that already has circuits that exceed customer minute interruption goals. . While there could be variations in the extent to which electrical infrastructure would need to be upgraded or added under each alternative,the Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-59 June 2024 Packet Pg. 66 2.b Chapter 2 Summary Environmental - rnatives (No Action) (Nodes & Corridors) (Transit Core with Topic • nature of the impact between alternatives would be the same. No significant impacts to electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities are anticipated under any of the alternatives. r c m E E 0 U v d LO M O L E E N N r-i C d E t 0 R r a 2-60 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 67 2.b Chapter 2 Summary 2.9 SIGNFICANT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY, AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Key issues facing decision makers include: • Alternative land use patterns in relation to allocated growth targets, state and regional requirements, and the Kent community's vision. • Effect of growth on demand for public services, parks and recreation, and transportation capital improvements. • Approval of development regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and land use plan. r Prior to preparation of the Final EIS, selection and refinement of a Preferred Alternative based on the range of alternatives studied and refinement of goals, policies, and E objectives are anticipated to be resolved. Issues yet to be resolved include guidance 0 related to the development regulations for specific zones to accommodate the changes 2 proposed in the alternatives.The precise nature of these necessary amendments will be 3 described in the Final EIS, after a Preferred Alternative has been identified. a LO M 2.10 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING THE PROPOSED ACTION E E SEPA requires a discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of reserving, for some U) future time, the implementation of a proposal compared to possible approval at this N time. In other words,the City must consider the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposed action. E c� If the proposal to update the City's Comprehensive Plan is delayed, growth and a development in Kent would be guided by the current Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning, policies, and regulations. Growth would be focused in Downtown, along Meeker Street, in Midway, and the Industrial Valley. Investments in public facilities and infrastructure would follow existing plans, potentially resulting in deficiencies.The City would not be responsive to community feedback about desired locations for future growth. From the perspective of the natural environment, there is neither benefit nor disadvantage to delaying implementation of the proposed action. Regardless of whether the proposal is adopted, future growth and development will continue and city, state and federal requirements for environmental protection will continue to apply. However, delaying the proposed action would not align with the Growth Management Act,VISION 2050, or Countywide Planning Policies.This could substantially hinder the City's success in receiving allocated and competitive grants and loans from state and federal funding sources,which could result in further delays for needed infrastructure, programming, and service to accommodate growth. Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS 2-61 June 2024 Packet Pg. 68 2.b Chapter 2 Summary r c m E E 0 U v d LO M This page intentionally left blank. 0 E E 0 i N C N E L V Q 2-62 Kent 2044 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS June 2024 Packet Pg. 69